Boundary crossing for international opportunities

J Int Entrep DOI 10.1007/s10843-015-0158-4 Boundary crossing for international opportunities Tuija Mainela 1 & Vesa Puhakka 1 & Per Servais 2 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Abstract In this introductory article, we discuss international opportunities in international entrepreneurship as a particular phenomenon that focuses on boundary crossing. Instead of taking boundary crossing primarily as a behavior or an activity that makes opportunities international, we suggest the boundary itself and being on the borderline, as such, to be of significance. Accordingly, we propose that at the borderline, opportunities that are made and found, embedded in action and interaction and involve transformative process of emergence, are constructed through questioning and formation, instrumentality generation, and expansive learning. Towards the end of the article, we introduce the papers included in this special issue. Keywords International opportunity . Boundary crossing . International entrepreneurship . Expansive learning . Transformation Introduction International entrepreneurship (IE) involves particular types of behavior—those focused on opportunities and crossing borders (Oviatt and McDougall 2005). Opportunity is perceived as a concept that has a positive connotation and a future orientation; entrepreneurs are considered to be innovative, brave, and proactive (Murphy et al. * Tuija Mainela [email protected] Vesa Puhakka [email protected] Per Servais [email protected] 1 Department of Management and International Business, University of Oulu Business School, P.O. Box 4600, FIN-90014 Oulu, Finland 2 Department of Marketing and Management, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark T. Mainela et al. 2006), for example, because of their ability to capitalize on opportunities. With respect to crossing borders, we typically consider operations involving more than one nation as being more complicated and needing more careful action than the ones within a single nation due to cultural, institutional, and social differences (Mahnke et al. 2007), for example. Crossing a border, therefore, has a negative connotation and is a more present-oriented activity. If an entrepreneur crosses a business-complicating border (border-crossing) today, he or she can expect to be able to develop a fruitful business (opportunity) tomorrow. What if we conceptualize crossing a border as a productive activity for the future and an opportunity as a complicated issue to be solved at present? The former is suggested by the particular group of researchers emphasizing the expansive learning processes growing out of contradictions and conflicts in various multi-actor settings towards the emergence of new practices or situations (see Jones and Holt 2008; De Clercq et al. 2012). The latter is the core of effectuation, bricolage, and serendipitous entrepreneurial behaviors (Sarasvathy 2001; Baker et al. 2003). This conceptualization of IE is the grounding for the present study, which discusses boundary crossing in IE and then introduces the articles in this special issue. Our earlier research suggested a definition of an international opportunity as Ba situation that both spans and integrates elements from multiple national contexts in which entrepreneurial action and interaction transform the manifestations of economic activity^ (Mainela et al. 2014, p. 120). This suggests action, interaction, and transformation as fundamental to behaviorally constructed international opportunities. Furthermore, it means that spanning and integration at the border are the necessary elements of the concept. To discuss these ideas further, we use the concept of boundary crossing to refer to the activity of building new links in cross-border social contexts. The core of our conceptualization of the international opportunity-focused IE is charmingly captured by Peter Høeg (1994, p. 37) in his award-winning novel Borderliners: “Understanding is something one does best when one is on the borderline.” We use this quote to lead us to the theory on expansive learning by Engeström (2001) who has developed the idea of boundary crossing on the basis of Høeg’s novel in an illuminating way (Engeström 2005). In expansive learning, Bthe learners are involved in constructing and implementing a radically new, wider and more complex object and concept for their activity^ (Engeström and Sannino 2010, p. 2). We particularly relate this to the IE research emphasizing the context embeddedness of opportunities (e.g., Lee and Williams 2007; Zander 2007; Muzychenko 2008; Ellis 2011; Williams and Lee 2011) and suggest the critical context to be the boundary crossing at the borderline. As we will illustrate, it is not only the national border that should be of interest; the boundary crossing also emphasizes the intellectual, linguistic, and practical views from different bases that entrepreneurs bring to the international opportunities (Kemmerer 2002; Zander 2004; Mathews and Zander 2007). This opens up the possibilities for creating new meanings through the transformation of symbolic as well as concrete resources for international opportunities (see Venkataraman et al. 2012; Selden and Fletcher 2015). The expansive learning approach allows us to move towards integrative approaches of international opportunities instead of taking either side of the often-presented dichotomy of the concept. Hence, international opportunity is not seen as either a sophisticated manipulation of dispersed information or a