Small Firmsisbj
https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426211061531
International Small Business Journal: 
Researching Entrepreneurship
2022, Vol. 40(8) 966 –990
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:  
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02662426211061531
journals.sagepub.com/home/isb
965394 ISB0010.1177/02662426211061531International Small Business JournalNiemi et al.
research-article2022
Article
Immanent sensemaking by
entrepreneurs and the
interpretation of consumer context
Laura Niemi and Pekka Stenholm
University of Turku, Finland
Henri Hakala
LUT University, Finland
Jenni Kantola
University of Vaasa, Finland
Abstract
Contemporary research has highlighted entrepreneurial sensemaking as a dynamic, socially em-
bedded action undertaken to reduce uncertainty, but scholars have yet to fully address the role of
routine-like immanent sensemaking employed when entrepreneurs try to understand their task
environment. Defined as a routinised way of making sense of how to proceed in novel situations, we
investigate how entrepreneurs use immanent sensemaking as they continuously seek to make sense
of their consumer context. Our study reveals that entrepreneurs absorb individual, social and
cultural signals from consumers to support their judgement and action. The findings suggest that
entrepreneurs use immanent sensemaking not only for unusual events but also construct multilevel
frames to understand their customers as individual, social and cultural beings in their everyday
encounters.
Keywords
entrepreneur, sensemaking, immanent sensemaking, framing, consumer context
Introduction
Entrepreneurs seek and create circumstances under which entrepreneurial outcomes – essentially in
the form of new products, services or business models – can be profitably introduced to markets
(Venkataraman and Sarasvathy, 2001). This pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities depends on the
Corresponding author:
Laura Niemi, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Turku, School of Economics,
Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, Turku 20500, Finland.
Email: laura.niemi@utu.fi
insights, sensemaking and actions of the entrepreneurs involved (McMullen and Dimov, 2013;
McMullen and Shepherd, 2006; Sarasvathy, 2001). Entrepreneurs apply sensemaking to consumer
needs to understand which offerings will be most attractive to the customer (Selden and Fletcher,
2015). Sensemaking is continuously and socially shaped, discussed and interpreted (Dimov, 2007)
and is a crucial component in both understanding and resolving problems (Kimmit and Muñoz,
2018).
Nevertheless, the interpretation of consumer desires and the act of understanding their needs is
shaped by uncertainty. In the sensemaking literature, uncertainty and ambiguity are typically
embedded in organisational contexts. Disruptive events occurring in a venture’s environment
challenge standard ways of running a business (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Sandberg and
Tsoukas, 2015). The issue with this approach being that it treats uncertainty as complete un-
knowingness (Townsend et al., 2018) and therefore, neglects the immanent sensemaking entrepre-
neurs utilise when faced by lesser degrees of uncertainty (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015). In everyday
interactions with customers, uncertainty arises when the entrepreneur does not know the precise nature
of customer needs or how to address them (Packard et al., 2017). It is at this point they call upon
immanent sensemaking to understand novel or unexpected cues in consumer behaviour to continue to
enact with the environment (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995) and envision the workings
of the consumer’s world (Hill and Levenhagen, 1995). We reference the arguments of Sandberg and
Tsoukas (2015) in suggesting that the understanding applied by entrepreneurs is characterised by
routines; this defines immanent sensemaking as routinised sensemaking and so guides them upon how
to proceed in novel situations.
Routines refer to the standard-like ways utilised to process and rationalise one’s surroundings.
Hence, routines reduce uncertainty when entrepreneurs face novel situations (Gime´nez Roche and
Calcei, 2021). Maitlis (2005) emphasises that sensemaking enables individuals to work with un-
certainty by rationalising their surroundings and illuminating the actions necessary to navigate such
uncertainty (Fisher et al., 2020). This sensemaking is immanent and involves the concept of absorbed
coping, according to which individuals become immersed in action without the awareness of being
involved (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2011). As most aspects of organising are characterised by routines,
rather than interruptions (Jones and Li, 2017; Sandberg &Tsoukas, 2015, 2020), it is logical to address
immanent sensemaking as the mundane, routinised interpretation of surroundings. Accordingly, when
facing new situations, entrepreneurs make sense, start connecting the dots (Baron, 2006) and si-
multaneously react to a particular situation as it unfolds.
This article investigates how entrepreneurs make sense of their task environment, the core of
which consists of current and potential customers (Foss et al., 2019). By drawing on immanent
sensemaking as an everyday practice and analysing the narratives of 10 entrepreneurs operating in
the field of tourism, our underlying research objective is to explore how they seek to understand
customers in order to serve their needs. While prior studies have used stories, narratives and rhetoric
to identify the activities undertaken to acquire and negotiate legitimacy with stakeholders (Holt and
Macpherson, 2010; Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Maclean et al., 2012; VanWerven et al., 2015), our
study explores the manners in which entrepreneurs use immanent sensemaking to create frames to
reveal consumer needs. Entrepreneurs involved in tourism deal with a wide range of consumers,
including potential customers, from diverse cultural backgrounds and must thus, routinely make
sense of consumers and their needs. The tourists, who are seeking new experiences often have
different backgrounds to the entrepreneurs who facilitate these experiences so the latter must adjust
their own understanding of the world to account for the social context of the consumer. Prior
research has addressed issues including the role of physical, scenic and geographic components in
consumer consumption decisions (Lerner and Haber, 2001); yet, there is relatively little attention
2 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
Niemi et al. 967
Immanent sensemaking by
entrepreneurs and the
interpretation of consumer context
Laura Niemi and Pekka Stenholm
University of Turku, Finland
Henri Hakala
LUT University, Finland
Jenni Kantola
University of Vaasa, Finland
Abstract
Contemporary research has highlighted entrepreneurial sensemaking as a dynamic, socially em-
bedded action undertaken to reduce uncertainty, but scholars have yet to fully address the role of
routine-like immanent sensemaking employed when entrepreneurs try to understand their task
environment. Defined as a routinised way of making sense of how to proceed in novel situations, we
investigate how entrepreneurs use immanent sensemaking as they continuously seek to make sense
of their consumer context. Our study reveals that entrepreneurs absorb individual, social and
cultural signals from consumers to support their judgement and action. The findings suggest that
entrepreneurs use immanent sensemaking not only for unusual events but also construct multilevel
frames to understand their customers as individual, social and cultural beings in their everyday
encounters.
Keywords
entrepreneur, sensemaking, immanent sensemaking, framing, consumer context
Introduction
Entrepreneurs seek and create circumstances under which entrepreneurial outcomes – essentially in
the form of new products, services or business models – can be profitably introduced to markets
(Venkataraman and Sarasvathy, 2001). This pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities depends on the
Corresponding author:
Laura Niemi, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Turku, School of Economics,
Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, Turku 20500, Finland.
Email: laura.niemi@utu.fi
insights, sensemaking and actions of the entrepreneurs involved (McMullen and Dimov, 2013;
McMullen and Shepherd, 2006; Sarasvathy, 2001). Entrepreneurs apply sensemaking to consumer
needs to understand which offerings will be most attractive to the customer (Selden and Fletcher,
2015). Sensemaking is continuously and socially shaped, discussed and interpreted (Dimov, 2007)
and is a crucial component in both understanding and resolving problems (Kimmit and Muñoz,
2018).
Nevertheless, the interpretation of consumer desires and the act of understanding their needs is
shaped by uncertainty. In the sensemaking literature, uncertainty and ambiguity are typically
embedded in organisational contexts. Disruptive events occurring in a venture’s environment
challenge standard ways of running a business (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Sandberg and
Tsoukas, 2015). The issue with this approach being that it treats uncertainty as complete un-
knowingness (Townsend et al., 2018) and therefore, neglects the immanent sensemaking entrepre-
neurs utilise when faced by lesser degrees of uncertainty (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015). In everyday
interactions with customers, uncertainty arises when the entrepreneur does not know the precise nature
of customer needs or how to address them (Packard et al., 2017). It is at this point they call upon
immanent sensemaking to understand novel or unexpected cues in consumer behaviour to continue to
enact with the environment (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995) and envision the workings
of the consumer’s world (Hill and Levenhagen, 1995). We reference the arguments of Sandberg and
Tsoukas (2015) in suggesting that the understanding applied by entrepreneurs is characterised by
routines; this defines immanent sensemaking as routinised sensemaking and so guides them upon how
to proceed in novel situations.
Routines refer to the standard-like ways utilised to process and rationalise one’s surroundings.
Hence, routines reduce uncertainty when entrepreneurs face novel situations (Gime´nez Roche and
Calcei, 2021). Maitlis (2005) emphasises that sensemaking enables individuals to work with un-
certainty by rationalising their surroundings and illuminating the actions necessary to navigate such
uncertainty (Fisher et al., 2020). This sensemaking is immanent and involves the concept of absorbed
coping, according to which individuals become immersed in action without the awareness of being
involved (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2011). As most aspects of organising are characterised by routines,
rather than interruptions (Jones and Li, 2017; Sandberg &Tsoukas, 2015, 2020), it is logical to address
immanent sensemaking as the mundane, routinised interpretation of surroundings. Accordingly, when
facing new situations, entrepreneurs make sense, start connecting the dots (Baron, 2006) and si-
multaneously react to a particular situation as it unfolds.
This article investigates how entrepreneurs make sense of their task environment, the core of
which consists of current and potential customers (Foss et al., 2019). By drawing on immanent
sensemaking as an everyday practice and analysing the narratives of 10 entrepreneurs operating in
the field of tourism, our underlying research objective is to explore how they seek to understand
customers in order to serve their needs. While prior studies have used stories, narratives and rhetoric
to identify the activities undertaken to acquire and negotiate legitimacy with stakeholders (Holt and
Macpherson, 2010; Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Maclean et al., 2012; VanWerven et al., 2015), our
study explores the manners in which entrepreneurs use immanent sensemaking to create frames to
reveal consumer needs. Entrepreneurs involved in tourism deal with a wide range of consumers,
including potential customers, from diverse cultural backgrounds and must thus, routinely make
sense of consumers and their needs. The tourists, who are seeking new experiences often have
different backgrounds to the entrepreneurs who facilitate these experiences so the latter must adjust
their own understanding of the world to account for the social context of the consumer. Prior
research has addressed issues including the role of physical, scenic and geographic components in
consumer consumption decisions (Lerner and Haber, 2001); yet, there is relatively little attention
2 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
968 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
afforded to how entrepreneurs interpret the differing ways in which consumers assess a valuable
experience. This article contributes to this gap by arguing that immanent sensemaking enables
entrepreneurs to understand and simplify the complex and dynamic nature of the consumer en-
vironment. By so doing we respond to the call to understand the immersive encounters involved in
interactive framing (Reinecke and Ansari, 2021).
