探索“逻辑内对比”和“交叉逻辑类比”框架策略在贫困背景下采用新的创业实践的相对功效

IF 7.7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Angelique Slade Shantz , Charlene Zietsma , Geoffrey M. Kistruck , Luciano Barin Cruz
{"title":"探索“逻辑内对比”和“交叉逻辑类比”框架策略在贫困背景下采用新的创业实践的相对功效","authors":"Angelique Slade Shantz ,&nbsp;Charlene Zietsma ,&nbsp;Geoffrey M. Kistruck ,&nbsp;Luciano Barin Cruz","doi":"10.1016/j.jbusvent.2023.106341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Entrepreneurship education and training targeting individuals living within impoverished regions has proliferated. However, empirical results suggest recipients are failing to adopt the newly prescribed practices, particularly the practice of experimenting with product, process, and marketing innovations. Research on institutional logics suggests the way practices are framed plays an important role in adoption. In a field experiment involving 683 entrepreneurs within rural Sri Lanka, we compared the effectiveness of two framing tactics: within-logic contrasting, and cross-logic analogizing. We find that cross-logic analogizing is more effective, and suggest our findings likely extend to other contexts where logics are highly institutionalized.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51348,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Venturing","volume":"39 1","pages":"Article 106341"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the relative efficacy of ‘within-logic contrasting’ and ‘cross-logic analogizing’ framing tactics for adopting new entrepreneurial practices in contexts of poverty\",\"authors\":\"Angelique Slade Shantz ,&nbsp;Charlene Zietsma ,&nbsp;Geoffrey M. Kistruck ,&nbsp;Luciano Barin Cruz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbusvent.2023.106341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Entrepreneurship education and training targeting individuals living within impoverished regions has proliferated. However, empirical results suggest recipients are failing to adopt the newly prescribed practices, particularly the practice of experimenting with product, process, and marketing innovations. Research on institutional logics suggests the way practices are framed plays an important role in adoption. In a field experiment involving 683 entrepreneurs within rural Sri Lanka, we compared the effectiveness of two framing tactics: within-logic contrasting, and cross-logic analogizing. We find that cross-logic analogizing is more effective, and suggest our findings likely extend to other contexts where logics are highly institutionalized.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business Venturing\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 106341\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business Venturing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902623000551\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Venturing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902623000551","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

针对贫困地区个人的创业教育和培训激增。然而,实证结果表明,接受者未能采用新规定的做法,特别是对产品、流程和营销创新进行试验的做法。对制度逻辑的研究表明,实践的框架方式在采用过程中起着重要作用。在一项涉及斯里兰卡农村地区683名企业家的实地实验中,我们比较了两种框架策略的有效性:逻辑内对比和跨逻辑类比。我们发现交叉逻辑类比更有效,并建议我们的发现可能扩展到逻辑高度制度化的其他环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring the relative efficacy of ‘within-logic contrasting’ and ‘cross-logic analogizing’ framing tactics for adopting new entrepreneurial practices in contexts of poverty

Entrepreneurship education and training targeting individuals living within impoverished regions has proliferated. However, empirical results suggest recipients are failing to adopt the newly prescribed practices, particularly the practice of experimenting with product, process, and marketing innovations. Research on institutional logics suggests the way practices are framed plays an important role in adoption. In a field experiment involving 683 entrepreneurs within rural Sri Lanka, we compared the effectiveness of two framing tactics: within-logic contrasting, and cross-logic analogizing. We find that cross-logic analogizing is more effective, and suggest our findings likely extend to other contexts where logics are highly institutionalized.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.70
自引率
6.90%
发文量
59
审稿时长
77 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business Venturing: Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Finance, Innovation and Regional Development serves as a scholarly platform for the exchange of valuable insights, theories, narratives, and interpretations related to entrepreneurship and its implications. With a focus on enriching the understanding of entrepreneurship in its various manifestations, the journal seeks to publish papers that (1) draw from the experiences of entrepreneurs, innovators, and their ecosystem; and (2) tackle issues relevant to scholars, educators, facilitators, and practitioners involved in entrepreneurship. Embracing diversity in approach, methodology, and disciplinary perspective, the journal encourages contributions that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in entrepreneurship and its associated domains.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信