Cities 146 (2024) 104747

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

The development o Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities:

An institutional work approach
Leonardo Gonçalves a, *, Kadigia Faccin b, Jerusa Garay a, Felipe Zarpelon a, Alsones Balestrin a
a
Unisinos University, Av. Dr. Nilo Peçanha, 1600, Boa Vista - Porto Alegre/RS, 91330-002 Brazil
b
FDC (Fundação Dom Cabral), Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The innovation literature is growing rapidly, and a primary concern revolves around the contexts that oster and
Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem enhance innovation and entrepreneurial outcomes. Research on innovation environments still requires urther
Institutional work development. This paper sheds light on ostering and developing innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems in
Cities
cities rom the institutional work perspective, emphasizing the need to institutionalize collaboration. The paper
Innovation
Collaboration
employs the case study method with a process data approach. The study took place in two Latin American cities,
Porto Alegre and Florianópolis, within a cultural context characterized by a non-cooperative background. The
ndings are linked to the institutionalization o collaboration in the development o innovation and entrepre-
neurial ecosystems, unolding in three phases involving three groups o roles: leaders, supporters, and the
community. The practices are associated with the leader’s group in the rst phase (Preparing or Collaboration).
The second phase (Strengthening Collaboration) expands the practices and adjusts the ocus to the supporter’s
group. Additionally, the third phase (Disseminating Collaboration) continues to broaden the scope and gains
relevance or the community’s group. Thereore, the evolution o the phases is connected to the expansion o the
range o institutionalization practices and a ocus on the most active roles. These results carry signicant im-
plications or the theory and practice o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem emergence, oering insights
into the phases and roles critical or ostering innovation environments. Furthermore, they can provide practical
guidance or other cities or regions aiming to cultivate robust innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

1. Introduction that might acilitate innovation development (Glaeser, 2012). Examples

The paper aims to introduce a new approach to understanding the
development o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities,
asserting that a portion o it can be infuenced or ostered through the
institutional work perspective. More specically, we examined how
collaboration was institutionalized in two cities, utilizing cases within a
cultural context marked by a background o non-cooperation. The
ndings can assist researchers and practitioners in comprehending a
novel method or cultivating innovation environments, thereby
attracting new talents, investors, entrepreneurs, etc., to the cities and
enabling them to evolve into richer and healthier ecosystems.
Beyond national or even supranational development policies, spe-
cic territories seek to oster innovation as a path to economic and social
development (Asheim & Gertler, 2005; Feldman & Audretsch, 1999). In
this regard, cities worldwide are undergoing signicant transormations
in their physical and normative structures, necessitating adjustments
o successul entrepreneurial and innovation environments include cities
such as Barcelona (Pique, Miralles, & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2019),
Medellin (Franz, 2017), and the Silicon Valley region (Engle, 2015).
Experiences like these have an organizational and operational model
based on what scholars call innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems,
concepts gaining traction in empirical and theoretical literature (Spigel,
2017; Thomas et al., 2020). Considering various perspectives o
ecosystem rameworks to address the economic and social challenges o
development in cities through innovation, we employed the ecosystem
as an aliation perspective (Adner, 2017, p. 40). In this perspective, the
ocus o the analysis is much more on “access and openness, highlighting
measures such as the number o partners, network density, and actors’
centrality in larger networks” (Adner, 2017, p.42), as seen in studies
about Silicon Valley.
In addition to physical, normative, and even cultural structures, the
discussion o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems includes