Our findings contribute to discussions on sensemaking as a socially immersed activity (Hoyte
et al., 2019; Kimmitt and Muñoz, 2018; Reinecke and Ansari, 2021) that is more immanent
(Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015) than an action triggered by a crisis. Entrepreneurs use at least three
levels of frames when they employ sensemaking to understand the consumer task environment.
Such sensemaking frames the recognition of how consumers use products and services to express
themselves and their social selves, and how such consumption reflects wider trends. Moreover,
going beyond the simple identification of stereotypical consumers, entrepreneurs create multidi-
mensional market spaces within which they can act. These frames are dynamic and offer support
when navigating the uncertainty inherent in routinised encounters by locating assumptions about
consumers and their needs.
This article is structured as follows. First, we introduce sensemaking and framing as our the-
oretical basis. Second, we describe our data and methodological choices. Thereafter we present our
findings and discuss the role of sensemaking frames for the understanding of the interactive aspect
of the entrepreneurial process. Finally, we present our framework of entrepreneur’s immanent
sensemaking, discuss some limitations of our study and highlight the role of immanent sensemaking
in understanding how entrepreneurs interpret their consumer environment.
Theoretical grounding
Sensemaking
In essence, sensemaking is a continuous activity through which individuals work to understand novel
issues or events triggered by uncertainty (Weick, 1995). Different streams of research demonstrate
considerable variation in their approaches to sensemaking (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Some
interpret sensemaking as a cognitive process occurring chiefly in an individual’s mind (Klein et al.,
2006; Starbuck and Milliken, 1988). Others argue that sensemaking is a product of interactions
between people with this interpretation relating more closely to social processes and the concomitant
consequences of adopted actions (Maitlis, 2005; Porac et al., 1989; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005).
Such differences notwithstanding, the approaches have common elements. First, sensemaking is
understood to be triggered by moments of uncertainty (Hill and Levenhagen, 1995). Those facing
uncertainty examine the nature of events and how they will affect subsequent action thereby, often
creating a significant discrepancy between their prior expectations and observed experience (Maitlis
and Christianson, 2014). Second, sensemaking is a dynamic process (Balogun and Johnson, 2004;
Cornelissen, 2012; Gephart et al., 2010; Sonenshein, 2010; Weick, 1995) that unfolds as a sequence
(Weick et al., 2005) that both precedes and follows decision-making (Maitlis, 2005). In other words,
sensemaking feeds into decision-making, but because decision-making often spurs surprises and
confusion, decisions necessitate more sensemaking. Third, sensemaking is social (Kimmitt and
Muñoz, 2018), in that an individual’s thoughts, feelings and actions are influenced by the actual,
imagined or implied presence of others, even when individuals engage in making sense on their own
(Maitlis, 2005). Finally, sensemaking is a continuous effort directed at understanding connections
between people, places and events and acting effectively in a complicated world (Klein et al., 2006).
Niemi et al. 3
Niemi et al. 969
afforded to how entrepreneurs interpret the differing ways in which consumers assess a valuable
experience. This article contributes to this gap by arguing that immanent sensemaking enables
entrepreneurs to understand and simplify the complex and dynamic nature of the consumer en-
vironment. By so doing we respond to the call to understand the immersive encounters involved in
interactive framing (Reinecke and Ansari, 2021).
Our findings contribute to discussions on sensemaking as a socially immersed activity (Hoyte
et al., 2019; Kimmitt and Muñoz, 2018; Reinecke and Ansari, 2021) that is more immanent
(Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015) than an action triggered by a crisis. Entrepreneurs use at least three
levels of frames when they employ sensemaking to understand the consumer task environment.
Such sensemaking frames the recognition of how consumers use products and services to express
themselves and their social selves, and how such consumption reflects wider trends. Moreover,
going beyond the simple identification of stereotypical consumers, entrepreneurs create multidi-
mensional market spaces within which they can act. These frames are dynamic and offer support
when navigating the uncertainty inherent in routinised encounters by locating assumptions about
consumers and their needs.
This article is structured as follows. First, we introduce sensemaking and framing as our the-
oretical basis. Second, we describe our data and methodological choices. Thereafter we present our
findings and discuss the role of sensemaking frames for the understanding of the interactive aspect
of the entrepreneurial process. Finally, we present our framework of entrepreneur’s immanent
sensemaking, discuss some limitations of our study and highlight the role of immanent sensemaking
in understanding how entrepreneurs interpret their consumer environment.
Theoretical grounding
Sensemaking
In essence, sensemaking is a continuous activity through which individuals work to understand novel
issues or events triggered by uncertainty (Weick, 1995). Different streams of research demonstrate
considerable variation in their approaches to sensemaking (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Some
interpret sensemaking as a cognitive process occurring chiefly in an individual’s mind (Klein et al.,
2006; Starbuck and Milliken, 1988). Others argue that sensemaking is a product of interactions
between people with this interpretation relating more closely to social processes and the concomitant
consequences of adopted actions (Maitlis, 2005; Porac et al., 1989; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005).
Such differences notwithstanding, the approaches have common elements. First, sensemaking is
understood to be triggered by moments of uncertainty (Hill and Levenhagen, 1995). Those facing
uncertainty examine the nature of events and how they will affect subsequent action thereby, often
creating a significant discrepancy between their prior expectations and observed experience (Maitlis
and Christianson, 2014). Second, sensemaking is a dynamic process (Balogun and Johnson, 2004;
Cornelissen, 2012; Gephart et al., 2010; Sonenshein, 2010; Weick, 1995) that unfolds as a sequence
(Weick et al., 2005) that both precedes and follows decision-making (Maitlis, 2005). In other words,
sensemaking feeds into decision-making, but because decision-making often spurs surprises and
confusion, decisions necessitate more sensemaking. Third, sensemaking is social (Kimmitt and
Muñoz, 2018), in that an individual’s thoughts, feelings and actions are influenced by the actual,
imagined or implied presence of others, even when individuals engage in making sense on their own
(Maitlis, 2005). Finally, sensemaking is a continuous effort directed at understanding connections
between people, places and events and acting effectively in a complicated world (Klein et al., 2006).
Niemi et al. 3
Immanent sensemaking
Themajority of research on sensemaking connects sensemaking with various types of crises, be they
financial (Ho¨llerer and Jancsary, 2018), organisational failure (Maitlis and Lawrence, 2003) or
natural disasters (Harries et al., 2018; Olcott and Oliver, 2014). Those crises are often described as
disruptive events that cause organisations and individuals to explain and unfold the event and its
outcomes (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1988). However, entrepreneurs are forced to
continuously navigate uncertainty (Fisher et al., 2020) to make sense of novel or unexpected cues
inherent in regular types of consumer behaviour. Maitlis (2005) emphasises that sensemaking
enables individuals to work with uncertainty by creating rational accounts of their surroundings.
Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) introduced immanent sensemaking as a response to the strong
focus on distinct disruptive episodes which trigger sensemaking. According to Sandberg and
Tsoukas (2020), immanent sensemaking is practical and by undertaking different tasks, individuals
adjust their actions based on sensory and verbal information gained through interaction. Never-
theless, their approach remains close to the traditional field of sensemaking that focuses on how
meaning is constructed and transmitted (Garfinkel, 1967; Weick, 1969). In line with calls to ap-
proach sensemaking as a continuous action (Gephart et al., 2010; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014),
our focus on immanent sensemaking highlights the everyday practices through which actors
interact with, interpret and account for their experience of reality (Garfinkel, 1967). Sandberg and
Tsoukas (2015) argue that most aspects of organising are characterised by routines rather than
interrupted activities requiring to be restarted. However, doing things routinely does not indicate
that actors are sense-less or mind-less. In contrast, sense is made of something in ‘a mode of
engagement whereby actors are immersed in practice without being aware of their involvement:
they spontaneously respond to the developing situation at hand’ (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2011:
344). Consequently, their everyday task environment requires entrepreneurs to simultaneously
make sense of their customers and their reactions to the actions of the entrepreneurs as the
interaction unfolds.
Sensemaking creates order from confusion and involves disrupting the status quo and creating
disorder, at least temporarily. Nevertheless, sensemaking is also concerned with constructing new
meanings, especially those that underpin new ways of understanding (Maitlis and Christianson,
2014). By going beyond cognition, sensemaking involves the enactment of people, places and
events (Sutcliffe, 2013; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). That enactment is premised on the idea
that people play a key role in creating the environment in which they operate (Orton, 2000; Weick,
1988; Weick 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Accordingly, sensemaking is the means by which ‘people
create and maintain an intersubjective world’ (Balogun and Johnson, 2004: 524) and ‘produce,
negotiate, and sustain a shared sense of meaning’ (Gephart et al., 2010: 285).
Immanent sensemaking and framing
Entrepreneurs continuously operate under conditions of uncertainty. Without knowing clearly
which information is relevant (Dew and Sarasvathy, 2007), their action to achieve a desired future is
based on observations (Kirzner, 1985). Therefore, entrepreneurs should not be regarded purely
analytically, as objectively rational, or be treated as goal-setting agents. Instead, they are best
understood as interpretive agents (Gilbert-Saad et al., 2018) who utilise knowledge (Dimov, 2020;
Randall et al., 2014) to exercise creative judgement. That is also how entrepreneurs create novel
products and services (Chiles et al., 2010; Erikson and Korsgard, 2016).
While entrepreneurs are aware of the skills and resources they possess, the immanent sense-
making of the task environment helps to match and adjust how those skills and resources are
4 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
970 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
employed. Previous research acknowledges the importance of interaction with networks, places and
communities (McKeever et al., 2015; Shepherd, 2015) in knowledge acquisition (Priem et al., 2012)
whilst entrepreneurs also apply their decision-making ability to co-create social artefacts and control
an unpredictable future (Dew et al., 2015; Sarasvathy, 2001). Alternatively, they employ the
available resources to unlock new sources of value (Baker and Nelson, 2005). Entrepreneurs
undertake practical immanent sensemaking to interact with and interpret their task environment; this
kind of sensemaking can be routinised and adjusted (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015). When making
decisions, actions are based on available knowledge (Shackle, 1961) that often depends on in-
teractions with the environment (Anderson, 2003; Tribble, 2005).
