Revitalising the periphery: How support organisations drive the inclusive evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems
基于对英国伯明翰一家难民创业支持组织的三年民族志研究，揭示了支持组织通过四阶段边界工作推动创业生态系统从边缘到中心的包容性演化过程，为政策制定者和实践者提供启示。
This study investigates how support organisations for marginalised entrepreneurs (SOMEs), typically peripheral members within entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs), facilitate the inclusive evolution of EEs. Employing boundary theory and ethnographic research conducted over three years within a refugee entrepreneurship support organisation in Birmingham, UK, this study identifies a four-stage boundary work process: Knowledge brokering, Boundary buffer spacing, Boundary object developing, and Boundary practice institutionalising. These interconnected strategic stages enable SOMEs to reconfigure the knowledge-cognitive, resource-opportunity, and social network exclusionary boundaries of EEs progressively, facilitating EEs' adaptation to marginalised entrepreneurs' diverse needs and pursuits within the overarching growth-orientation of EEs. Theoretically, this study introduces a “periphery-to-centre” model of inclusive evolution, expanding the prevalent centre-driven perspective of EE inclusive evolution, and demonstrates how inclusion could coexist with EE's growth-orientation because of SOMEs' boundary work. The study also unfolds enablers for such effective boundary work, emphasising the effects of SOMEs' dual knowledge capabilities, dual network embeddedness, institutional rhetoric, and the path dependency of evolution. Executive summary In entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) research, an important but overlooked issue is how ecosystems can become more inclusive, allowing entrepreneurs from different backgrounds pursuing varied objectives to obtain the necessary support and resources. However, given that EEs often prioritise innovation and high-growth ventures, their ideologies and structures are hardly responsive to diverse entrepreneurs' distinctive pursuits and needs for support, causing their marginalisation. Despite community-based and non-profit support organisations for marginalised entrepreneurs (SOMEs) emerging to address this situation, their strategies and role in EEs' inclusion evolution remain understudied. Addressing this gap is critical as enhanced inclusion not only advances social equity but also strengthens EEs' resilience and innovation through the integration of diverse entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activities. Leveraging boundary theory to conceptualise SOME's boundary work and how it affects the exclusionary boundaries (knowledge-cognitive, resource-opportunity, and social network boundaries) of EE, this paper develops a four-stage process model based on a three-year ethnographic study of a refugee entrepreneurship support organisation in Birmingham, UK. The study conceptualises a “periphery-to-centre” inclusive evolution pathway driven by SOMEs, expanding beyond the dominant “centre-to-periphery” evolutionary perspective prevalent in existing EE literature. SOMEs leverage their distinctive position on the EE's internal periphery to simultaneously understand both marginalised entrepreneurs' distinctive needs and aspirations, and the operational dynamics and value orientations of EEs. Based on this dual understanding, rather than directly challenging the growth-oriented values of EEs, SOMEs strategically mobilise these established priorities to legitimise their innovative boundary work, gradually restructuring exclusionary boundaries while respecting existing EEs' priorities. This study reveals four interconnected stages through which this boundary work unfolds, with corresponding evolution of EEs' exclusionary boundaries: (1) Knowledge brokering - translating MEs' values and needs into EE-compatible discourse, creating initial shifts in EE members' knowledge-cognitive boundary and establishing sole resource conduits into EE through SOMEs; (2) Boundary buffer spacing - establishing specialised subsystems with complementary actors (social service providers outside EE) to deal with marginalised entrepreneurs' distinctive needs, forming externally-driven temporary expansion of resource and network boundaries while reducing EE members' perceived risks in supporting MEs; (3) Boundary object developing - creating collaborative initiatives that satisfy diverse stakeholders' interests, enabling internally-driven structural boundary expansion with bidirectional knowledge exchange between EE members and marginalised entrepreneurs, and facilitating direct resource and network access in EE; and (4) Boundary practice institutionalising - embedding accumulated boundary practices across multiple ecosystem levels, transforming temporary interventions into self-sustaining and self-expanding boundary changes across all dimensions. The study also identifies critical enabling conditions for effective boundary work: SOMEs' dual knowledge capabilities; their dual networks with both social service providers and EE members; supportive rhetoric for economic diversity and inclusion in the institutional environment; and path-dependent factors where early boundary changes enable subsequent evolution. Moreover, this study challenges the binary opposition between growth orientation and inclusion in EEs, showing how boundary changes create structures facilitating bidirectional adaptation without sacrificing the growth objectives of EEs or forcing marginalised entrepreneurs to conform to mainstream definitions of success. These insights offer important implications for policymakers and practitioners. The study suggests that supporting “periphery-to-centre” evolution through stable funding and supportive rhetoric, while providing SOMEs with a blueprint for conducting progressive boundary work.