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: leonardo_goncalves@yahoo.com.br (L. Gonçalves).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104747
Received 12 April 2022; Received in revised orm 7 December 2023; Accepted 8 December 2023
Available online 4 January 2024
0264-2751/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Gonçalves et al.
collaboration as a crucial driver or innovative processes. The dynamics
o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems are grounded in the par-
ticipants’ interdependency, collectively creating value (Hannah &
Eisenhardt, 2018). The alignment between ocal and peripheral actors
should acilitate the development o diverse and complementary prod-
ucts or services that can provide coherent and practical solutions to
market needs (Thomas & Autio, 2014; Song, 2016).
Collaboration can be understood as a standardized and reproducible
behavior under the organizational perspective (Phillips, Lawrence, &
Hardy, 2000). The legitimacy o group actions and the expectation o
reproducibility and reciprocity o actions support trust, a key element
or collaborative action (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; Vangen &
Huxham, 2003). Institutions, considered as ever-evolving yet enduring
elements o social lie capable o designing meaningul and legitimate
actions, cognitions, and emotions (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2011;
Reinecke & Lawrence, 2022), lead to patterns o behavior capable o
dening the organization’s competitiveness, technology development
path, and aspects o organizational strategies, such as the propensity or
cooperation.
During the past ew decades, organizational institutionalism has
received new contributions, altering the perspective on the institution-
alization process (Dover & Lawrence, 2010). Within this new perspec-
tive, institutional work stands out or a systemic and inclusive view o
the chain o actions taken individually that lead to the creation, main-
tenance, and disruption o institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).
Institutional work ocuses on the daily practices and ordinary strategies
through which individuals intentionally shape institutional patterns
under which they operate (Dover & Lawrence, 2010) in a continuous
and evolving process that adjusts to time and space (Styhre, 2014). This
perspective is particularly prominent in understanding the resilience o
cooperation as an institutionalized strategy o organizations within the
innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem (Jiménez et al., 2008; Hoej-
mose et al., 2014).Even though cities may develop the inrastructure or
fourishing innovation and entrepreneurship, collaboration unolds
slowly and gradually, ollowing a typical institutionalization process.
Furthermore, being open to collaboration in innovation and entrepre-
neurial ecosystems entails engaging various actors connected to the
academy, government, and industry (Etzkowitz & Leydesdor, 2000).
The guiding question or this research is: How do cities institutionalize
collaboration as a catalyst or innovation and entrepreneurial
ecosystems?
The research employs the case study method, adopting a descriptive
(Yin, 2001) and processual (Langley, 1999) approach. As the object o
analysis, two cities that have recently endeavored to transorm their
structures and promote innovation were selected: Florianópolis and
Porto Alegre in Brazil. Both cities, situated in an emerging economy, are
located in a specic region in the south o the country, characterized by
a cultural context with a history o non-cooperation (Luvizotto, 2009).
The ndings disclose that the institutionalization process o collab-
oration occurs in three phases: preparation, reinorcement, and
dissemination. While the rst two phases exhibit institutional work
practices typical o institution creation and maintenance, the third phase
also incorporates practices o institutional disruption, primarily aimed
at dismantling structures that hinder the spread o collaborative
behavior. The actions o the actors—government, university, and
industry—likewise contribute to the categorization o three roles in the
process: leaders, supporters, and community.
The paper will next delve into the theoretical background, ollowed
by a description o the adopted methods. Subsequently, it will present
the results and engage in a discussion, culminating in the conclusions.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities
The term “eco” is borrowed rom biology to elucidate the
2
Cities 146 (2024) 104747
interdependencies and coevolution in the complex context o manage-
ment (Ritala & Almpanopoulou, 2017). Stemming rom the concept o
the “business ecosystem” developed by Moore (1993), there has been an
increased volume o research drawing analogies between biology and
business systems. This evolution led to the emergence o the concept o
“innovation ecosystems” (Adner, 2006) and, more recently, entrepre-
neurial ecosystems (Thomas et al., 2020). An innovation and entrepre-
neurial ecosystem is a context organized to support and oster
innovation and entrepreneurship.
The addition o the term “in cities” to the concept o the innovation
and entrepreneurial ecosystem aligns with the level o analysis in this
research, providing reerences to its boundaries. While the boundaries o
an innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem can be more precisely
dened by its network (Adner, 2017), the intricate structure o cities
cannot be equated with other levels o analysis, such as rms, or
example.
Given that cities hold signicant value as a ocal point or dening,
directing, and achieving innovation, the level o analysis o cities can be
perceived as an aggregated ecosystem o various ecosystems (Visnjic,
2016), akin to a ractal concept. Cities embody a complex conjunction
that may entail a high degree o collaboration among disparate actors
(Rabelo & Bernus, 2015). Thereore, raming the concept o innovation
and entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities aims or greater clarity within
the studied level o analysis, potentially yielding more eective contri-
butions to the literature and practice.
Silicon Valley, London, and Barcelona are requently cited as ex-
amples o successul innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems, char-
acterized by numerous interactions and interrelationships among
various actors (e.g., Valkokari et al., 2017; Engel, 2015; Pique et al.,
2019). However, replicating these innovation and entrepreneurial eco-
systems requires more than emulation; it necessitates an understanding
and coordination o a unique pathway and specic elements to achieve
comparable success (Ooms, 2015).
To gain a better understanding o an ecosystem, it is crucial to
explore its contextual and institutional environment (Almpanopoulou,
Ritala, & Blomqvist, 2019; Ritala & Gustasson, 2018). Some studies
have scrutinized ecosystems through institutional lenses (e.g., Silta-
loppi, Koskela-Huotari, & Vargo, 2016; Vargo et al., 2015). The insti-
tutional perspective, particularly based on the institutionalization
process (Zilber, 2002), appears to be a promising avenue or shedding
light on the process o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem
development (Almpanopoulou et al., 2019; Thomas & Autio, 2014).
Within institutionalism research, a recent perspective presents the
creation, maintenance, and disruption o institutions through a volun-
tarist perspective known as institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby,
2006). This perspective is particularly prominent in understanding the
process o institutionalizing collaboration within innovation and
entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities, as it portrays a canvas o practices
that might sustain institutions (Lawrence et al., 2011; Lawrence &
Suddaby, 2006). By aligning institutional work with the need or
transormation in cities, collaboration can be deemed one o the
necessary conditions or urban development, based on the support or
entrepreneurship and innovation.
2.2. Institutional work
Institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006) brings the perspec-
tive o practices undertaken by individual or collective actors (e.g., or-
ganizations) that lead to the creation, maintenance, or disruption o
institutions. The theoretical perspective sheds light on the daily prac-
tices and ordinary strategies through which individuals intentionally
shape institutional patterns under which they operate (Dover & Law-
rence, 2010), in a continuous and evolving process that adjusts to time
and space (Styhre, 2014). Institutional work brings novelty to institu-
tional theory as it centers the discussion on the agency endowed in the
process o institutionalization.
L. Gonçalves et al. Cities 146 (2024) 104747

Institutions, under the institutional work approach, are “those (more Table 1
or less) enduring elements o social lie that aect the behavior and Categories and Types o Institutional Work adapted or collaboration.
belies o individuals and collective actors by providing templates or Types o institutional Denition
action, cognition, and emotion” (Lawrence et al., 2011, p. 53). In this work
paper, the ocus is on collaboration in innovation and entrepreneurial Creating institutions for collaboration
ecosystems in cities. Institutions shape a social context in which orga-
nizations are embedded, being pressured by it, and recursively, being Advocacy The mobilization o political and regulatory support or
agents o its constitution. A social context represents not only patterns o collaboration through direct and deliberate techniques
o social suasion.
established meaning but also sites within which renegotiations o Dening The construction o rule systems that coner
meaning take place (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). collaborative status or identity and dene boundaries
Collaboration is an organizational behavior that constrains decisions o membership.
regarding interrelationships among suppliers (Olsen & Ellram, 1997), Vesting The creation o rule structures that coner ownership.
Constructing identities Dene the relationship between an actor and the eld
consumers (Etgar, 2008), government, academy (Etzkowitz & Ley-
in which that actor operates.
desdor, 2000), non-governmental organizations, unions, associations Changing normative Re-making the connections between sets o practices
(Connor, 2004), and every orm o organization that surrounds a ocal associations and the moral and cultural oundations o those
rm. In the end, cooperation embraces a set o elements aecting the practices.
belies and behavior o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems on a Constructing normative Constructing o interorganizational connections
networks through which practices become normatively
daily basis. For this reason, cooperation refects an institution under the sanctioned and which orm the relevant peer group
denition proposed by the institutional work tradition (Broccardo, with respect to compliance, monitoring and evaluation.
Culasso, & Mauro, 2019; Lawrence et al., 2011). Mimicry Associating new practices with existing sets o taken-
An important concept in the institutional work perspective is the or-granted practices, technologies and rules in order to
ease adoption o collaboration.
term “work.” Work involves a physical or mental eort applied with a
Theorizing The development and specication o abstract
determined objective (Lawrence et al., 2011). Thereore, institutions do categories and the elaboration o chains o cause and
not control human agency; instead, it is institutional work that estab- eect.
lishes and maintains daily routines or modies them according to its Educating The educating o actors in the skills and knowledge
objectives (Willmott, 2011). Institutional work, thereore, provides a necessary to support a new collaborative process.