The act of framing, that is, the adjustment of language and social interactions (Cornelissen and
Werner, 2014), allows entrepreneurs to organise their reality (Tuchman, 1978) and interpret novel
information (Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000; Shah et al., 2002). Individuals use frames as part of their
immanent sensemaking to simplify and attend to aspects of their environment (Kaplan, 2008) or
draw inferences in specific contexts (Benner and Tripsas, 2012). Furthermore, framing is used to
support assumptions about unfamiliar issues (Weick, 1995) and predict the consequences of actions
(Starbuck andMilliken, 1988). Sensemaking goes beyond cognition and interpretation as it involves
the active authoring of events and frames for understanding (Sutcliffe, 2013; Weick, 1995; Weick
et al., 2005). Hence, sensemaking is about framing a given context (Weick, 1995) and is, therefore,
intertwined with individual judgement and action (Gheondea-Eladi, 2016). When combined with
immanent sensemaking, such framing creates a new reality in the present, founded on things turning
out in a certain way. It follows that the image of the future cannot remain an immediate state of mind,
since it needs to be communicated to others for it to be seen (Dimov, 2017). Frames are not neutral
but commensurate with the perspectives held by the entrepreneur (Purdy et al., 2017); they guide the
perception and representation of social reality and shape the perceptions individuals adopt to
interpret the world. Accordingly, frames are generated during an interaction to make sense of what is
occurring (Goffman, 1974). In turn, what is occurring affects the frames relied upon by the en-
trepreneur. Sandberg and Tsoukas (2020) point out that immanent sensemaking permits entre-
preneurs to routinely undertake a framing exercise as they adjust their actions based on sensory and
verbal information acquired through interaction.
Methodology, research design and methods
Methodology
Within this study, we adopt an interpretative research stance enacted through a qualitative
methodology. Our approach is aligned with a social constructionist perspective appropriate for
studying the language through which perceptions of the social world are constructed This per-
spective emphasises social practices and everyday interactions between people and how they use
language to construct their reality (Burr, 2003). From a social constructionist perspective, indi-
viduals develop understandings of themselves and their reality through interaction and interpre-
tation. (Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009). As our research objective is to analyse the meanings
individuals attribute to their sensemaking activities in a particular context, this interpretative re-
search approach enables us to explore, evaluate and analyse how our respondents routinely engage
with and perceive their task environment. These kinds of interactions are difficult to study em-
pirically because they do not have clear beginning or end. Therefore, the role of language is essential
for our research.
Niemi et al. 5
Niemi et al. 971
employed. Previous research acknowledges the importance of interaction with networks, places and
communities (McKeever et al., 2015; Shepherd, 2015) in knowledge acquisition (Priem et al., 2012)
whilst entrepreneurs also apply their decision-making ability to co-create social artefacts and control
an unpredictable future (Dew et al., 2015; Sarasvathy, 2001). Alternatively, they employ the
available resources to unlock new sources of value (Baker and Nelson, 2005). Entrepreneurs
undertake practical immanent sensemaking to interact with and interpret their task environment; this
kind of sensemaking can be routinised and adjusted (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015). When making
decisions, actions are based on available knowledge (Shackle, 1961) that often depends on in-
teractions with the environment (Anderson, 2003; Tribble, 2005).
The act of framing, that is, the adjustment of language and social interactions (Cornelissen and
Werner, 2014), allows entrepreneurs to organise their reality (Tuchman, 1978) and interpret novel
information (Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000; Shah et al., 2002). Individuals use frames as part of their
immanent sensemaking to simplify and attend to aspects of their environment (Kaplan, 2008) or
draw inferences in specific contexts (Benner and Tripsas, 2012). Furthermore, framing is used to
support assumptions about unfamiliar issues (Weick, 1995) and predict the consequences of actions
(Starbuck andMilliken, 1988). Sensemaking goes beyond cognition and interpretation as it involves
the active authoring of events and frames for understanding (Sutcliffe, 2013; Weick, 1995; Weick
et al., 2005). Hence, sensemaking is about framing a given context (Weick, 1995) and is, therefore,
intertwined with individual judgement and action (Gheondea-Eladi, 2016). When combined with
immanent sensemaking, such framing creates a new reality in the present, founded on things turning
out in a certain way. It follows that the image of the future cannot remain an immediate state of mind,
since it needs to be communicated to others for it to be seen (Dimov, 2017). Frames are not neutral
but commensurate with the perspectives held by the entrepreneur (Purdy et al., 2017); they guide the
perception and representation of social reality and shape the perceptions individuals adopt to
interpret the world. Accordingly, frames are generated during an interaction to make sense of what is
occurring (Goffman, 1974). In turn, what is occurring affects the frames relied upon by the en-
trepreneur. Sandberg and Tsoukas (2020) point out that immanent sensemaking permits entre-
preneurs to routinely undertake a framing exercise as they adjust their actions based on sensory and
verbal information acquired through interaction.
Methodology, research design and methods
Methodology
Within this study, we adopt an interpretative research stance enacted through a qualitative
methodology. Our approach is aligned with a social constructionist perspective appropriate for
studying the language through which perceptions of the social world are constructed This per-
spective emphasises social practices and everyday interactions between people and how they use
language to construct their reality (Burr, 2003). From a social constructionist perspective, indi-
viduals develop understandings of themselves and their reality through interaction and interpre-
tation. (Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009). As our research objective is to analyse the meanings
individuals attribute to their sensemaking activities in a particular context, this interpretative re-
search approach enables us to explore, evaluate and analyse how our respondents routinely engage
with and perceive their task environment. These kinds of interactions are difficult to study em-
pirically because they do not have clear beginning or end. Therefore, the role of language is essential
for our research.
Niemi et al. 5
Data and data collection
We use the experiences of tourism entrepreneurs to illustrate how they make sense of their task
environment. Usually, such entrepreneurs are locally embedded and their offerings are commonly
connected to specific locations and local resources, meaning they are well placed to identify the
means of action to adopt. Nevertheless, they must continuously be aware of their task environment
and adjust routines to meet the needs of tourists, who might have very different cultural and social
backgrounds. A further consideration is that tourists are not regular customers in that they visit
attractions infrequently or perhaps only once during their vacation. The tourism context should thus,
be one in which immanent sensemaking by the entrepreneurs involved is common. It should then be
feasible to unfold the frames guiding immanent sensemaking.
The study is based on data from entrepreneurs perceived as having created somewhat novel offerings
around a specialist service provided to the market. Those speciality services ranged from showcasing
rare natural phenomena and exciting sporting activities to unique presentations of food, accommodation
or traditions. The first round of data was supplied by an official travel association called Visit Finland,
which gathers and shares information on all aspects of tourism in Finland. The data available includes
publicly accessible data on travel destinations and service providers to promote tourism throughout
Finland and across different sectors.Visit Finland provided us with contact details and we selected those
we deemed to have been demonstrating exceptional creativity, introducing novel market offerings and
attracting a wide range of consumers who reported satisfaction with those offerings (based on an initial
evaluation of consumers’ social media feedback). In addition, a national travel association in Austria
provided the contact details of entrepreneurs operating there and made a selection based on the same
criteria as in Finland.We selected 10 innovative tourism entrepreneurs creating novel offerings related to
culture, art, nature or sporting activities. The ventures concerned varied in terms of size, age and stage of
development. Table 1 provides an anonymised overview of the entrepreneurs involved.
Table 1. Description of entrepreneurs and their businesses.
Entrepreneur Form of business Employees Established Description
Paul Guesthouse 10 people 2000 Paul runs an old-fashioned guesthouse in the
Finnish countryside beside a beautiful lake. The
guesthouse has a restaurant, offers a range of
adventurous activities and can serve as a venue
for weddings and other events. The guesthouse
has been in Paul’s family for five generations and
was formerly the family farm. Paul grew up on
the farm and later continued his father’s efforts
to develop it into a tourism business.
40+ years
Finland
Greg Activity and
meeting
centre
2 people 2013 Greg runs an activity and meeting centre in a
small municipality in southern Finland that
offers guests tailor-made experiences. The
company is built around indoor skydiving and
surfing. The centre markets its activities by
urging visitors to ‘feed their inner hero’ and
live their dreams, for example, of flying. In
addition, the centre offers a restaurant and
customised event services. Business is based
on flexible outsourced service providers and
entrepreneurial networks.
40+ years
Finland
(continued)
6 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
972 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
Table 1. (continued)
Entrepreneur Form of business Employees Established Description
Jonathan Guesthouse 3–6 people
seasonally
1981 Jonathan heads a family company that offers
accommodation and dining to visitors in a
historically important area on a lakeside in
central Finland. The company was launched
when Jonathan’s family found a location with
traditional rustic buildings where they could
build, thus preserving some Finnish history
in their own way. They serve traditional
Finnish dishes and provide warm-hearted
guided tours, relating stories of life in the
past before Finnish independence. The place
is both a museum and a venue for events,
such as weddings and anniversary parties.
60+ years
Finland
Samuel Guesthouse 1–4 people
seasonally
1999 Samuel has been running his business in
Lapland, Northern Finland, for years and
recently joined a large network of eco-
tourism providers in Finland to enhance its
marketing opportunities. Samuel’s company
offers accommodation and activities
focussed on the environment and mainly
attracts tourists from outside Finland who
want guided trips to the Finnish forest to
pick berries and learn how to prepare and
consume local food. Samuel emphasises the
warm, welcoming atmosphere and aims to
create friendly relationships with his guests.
40+ years
Finland
Sarah Coffee shop 2–4 people
seasonally
1998 Sarah runs a coffee shop in a tourist-oriented
city in Finland. The cafe´ is very centrally
located as a part of a group of companies that
recreate traditional artisan residences, it
comprises of the cafe´, plus workshops,
boutiques and a museum. Sarah’s cafe´ is
decorated in a particular floral theme
reminiscent of early nineteenth-century decor.
40+ years
Finland
Joanna Museum 3–4 people
seasonally
2005 Joanna runs a modern art museum in a city in
western Finland. The museum is housed in an
old station building with a modern interior
design as a contrast. The museum organises
numerous national and international
exhibitions and is part of a network of
museums. In addition to exhibitions, the
museum arranges art events and workshops
and attracts tourists to its art shop.
40+ years
Finland
Helen Guesthouse 4–6 people
seasonally
2008 Helen offers leisure travel accommodation.
Her business idea is to offer state-of-the-art
tourist apartments for a very distinct target
group. For example, her high-quality
apartments are equipped with thermal spas.
40+ years
Austria
(continued)
Niemi et al. 7
Niemi et al. 973
Table 1. (continued)
Entrepreneur Form of business Employees Established Description
Jonathan Guesthouse 3–6 people
seasonally
1981 Jonathan heads a family company that offers
accommodation and dining to visitors in a
historically important area on a lakeside in
central Finland. The company was launched
when Jonathan’s family found a location with
traditional rustic buildings where they could
build, thus preserving some Finnish history
in their own way. They serve traditional
Finnish dishes and provide warm-hearted
guided tours, relating stories of life in the
past before Finnish independence. The place
is both a museum and a venue for events,
such as weddings and anniversary parties.