social construction of a Boundary crossing for international opportunities previously non-existent concept, but it combines elements from both, setting the focus on the boundary on which opportunities are designed (Venkataraman et al. 2012). The integration is actually characteristic of most of the papers in this special issue. In the integrative view, reality is a structure in which historically produced and institutionalized actions and artifacts are used as symbolic resources to produce practices, discourses, politics, and even resistance to create new economic activity (see, e.g., Courpasson et al. 2014). Despite continuous calls for integrative frameworks (e.g., Wakkee 2006; Fletcher 2007; Schweizer et al. 2010), little research exists that highlights both the material and the social construction of international opportunities. We take this as an issue of expansive learning. Specifically, our contribution is centered on the conceptualization of boundary crossing for international opportunities in IE. The core of boundary crossing is the action, interaction, and transformation at the borderline (see Venkataraman et al. 2012). In theorizing about expansive learning for international opportunities in IE, we rely on the cultural-historical activity theory (Engeström et al. 1999; Engeström 2001, 2014). On this basis, we discuss the object-oriented activity at the borderline and the boundary crossing as the foundation of the integrative approach to opportunities in IE. Finally, we discuss the articles of this special issue and their implications for the study of international opportunities. Boundaries and opportunities in IE Boundary is defined as Bthe barrier conditions between the activity and its context^ (Katz and Gartner 1988, p. 432). Boundaries are also seen as relatively stable differentiating factors that actors experience when they are involved in cross-border interaction (Zander 2007; Hill and Mudambi 2010). Furthermore, boundaries are seen as important for managing the complexity of international business circumstances (Karra et al. 2008; Figueira-de-Lemos et al. 2011). Our focus on boundary crossing underlines the importance of contexts and social situations in which opportunities arise (cf. Baker et al. 2005). Research has also emphasized local market exchanges as a source of ideas, feedback, and learning that can be a basis for new opportunities (Webb et al. 2010). Here, we focus on the boundary as a productive setting, which combines conflicting interests and elements that favor the emergence of international opportunities (cf. Lee and Williams 2007; Mahnke et al. 2007; Williams and Lee 2011). In the examination of boundaries, we aim to extend beyond the view of international opportunities as cross-national combinations of resources and markets (cf. Di Gregorio et al. 2008; Cavusgil and Knight 2015). Boundaries, in our view, relate to the crossing of cultural (Muzychenko 2008; Sequeira et al. 2009), historical (Chandra et al. 2012; McGaughey 2013), social (Dacin et al. 2011; Nicolopoulou 2014) as well as imaginative (Clarke and Holt 2010; Johannisson 2011) borders. We take boundaries as a Bthird space,^ where opposing worlds irregularly meet and interact to form new meanings that go beyond the apparent edges of both (see Engeström 2001). Third spaces allow for experimenting and resisting, which are essential for contradictions to be turned into international opportunities. These boundaries are critical for the expansive learning that makes us move further from the internationalization facilitators such as learning orientation (e.g., Jantunen et al. 2008) and possessed knowledge (e.g., Nordman and T. Mainela et al. Melén 2008). We see expansive learning for international opportunities to center on the integration of multiple contexts and the controversies thereof in the generation of international opportunities (IOs) as novel means for value creation (cf. Mainela et al. 2014). In the following, we take the opportunity conceptualization by Venkataraman et al. (2012) as our point of departure. Their conceptualization delineates three key assumptions of artifactual opportunities: made and found constituencies, embeddedness in action and interaction, and the transformative process of emergence. We then characterize expansive learning as the core activity at the borderline of international opportunities, relying on activity theoretical reasoning by Engeström (2014). In terms of activity theory, we emphasize the questioning, instrumentality generating, and expansive acts that relate to the beneficial contradictions at the borderline instead of the strategic learning cycle (cf. e.g., Engeström 2001). We conclude with international opportunity outcomes from the boundary-crossing activity (see Table 1 for a summary of the elements). Following Venkataraman et al. (2012) conceptualization, the objects of activities that entrepreneurs bring into being in international opportunity construction are artifacts (see also Sarasvathy et al. 2008). Artifacts are Bphenomena in which human purpose as well as natural law are embodied^ (Simon 1996, p. 3). Thus, international opportunities are cultural products of human conception, and, instead of existing naturally, international opportunities as artifacts are man-made. According to activity theoretical reasoning, international opportunity-related activity at the borderline is object-oriented (see Engeström 2001, 2014). An object is an intentionally selected and collectively motivated target for activity (Holt 2008; Jones and Holt 2008). Therefore, opportunities