purposeul perspective within institutional theory and allows the de-
nition o the chaining o practices that lead to institutionalization.
Recent studies conducted in various cities have extensively explored
the institutional perspective. For instance, Broccardo et al. (2019)
investigated why and how dierent institutional works carried out by
multiple actors can explain how collaborative governance can be con-
structed in a smart city context. Furthermore, other researchers, such as
Willems and Giezen (2022), examined the Amsterdam Rainproo
initiative in the Netherlands, a pioneer in urban climate networks. They
observed that “the shared concepts and models developed in city net-
works appear to primarily contribute to capacity building (generating
interdisciplinary knowledge about a climate-proo city), agenda-setting
(emphasizing the urgency o climate adaptation), and the creation o
new normative identities (climate adaptation as the joint responsibility
o urban actors).”
These studies highlight the importance o collaboration among
institutional actors in establishing eective collaborative governance in
smart cities, promoting adaptation to climate change, and pursuing
sustainable solutions. Despite these studies pointing out collaboration as
a mechanism to create, disrupt, or modiy institutions, we propose an
analysis o the institutionalization o collaboration itsel in this article.
For this reason, it is important to analyze the key elements and practices
o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems through the theoretical
lens o institutional work.
In a literature review systematizing the studies on institutional work,
Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) reached three categories o institutional
work: Creating, Maintaining, and Disrupting Institutions. In each o
these categories, dierent types o institutional work adapted or the
collaboration context are highlighted, which are presented in Table 1. A
recent study conducted by Zvolska, Palgan, and Mont (2019) applied an
institutional work ramework proposed by Lawrence and Suddaby
(2006) to help understand, map, and classiy a variety o mechanisms
through which urban sharing organizations engage in institutional cre-
ation and disruption. They tested this ramework in the context o the
sharing economy and suggested some new works or this context. Sud-
daby et al. (2023) highlights that rhetorical histories are essential
mechanisms o institutional works.
The canvas o institutional work practices is set based on the eorts
and consequences o individual or collective actions. Nevertheless, un-
intended consequences o institutional work have sparked recent
Maintaining institutions for collaboration
Enabling work The creation o rules that acilitate, supplement and
support collaboration, such as the creation o
authorizing agents or diverting resources.
Policing Ensuring compliance through enorcement, auditing
and monitoring.
Deterring Establishing coercive barriers to institutional change.
Publicly provide positive and negative examples that
illustrate the normative oundations o collaboration.
Valorizing and Providing or public consumption positive and negative
demonizing examples that illustrates the normative oundations o
collaboration.
Mythologizing Preserving the normative underpinnings o
collaboration by creating and sustaining myths
regarding its history.
Embedding and Actively inusing the normative oundations o
routinizing collaboration into the participants’ day to day routines
and organizational practices.
Disrupting institutions for collaboration
Disconnecting sanctions Working through state apparatus to disconnect rewards
and sanctions rom some set o practices, technologies
or rules.
Disassociating moral Disassociating the practice, rule or technology rom its
oundations moral oundation as appropriate within a specic
collaborative cultural context.
Undermining assumptions Decreasing the perceived risks o innovation and
and belies dierentiation by undermining core assumptions and
belies.
Adapted rom Lawrence and Suddaby (2006).
discussions in the literature. Some studies have tested the intentionality
o such consequences (Alvarez, Young, & Woolley, 2015; Dolbec &
Fischer, 2015), and there is still no consensus on the agent’s intention-
ality in institutional work.
Considering that institutional work tends to ocus on eorts rather
than accomplishments (Lawrence et al., 2009), not considering the un-
expected or unwanted outcomes limits the analysis o the entire system
(Pawlak & Mica, 2017). Thereore, this research centers the analysis on
the accomplishment—i.e., the institutionalization o collaboration in the
innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems—and maps the practices o
institutional work, whether intentional or not, that led to this
institutionalization.