60+ years
Finland
Samuel Guesthouse 1–4 people
seasonally
1999 Samuel has been running his business in
Lapland, Northern Finland, for years and
recently joined a large network of eco-
tourism providers in Finland to enhance its
marketing opportunities. Samuel’s company
offers accommodation and activities
focussed on the environment and mainly
attracts tourists from outside Finland who
want guided trips to the Finnish forest to
pick berries and learn how to prepare and
consume local food. Samuel emphasises the
warm, welcoming atmosphere and aims to
create friendly relationships with his guests.
40+ years
Finland
Sarah Coffee shop 2–4 people
seasonally
1998 Sarah runs a coffee shop in a tourist-oriented
city in Finland. The cafe´ is very centrally
located as a part of a group of companies that
recreate traditional artisan residences, it
comprises of the cafe´, plus workshops,
boutiques and a museum. Sarah’s cafe´ is
decorated in a particular floral theme
reminiscent of early nineteenth-century decor.
40+ years
Finland
Joanna Museum 3–4 people
seasonally
2005 Joanna runs a modern art museum in a city in
western Finland. The museum is housed in an
old station building with a modern interior
design as a contrast. The museum organises
numerous national and international
exhibitions and is part of a network of
museums. In addition to exhibitions, the
museum arranges art events and workshops
and attracts tourists to its art shop.
40+ years
Finland
Helen Guesthouse 4–6 people
seasonally
2008 Helen offers leisure travel accommodation.
Her business idea is to offer state-of-the-art
tourist apartments for a very distinct target
group. For example, her high-quality
apartments are equipped with thermal spas.
40+ years
Austria
(continued)
Niemi et al. 7
Two researchers collected data between August 2013 and May 2014 through individual in-
terviews with respondents at their business premises. The semi-structured interviews began with
broad questions, and subsequent questions arose through the dialogue between researchers and
respondents (Cope, 2011). This method encouraged unconstrained storytelling (Czarniawska,
2004), thereby resulting in rich data. The researchers posed questions to extend and mediate
discussions by eliciting information on specific topics, such as the business environment, consumer
expectations and the features they valued, consumer evaluations of the business, how the business
created value for consumers, and how the business stimulated consumption in general. Interviews
typically lasted between 60 and 90 min, following which researchers held lengthy, informal
discussions with the respondents that were audio-recorded and transcribed. In addition, the re-
searchers toured the business premises and met employees informally while also observing the
interaction between entrepreneurs and customers.
Data analysis
In order to increase the validity of the coding while retaining the richness of the interview data, we
followed previous qualitative work on entrepreneurship (Arshedknox et al., 2021; Conger et al.,
2018; Hoyte et al., 2019; Mathias and Williams, 2017) that included inductive and interpretive
analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). We moved from a rigid focus on a particular set of contextual
factors of entrepreneurship (who, where, how and why) towards considering more subjective
elements and the construction and enactment of contexts (Welter et al., 2017, 2019). Our process
followed the guidance of Gioia et al. (2013) on organising, coding and interpreting the interview
transcripts. The lead author was responsible for the coding work, which was initially performed
Table 1. (continued)
Entrepreneur Form of business Employees Established Description
Maria Artisan
chocolate
factory
5 people 2000 Maria runs an artisan sweet and chocolate
maker in Austria. She offers behind-the-
scenes tours for connoisseurs. The company
is devoted to culinary art and entertains
tourists, school groups and company groups
wishing to learn about artisan chocolate
production.
30+ years
Austria
Stephen Museum 12 people 1990 Stephen runs an open-air museum in Austria.
Museum visitors will learn of the historical
development of the country and be
introduced to native folk culture. The
museum also organises seminars and events.
Stephen sees the museum as playing an
important role in educating the general
public and in preserving national history.
50+ years
Austria
Chris Restaurant 5–8 people
seasonally
2010 Chris owns a rustic restaurant in a beautiful
area of the Austrian countryside named after
the region. The restaurant has a 300-year
history, lending it a unique atmosphere. The
business is closely tied to the region’s local
culture and exclusively offers local cuisine.
40+ years
Austria
8 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
974 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
independently and followed by a collaborative effort to interpret the results. In cases of differing
interpretations of particular codes among the researchers, the team revisited the interview transcripts
and discussed their differences until they reached consensus on the labels (Gioia et al., 2013). This
grounded procedure, in Madill et al.’s (2000) view, avoids ‘watered-down’ interpretations of
phenomena that result from independent coding. Table 2 presents an overview of the data structure.
Table 2. Overview of data structure.
Raw data (illustrative quotes) 1st order codes 2nd order themes
Aggregate
dimension
When you go around that path in the
woods, you realise this thing…when the
flow is on, and you feel that I want to
share this feeling with others. It is a
personal and mental experience.
(Maria)
They are individuals who do not want
fixed appointments and schedules.
(Helen)
Those individuals [come here] who
appreciate culinary art. (Sarah)
It [visiting an open-air museum] is not seen
as burdensome, old-fashioned or
snobbish, but as a part of one’s life.
(Stephen)
Individualism guides the
experiences
Seeking for personal,
individual experiences
Consumer as
individual
Individual wants unique
experiences
Individual wants to consume
something special
Individual wants to appreciate
themselves
They’re people who prefer to decide on
their own what is best for them. (Helen)
You know, we are familiar with all our
regular visitors, and it might be that next
time she shows up with friends (Joanna)
We allow visitors to individually decide
whether they want in-depth
information on the tasting samples or
only brief and superficial information;
and based on that we create the
experience. (Maria)
People feel at home here; they feel they
are treated individually and appreciate
the friendliness of the staff and the
service quality. (Stephen)
Individual wants to be free to
choose how and where to
consume
Seeking personal
involvement and
customisation
Individual wants to receive a
personalised service
Individual seeks to influence and
to be heard
The consumer needs to feel that they are a
person. (Paul)
Interestingly, these people are individuals
who appear to have an anti-
consumerism attitude. (Samuel)
Our experience is an image thing as it is
about indulging oneself
[with] something luxurious. (Samuel)
Individual wants to be seen as
special
Seeking for being seen as
different
Individual seeks certain image
Individual seeks different
approach to consume
(continued)
Niemi et al. 9
Niemi et al. 975
independently and followed by a collaborative effort to interpret the results. In cases of differing
interpretations of particular codes among the researchers, the team revisited the interview transcripts
and discussed their differences until they reached consensus on the labels (Gioia et al., 2013). This
grounded procedure, in Madill et al.’s (2000) view, avoids ‘watered-down’ interpretations of
phenomena that result from independent coding. Table 2 presents an overview of the data structure.
Table 2. Overview of data structure.
Raw data (illustrative quotes) 1st order codes 2nd order themes
Aggregate
dimension
When you go around that path in the
woods, you realise this thing…when the
flow is on, and you feel that I want to
share this feeling with others. It is a
personal and mental experience.
(Maria)
They are individuals who do not want
fixed appointments and schedules.
(Helen)
Those individuals [come here] who
appreciate culinary art. (Sarah)
It [visiting an open-air museum] is not seen
as burdensome, old-fashioned or
snobbish, but as a part of one’s life.
(Stephen)
Individualism guides the
experiences
Seeking for personal,
individual experiences
Consumer as
individual
Individual wants unique
experiences
Individual wants to consume
something special
Individual wants to appreciate
themselves
They’re people who prefer to decide on
their own what is best for them. (Helen)
You know, we are familiar with all our
regular visitors, and it might be that next
time she shows up with friends (Joanna)
We allow visitors to individually decide
whether they want in-depth
information on the tasting samples or
only brief and superficial information;
and based on that we create the
experience. (Maria)
People feel at home here; they feel they
are treated individually and appreciate
the friendliness of the staff and the
service quality. (Stephen)
Individual wants to be free to
choose how and where to
consume
Seeking personal
involvement and
customisation
Individual wants to receive a
personalised service
Individual seeks to influence and
to be heard
The consumer needs to feel that they are a
person. (Paul)
Interestingly, these people are individuals
who appear to have an anti-
consumerism attitude. (Samuel)
Our experience is an image thing as it is
about indulging oneself
[with] something luxurious. (Samuel)
Individual wants to be seen as
special
Seeking for being seen as
different
Individual seeks certain image
Individual seeks different
approach to consume
(continued)
Niemi et al. 9
Table 2. (continued)
Raw data (illustrative quotes) 1st order codes 2nd order themes
Aggregate
dimension
We have a growing community here.
(Joanna)
It [indoor skydiving] is part of their
lifestyle…to them it is the best thing in
the world and outsiders don’t
understand what they are talking about.
(Greg)
We try to ensure that the group members
get to know each other here. Then they
really can share their experience and
build memories together. (Samuel)
We have our own Facebook page. People
engage with the conversation but also
place their critique there; others
comment on that, and that [discussion]
really has a large impact. (Jonathan)
Social beings belong to a
community
Belonging to a group Consumer as
social being
Social groups have insiders and
outsiders – us and the ‘others’
Social groups have common
histories and memories
Social conversations affect how
experiences are valued
Once they have visited they become a kind
of member of the experience
group…part of an inner circle, and that
is something that they want to bring out
in their social media accounts.
(Jonathan)
Well, as far as we know, a lot of this
[shared experience] is associated with
social media. This is why we put a strong
emphasis on Facebook and our
homepage. (Jonathan)
There are certain groups of people who
come back here regularly. (Sarah)
Social groups are important for
individuals
Valuing the group
‘membership’
Visibility communicates the
social standing to ‘others’
Returning back is a sign of
successful social interactions
They definitely want to share their
experiences. (Maria)
When they come here, they want to
interact with nature, and for them it is a
way of showing that they are acting
sustainably. (Maria)
Rather, the desire is to learn new things,
which outweighs the experience.
(Stephen)
Those people want to share their
experience and that involves personal
storytelling. (Jonathan)
Building the social group
through sharing
Creating and sharing
together
Acting according to the ethics
of the social group
Learning from others within
the social group
Storytelling in building implicit
rules for the social groups
(continued)
10 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
976 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
The analysis procedure was designed to depart from the process perspective that views entrepre-
neurship as a transformative process in which desires become goals, actions and systemic outcomes
(McMullen and Dimov, 2013). Accordingly, we did not focus on longitudinal events or activities
describing changes in understandings of the task environment over time, focussing instead on capturing
situational and time-sensitive descriptors of ongoing immanent sensemaking.
Table 2. (continued)
Raw data (illustrative quotes) 1st order codes 2nd order themes
Aggregate
dimension
After seeing art…I claim that you speak
differently. (Joanna)
We tell stories about nature and life here,
and in this way they [the consumers] get
real experiences and this is something
that they desire. (Maria)
People influence each other. One shares a
joyful experience, then others want it
too. (Chris)
In my understanding, hand-crafted coffee
is a lifestyle thing, and we want to
enhance this trend. (Sarah)
We have reviews on different social media
platforms. Several people check these
evaluations and compare them with
other service providers. (Helen)
Creating a cultural group
changing the mind, learning
Making meaning through
a group
Consumer as
trendsetter
Creating authentic experiences
Influencing is important link to
what our consumers talk
about us
Creating movement that
construct recognised trends
Making the experience visible
to enable consumer choice
It [the service offered] must be inspiring
and cool. That is the spirit of the time.