exist only with entrepreneurs, depend on the situation, and are possible to modify and construct by entrepreneurs through their activity (Engeström 2001; Venkataraman et al. 2012). With the intent to elaborate on the activity of boundary crossing, we will discuss three borderlines. The first borderline exists between the structures, such as institutional rules, and the will of entrepreneurial actors to construct international opportunities. The second borderline brings together the cultural, historical, and social tools and signs from a multitude of dissimilar contexts for international opportunities. The third borderline captures the historical and non-linear transformations of opportunities over time. Table 1 Boundary crossing for international opportunities in IE Core assumptions about international opportunities (IOs) Expansive learning acts at the borderline International opportunity outcomes Made and found IOs Questioning existing and forming of new objects Emergence of value-creating novel IOs Actions and interactions for IOs Generating new instrumentality Development of IOs in the meaning-making processes Transformation of IOs Expanding into something new for greater achievement Unpredictable manifestations of IOs Boundary crossing for international opportunities Creating novelty in a process of experimenting at the borderline International opportunities are about novelty in value creation (e.g., Venkataraman et al. 2012). In terms of the boundary-crossing activity of IE, novelty is interpreted in a situation formed of certain elements that exist and are taken-for-granted and certain elements that are subjectively interpreted. Therefore, opportunities are both found and made (Venkataraman et al. 2012) on a borderline between existing and potential objects (Hill and Levenhagen 1995). Instead of being either discovered or created, they are designed at the intersubjective boundary (Venkataraman et al. 2012; Vaghely and Julien 2010). The intersubjective boundary focuses on shared experiences (Venkataraman et al. 2012) and emphasizes the context embeddedness and the historicity of human activities (Engeström 2001). As international opportunities are man-made, they open up for questioning of the existing and formation of new objects by the entrepreneurs. This type of activity is the primary form of control practiced by the entrepreneurs (Sarasvathy 2001) and is needed for expansive learning (Engeström 2001). Entrepreneurs, thus, do not just adapt to the norms brought about by markets, technologies, or social structures. On the contrary, entrepreneurs can manipulate the situational factors and modify or produce new artifactual objects (Sarasvathy and Dew 2005; Harmeling et al. 2009). In questioning is experimented if the prevailing institutions regulating the entrepreneurial activity are in harmony with the experience and will of the entrepreneurs (Dana 1995; Sarasvathy et al. 2008). Therefore, international opportunities appear when the human needs of entrepreneurs and the material-cognitive world meet (Holt 2008; Rindova et al. 2009; Cornelissen and Clarke 2010). Such a meeting can be seen to be of constant interest to IE researchers. For example, research with a primary focus on international opportunities and institutional change processes (e.g., Mainela and Puhakka 2009; Nasra and Dacin 2010; Santangelo and Meyer 2011; Kiss et al. 2012) brings together international entrepreneurial aspirations and turbulent country settings. International entrepreneurship under the institutional change process is a particular boundary-crossing setting bringing together old institutions and new desires as springboards for the emergence of international opportunities (see e.g., Mainela and Puhakka 2009). Some institutions can be seen to maintain boundaries while at the same time other forces and processes attempt to break down these boundaries. To the entrepreneur, this is a contradictory situation in which the historically and socially embedded structures direct the entrepreneur to adapt to the prevailing circumstances (De Clercq and Voronov 2009; Barreto 2012). At the same time, the possibility of a new solution pulls the entrepreneurial actor to question and resist what prevails (Birkinshaw and Ridderstråle 1999; Courpasson et al. 2014). Contradictions are based on situations in which the solutions are not satisfactory for existing institution as the solution violates the institution’s settings or values (Dorado 2005; Rao and Giorgi 2006). It is important, however, to note that the contradictions are not troubles, but they are accumulated structural tensions within the activity or between the activities (Engeström 2001). The questioning of the current objects generates new objects manifested as international opportunities. In sum, one primary borderline as a productive setting is the one between the will and aspirations of the entrepreneurial actor and the existing reality institutionalized in T. Mainela et al. rules, regulations, and perceived expectations in an intersubjective space. In such events, entrepreneurial actors drift between expected compliance to rules and their own experience of meaningfulness (Rao and Giorgi 2006; Mathews and Zander 2007; Lee and Williams 2007). Therefore, international opportunities emerge out of experimenting at this borderline. Meaning-making through action and interaction for international opportunities Much of the research agrees that the enactment of opportunities is a dialogical process that requires engaging others in the development of a common object (e.g., Fletcher 2007; Rindova et al. 2009). Opportunity as an object of collective action emerges as a result of the development of shared interests through action and interaction (Schweizer et al. 2010; Venkataraman et al. 2012). For international opportunities, action and interaction bring together individuals and teams from a variety of backgrounds (Johanson and Vahlne 2009; Sequeira et al. 2009). This emphasizes the multivoicedness of the borderline of international opportunity enactment (Engeström 2001). Activity theory (Engeström 1987, 2001; Holt 2008) stresses the process of meaningmaking, which is primarily a social practice. As a social practice, boundary crossing brings together the various intellectual, linguistic, and practical tools the actors from different activity systems carry (Kemmerer 2002; Zander 2004, 2007; Mathews and Zander 2007; Hill and Mudambi 2010). Entrepreneurial action and interaction at the borderline is therefore about telling stories of the past, creating spaces for new thinking, convincing others of the better scenario, and narrating the value of something novel (cf. Venkataraman et al. 2012). In this process, the constructive contradiction that creates the basis for expansive learning is typically not an either-or situation in which two opposing views are competing but a both-and situation in which balancing the conflicting priorities is not possible (Jones and Holt 2008). The solution is a leap from the existing premises to produce new objects. It is not a solution to the existing problem but a generation of a new and more relevant problem to be collectively solved by breaking out from the existing. The opportunities come into existence when the entrepreneurial actors articulate and acknowledge the contradictions in their words and deeds (Hatch 1997; Jones and Holt 2008; Johannisson 2011; McKelvie et al. 2011). They involve the dilemmas, conflicts, and double bind situations that materialize linguistically in, for example, indignation, humor, fear, and enthusiasm (Hill and Levenhagen 1995; Rao et al. 2000; Gaddefors 2007; Navis and Glynn 2010). Breaking out from the contradictory situation and producing new entrepreneurial objects requires the generation of new cultural tools and instrumentality to intermediate the rejection of the existing objects and the acceptance of new potential objects (Dorado 2005; Engeström 2001; Dacin et al. 2011; Lardy and Hamilton 2011). Mediation is no longer just fulfillment of the original role of tools or signs; instead, the mediating tools and signs lead to the reshaping of the whole repertoire of instrumentalities (Holt 2008; Vahlne et al. 2012). The use of the mediating artifacts expands by producing new tasks and objectives for the tools and signs. These instruments may include novel models, concepts, or formulas that go beyond the available options or forces, pushing the activity system to a new phase of development. Boundary crossing for international opportunities From the IE perspective, the activity at the borderline can be seen primarily as a matter of horizontal, i.e., cultural, historical, and social, boundary crossing for international opportunities (Mahnke et al. 2007; Lee and Williams 2007; Zander 2007; Muzychenko 2008; Williams and Lee 2011). In the boundary-crossing activity, a wide range of concrete and symbolic tools that mediate the production of an object is used (see Engeström 1987). For example, language skills are a linguistic tool that are related to international opportunity recognition and exploitation (Hurmerinta et al. 2015). Hence, understanding the mediating and the intermediating role of tools and signs is essential (Holt 2008; Jones and Holt 2008). For example, the bylaw of a corporation written by headquarter lawyers might be used to justify why a subsidiary is not allowed to invest in a lucrative new market opportunity. Consequently, the resolution of contradictions, and thus the construction of a new object, requires new tools and signs, which may lead to the development of entirely new objects (Rao and Giorgi 2006; Jones and Holt 2008; Wright and Zammuto 2013). The redefinition of tools and signs, and even the emergence of entirely new tools and signs, has a critical role to play in the construction of new objects, i.e., international opportunities (Nasra and Dacin 2010; Williams and Lee 2011). In sum, another primary borderline as a productive setting is the one that brings cultural-historical tools and signs of social practice together from different activity systems. In such events, international opportunities are enacted by means of human imagination and social interaction. They result in new meanings through the redefinition of tools and signs used to intermediate between entrepreneurial actors and international opportunities. The international opportunities are based on the ability to generate new instrumentality supporting the definition of common objects at this borderline. The emergence of unpredictable manifestations of international opportunities The third aspect that is critical to understanding boundary-crossing activities for international opportunities is the transformative process of their emergence. Engeström (2001) notes that in organizational transformations, those international opportunities often are (Venkataraman et al. 2012) individuals must learn new forms of activity. These new forms of activity are learned in their production. The transformative approach to opportunities emphasizes the possibility of a total lack of links—other than the history—between old and new