3
L. Gonçalves et al.
Institutional work is crucial in transorming cities as it infuences the
creation, adaptation, and modication o organizational structures,
norms, and practices that shape the urban environment. By examining
the intersection between institutional work and the city, we can better
understand how existing institutions can be modied to address urban
challenges and opportunities. This involves analyzing how dierent
institutional actors interact and collaborate to promote signicant
changes in urban governance, inrastructure, sustainability, and the
quality o lie in cities.
Furthermore, city transormation is not an isolated process but a
dynamic interaction between ongoing institutional work and socio-
economic, political, and environmental conditions. For instance,
collaboration among local governments, the private sector, civil society
organizations, and local communities is crucial to driving urban inno-
vation and implementing eective policies and projects. This collabo-
ration creates ertile ground or co-creating solutions, sharing
knowledge and resources, and establishing strategic partnerships
essential or driving sustainable urban transormation.
3. Method
The research was conducted using a case study method and a proc-
essual approach (Langley, 1999). We opted or the processual approach
because it allows or a more detailed understanding o the phenomena
under study by examining the dierent stages, events, and interactions
that occur over time. This analysis enables a deeper understanding o the
causes, eects, and dynamics involved in the process. Additionally, our
choice o this approach provided a holistic view o the object o study,
considering multiple aspects and variables over time. It helps identiy
patterns, changes, connections, and interdependencies among dierent
elements, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding o the
phenomenon.
Two cases rom Brazil, Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in
cities, were considered: Florianópolis (population in 2020: 508,826) and
Porto Alegre (population in 2021: 1,492,530). These two cases were
chosen because: a) both cities have innovation and entrepreneurial
ecosystems created and maintained in emergent economies and in a
specic region (south o Brazil) with a cultural context o a non-
cooperation background (Luvizotto, 2009); b) both cities have shown
relevant progress towards building innovation and entrepreneurial
ecosystems, and data was accessible to the authors.
Florianópolis has positioned itsel as a driving orce or entrepre-
neurship and innovation, currently boasting the highest number o
startups per thousand inhabitants – 38.68 per thousand inhabitants, a
density much higher than the country’s major business center (São
Paulo), with only 3.90. Regarding Porto Alegre, it is already recognized
as an innovative city and has been rising in various innovation indexes
due to an oriented work developed over a short period o time, the last 5
years. Both cases are in the top six cities o the Entrepreneurial Cities
Index (ICE - 2022) in Brazil. In this context, the cities present themselves
as signicant case studies as they demonstrate successul achievements
in the institutionalization o collaboration.
The research used both secondary and primary data. Primary data
collection or the case o Porto Alegre occurred between February 2018
and December 2019. Participant observation was conducted in 40
events/meetings, including workshops, engagement meetings, brain-
storming, strategic planning meetings, and project ollow-ups with
policymakers, proessors, politicians, and CEOs o large companies. In
these events, the researcher could observe the entire process taking
place. Additionally, 25 interviews were conducted with relevant sources
in the context o institutionalization rom the university (9), industry
(9), and government (7). The interviews had an average duration o 40
min each.
In the case o Florianópolis, data gathering took place rom February
to April 2019. Twenty-two interviews were conducted with inormants
rom the university (6), industry (6), and government (5). Each
4
Cities 146 (2024) 104747
interview took an average o 60 min. The interviews were semi-
structured and conducted by the authors to identiy how the re-
spondents understood the process o ecosystem development. The in-
terviews were recorded, and key points were transcribed. The narrative
structure was adopted as a data collection strategy (Rantakari & Vaara,
2017), aiming not only to identiy events and actions but also an insti-
tutionalized narrative about the processes and acts. From a rst group
o dened interviewees, the snowball technique was applied, where
each interviewee inormed at least one other inormant. This process
continued until theoretical saturation was reached (Charmaz, 2006),
where new inormation relevant to the understanding o the process was
no longer recognized. During data analysis, contact was also made with
some inormants by email to validate or detail some inormation and to
validate the phases dened or this article.
For secondary data, 79 documents were consulted or the case o
Porto Alegre, and 387 documents were analyzed or the case o Flo-
rianópolis. This extensive data allowed the authors to make tri-
angulations or a more consistent analysis and build the history o
collaboration in the process o creating an innovation and entrepre-
neurial ecosystem in these cities.
The rst stage o data analysis was based on the categorization o the
main events, seeking the practices that allowed the institutionalization
o collaboration in the innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem. Data
analysis relied on the sequential events that occurred in both cities.
Institutional work was used as a theoretical lens due to its approach with
practices used by actors in three categories: 1) institutional creation, 2)
institutional maintenance, and 3) institutional disruption. Data were
coded by the authors’ interpretation based on the events’ description
and associated with the categories o institutional work. Some tables
were used to present and synthesize the large amount o data, as well as
veriy the theoretical ideas used or data analysis.
4. Results
The results depict the narrative o the institutionalization o collab-
oration in the two cities, highlighting their eorts to become innovation
hubs, attract entrepreneurs, and oster startup creation. Additionally,
the key institutional works related to the events that initiated these e-
orts are outlined. The identied phases were validated by several in-
ormants, enhancing the credibility o the ndings. The tables provide a
concise overview o all the institutional works identied, with the
number o repetitions indicated in brackets.
4.1. The institutionalization history of the collaboration in Porto Alegre’s
innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem
4.1.1. Phase 1
Porto Alegre’s innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem has its
roots in the year 1995 when the government and universities collabo-
rated, drawing inspiration rom benchmarks worldwide. Another sig-
nicant milestone was the establishment o technology parks in the early
2000s, laying the groundwork or uture collaborative projects in
innovation. The pivotal point came in 2017, with strong support rom
the new city mayor towards ostering collaboration and innovation. In
March 2017, the government inaugurated “Poa.Hub,” a public cow-
orking space dedicated to innovation. Concurrently, a Superior Council
o Innovation was ormed to contemplate how innovation could bring
about positive changes to the city. Throughout 2017, inormal meetings
were held, involving university pro-rectors, to deliberate on these
matters.
Inspired by successul innovation projects in cities such as Barcelona,
Medellín, and various cities in southern Brazil, the proposal emerged to
engage a reputable international consultancy. The aim was to establish a
structured methodology and enhance credibility in the planned actions.
Towards the end o 2017, events were organized in collaboration with
the consultancy, involving city stakeholders like businessmen,
L. Gonçalves et al. Cities 146 (2024) 104747

representatives o entities, politicians, among others. These gatherings Table 3

ocused on the imperative to enhance the innovation and entrepre- Summary o Institutional Work and Actors involved in phase 2 o Porto Alegre
neurial ecosystem, oering insights and refections on the potential (number o repeated practices in the brackets).
benets. Early in 2018, some companies actively joined the discourse, CATEGORY ACTORS INSTITUTIONAL WORK
expressing explicit support rom prominent local entrepreneurs and PHASE CREATING Universities Constructing Identities (1),
infuential entities. This infux o new actors acilitated project 2–2018 INSTITUTIONS mimicry (1)
nancing, necessitating the appointment o a coordinating actor to to 2018 Govern/ Theorizing (1), educating (2),
oversee the entire process (Table 2). Industry constructing normative
networks (1), mimicry (1)
Several practices contributed to this endeavor: “advocacy” man-
Consultancy Constructing identities (1),
iested through the collaboration between the government and univer- educating (2)
sities and the establishment o the Superior Council o Innovation. MAINTAINING Universities Enabling work (2), valorizing
“Dening” practices included the creation o three technology parks and INSTITUTIONS and demonizing (2)
the inauguration o “Poa.Hub.” “Vesting” was evident in the participa- Consultancy Valorizing and demonizing
(1)
tion o pro-rectors in city discussions and decisions. “Mimicry” was
observed in the engagement o a consultancy with prior experience in
other cities. “Educating” was refected in events designed or refection, 4.1.3. Phase 3
and the involvement o companies in the process can be linked to Citizens became more involved during this phase. Towards the end o
“enabling work.” 2018, weekly newspaper articles authored by members o the “Alliance
or Innovation” emphasized the importance o overcoming a selsh
4.1.2. Phase 2 mindset. Infuential citizens were actively engaged in raising awareness
In 2018, as a culmination o prior eorts, the “Alliance or Innova- through thematic workshops. A more structured project, named “Pacto
tion” emerged — a collective agreement signed by the three largest Alegre,” emerged, gaining commitment rom 75 relevant entities within
universities in the region (UFRGS, PUCRS, and Unisinos) — garnering the city. The methodology involved meetings called “worktables” with
signicant press attention. Simultaneously, an executive group was these entities, led by the universities, to address the six signicant
established to prepare or the uture launch o the project, aligning ex- challenges identied through inclusive listening sessions. This process
pectations regarding milestones and deliverables or the next 12 months. resulted in the ormation o working groups to advance the 32 projects
In July 2018, a noteworthy event was held at one o the universities aimed at addressing these challenges. By the end o 2019, three meetings
under the banner “Let’s Build the Future o Porto Alegre? You are part o had been conducted to monitor progress and showcase the outputs
it!” to disseminate the city’s vision or the uture. Between July and already achieved (Table 4).
November 2018, pro-rectors actively participated in congresses, lec- The articles addressing collaboration and the selsh mindset are
tures, and events throughout the city, advocating the necessity o a connected to “disassociating moral oundations” and “undermining as-
project that could harness the resources within the ecosystem to oster sumptions and belies.” Additionally, they relate to practices such as
innovation and development or the city. Concurrently, technical visits “valorizing and demonizing,” “constructing identities,” “educating,” and
were organized to other countries, such as the United States and “theorizing.” Thematic workshops align with practices such as “enabling
Colombia, aiming to glean insights rom ecosystems that had undergone work,” “mythologizing,” “dening,” and “theorizing.” The launch o
successul transormations (Table 3). “Pacto Alegre” is associated with practices like “mythologizing,” “con-
The agreement between the universities became a prominent label structing identities,” and others.
used by the media, aligning with the “constructing identities” practice o
positioning the city as collaborative. The executive group was instru- 4.2. The institutionalization history of the collaboration in Florianópolis’
mental in “enabling work.” Practices such as “valorizing and demoniz- Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem
ing,” “educating,” and “constructing normative networks” were evident
in the event ocused on the city’s uture vision and pro-rectors’ public 4.2.1. Phase 1
outreach through congresses, lectures, and events. Technical visits to In Florianópolis, the history o collaboration within the Innovation
other countries can be associated with the practice o “mimicry.” and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem began simultaneously. The establish-
ment o the Federal University in 1960, resulting rom the amalgamation