(Greg)
Initially, we did things like our
competitors, but when we started
listening to consumers, we realised that
we should do things differently, so we
did, and the demand immediately went
up. This shows that this is mutual
learning. (Greg))
Novelty that is inspiring The group as inspiration
Co-creation of value as
consumers decide what is
interesting and feasible
Picking berries is one good example [of a
trend] …people pick the berries and
are overwhelmed…when we all eat the
berries…and make blueberry pie from
the fresh berries. People want these
kinds of real-life experiences. (Samuel)
Today people are really aware of
consumption choices and deliberately
seek a sustainable experience rather
than the typical mass consumption.
(Stephen)
We are advising them that our museum is
an original and special place, an
experience that they do not get
anywhere else around. (Joanna)
Preserving lifestyle by
reintroducing traditional
experiences
The group as a platform
for acceptance and
awareness
Acceptance influenced by
consciousness of sustainability
Raising awareness of individuals
Niemi et al. 11
Niemi et al. 977
The analysis procedure was designed to depart from the process perspective that views entrepre-
neurship as a transformative process in which desires become goals, actions and systemic outcomes
(McMullen and Dimov, 2013). Accordingly, we did not focus on longitudinal events or activities
describing changes in understandings of the task environment over time, focussing instead on capturing
situational and time-sensitive descriptors of ongoing immanent sensemaking.
Table 2. (continued)
Raw data (illustrative quotes) 1st order codes 2nd order themes
Aggregate
dimension
After seeing art…I claim that you speak
differently. (Joanna)
We tell stories about nature and life here,
and in this way they [the consumers] get
real experiences and this is something
that they desire. (Maria)
People influence each other. One shares a
joyful experience, then others want it
too. (Chris)
In my understanding, hand-crafted coffee
is a lifestyle thing, and we want to
enhance this trend. (Sarah)
We have reviews on different social media
platforms. Several people check these
evaluations and compare them with
other service providers. (Helen)
Creating a cultural group
changing the mind, learning
Making meaning through
a group
Consumer as
trendsetter
Creating authentic experiences
Influencing is important link to
what our consumers talk
about us
Creating movement that
construct recognised trends
Making the experience visible
to enable consumer choice
It [the service offered] must be inspiring
and cool. That is the spirit of the time.
(Greg)
Initially, we did things like our
competitors, but when we started
listening to consumers, we realised that
we should do things differently, so we
did, and the demand immediately went
up. This shows that this is mutual
learning. (Greg))
Novelty that is inspiring The group as inspiration
Co-creation of value as
consumers decide what is
interesting and feasible
Picking berries is one good example [of a
trend] …people pick the berries and
are overwhelmed…when we all eat the
berries…and make blueberry pie from
the fresh berries. People want these
kinds of real-life experiences. (Samuel)
Today people are really aware of
consumption choices and deliberately
seek a sustainable experience rather
than the typical mass consumption.
(Stephen)
We are advising them that our museum is
an original and special place, an
experience that they do not get
anywhere else around. (Joanna)
Preserving lifestyle by
reintroducing traditional
experiences
The group as a platform
for acceptance and
awareness
Acceptance influenced by
consciousness of sustainability
Raising awareness of individuals
Niemi et al. 11
In this second phase of the analysis, we followed Fairclough’s (1992) three-dimensional model of
discourse to link the linguistic forms of conversations to the broader narratives that underpin the
frames used by entrepreneurs to interpret new information in their task environment (Table 3).
Furthermore, we paid careful attention to how discourses represented the collective meanings
created through language and how these were subsequently enacted. By focussing on the language
used by entrepreneurs to convey their immanent sensemaking, we were able to structure our
understanding of the frames they apply when resolving uncertainty.
Our focus was on the language through which individuals engaged discursive resources to
construct a sense of themselves, their activities and the context in which they were embedded.
Entrepreneur narratives were treated as a single grand narrative representing their immanent
sensemaking rather than separate units of cases.
Reflection on methodological choices
There is broad consensus on the essential nature of rich detail in qualitative research processes that
address social phenomena (Bansal and Corley, 2012; Hoang and Antoncic, 2003; Jack et al., 2010;
Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009). Previous studies address sensemaking as an analytical construct
with the individual as the unit of analysis and where data are collected via narratives and discourse
(Craig-Lees, 2001). Stories and storytelling are means of understanding entrepreneurial identities
and how entrepreneurs legitimise their actions while simultaneously fulfilling the general function
of imposing order upon uncertain situations (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Maclean et al., 2012). We
follow the underlying logic that stories provide the reason for an action and give it meaning
(Steyaert and Bouwen, 1997). Our approach is also consistent with previous sensemaking studies in
entrepreneurship (Cornelissen et al., 2012; Harries et al., 2018; Holt andMacpherson, 2010; Kimmit
and Muñoz, 2018) that focus on situations and events that appear ambiguous. Similarly, sense-
making is captured here by looking at the patterns of narratives and discourses presented by in-
dividual entrepreneurs (Bettiol et al., 2012; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991) that relate to the mutable
context in which they are embedded. As time is an endogenous aspect of narratives and discourses,
our approach enabled entrepreneurial agency to be examined as temporal, distributed and emergent
(Garud et al., 2014). This scope is crucial because sensemaking occurs ‘in the interaction between
relational space and durational time’ (Garud and Giuliani, 2013: 158). Overall, our research design
evolved iteratively; these iterations were developed into working papers shared with colleagues and
Table 3. Overview of themes and discourses.
Second-order
themes Key discursive elements Framing discourses
Consumer as
individual
Entrepreneurs refer to consumers as individuals (she/he/him/her/
one) and describe how consumer consumption reflects their
personal identity.
Sense of individuality
Consumer as a
social being
Entrepreneurs refer to consumers as a part of a group (they/
members) and describe how consumer consumption aims to
create a positive image in the eyes of the consumer’s social
context and is perceived as a sign of group membership
(insiders/outsiders).
Sense of
communality
Consumer as
trendsetter
Entrepreneurs refer to consumers as part of the larger and
common trends of consumption.
Sense of consumer
culture
12 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
978 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
presented at research seminars and conferences generating constructive and critical feedback to
advance our inductive analysis.
Findings
Our analysis revealed common themes illustrating how entrepreneurs routinely engage with and
perceive their task environment; they highlight how they frame and engage with the material world
by making sense of their task environment (Reinecke and Ansari, 2021). In line with prior research,
our results show that when our respondents interpreted markets, they attempted to understand the
consumer environment in a broader sense than just that of either current or easily reachable
customers (McKeever et al., 2015). Our analytical focus on language revealed that immanent
sensemaking enables the respondents to construct frames which are utilised as a basis for their
judgement and actions. In the following sections, we unpack the three interrelated framing dis-
courses grounded in Fairclough’s (1992) three-dimensional model of discourse: a sense of indi-
viduality, a sense of communality and a sense of consumer culture.
Sense of individuality
Experiencing personally, being individual and making individual decisions were clearly core
components of the discourses. The respondents characterised the consumers they encountered as
individuals who wanted to make individual and independent decisions about consumption and the
experiences. For example, Maria, who runs an artisan chocolate factory in Austria, stated that a key
part of her service is offering consumers a chance to influence the content she produces:
Central to our business is the interaction and that we work together with every individual that we encounter to
produce the final experience.We allow visitors to individually decide whether they want in-depth information
on the tasting samples or only brief and superficial information, and based on that we create the experience.
Similarly, all the respondents described how considering individual consumer needs is an es-
sential part of the business. They view today’s consumers as highly autonomous decision-makers who
use products and services as building blocks to express their own identity. While consumers may have
been a part of a group, the personal experiences encountered during their interaction with the
entrepreneur/business made consumption essentially individualistic (Nairn et al., 2008). Additionally,
the respondents knew that consumers were well aware of various consumption options encouraging
them to offer customised products and services. The respondent entrepreneurs sensed that their direct
engagement served to make the offering more personal so, adding value for consumers and conveying
that they were a vital part of the business. Consequently, there was awareness that customers wanted
them to go’ the extra mile’ and reflect how they valued them as individuals by offering services beyond
monetary terms alone. For instance, Stephen, who runs an open-air museum, highlighted the importance
of offering a personal service and creating a sense of appreciation. As he puts it:
By dealing with each individual as a person, I have the opportunity to create a certain kind of experience.
In this way, people feel at home here…they feel like they are treated individually and that they appreciate
the friendliness of the staff and the service quality.
The respondents also felt that many consumers had become sceptical of mass consumption so
tried to differentiate themselves from others by seeking personalised experiences or by rejecting
Niemi et al. 13
Niemi et al. 979
presented at research seminars and conferences generating constructive and critical feedback to
advance our inductive analysis.
Findings
Our analysis revealed common themes illustrating how entrepreneurs routinely engage with and
perceive their task environment; they highlight how they frame and engage with the material world
by making sense of their task environment (Reinecke and Ansari, 2021). In line with prior research,
our results show that when our respondents interpreted markets, they attempted to understand the
consumer environment in a broader sense than just that of either current or easily reachable
customers (McKeever et al., 2015). Our analytical focus on language revealed that immanent
sensemaking enables the respondents to construct frames which are utilised as a basis for their
judgement and actions. In the following sections, we unpack the three interrelated framing dis-
courses grounded in Fairclough’s (1992) three-dimensional model of discourse: a sense of indi-
viduality, a sense of communality and a sense of consumer culture.
Sense of individuality
Experiencing personally, being individual and making individual decisions were clearly core
components of the discourses. The respondents characterised the consumers they encountered as
individuals who wanted to make individual and independent decisions about consumption and the
experiences. For example, Maria, who runs an artisan chocolate factory in Austria, stated that a key
part of her service is offering consumers a chance to influence the content she produces:
Central to our business is the interaction and that we work together with every individual that we encounter to
produce the final experience.We allow visitors to individually decide whether they want in-depth information
on the tasting samples or only brief and superficial information, and based on that we create the experience.