opportunities, and it gives primacy to the relationships and interfaces between the objects and their contexts (Venkataraman et al. 2012). Thus, international opportunities as artifactual objects inherently involve ambiguity, surprise, and change, which emphasize the possibility of expansive developments (Engeström 2001). In a situation characterized by transformative activity, opportunities cannot often be logically deduced by reorganizing information from the environment. The transformative situation at hand is not due to the complexity of the environment and thus is not a challenge of manipulation of scattered information (cf., Eckhardt and Shane 2003). Instead, it is a question of creative work by entrepreneurs and their partners that results in a particular relation between the object and its given context (cf. Johanson and Vahlne 2009; Venkataraman et al. 2012). An opportunity as an artifactual object is always part of its context. The relating at the object-context inter-boundary is the key T. Mainela et al. issue (Venkataraman et al. 2012), and the activity at the inter-boundary requires understanding that solutions are not always linear (Engeström 2001). A prior opportunity does not need to be connected with the new opportunity by any other ways than through history (Venkataraman et al. 2012). Still, the present opportunities can only be understood together with their histories (Rindova et al. 2009; McMullen and Dimov 2013). Elucidating opportunities as historical and dynamic is the key to seeing the qualitative transformation of opportunities (McMullen and Dimov 2013). A transformative opportunity involves change in the inter-boundary between the created object and its context (see Venkataraman et al. 2012). It means changes both in the internal relationships of a unit and the competitive landscape, and those changes radically change the boundary itself. An important part of the transformations of opportunities is the movement between the long, historical perspective and the relatively short-term, goal-oriented acts (Alvarez 2007; Wright and Zammuto 2013). The qualitative transformation of opportunities is driven by those acts, tasks, and small innovations that differ from the ordinary and, hence, slightly transgress the given boundaries (Steyaert and Katz 2004; Hjorth 2004; Johannisson 2011). International opportunity as an object of activity is typically considered to be a temporally and spatially defined event, such as an event whereby a customer is discovered in an international market (e.g., Oviatt and McDougall 2005; Perks and Hughes 2008). Later research also illustrates the emergence of international opportunities to undertake in a lengthy temporal process (Fletcher 2006; Schweizer et al. 2010; Mainela et al. 2011). Transformative activity for international opportunity formation can be seen in the IE research, which shows the accumulation of small-scale social interaction in significant changes in the social structures (e.g., Sequeira et al. 2009). This kind of boundary-crossing activity opens up space for what are termed Brunaway objects^ (Engeström 2001), which can escalate and even have a global impact (e.g., global financial crisis). These expanding runaway objects are hardly under anyone’s control and may produce unexpected side-effects. However, they can also produce and release radical new opportunities for development. In sum, a third primary borderline as a productive setting is one of the interboundaries between opportunities as objects of activity and their contexts. At this inter-boundary, ambiguities and surprises of local, often small-scale activity turn up as new objects characterized by changed relations in this context. Over expansive cycles of development, some of the existing objects might be internalized, but simultaneously, the unusual is made use of in order to renew things completely. The transformative opportunities often start from small everyday problems and marginal innovations, and are therefore difficult to predict. This special issue and future research In the present introductory article, we have suggested three particular borderlines to circumscribe the boundary-crossing activity for international opportunities. We have emphasized the artifactual nature of the international opportunities, as well as expansive learning processes possibly arising from the boundary-crossing activities. We saw the first borderline as existing between the structures, such as institutional rules, and the Boundary crossing for international opportunities will of entrepreneurial actors. We depicted how the international opportunity emergence through activity at this borderline might require a questioning of the existing and experimenting at the boundary to create novel solutions for value creation. The second borderline, to which research could pay further attention, is the one that brings together the cultural, historical, and social tools and signs from a multitude of dissimilar contexts. We emphasized the meaning-making processes and the activity systembased tools that interact in the creation of common objects. The third borderline to be examined is the one between consecutive opportunities and their contexts. It draws our attention to the historical and non-linear transformations of opportunities over time. Let us now reflect on the articles of this special issue. Hilmersson and Papaioannou model international opportunity scouting as a strategic activity that brings together international experience as an internal determinant and network structure as the external