Table 4
Summary o Institutional Work and Actors involved in phase 3 o Porto Alegre
Table 2 (number o repeated practices in the brackets).
Summary o Institutional Work and Actors involved in phase 1 o Porto Alegre
CATEGORY ACTORS INSTITUTIONAL WORK
(number o repeated practices in the brackets).
PHASE CREATING Universities/ Vesting (1), educating
CATEGORY ACTORS INSTITUTIONAL WORK
3–2018 INSTITUTIONS Industry (1), theorizing (1),
PHASE CREATING Govern/ Advocacy (2), dening to 2019 constructing normative
1–1995 INSTITUTIONS Universities (5), vesting (1), networks (1)
to 2018 constructing normative Citizens Constructing identities
networks (1), changing (4), educating (5),
normative associations theorizing (2), dening
(1), constructing (1), mimicry (1)
identities (1), educating MAINTAINING Universities/ Enabling work (5),
(1), mimicry (1) INSTITUTIONS Industry/Governs/ mythologizing (4),
Consultancy/ Constructing normative Representative valorizing and
Industry/ networks (1), educating entities demonizing (6), policing
Representative (1), vesting (1) (1)
entities/Govern DISRUPTING Universities/ Disassociating moral
MAINTAINING Consultancy/ Valorizing and INSTITUTIONS Industry/Governs/ oundations (1),
INSTITUTIONS Industry/ demonizing (1), enabling Representative undermining
Representative work (1) entities assumptions and belies
entities/Govern (1)

5
L. Gonçalves et al.
o various courses across dierent disciplines, is acknowledged as an
initial milestone or the ecosystem. From its inception, practices aimed
at institutionalizing collaboration emerged, though not always with
collaboration as the ultimate objective, but to achieve various ends. In
the early stages, numerous initiatives were spearheaded by the Engi-
neering School, ostering a close relationship with companies. During
this initial phase, many university-driven actions were identied,
anticipating the uture and technology industry, thereby creating a
collaborative dynamic among the university, government, and
companies.
The establishment o the Foundation or Teaching and Research in
Engineering, known as “FEESC,” exemplies this phase. It enabled the
introduction o the electrical engineering course in 1966 and served as
the precursor to the creation, in 1984, o the CERTI Foundation. CERTI
played a pivotal role in the inception and development o the innovation
and entrepreneurial ecosystem in the city. It initiated collaborative
projects with companies, receiving nancial support rom the ederal
government. In subsequent years, CERTI became the ounding entity o
the rst incubator, “CELTA,” which shared space with the initial asso-
ciation o technology companies, “ACATE,” within an Industrial Com-
puter Condominium (IIC). Originating rom CERTI, the project or the
rst Technological Park, “TecAla Park,” emerged in 1993, situated on a
site provided by the state government. The TecAla Park aimed to
expand the original concept o the IIC, providing space or the con-
struction o headquarters or additional companies (Table 5).
The practice o “constructing normative networks” is associated with
the CERTI Foundation and CELTA incubator. The creation o the ACATE
association is linked to “advocacy” and subsequently to “constructing
normative networks.” TecAla Park is connected to both “constructing
normative networks” and “constructing identities.”
4.2.2. Phase 2
From 1998, initiatives aimed at ostering the ecosystem began to
expand with the introduction o the second incubator, a collaboration
between ACATE and the Brazilian Support Service or Micro and Small
Enterprises (SEBRAE), called MIDI Technological. Another park project,
Sapiens Park, emerged rom CERTI in 2001. This innovation park,
created by the state government, introduced a novel partnership model
with companies and allocated spaces provided by the ederal university.
Consequently, the rst technology companies and laboratories were
established. This period witnessed the consolidation o collaboration
among organizations, propelling the initial development o the
ecosystem and ostering increased collaboration between companies
and other institutions.
This era also saw the inception o the Synapse Program, initiated by
CERTI in collaboration with the state government, aiming to stimulate
the development o new projects or technology companies. In 2010,
ACATE, in a move toward modernization, introduced “Verti-
cals”—groups that acilitated collaboration among companies in the
same sectors. This initiative led to an expansion o events and collabo-
rative actions, inusing greater dynamism into the ecosystem and
Table 5
Summary o Institutional Work and Actors involved in phase 1 o Florianópolis
(number o repeated practices in the brackets).
CATEGORY ACTORS INSTITUTIONAL WORK
PHASE CREATING University Advocacy (1), dening (3),
1–1960 INSTITUTIONS constructing normative
to 1993 networks (4), changing
normative associations (1),
constructing identities (1)
Industry Constructing normative
networks (1)
MAINTAINING University/ Enabling work (1)
INSTITUTIONS Govern/
Industry
6
Cities 146 (2024) 104747
extending collaboration practices to more companies. Additionally, in
2010, the brand “Florianópolis, Capital o Innovation” was introduced,
providing a unied perspective o the city as an ecosystem on a broader
scale. This urther intensied the connection and cooperation among
dierent actors (Table 6).
The SEBRAE partnership, the Verticals, and the Synapse program are
associated with the “enabling work” practice. Sapiens Park is connected
to “advocacy” and “constructing normative networks.” The brand is
closely linked to the “constructing identities” practice.
4.2.3. Phase 3
In 2012, new events and projects emerged to acilitate the exchange
o experiences and oster cooperation among companies, entrepreneurs,
universities, and the government, such as Start-up SC and Start-up
Weekend. Alongside the meetups promoted by Verticals ACATE, a
new dynamic o interaction suraced during this period, marked by more
collaborative projects. This shit was exemplied by the launch o the
ACATE Primavera Innovation Center, designed within a collaborative
mindset, oering an environment conducive to increased interaction
and establishing itsel as a reerence within the ecosystem. Subse-
quently, dynamism and collaboration became even more prevalent.
This era is also characterized by the approval and implementation o
municipal innovation legislation, which promoted tax incentives and
established working groups, along with a Municipal Council. This
council involved representatives rom dierent sectors, steering the
actions o the municipal government in ostering the ecosystem. During
this phase, the city received numerous innovation awards and became
part o international networks dedicated to innovation. In 2019, as a
signicant milestone, the Floripa Conecta project unolded, solidiying
the collaboration between the technology and innovation sector with
other segments o the city, such as tourism and culture. This demon-
strated the expansion o collaboration through the innovation and
entrepreneurial ecosystem into various economic sectors (Table 7).
The events related to start-ups are associated with the “constructing
identities” and “educating” practices. The new dynamic introduced in
the city aligns with “enabling work.” Municipal innovation legislation is
linked to “advocacy.” The innovation awards and international net-
works are connected to “mythologizing,” “educating,” and “constructing
identities.” Additionally, Floripa Conecta is associated with “construct-
ing identities.”
5. Discussion
The results have amalgamated the perspectives o the innovation and
entrepreneurial ecosystem with institutional work, specically through
the lens o the institutionalization o collaboration. This integration
enhances our comprehension o the innovation and entrepreneurial
ecosystem development process within both contextual and institutional
environments (; Almpanopoulou et al., 2019; Ritala & Gustasson, 2018;
Thomas & Autio, 2014), utilizing an institutional ramework (Siltaloppi
Table 6
Summary o Institutional Work and Actors involved in phase 2 o Florianópolis
(number o repeated practices in the brackets).
CATEGORY ACTORS INSTITUTIONAL WORK
PHASE CREATING Govern/ Advocacy (1), constructing
2–1993 INSTITUTIONS University normative networks (2),
to 2010 constructing Identities (2)
Govern/ Changing normative
Industry associations (1),
constructing normative
associations (5)
Representative Constructing identities (1),
entities educating (1)
MAINTAINING Govern/ Enabling work (6),
INSTITUTIONS University mythologizing (1)
Industry Mythologizing (1)
L. Gonçalves et al. Cities 146 (2024) 104747