Similarly, all the respondents described how considering individual consumer needs is an es-
sential part of the business. They view today’s consumers as highly autonomous decision-makers who
use products and services as building blocks to express their own identity. While consumers may have
been a part of a group, the personal experiences encountered during their interaction with the
entrepreneur/business made consumption essentially individualistic (Nairn et al., 2008). Additionally,
the respondents knew that consumers were well aware of various consumption options encouraging
them to offer customised products and services. The respondent entrepreneurs sensed that their direct
engagement served to make the offering more personal so, adding value for consumers and conveying
that they were a vital part of the business. Consequently, there was awareness that customers wanted
them to go’ the extra mile’ and reflect how they valued them as individuals by offering services beyond
monetary terms alone. For instance, Stephen, who runs an open-air museum, highlighted the importance
of offering a personal service and creating a sense of appreciation. As he puts it:
By dealing with each individual as a person, I have the opportunity to create a certain kind of experience.
In this way, people feel at home here…they feel like they are treated individually and that they appreciate
the friendliness of the staff and the service quality.
The respondents also felt that many consumers had become sceptical of mass consumption so
tried to differentiate themselves from others by seeking personalised experiences or by rejecting
Niemi et al. 13
recognised labels used to indicate high quality (such as Michelin Stars or global luxury brands). The
respondents called upon encounters with their consumers to determine that they had adopted a
certain critical attitude reflecting the desire to differentiate themselves from the traditional material
way of thinking. The respondents articulated this in many ways, often indirectly, but some were very
direct. Samuel runs a guesthouse in Finnish Lapland that offers distinct experiences such as guided
trips into the forest to pick berries and a locally sourced menu and describes his customers as
‘individuals who appear to have an anti-consumerism attitude’.
Respondents also emphasised how in many cases, it was evident that consumers sought to act as
individuals with an opportunity to make particular consumption choices and find specific qualities
in the offering that others may not yet have discovered. The respondents were keen to fulfil the
consumer’s dreams and provide individual opportunities to experience something unimagined.
Delivering such experiences consistently and meeting demanding requirements was something that
occupied their thoughts. Helen, an Austrian guesthouse owner, expressed her concerns as follows:
Today, creating an experience is not simple. Consumers have far more demands than before. They’re
people who prefer to decide on their own what is best for them. And we need to deal with these
individuals and create experiences for them that they then appreciate.
Sense of communality
Somewhat paradoxically, while the respondents recognised that consumers sought individual
experiences, they were also aware that those experiences were stronger and more meaningful when
shared with others. They referred to consumers using products and services to achieve a sense of
belonging in a certain community of consumers; this awareness was demonstrated when describing
customers as like-minded individuals. Jonathan, a Finnish guesthouse owner, reported that his customers
wanted to show they belonged to a community by relating their experiences on social media.
Once they have visited here, in a way, they become a certain kind of member of the experience
group…They are a part of an inner circle, and that is something that they want to bring out in their social
media accounts.
It was evident that respondents regarded consumers as both eager to learn and seek their peer
group’s appreciation by sharing experiences on social media. Hence, consumer decision-making
and information seeking were guided by informal considerations, such as following the examples of
friends or relying on the recommendations of others. In this context, respondents described an initial
and constant act of evaluation where individual consumers judged whether certain consumption
behaviour was appreciated by their social reference group (Deephouse and Suchman, 2008). Social
media interactions, in particular, provide consumers with valuable information, helping them
evaluate their options and share their experiences (Kozinets et al., 2008). Online brand communities
also provide entrepreneurs with new platforms upon which to construct legitimacy (Hakala et al.,
2017). Notably, most interviewees utilised social media to collect impressions and feedback from
consumers and their communities. In addition, they clearly understood social media was not merely
a marketing tool but also a way to construct their identity as a business and as an entrepreneur.
Jonathan described his view on consumer identity building as follows:
People come here because they want to experience something authentic. Those people want to share their
experience, and that sharing involves personal storytelling. After all, that kind of sharing is done today
14 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
980 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
largely on social media…We have our own Facebook page. People engage with the conversation but
also place their critique there; others comment on that, and that [discussion] really has a large impact.
Sense of consumer culture
There were repeated references to how contemporary consumers use products and services as social
and cultural signifiers that help them structure their everyday lives. Maria remarked
We tell stories about nature and life here, and in this way they [the consumers] get real experiences and
this is something that they desire. And these real experiences will ultimately matter in the longer term.
They may even affect their [the consumer’s] everyday life.
The respondents also recognised that consumers are members of a broader consumer culture and
follow contemporary trends. Sarah, who runs an artisan coffee shop was aware that her products
represented a certain kind of contemporary consumer trend that valued hand-crafted, homemade
products. She stated:
In my understanding, hand-crafted coffee is a lifestyle thing, and we want to enhance this trend.
Moreover, respondents acknowledged that consumers buy or use goods or services to experience
the activity of consumption itself and satisfy their lifestyle aspirations rather than for purely
utilitarian or economic reasons. Stephen, from the open-air museum, had noticed that today’s
consumer is more interested in having an experience than consuming material and that a person’s
choices can strengthen their self-identity as a responsible consumer:
Today people are really aware of consumption choices and deliberately seek a sustainable experience
rather than the typical mass consumption.
Lawrence and Phillips (2002) describe the concept of symbolic consumption, sensing that
consumers exist in a world of symbolism. The respondents felt an obligation to provide consumers
with alternative experiences, which aligns with the idea that social activities are typically embedded in
cultural groups that provide norms and values that direct and shape patterns of cultural choice
(Sanders, 1985). Accordingly, respondents believed that creating experiences was a good way of
creating ambassadors for their business as individuals want to share their positive experiences and
recommend products or services. Chris, owner of a rustic restaurant in Austria, explained that in-
dividuals tend to share their experiences and enjoy doing so. That trait offers business owners a
valuable way of marketing their business to a wider audience. According to Chris:
People influence each other. One shares a joyful experience, and others want it too. Then little by little, it
becomes more and more popular. And eventually maybe even some kind of phenomenon.
Multilevel consumer frames
All the respondents acknowledged that making sense of their task environment was challenging, but also
that such sensemaking was an essential everyday activity. For them, framing is key to understanding the
complex and dynamic consumer environment. Our analyses revealed three interrelated framing discourses,
whichwe term individual, social and cultural consumer frames.We suggest that when interpreting their task
Niemi et al. 15
Niemi et al. 981
largely on social media…We have our own Facebook page. People engage with the conversation but
also place their critique there; others comment on that, and that [discussion] really has a large impact.
Sense of consumer culture
There were repeated references to how contemporary consumers use products and services as social
and cultural signifiers that help them structure their everyday lives. Maria remarked
We tell stories about nature and life here, and in this way they [the consumers] get real experiences and
this is something that they desire. And these real experiences will ultimately matter in the longer term.
They may even affect their [the consumer’s] everyday life.
The respondents also recognised that consumers are members of a broader consumer culture and
follow contemporary trends. Sarah, who runs an artisan coffee shop was aware that her products
represented a certain kind of contemporary consumer trend that valued hand-crafted, homemade
products. She stated:
In my understanding, hand-crafted coffee is a lifestyle thing, and we want to enhance this trend.
Moreover, respondents acknowledged that consumers buy or use goods or services to experience
the activity of consumption itself and satisfy their lifestyle aspirations rather than for purely
utilitarian or economic reasons. Stephen, from the open-air museum, had noticed that today’s
consumer is more interested in having an experience than consuming material and that a person’s
choices can strengthen their self-identity as a responsible consumer:
Today people are really aware of consumption choices and deliberately seek a sustainable experience
rather than the typical mass consumption.
Lawrence and Phillips (2002) describe the concept of symbolic consumption, sensing that
consumers exist in a world of symbolism. The respondents felt an obligation to provide consumers
with alternative experiences, which aligns with the idea that social activities are typically embedded in
cultural groups that provide norms and values that direct and shape patterns of cultural choice
(Sanders, 1985). Accordingly, respondents believed that creating experiences was a good way of
creating ambassadors for their business as individuals want to share their positive experiences and
recommend products or services. Chris, owner of a rustic restaurant in Austria, explained that in-
dividuals tend to share their experiences and enjoy doing so. That trait offers business owners a
valuable way of marketing their business to a wider audience. According to Chris:
People influence each other. One shares a joyful experience, and others want it too. Then little by little, it
becomes more and more popular. And eventually maybe even some kind of phenomenon.
Multilevel consumer frames
All the respondents acknowledged that making sense of their task environment was challenging, but also
that such sensemaking was an essential everyday activity. For them, framing is key to understanding the
complex and dynamic consumer environment. Our analyses revealed three interrelated framing discourses,
whichwe term individual, social and cultural consumer frames.We suggest that when interpreting their task
Niemi et al. 15
environment, the respondents extract meaning from multilevel consumer frames shaped by these three
framing discourses. This is evident through narratives emerging from the social interaction process and
instances of immanent sensemaking. These frames allow entrepreneurs to routinely locate, perceive, identify
and label the task environment when making sense of the consumer environment (Figure 1).
The frames guide the perception and representation of social reality and direct entrepreneur’s
decision-making and actions.
For the respondents the marketplace becomes a multilevelmarketspace – a term that connects not only
physical and digital aspects, as Singh and Kumar (2021) suggest, but also the different layers of consumer
experience. First, immanent sensemaking disclosed the personal dimension of consumption. The frame of
the individual consumer reflects how entrepreneurs see individual consumers as demanding individualised
products and services that suit their personal lifestyle and allow them to build their own identity. It was
recognised that a consumer’s choices of whether to consume and belong are governed by individual desires
and interests. Second, immanent sensemaking discloses the social dimension of consumption. The frame of
the social consumer underlines how consumers use products and services to connect and share ideas and
experiences with others in a meaningful way. There is a need to understand how consumers connect to
various groups, such as their family, their interests or friends, depending on the specific situation of
consumption. Each of these social circles plays its role in creating or sustaining the social identity of
consumers and understanding this was part of routinised sensemaking. Third, immanent sensemaking
revealed the cultural level of consumption. The frame of the cultural consumer illustrates how entrepreneurs
continuously interpret the entire consumer culture in which consumers act, react and influence each other.
Hence, the entrepreneurs appear to accept that they can no longer intervene directly in consumer lives but
Figure 1. Multilevel consumer frames employed in immanent sensemaking.
16 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
982 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
must blend inwith consumer culture and participating in that culture. They are aware of the need to sense the
past movements, trends and values that have influenced consumption preferences.
Our data show that our respondents utilised these frames to make sense of the environments influencing
their consumers, which subsequently enabled them to routinely resolve uncertainty and make judgements.
The emphasis on different frames varies; when particular frames become dominant, they help to advance
certain interests and viewswhile suppressing others (Baunsgaard andClegg, 2013). AsReinecke andAnsari
(2021) note, small contingencies during interaction can cause large shifts in subsequent events.We also find
that frames can be contested, especially when uncertainty causes incongruence between actor frames
(Kaplan, 2008). However, particular frames that resonate with one another and are seen as legitimate have a
greater chance of prevailing and then, prompting action. Hence, these multilevel frames are closely in-
tertwined and linked to an entrepreneur’s own sensemaking (Kaplan, 2008). In this sense, entrepreneur
frames are driven by the need for them to be socially acceptable, comprehensive and credible and not
necessarily a requirement to be entirely accurate.