determinant of international opportunity novelty. They suggest experience, systematic scouting, and closeness of the network to lead to a lower novelty value of the opportunity. With respect to our conceptualization of the boundary crossing as a critical activity, this asks us to go further into the examination of experimenting for international opportunities. Laperrière and Spence focus on the organizational learning processes and how they influence the enactment of international opportunities. Their examination of organizational learning illustrates how knowledge travels (or does not travel) from the individual level through the group level to the organizational level, in order to allow for international opportunity enactment by the firms. They emphasize the mixing of existing knowledge and the new knowledge acquired in the international operations as a basis for the enactment of new opportunities but show how that is not necessarily happening within firms. We see that their examination creates a basis for further examination of the expansive learning processes at the opportunity-context interboundary. Interestingly, they illustrate both the possibility of producing a wide variety of new opportunities and the possibility of internal processes that negate the enactment of new international opportunities. We consider this to be an issue that can be taken further through in-depth analysis of the inter-boundaries between internalized and externalized elements of opportunities. Åkerman sets the focus on the realization of international opportunities on the basis of the firm’s market knowledge and internationalization know-how. The study’s results suggest that increasing the number of different national contexts in the business operations of the firm is only beneficial for opportunity realization to a certain extent and then becomes negative. This might be related to the emergence of multiple borderlines requiring cultural-historical tools and signs of social practice to be brought together from so many different activity systems that they become complicated to use for common benefit. Supporting network-based approaches, the study suggests that knowledge about the local business network is an important determinant of international opportunity realization, whereas the importance of the knowledge of the institutional context is not confirmed. Andersson and Evers, like Lehto, present a strongly individual-centered approach to international opportunity construction. Both studies set entrepreneurs as the focal actors and emphasize the creation of intersubjective spaces where the entrepreneur’s ideas and the views of the other actors in the institutional context are brought together. Andersson and Evers focus on the capabilities view and suggest the concept of dynamic T. Mainela et al. managerial capability for the examination of the differences in managerial actions and decisions with respect to international opportunity recognition and exploitation in new international ventures. In Lehto’s study, entrepreneurial selling is conceptualized as a particular boundary-crossing activity that allows for the joint envisioning and realization of international opportunities. The study calls for further examination of entrepreneurial selling with the set intention to question the existing businesses and develop novelty value out of the interactive processes. Oyson and Whittaker conceptualize opportunities using an integrative approach, discussing discovery and creation, with the objective and the subjective elements intertwining. They illustrate how potential international opportunities are transformed through entrepreneurial cognition and action as actual international opportunities connecting products, capabilities, and customers. They emphasize the role of subjective interpretation that leads to individuals constructing different international opportunities in the same situation as well as illustrating change over time. They add imagination to the earlier often-debated knowledge and serendipity as the bases for international opportunities. Holm, Johanson, and Kao focus on the action and interaction that takes place at the network level to actualize international opportunities in foreign markets. The primary boundary-crossing activity is seen to take place between the focal firm’s internal network and the local market network in which the firm is an outsider but would like to be an insider. Through analysis of developments over a 30-year period, they illustrate how four different opportunities are differently embedded in the networks, where this embeddedness is a critical determinant of the opportunity-related behaviors. The case study suggests the use of path dependence to characterize opportunity exploitation. From the viewpoint of our theorizing of the boundary crossing for international opportunities, we see that this study particularly enriches the understanding of the activities at the borderline, where different cultural and social elements embedded in the dynamic network structures are brought together for various international opportunities. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Hamid Etemad and Juha Tuunainen for their reviews of the paper draft and the very valuable suggestions for revisions of the manuscript. References Alvarez SA (2007) Entrepreneurial rents and the theory of the firm. J Bus Ventur 22(3):427–442 Baker T, Miner AS, Eesley DT (2003) Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Res Policy 32(2):255–276 Baker T, Gedajlovic E, Lubatkin M (2005) A framework for comparing entrepreneurship processes across nations. J Int Bus Stud 36:492–504 Barreto I (2012) Solving the entrepreneurial puzzle: the role of entrepreneurial interpretation in opportunity formation and related processes. J Manag Stud 49(2):356–380 Birkinshaw J, Ridderstråle J (1999) Fighting the corporate immune system: a process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. Int Bus Rev 8(2):149–180 Cavusgil ST, Knight G (2015) The born global firm: an entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. J Int Bus Stud 46(1):3–16 Chandra Y, Styles C, Wilkinson I (2012) An opportunity-based view of rapid internationalization. J Int Mark 20:74–102 Boundary crossing for international opportunities Clarke J, Holt R (2010) Reflective judgement: understanding entrepreneurship as ethical practice. J Bus Ethics 94(3):317–331 Cornelissen JP, Clarke JS (2010) Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: inductive reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures. Acad Manage Rev 35(4):539–557 Courpasson D, Dany F, Martí I (2014) Organizational entrepreneurship as active resistance: a struggle against outsourcing. Entrep Theory Pract. doi:10.1111/etap.12109 Dacin MT, Dacin PA, Tracey P (2011) Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future directions. Organ Sci 22(5):1203–1213 Dana L (1995) Entrepreneurship in a remote sub-arctic community. Enterp Theory Pract 20:57–72 De Clercq D, Voronov M (2009) Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus. Int Small Bus J 27:395–419 De Clercq D, Sapienza HJ, Yavuz RI, Zhou L (2012) Learning and knowledge in early internationalization research: past accomplishments and future directions. J Bus Ventur 27(1):143–165 Di Gregorio D, Musteen M, Thomas D (2008) International new ventures: the cross-border nexus of individuals and opportunities. J World Bus 43:186–196 Dorado S (2005) Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organ Stud 26(3):385–414 Eckhardt J, Shane S (2003) Opportunities and entrepreneurship. J Manag 29:333–349 Ellis P (2011) Social ties and international entrepreneurship: opportunities and constraints affecting firm internationalization. J Int Bus Stud 42:99–127 Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki Engeström Y (2001) Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J Educ Work 14(1):133–156 Engeström Y (2005) Developmental work research: expanding activity theory in practice. Vol. 12. Lehmanns Media - LOB.de, Berlin Engeström Y (2014). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge University Press Engeström Y, Sannino A (2010) Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educ Res Rev 5(1):1–24 Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki RL (Eds.) (1999) Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Figueira-de-Lemos F, Johanson J, Vahlne JE (2011) Risk management in the internationalization process of the firm: a note on the Uppsala model. J World Bus 46(2):143–153 Fletcher DE (2006) Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity. Entrep Reg Dev 18(5):421–440 Fletcher D (2007) ‘Toy Story’: the narrative world of entrepreneurship and the creation of interpretive communities. J Bus Ventur 22:649–672 Gaddefors J (2007) Metaphor use in the entrepreneurial process. Int J Entrep Behav Res 13(3):173–193 Harmeling SS, Sarasvathy SD, Freeman RE (2009) Related debates in ethics and entrepreneurship: values, opportunities, and contingency. J Bus Ethics 84(3):341–365 Hatch MJ (1997) Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team. Organ Sci 8(3):275–288 Hill RC, Levenhagen M (1995) Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. J Manag 21(6):1057–1074 Hill TL, Mudambi R (2010) Far from Silicon Valley: how emerging economies are re-shaping our understanding of global entrepreneurship. J Int Manag 16(4):321–327 Hjorth D (2004) Creating space for play/invention—concepts of space and organizational entrepreneurship. Entrep Reg Dev 16(5):413–432 Høeg P (1994) Borderliners. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York Holt R (2008) Using activity theory to understand entrepreneurial opportunity. Mind Cult Act 15(1):52–70 Hurmerinta L, Nummela N, Paavilainen-Mäntymäki E (2015) Opening and closing doors: the role of language in international opportunity recognition and exploitation. Int Bus Rev. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.04.010 Jantunen A, Nummela N, Puumalainen K, Saarenketo S (2008) Strategic orientations of born globals—do they really matter? J World Bus 43:158–170 Johannisson B (2011) Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Bus Econ 36(2):135–150 Johanson J, Vahlne J-E (2009) The Uppsala internationalization model revisited—from liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. J Int Bus Stud 40:1411–1431 Jones O, Holt R (2008) The creation and evolution of new business ventures: an activity theory perspective. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 15(1):51–73 T. Mainela et al. Karra N, Phillips N, Tracey P (2008) Building the born global firm: developing entrepreneurial capabilities for international new venture success. Long Range Plan 41:440–458 Katz J, Gartner WB (1988) Properties of emerging organizations. Acad Manage Rev 13(3):429–441 Kemmerer W (2002) Home base and knowledge management in international ventures. J Bus Ventur 17:99–122 Kiss AN, Denis WM, Cavusgil ST (2012) International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies: a critical review and research agenda. J Bus Ventur 27(2):266–290 Lardy J, Hamilton E (2011) Structural approaches to narrative analysis in entrepreneurship research. Exemplars from two researchers. Int Small Bus J 29(3):220–237 Lee S, Williams C (2007) Dispersed entrepreneurship within multinational corporations: a community perspective. J World Bus 42:505–519 Mahnke V, Venzin M, Zahra S (2007) Governing entrepreneurial opportunity recognition in MNEs: aligning interest and cognition under uncertainty. J Manag Stud 44:1278–1298 Mainela T, Puhakka V (2009) Organising new business in turbulent context. Opportunity-creation and effectuation behaviours for IJV in transition markets. J Int Entrep 7:111–134 Mainela T, Pernu E, Puhakka V (2011) The development of a high-tech international new venture as a process of acting: a study of the lifespan of a venture in software business. J Small Bus Enterprise Dev 18(3):430– 456 Mainela T, Puhakka V, Servais P (2014) The concept of international opportunity in international entrepreneurship: a review and a research agenda. Int J Manag Rev 16(1):105–129 Mathews J, Zander I (2007) The international entrepreneurial dynamics of accelerated internationalisation. J Int Bus Stud 38:387–403 McGaughey SL (2013) Institutional entrepreneurship in North American lightning protection standards: Rhetorical history and unintended consequences of failure. Bus Hist 55(1):73–97 McKelvie A, Haynie JM, Gustavsson V (2011) Unpacking the uncertainty construct: implications for entrepreneurial action. J Bus Ventur 26(3):273–292 McMullen JS, Dimov D (2013) Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. J Manag Stud 50(8):1481–1512 Murphy PJ, Liao J, Welsch HP (2006) A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought. J Manag Hist 12(1): 12–35 Muzychenko O (2008) Cross-cultural entrepreneurial competence in identifying international business opportunities. Eur Manag J 26:366–377 Nasra R, Dacin T (2010) Institutional arrangements and international entrepreneurship: the state as institutional entrepreneur. Enterp Theory Pract 34:583–609 Navis C, Glynn MA (2010) How new market categories emerge: temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Adm Sci Q 55(3):439–471 Nicolopoulou K (2014) Social entrepreneurship between cross‐currents: toward a framework for theoretical restructuring of the field. J Small Bus Manag 52(4):678–702 Nordman ER, Melén S (2008) The impact of different kinds of knowledge for the internationalization process of born globals in the biotech business. J World Bus 43(2):171–185 Oviatt B, McDougall P (2005) Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Enterp Theory Pract 29:537–554 Perks K, Hughes M (2008) Entrepreneurial decision making in internationalization: propositions from midsize firms. Int Bus Rev 17:310–330 Rao H, Giorgi S (2006) Code breaking: how entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to generate institutional change. Res Organ Behav 27:269–304 Rao H, Morrill C, Zald MN (2000) Power plays: how social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Res Organ Behav 22:237281 Rindova V, Barry D, Ketchen D (2009) Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Acad Manage Rev 34:477–491 Santangelo GD, Meyer KE (2011) Extending the internationalization process model: increases and decreases of MNE commitment in emerging economies. J Int Bus Stud 42:894–909 Sarasvathy S (2001) Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Acad Manage Rev 26:243–288 Sarasvathy SD, Dew N (2005) New market creation through transformation. J Evol Econ 15(5):533–565 Sarasvathy SD, Dew N, Read S, Wiltbank R (2008) Designing organizations that design environments: lessons from entrepreneurial expertise. Organ Stud 29(3):331–350 Schweizer R, Vahlne J-E, Johanson J (2010) Internationalization as an entrepreneurial process. J Int Entrep 8: 343–370 Boundary crossing for international opportunities Selden PD, Fletcher DE (2015) The entrepreneurial journey as an emergent hierarchical system of artifactcreating processes. J Bus Ventur 30(4):603–615 Sequeira J, Carr J, Rasheed A (2009) Transnational entrepreneurship: determinants of firm type and owner attributions of success. Enterp Theory Pract 33:1023–1044 Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial (Vol. 136). MIT press, Cambridge Steyaert C, Katz J (2004) Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrep Reg Dev 16(3):179–196 Vaghely I, Julien P-A (2010) Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. J Bus Ventur 25:73–86 Vahlne JE, Schweizer R, Johanson J (2012) Overcoming the liability of outsidership—the challenge of HQ of the global firm. J Int Manag 18(3):224–232 Venkataraman S, Sarasvathy S, Dew N, Forster W (2012) Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Acad Manage Rev 37:21–33 Wakkee I (2006) Mapping network development of international new ventures with the use of company e-mails. J Int Entrep 4:191–208 Webb J, Kistruck G, Ireland RD, Ketchen D (2010) The Entrepreneurship process in base of the pyramid markets: the case of multinational enterprise/nongovernment organization alliances. Enterp Theory Pract 34:555–581 Williams C, Lee S (2011) Entrepreneurial contexts and knowledge coordination within the multinational corporation. J World Bus 46:253–264 Wright AL, Zammuto RF (2013) Wielding the willow: processes of institutional change in English county cricket. Acad Manage J 56(1):308–330 Zander I (2004) The microfoundations of cluster stickness—walking in the shoes of the entrepreneur. J Int Manag 10:151–175 Zander I (2007) Do you see what I mean? An entrepreneurship perspective on the nature and boundaries of the firm. J Manag Stud 44(7):1141–1164