Table 7 oundation or the uture development o an innovation and entrepre-

Summary o Institutional Work and Actors involved in phase 3 o Florianópolis neurial ecosystem.
(number o repeated practices in the brackets). Practices associated with “constructing normative networks” were
CATEGORY ACTORS INSTITUTIONAL WORK also evident and occurred in collaboration with the group o supporters,
PHASE CREATING Govern Constructing identities (1)
indicating the initiation o a relationship with this group, which would
3–2011 INSTITUTIONS Industry/ Constructing identities (11), become more signicant in phase 2.
to 2019 University/ educating (6), constructing
Govern normative networks (1), 5.2. Phase 2 - strengthening collaboration
vesting (2)
MAINTAINING Govern/ Enabling work (6),
INSTITUTIONS Industry mythologizing (5), valorizing In the second phase, two signicant patterns emerged. Firstly, there
and demonizing (6), policing was an increase in practices categorized as “Maintaining Institutions,”
(1) primarily involving the group o leaders. The leaders, who initiated the
Govern/ Embedding and routinizing practices in the rst phase, worked in the second phase to sustain them.
University (1), enabling work (6),
mythologizing (3), valorizing
Secondly, there was an increase in practices involving the group o
and demonizing (6) supporters, particularly those related to “Creating Institutions,” indi-
Industry Valorizing and demonizing (1) cating the starting point or this group and the necessity to establish a
common ground to enhance collaboration.
Both cases observed a quest or actors who could bring legitimacy to
et al., 2016; Vargo et al., 2015).
the practices or make them viable through nancial or material re-
The ramework o institutional work, encompassing creation, main-
sources. Within this group, companies began to play a more pronounced
tenance, and disruption (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006), provides an
and active role, joining orces with government and university sectors.
alternative perspective on this process. The examination o the historical
institutionalization o collaboration revealed the identication o three
5.3. Phase 3 - disseminating collaboration
distinct role groups, illustrating how collaboration institutionalizes and
expands to encompass the broader ecosystem. The categorization o
The last phase demonstrated a notable increase in practices related to
these role groups is linked to the nature o actions taken concerning
“Maintaining Institutions,” aligning with the stage o consolidating the
ecosystem development. These three role groups include leaders, sup-
established collaboration rom previous phases. This is underscored by
porters, and the community. Leaders initiate the process and drive initial
actions extending beyond the initial two groups o roles - Leaders and
actions, ollowed by supporters who contribute actions supporting
Supporters - initiating a movement to establish collaboration with the
expansion. Ultimately, the community represents the outermost circle,
broader community.
refecting the broader institutionalization o collaboration within the
Within the practices categorized as “Creating Institutions,” “con-
ecosystem, as depicted in Fig. 1.
structing identities” takes prominence, emphasizing the phase’s
With the history o institutionalization o collaboration being
consolidation o the collaborative environment through a shared iden-
examined through these three groups, the development and the phases
tity that the community can identiy with. The necessity or a shared
o the process have been identied as: 1) Preparing or Collaboration, 2)
identity is also evident in the practice o “mythologizing,” characteristic
Strengthening Collaboration, and 3) Disseminating Collaboration.
o “Maintaining Institutions.” “Mythologizing” incorporates the prac-
tices rom previous phases into the ecosystem’s history, assigning a more
5.1. Phase 1 - preparing for collaboration
signicant role to leaders and supporters and ostering a sense o
belonging within the community.
In this initial phase, the practices primarily involved the group
It is noteworthy that practices associated with “Maintaining In-
identied as leaders in both ecosystems. This group, comprising repre-
stitutions” increased signicantly and primarily involved the groups o
sentatives rom government and university sectors in both Porto Alegre
leaders and supporters. Practices related to “Creating Institutions” also
and Florianópolis, initiated and executed the initial practices. These
existed, predominantly involving the community and supporters. In this
practices align with the institutional works categorized as “Creating
nal phase, practices most evident or the innovation and entrepre-
Institutions.” In both cases, the institutional work o “dening” was
neurial ecosystem’s consolidation were those o “enabling work.”
predominant, signiying a crucial moment to set boundaries and lay the
Concerning practices related to “Disrupting Institutions,” it appears
challenging to identiy them or various reasons. Some practices asso-
ciated with disruption were recognized in the case o Porto Alegre at this
stage, underscoring the need to establish common ground with the
community or collaboration. The ollowing tables (Tables 8 and 9)
illustrate the roles in each phase according to the explained dynamics.
The process commenced with practices aimed at creating collabo-
ration within the leaders’ group. As maintenance practices rst
appeared in this group o leaders, similar practices emerged in the
subsequent group o supporters. Following the same logic, when the
practices o maintaining collaboration began within the supporters
group, practices aimed at creating collaboration emerged within the
community group.
It is crucial to highlight that each phase was characterized by a
greater emphasis on institutional work practices alling under the
category o “Creating Institutions.” In the rst phase, practices related to
creation were almost exclusively within the leaders’ circle. In the second
phase, the signicance o practices related to creating institutions shi-
ted to the supporters’ circle. In the third phase, the relevance o creation
Fig. 1. Circles o roles identied in the urban entrepreneurial and innova- practices was associated with the community circle. Thereore, the
tion ecosystems. evolution o the phases is linked to the expansion o the range o