Discussion
This article investigates the immanent sensemaking undertaken by entrepreneurs when navigating
the inevitable uncertainty arising from new and unfamiliar information appearing in their task
environment. Our evidence suggests that entrepreneurs make sense of the this environment by
creating frames to aid in understanding the consumer at multiple levels. Attempts are made to
understand a consumer environment more broadly than in terms of just the immediate customer
encounter. This type of immanent sensemaking helps understanding of the complex and dynamic
nature of markets, the social systems in which offerings are consumed, and where resources are
integrated and value co-created.
We respond to the call for a more comprehensive understanding of the interactive aspects of the
entrepreneurial process (Shepherd, 2015; Shepherd et al., 2021), and how immersive encounters,
such as those with consumers, create frames (Reinecke and Ansari, 2021). The findings contribute to
the literature in three ways. First, they indicate that the frames referencing individual consumers,
social consumers and cultural consumers are products of ongoing immanent sensemaking on the
part of entrepreneurs. This sensemaking is a routinised way to resolve and understand the task
environment (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015, 2020). In particular, our multilevel consumer frames
provide insights for research on entrepreneurial judgement, which is the necessary precursor to
entrepreneurial action (Foss et al., 2019). It has been established that entrepreneurs act according to
their judgement in order to generate desirable effects (Packard et al., 2017). By focussing on
immanent sensemaking, our study furthers the understanding of judgement, which can be a ‘dance
with uncertainty’ (Packard et al., 2017: 852). The results suggest that entrepreneurs use insights into
consumers behaviour to constantly evolve their judgement of customer according to the prevailing
context. However, the multilevel frames identified here are comparatively stable structures that
enable entrepreneurs to understand the context in which they act (McKeever et al., 2015). Ac-
cordingly, the frames relating to individual, social and cultural consumers provide a particular
insight into the task environment that extends beyond the traditional ideas of customer orientation or
market research. Despite constantly evolving and changing, these sensemaking frames also help
entrepreneurs to deal with the complexity involved in providing experiences that are simultaneously
individual, social and culturally appropriate.
Second, while prior research has explained that entrepreneurs make decisions by imprinting (Mathias
et al., 2015), chasing an invisible moving target (Huang and Pearce, 2015), connecting the dots (Baron,
2006) or thinking outside the box (Baron and Ward, 2004), the literature is yet to explicate the role of
Niemi et al. 17
Niemi et al. 983
must blend inwith consumer culture and participating in that culture. They are aware of the need to sense the
past movements, trends and values that have influenced consumption preferences.
Our data show that our respondents utilised these frames to make sense of the environments influencing
their consumers, which subsequently enabled them to routinely resolve uncertainty and make judgements.
The emphasis on different frames varies; when particular frames become dominant, they help to advance
certain interests and viewswhile suppressing others (Baunsgaard andClegg, 2013). AsReinecke andAnsari
(2021) note, small contingencies during interaction can cause large shifts in subsequent events.We also find
that frames can be contested, especially when uncertainty causes incongruence between actor frames
(Kaplan, 2008). However, particular frames that resonate with one another and are seen as legitimate have a
greater chance of prevailing and then, prompting action. Hence, these multilevel frames are closely in-
tertwined and linked to an entrepreneur’s own sensemaking (Kaplan, 2008). In this sense, entrepreneur
frames are driven by the need for them to be socially acceptable, comprehensive and credible and not
necessarily a requirement to be entirely accurate.
Discussion
This article investigates the immanent sensemaking undertaken by entrepreneurs when navigating
the inevitable uncertainty arising from new and unfamiliar information appearing in their task
environment. Our evidence suggests that entrepreneurs make sense of the this environment by
creating frames to aid in understanding the consumer at multiple levels. Attempts are made to
understand a consumer environment more broadly than in terms of just the immediate customer
encounter. This type of immanent sensemaking helps understanding of the complex and dynamic
nature of markets, the social systems in which offerings are consumed, and where resources are
integrated and value co-created.
We respond to the call for a more comprehensive understanding of the interactive aspects of the
entrepreneurial process (Shepherd, 2015; Shepherd et al., 2021), and how immersive encounters,
such as those with consumers, create frames (Reinecke and Ansari, 2021). The findings contribute to
the literature in three ways. First, they indicate that the frames referencing individual consumers,
social consumers and cultural consumers are products of ongoing immanent sensemaking on the
part of entrepreneurs. This sensemaking is a routinised way to resolve and understand the task
environment (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015, 2020). In particular, our multilevel consumer frames
provide insights for research on entrepreneurial judgement, which is the necessary precursor to
entrepreneurial action (Foss et al., 2019). It has been established that entrepreneurs act according to
their judgement in order to generate desirable effects (Packard et al., 2017). By focussing on
immanent sensemaking, our study furthers the understanding of judgement, which can be a ‘dance
with uncertainty’ (Packard et al., 2017: 852). The results suggest that entrepreneurs use insights into
consumers behaviour to constantly evolve their judgement of customer according to the prevailing
context. However, the multilevel frames identified here are comparatively stable structures that
enable entrepreneurs to understand the context in which they act (McKeever et al., 2015). Ac-
cordingly, the frames relating to individual, social and cultural consumers provide a particular
insight into the task environment that extends beyond the traditional ideas of customer orientation or
market research. Despite constantly evolving and changing, these sensemaking frames also help
entrepreneurs to deal with the complexity involved in providing experiences that are simultaneously
individual, social and culturally appropriate.
Second, while prior research has explained that entrepreneurs make decisions by imprinting (Mathias
et al., 2015), chasing an invisible moving target (Huang and Pearce, 2015), connecting the dots (Baron,
2006) or thinking outside the box (Baron and Ward, 2004), the literature is yet to explicate the role of
Niemi et al. 17
immanent sensemaking in arriving at those eurekamoments that arise when entrepreneurs realise what it is
that consumers value. The frames we propose reveal the mysterious moments of enlightenment as an
outcome of a systematic attempt to understand a task environment through frames of reference. When
customers act and react according to the construed frames, these frames are enhanced; however, when this
does not occur, the frames change and result in entirely newones that subsequently lead to such ‘moments of
insight’ (Lumpkin and Lichtenstein, 2005). Hence, our findings propose that the eureka moments, while
often experienced as sudden, are in fact a result of the immanent and rather mundane sensemaking
employed to create order out of complexity (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020; Weick, 1995).
Third, it appears that the task environment is contextually necessary to orchestrate resources and
formulate judgement and actions. Our study reveals how entrepreneurs construct multilevel consumer
frames through immanent sensemaking upon which they base their judgement of, and actions in, the
consumer environment. The frames explicated in the current research illustrate a consumer-centric per-
spective (Nambisan and Zarha, 2016; Prandelli et al., 2016) on entrepreneur’s immanent sensemaking.
Accordingly, we suggest that interactionwith the consumer environment reduces perceived uncertainty; this
enables entrepreneurs to craft the absent structures of knowledge (Corbett, 2005) required to address
pertinent consumer problems and, eventually, create a market for the offering. Beyond this, successful
framing requires entrepreneurs to interact with their context repeatedly (Clark, 1997) and actively engage in
immanent sensemaking, rather than serving as merely cognitive models that enable them to step back from,
observe, assess and plan their actions (Wilson, 2002). An enhanced understanding of the task environment
acquired as a result of immanent sensemaking enables the modification of market assessments and, thus,
actions (Read et al., 2009; Welter et al., 2016). To synthesise our findings and discussion, we propose the
following framework for an entrepreneur’s immanent sensemaking related to the task environment (Figure 2).
Figure 2. A framework of entrepreneur’s immanent sensemaking.
18 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
984 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
Immanent sensemaking links the an mind inseparably to the world in which the entrepreneur is
embedded. We offer new insights into how entrepreneurs can absorb micro-re-position, meso- and
macro-level signals (individual requirements, social needs and contemporary trends) to inform
actions. By introducing immanent sensemaking as a premise for the process of judgement, the
framework above contributes to an emerging literature that views entrepreneurial judgement as a
continuous and dynamic process (Gilbert-Saad et al., 2018; McMullen, 2015; Packard et al., 2017).
Understanding the multilevel spectrum of the task environments (from which we distilled the
individual, social and cultural consumer frames) can assist practitioners in assessing which of their
support mechanisms would be most effective. Rather than giving entrepreneurs information on
individual consumers and their needs as traditional market research methods do, our recommended
frames would offer entrepreneurs tools to grasp the social and cultural factors that influence
consumers. Similarly, in the realm of entrepreneurship education, the scope of courses on un-
certainty, entrepreneurial judgement and decision-making, for instance, could be extended beyond
the horizon of individuals to address the task environment in which entrepreneurs operate. Such an
extension could also lead to redesigning learning environments to follow a more experiential
approach (Bell and Bell, 2020) to help students make sense of the task environment.
Despite its novel insights, our study is not without limitations. The first relates to the number of
cases chosen and the partially retrospective data collected from entrepreneurs at a single point in
time. To tease out the sensemaking frames, we also purposefully sampled entrepreneurs who offer
novel services to the market, and it follows that our cases specifically focus on tourism-oriented
organisations that interact directly with consumers. Consequently, the study sample may be biased
towards respondents who already possess some skill in making sense of consumers. Scholars might
compare and contrast our findings in the context of different countries, industries and against the
immanent sensemaking undertaken by entrepreneurs who do not offer specifically novel services.
Moreover, this study could not address how entrepreneurs and environments change over time as
decisions are made and new information emerges. Longitudinal studies would be well suited to
illuminating the interactive loop between entrepreneurs and consumers. In addition, using a
sample of entrepreneurs who operate in tourism and within their niche markets prevents us from
extending the results to include a more general population of service-based businesses or even
those based in manufacturing. Accordingly, future research might address immanent sensemaking
and use of frames in other contexts, and especially in those where anti-consumerism or resistance
to a culture of consumption (Penaloza and Price, 2003) is strong. Furthermore, although our study
explores the immanent sensemaking and how it results in multilevel consumer frames, we hesitate
to conclude that these frames alone necessarily trigger action. Rather, as Hoyte et al. (2019)
recently proposed, we encourage researchers to unpack the ways in which sensemaking is in-
tertwined with entrepreneurial action or the series of activities involved in the entrepreneurial
process. Specifically, future research could focus on new digital infrastructures used by con-
sumers, such as social media and virtual platforms, to understand the actions, interactions and
interpretations that entrepreneurs undertake with consumers in mind.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article highlights the importance for entrepreneurs of making sense of the
consumer environment. Specifically, we found that individual entrepreneurs routinely frame the
consumer environment on multiple levels. When making sense of their customers, entrepreneurs
strive to understand the consumer environment in broader terms than immediate customer en-
counters. Such immanent sensemaking thus, facilitates the understanding of complex and dynamic
Niemi et al. 19
onclusion
Niemi et al. 985
Immanent sensemaking links the an mind inseparably to the world in which the entrepreneur is
embedded. We offer new insights into how entrepreneurs can absorb micro-re-position, meso- and
macro-level signals (individual requirements, social needs and contemporary trends) to inform
actions. By introducing immanent sensemaking as a premise for the process of judgement, the
framework above contributes to an emerging literature that views entrepreneurial judgement as a
continuous and dynamic process (Gilbert-Saad et al., 2018; McMullen, 2015; Packard et al., 2017).
