Reverse Legitimation: A Bottom-Up Pathway for Peripheral Actors in Closed Institutional Fields

Authors

  • Zhihan Hong Business School, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/250d9833

Keywords:

Reverse Legitimation, Institutional entrepreneurship, Value co-creation, Triple helix model, Organizational Legitimacy.

Abstract

In the closed institutional field of universities, a few peripheral actors have successfully entered the field and achieved legal operations, but most similar organizations are still excluded by institutional barriers. The existing theory has defects: the triple helix model presupposes symmetrical power, the institutional entrepreneurship theory has elite bias, and the value co-creation theory does not touch the platform construction. This paper focuses on how the vulnerable and marginalized actors start from zero legitimacy and obtain the official recognition of closed public institutions through bottom-up actions. Based on the field observation of the strategic transformation of a small popular piano institution in Chinese universities, this paper carries out theoretical construction, puts forward the concept of "Reverse Legitimation", and constructs a three-stage process model of "peripheral exploration, pain point diagnosis, and ecological construction". The study found that the existence of action in this path preceded the acquisition of legitimacy. This concept supplements the time dimension for the theory of organizational legitimacy, extends value co-creation to the level of platform construction, and provides a supplementary explanation for the pre-institutionalization stage of the triple helix model.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Zhou G L. Modernization of higher education governance in China: current situation, problems and Countermeasures. China Higher Education Research, 2014, (9): 16-25.

[2] Schebesc K B, Soim H F, & Blaga R L. The triple-helix model as foundation of innovative entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and Technology, 2024, 4(2): 104-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEET-08-2024-0026

[3] Battilana J, Leca B, & Boxenbaum E. How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 2009, 3(1): 65-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903053598

[4] Li X, & Bosma N. Institutional theory in social entrepreneurship: A review and consideration of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 2025, 200(3): 529-556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05882-x

[5] Toepfer F, & Velamuri V K. Legitimacy building in entrepreneurial ecosystems - a process perspective for sustainable entrepreneurs. Managerial and Decision Economics, 2025, 46(3): e4518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4518

[6] Prahalad C K, & Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2004, 18(3): 5-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015

[7] Vasil M M, Chopdar P K, Buhalis D, et al. Value co-creation in the sharing economy: Revisiting the past to inform future. Psychology & Marketing, 2024, 41(7): 1443-1468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21990

[8] Shyiramunda T, & van den Bersselaar D. Local community development and higher education institutions: Moving from the triple helix to the quadruple helix model. International Review of Education, 2024, 70(1): 51-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-023-10037-7

[9] Suchman M C. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(3): 571-610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788

[10] Carayannis E G, & Campbell D F J. Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 2009, 46(3/4): 201-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374

[11] Van Schalkwyk R D, & Steenkamp R J. A conceptual and case study review of the quadruple helix model of innovation. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2024, 35(2): 49-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7166/35-2-2908

[12] DiMaggio P J, & Powell W W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48(2): 147-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

[13] Mair J, Wolf M, & Seelos C. Scaffolding: A process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale societies. Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59(6): 2021-2044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0725

[14] Canales R, Bradbury M, Sheldon A, et al. Evidence in practice: How structural and programmatic scaffolds enable collaboration in international development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2024, 69(3): 655-710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392241241483

[15] Frederiksen N, & Gottlieb S C. Integrating institutional theory into a construction management course: A scaffolding perspective and implications for engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2025, 50(3): 445-462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2593472

[16] Weerts D J, & Sandmann L R. Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 2010, 81(6): 702-727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2010.0011

[17] Wahyuni A S, Malovics G, Müller A, et al. The role of boundary spanners in institutionalizing university-community engagement: Insights from a hostile setting. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 2024, 12(1): 127562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37333/001c.127562

[18] Alsayed N M, & Sweis R. The impact of boundary spanning on education: A systematic literature review. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 2025, 88(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906251345799

[19] Kansheba J M P, Fubah C N, Tabas A M, et al. Strategic pathways for new venture legitimacy within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. European Management Journal, 2025, 43(1).

[20] Spanuth A, & Urbano D. Exploring social enterprise legitimacy within ecosystems from an institutional approach: A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2024, 26(2): 211-231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12349

[21] Donaldson C, Villagrasa J, & Theodoraki C. Inside-out and outside-in: How entrepreneurial ecosystems can build legitimacy through signaling. Journal of Small Business Management, 2025, 63(4): 1552-1593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2024.2394499

Downloads

Published

03-11-2026

Issue

Section

Articles