7
L. Gonçalves et al. Cities 146 (2024) 104747

Table 8 category, and only in the city o Porto Alegre. One possibility is that the
Phases o Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem in Porto Alegre (number o interviews were narrative, and interviewees tend not to recall negative
repeated practices in the brackets). events, which may be a methodological limitation. Another possibility is
CATEGORY ROLES that these practices are not publicly communicated, and the actions
PHASE 1 Preparing for CREATING Leaders (13)
promoted pertain more to the armation o what is being created than
Collaboration - 1995 to 2018 INSTITUTIONS (16) Supporters (3) the denial o what previously existed. In the case o Porto Alegre, the
MAINTAINING Leaders (2) practices aimed to deinstitutionalize the mentality o non-cooperation, a
INSTITUTIONS (2) part o its history (Luvizotto, 2009).
PHASE 2 Strengthening CREATING Leaders (2)
Collaboration - 2018 to 2018 INSTITUTIONS (10) Supporters (5)
Community 6. Conclusions
(3)
MAINTAINING Leaders (4) The paper introduces a novel perspective on understanding the
INSTITUTIONS (5) Supporters (1)
development o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems by
PHASE 3 Disseminating CREATING Supporters (4)
Collaboration - 2018 to 2019 INSTITUTIONS (17) Community
employing an institutional work ramework. The ndings reveal a sys-
(13) tematic approach to the institutionalization o collaboration, impacting
MAINTAINING Leaders (11) the evolution o innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities.
INSTITUTIONS (16) Supporters (5) The practices traverse phases, encompassing preparation, strength-
DISRUPTING Leaders (2)
ening, and dissemination o collaboration, involving diverse roles rom
INSTITUTIONS (2)
leaders to the entire community. This underscores the signicance o
institutions in shaping entrepreneurial ecosystems within cities, as
highlighted by Audretsch, Belitski, and Cherkas (2021).
Table 9
Several patterns in the institutionalization o collaboration process
Phases o Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem in Florianópolis (number o
emerge: 1. The aspiration to be acknowledged as an innovation reer-
repeated practices in the brackets).
ence, with events shaping identities and mythologizing the process. This
CATEGORY ROLES understanding creates a positive cycle, attracting more resources and
PHASE 1 Preparing for CREATING Leaders (10) talents with similar intentions; 2. The promotion o collaboration among
Collaboration - 1960 to 1993 INSTITUTIONS (16) Supporters (1) various actors through the construction o normative networks; 3. The
MAINTAINING Leaders (1)
emphasis on educating all actors about mindset change as a crucial
INSTITUTIONS (1)
PHASE 2 Strengthening CREATING Leaders (5) element; 4. The pivotal role o enabling work as essential support or
Collaboration - 1993 to 2010 INSTITUTIONS (13) Supporters (6) ecosystem development, engaging actors.
Community While the research iners that innovation and entrepreneurial eco-
(2) systems in cities exhibit more practices o institutional disruption, it
MAINTAINING Leaders (7)
INSTITUTIONS (8) Supporters (1)
acknowledges the challenge o validating this due to the lack o mention
PHASE 3 Disseminating CREATING Supporters (1) in narratives. The identied action patterns align with mechanisms
Collaboration - 2011 to 2019 INSTITUTIONS (17) Community acilitating evolutionary collaboration, consistent with the ideas pre-
(20) sented by Szerb, Lauente, Horváth, and Páger (2019).
MAINTAINING Leaders (18)
The paper underscores the untapped potential o institutional work
INSTITUTIONS (16) Supporters
(16) literature connected with innovation, specically in educating actors
Community within innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Recent innovation
(1) literature conrms the ndings, validating the city’s intent to be
recognized as an innovator, the signicance o collaboration, and the
role o enabling work.
institutionalization practices. While knowledge circulates reely in an
In terms o theoretical contributions, the research signicantly ad-
innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem, its development ollows a
vances Institutional Work theory by emphasizing collaboration’s
logical and determined fow.
importance as an institution that can be created. It aligns with key
Upon analyzing Tables 8 and 9, in all phases, it becomes apparent
principles, showcasing active eorts to create, adapt, and modiy insti-
that the circle with more relevance in institutional work practices is the
tutional arrangements. Collaboration becomes a crucial cognitive pillar,
leaders. This characteristic might indicate that the process o institu-
incentivizing entrepreneurial behavior and contributing to the devel-
tionalizing collaboration is still in the setup phase, signiying its estab-
opment o institutional support structures.
lishment. Hence, the cases are in the initial stages o maturity, just
Practical implications emanating rom the research are substantial:
emerging as innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems, as armed by
1. Better prediction o the sequence o stages in an innovation and
some interviewees. Considering that an innovation and entrepreneurial
entrepreneurial ecosystem, elucidating its entire developmental process;
ecosystem in a city is eectively established in the dissemination o
2. Guidance or practitioners, including city managers, policymakers,
collaboration phase, it can be inerred that the analyzed cases are not yet
and ecosystem leaders, to anticipate and oster collaborative eorts
ully mature but in the process o strengthening.
among diverse stakeholders; 3. Insights or managing collaboration,
Additionally, the narrative o the cases and the prominence o certain
creating supportive inrastructure, and ormulating public policies and
labels o institutional work, such as “constructing identities,” “valorizing
governance structures conducive to entrepreneurial and innovative
and demonizing,” “mythologizing,” “constructing normative networks,”
activities.
“educating,” and “enabling work,” suggest several conclusions: 1) The
Limitations include the lack o cultural diversity in the cases,
intention to be recognized as a reerence in innovation, with events
ocusing on similar contexts but oering a glimpse into a common re-
related to the construction o their identities, valuing and mythologizing
ality in global south cities. The absence o more mature cases restricts a
the process, enhancing their images; 2) Constructing networks as a
comprehensive analysis o the process’s evolution over time. A limita-
undamental premise or collaboration; 3) Education as a critical
tion in the chosen unit o analysis is acknowledged, ocusing solely on
element or changing mindsets; and 4) Enabling work as necessary
actors while overlooking other shaping elements in institutionalization.
support or ecosystem development.
Future research avenues could delve into institutionalization o collab-
Lastly, ew events were identied in the “Disrupting Institutions”
oration in dierent contexts, make analogies with theoretical models

8
L. Gonçalves et al.
like diusion o innovation, and explore a practice-based approach.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Gonçalves, Leonardo – Conceptualization, Writing original drat,
Investigation, Methodology, review in the rst round.
Faccin, Kadigia – Conceptualization, Writing original drat, Investi-
gation, Methodology and Review in the second round.
Garay, Jerusa –Writing original drat, Investigation – data collection,
Methodology.
Zarpelon, Felipe – Writing original drat.
Balestrin, Alsones – Validation.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Leonardo Gonçalves: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology,
Writing – original drat. Kadigia Faccin: Conceptualization, Formal
analysis, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision,
Validation, Writing – review & editing. Jerusa Garay: Data curation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original drat.
Felipe Zarpelon: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Meth-
odology, Validation. Alsones Balestrin: Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the ollowing nancial interests/personal re-
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Kadigia Faccin reports nancial support was provided by Coordi-
nation o Higher Education Personnel Improvement. I there are other
authors, they declare that they have no known competing nancial in-
terests or personal relationships that could have appeared to infuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used or the research described in the article.
References
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation and entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct or strategy. Journal of
Management, 43(1), 39–58.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context o industry
creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.
Almpanopoulou, A., Ritala, P., & Blomqvist, K. (2019). Innovation and entrepreneurial
ecosystem emergence barriers: Institutional perspective.
Alvarez, S. A., Young, S. L., & Woolley, J. L. (2015). Opportunities and institutions: A co-
creation story o the king crab industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 95–112.
Asheim, B. T., & Gertler, M. S. (2005). The geography o innovation: Regional innovation
systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., & Cherkas, N. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities:
The role o institutions. PLoS One.
Broccardo, L., Culasso, F., & Mauro, S. G. (2019). Smart city governance: Exploring the
institutional work o multiple actors towards collaboration. International Journal of
Public Sector Management.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Sage.
Connor, T. (2004). Time to scale up cooperation? Trade unions, NGOs, and the
international anti-sweatshop movement. Development in Practice, 14(1–2), 61–70.
Cities 146 (2024) 104747
Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism.
In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 49–77).
Dolbec, P. Y., & Fischer, E. (2015). Reashioning a eld? Connected consumers and
institutional dynamics in markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1447–1468.
Dover, G., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). A gap year or institutional theory: Integrating the
study o institutional work and participatory action research. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 19(4), 305–316.
Engel, J. S. (2015). Global clusters o innovation: Lessons rom Silicon Valley. California
Management Review, 57(2), 36–65.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model o the consumer co-production process. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 97–108.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdor, L. (2000). The dynamics o innovation: From National
Systems and “mode 2” to a triple Helix o university–industry–government relations.
Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity,
specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43(2), 409–429.
Franz, T. (2017). Urban governance and economic development in Medellín: An “urban
miracle”? Latin American Perspectives, 44(2), 52–70.
Glaeser, E. (2012). Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter,
greener, healthier, and happier. Penguin.
Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How rms navigate cooperation and
competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12),
3163–3192.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies or theorizing rom process data. Academy of Management
Review, 24(4), 691–710.
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Reocusing institutional
studies o organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In The Sage
Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215–254), 1.6.
Luvizotto, C. K. (2009). Cultura gaúcha e separatismo no Rio Grande do Sul.
Olsen, R. F., & Ellram, L. M. (1997). Buyer-supplier relationships: Alternative research
approaches. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 3(4), 221–231.
Pawlak, M., & Mica, A. (2017). Coping with the unintended consequences o institutional
work. In New Themes in Institutional Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-organizational collaboration and
the dynamics o institutional elds. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1). no-no.
Pique, J. M., Miralles, F., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2019). Areas o innovation in cities:
The evolution o 22@ Barcelona. International Journal of Knowledge-Based
Development, 10(1), 3–25.
Rantakari, A., & Vaara, E. (2017). Narratives and processuality. In The Sage Handbook of
Process Organization Studies (pp. 271–285).
Reinecke, J., & Lawrence, T. B. (2022). The role o temporality in institutional
stabilization: A process view. Academy of Management Review.
Ritala, P., & Gustasson, R. (2018). Q&A. Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem
research: Where are we now and how do we move orward? Technology Innovation
Management Review, 8(7).
Siltaloppi, J., Koskela-Huotari, K., & Vargo, S. L. (2016). Institutional complexity as a
driver or innovation in service ecosystems. Service Science, 8(3), 333–343.
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization o entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.
Styhre, A. (2014). Gender equality as institutional work: The case o the Church o
Sweden. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(2), 105–120.
Szerb, L., Lauente, E., Horváth, K., & Páger, B. (2019). The relevance o quantity and
quality entrepreneurship or regional perormance: The moderating role o the
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1308–1320. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00343404.2018.151048
Thomas, L. D., & Autio, E. (2014, January). The th acet: The ecosystem as an
organizational eld. In DRUID society conference (pp. 16–18).
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in
interorganizational collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1),
5–31.
Willems, J. J., & Giezen, M. (2022). Understanding the institutional work o boundary
objects in climate-proong cities: The case o Amsterdam rainproo. Urban Climate,
44.
Willmott, H. (2011). “Institutional work” or what? Problems and prospects o
institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 67–72.
Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and
actors: The case o a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45
(1), 234–254.
Zvolska, L., Palgan, Y. V., & Mont, O. (2019). How do sharing organisations create and
disrupt institutions? Towards a ramework or institutional work in the sharing
economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 667–676.