Understanding the multilevel spectrum of the task environments (from which we distilled the
individual, social and cultural consumer frames) can assist practitioners in assessing which of their
support mechanisms would be most effective. Rather than giving entrepreneurs information on
individual consumers and their needs as traditional market research methods do, our recommended
frames would offer entrepreneurs tools to grasp the social and cultural factors that influence
consumers. Similarly, in the realm of entrepreneurship education, the scope of courses on un-
certainty, entrepreneurial judgement and decision-making, for instance, could be extended beyond
the horizon of individuals to address the task environment in which entrepreneurs operate. Such an
extension could also lead to redesigning learning environments to follow a more experiential
approach (Bell and Bell, 2020) to help students make sense of the task environment.
Despite its novel insights, our study is not without limitations. The first relates to the number of
cases chosen and the partially retrospective data collected from entrepreneurs at a single point in
time. To tease out the sensemaking frames, we also purposefully sampled entrepreneurs who offer
novel services to the market, and it follows that our cases specifically focus on tourism-oriented
organisations that interact directly with consumers. Consequently, the study sample may be biased
towards respondents who already possess some skill in making sense of consumers. Scholars might
compare and contrast our findings in the context of different countries, industries and against the
immanent sensemaking undertaken by entrepreneurs who do not offer specifically novel services.
Moreover, this study could not address how entrepreneurs and environments change over time as
decisions are made and new information emerges. Longitudinal studies would be well suited to
illuminating the interactive loop between entrepreneurs and consumers. In addition, using a
sample of entrepreneurs who operate in tourism and within their niche markets prevents us from
extending the results to include a more general population of service-based businesses or even
those based in manufacturing. Accordingly, future research might address immanent sensemaking
and use of frames in other contexts, and especially in those where anti-consumerism or resistance
to a culture of consumption (Penaloza and Price, 2003) is strong. Furthermore, although our study
explores the immanent sensemaking and how it results in multilevel consumer frames, we hesitate
to conclude that these frames alone necessarily trigger action. Rather, as Hoyte et al. (2019)
recently proposed, we encourage researchers to unpack the ways in which sensemaking is in-
tertwined with entrepreneurial action or the series of activities involved in the entrepreneurial
process. Specifically, future research could focus on new digital infrastructures used by con-
sumers, such as social media and virtual platforms, to understand the actions, interactions and
interpretations that entrepreneurs undertake with consumers in mind.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article highlights the importance for entrepreneurs of making sense of the
consumer environment. Specifically, we found that individual entrepreneurs routinely frame the
consumer environment on multiple levels. When making sense of their customers, entrepreneurs
strive to understand the consumer environment in broader terms than immediate customer en-
counters. Such immanent sensemaking thus, facilitates the understanding of complex and dynamic
Niemi et al. 19
nature of markets and the social systems where offerings are consumed, where resources are
integrated and where value is co-created. In order to successfully make sense of the consumer
environment, entrepreneurs must embed themselves into the contextual communities in which
consumers operate individually, collectively and socio-culturally.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Laura Niemi  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9610-1532
Pekka Stenholm  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1507-3109
References
Anderson ML (2003) Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artificial Intelligence 149(1): 91–130.
Arshed N, Knox S, Chalmers D, et al. (2021) The hidden price of free advice: negotiating the paradoxes of
public sector business advising. International Small Business Journal 39(3): 289–311.
Baker T and Nelson RE (2005) Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepre-
neurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly 50(3): 329–366.
Balogun J and Johnson G (2004) Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of
Management Journal 47(4): 523–549.
Bansal P and Corley K (2012) Publishing in AMJ-Part 7: what’s different about qualitative research? Academy
of Management Journal 55(3): 509–513.
Baron RA (2006) Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: how entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to
identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives 20(1): 104–119.
Baron RA and Ward T (2004) Expanding entrepreneurial cognition’s toolbox: potential contributions from the
field of cognitive science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28(6): 553–573.
Baunsgaard VVand Clegg S (2013) ‘Walls or boxes’: the effects of professional identity, power and rationality
on strategies for cross-functional integration. Organization Studies 34: 1299–1325.
Bell R and Bell H (2020) Applying educational theory to develop a framework to support the delivery of
experiential entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 27(6):
987–1004.
Benner MJ and Tripsas M (2012) The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the
evolution of digital cameras. Strategic Management Journal 33(3): 277–302.
Bettiol M, DiMaria E and Finotto V (2012) Marketing in SMEs: the role of entrepreneurial sensemaking.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 8(2): 223–248.
Burr V (2003) Social Constructionism. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Chiles TH, Tuggle CS, McMullen JS, et al. (2010) Dynamic creation: extending the radical Austrian approach
to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies 31(1): 7–46.
Clark A (1997) Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge: MIT press.
20 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
986 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
Conger M, McMullen JS, Bergman BJ Jr, et al. (2018) Category membership, identity control, and the
reevaluation of prosocial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing 33(2): 179–206.
Cope J (2011) Entrepreneurial learning from failure: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of
Business Venturing 26(6): 604–623.
Corbett AC (2005) Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(4): 473–491.
Cornelissen JP (2012) Sensemaking under pressure: the influence of professional roles and social account-
ability on the creation of sense. Organization Science 23(1): 118–137.
Cornelissen JP, Clarke J and Cienki A (2012) Sensegiving in entrepreneurial contexts: The use of metaphors in
speech and gesture to gain and sustain support for novel business ventures. International Small Business
Journal 30(3): 213–241.
Cornelissen JP and Werner MD (2014) Putting framing in perspective: a review of framing and frame analysis
across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals 8(1): 181–235.
Craig-Lees M (2001) Sense making: trojan horse? Pandora’s box? Psychology and Marketing 18(5): 513–526.
Czarniawska B (2004) Narratives in Social Science Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Deephouse DL and Suchman MC (2008) Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In: Greenwood R,
Oliver C, Sahlin K, et al. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, pp. 49–77.
Dew N, Grichnik D, Mayer-Haug K, et al. (2015) Situated entrepreneurial cognition. International Journal of
Management Reviews 17(2): 143–164.
Dew N and Sarasvathy SD (2007) Innovations, stakeholders & entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics
74(3): 267–283.
Dimov D (2007) Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial op-
portunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(5): 713–731.
Dimov D (2017) Towards a qualitative understanding of human capital in entrepreneurship research. Inter-
national Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 23(2): 210–227.
Dimov D (2020) Opportunities, language, and time. Academy of Management Perspectives 34(3): 333–351.
Erikson T and Korsgard S (2016) Knowledge as the source of opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing
Insights 6: 47–50.
Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fisher G, Stevenson R, Neubert E, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial hustle: navigating uncertainty and enrolling
venture stakeholders through urgent and unorthodox action. Journal of Management Studies 57(5):
1002–1036.
Foss NJ, Klein PG and Bjørnskov C (2019) The context of entrepreneurial judgment: Organizations, markets,
and institutions. Journal of Management Studies 56(6): 1197–1213.
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Garud R, Gehman J and Giuliani AP (2014) Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: a narrative per-
spective. Research Policy 43(7): 1177–1188.
Garud R and Giuliani AP (2013) A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of
Management Review 38(1): 157–160.
Gavetti G and Levinthal D (2000) Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search.
Administrative Science Quarterly 45(1): 113–137.
Gephart RP, Topal C and Zhan Z (2010) Future-oriented sensemaking: temporalities and institutional legit-
imation. In: Hernes T and Maitlis S (eds), Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 275–312.
Gheondea-Eladi A (2016) The evolution of certainty in a small decision-making group by consensus. Group
Decision and Negotiation 25(1): 127–155.
Niemi et al. 21
Niemi et al. 987
Conger M, McMullen JS, Bergman BJ Jr, et al. (2018) Category membership, identity control, and the
reevaluation of prosocial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing 33(2): 179–206.
Cope J (2011) Entrepreneurial learning from failure: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of
Business Venturing 26(6): 604–623.
Corbett AC (2005) Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(4): 473–491.
Cornelissen JP (2012) Sensemaking under pressure: the influence of professional roles and social account-
ability on the creation of sense. Organization Science 23(1): 118–137.
Cornelissen JP, Clarke J and Cienki A (2012) Sensegiving in entrepreneurial contexts: The use of metaphors in
speech and gesture to gain and sustain support for novel business ventures. International Small Business
Journal 30(3): 213–241.
Cornelissen JP and Werner MD (2014) Putting framing in perspective: a review of framing and frame analysis
across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals 8(1): 181–235.
Craig-Lees M (2001) Sense making: trojan horse? Pandora’s box? Psychology and Marketing 18(5): 513–526.
Czarniawska B (2004) Narratives in Social Science Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Deephouse DL and Suchman MC (2008) Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In: Greenwood R,
Oliver C, Sahlin K, et al. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, pp. 49–77.
Dew N, Grichnik D, Mayer-Haug K, et al. (2015) Situated entrepreneurial cognition. International Journal of
Management Reviews 17(2): 143–164.
Dew N and Sarasvathy SD (2007) Innovations, stakeholders & entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics
74(3): 267–283.
Dimov D (2007) Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial op-
portunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(5): 713–731.
Dimov D (2017) Towards a qualitative understanding of human capital in entrepreneurship research. Inter-
national Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 23(2): 210–227.
Dimov D (2020) Opportunities, language, and time. Academy of Management Perspectives 34(3): 333–351.
Erikson T and Korsgard S (2016) Knowledge as the source of opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing
Insights 6: 47–50.
Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fisher G, Stevenson R, Neubert E, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial hustle: navigating uncertainty and enrolling
venture stakeholders through urgent and unorthodox action. Journal of Management Studies 57(5):
1002–1036.
Foss NJ, Klein PG and Bjørnskov C (2019) The context of entrepreneurial judgment: Organizations, markets,
and institutions. Journal of Management Studies 56(6): 1197–1213.
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Garud R, Gehman J and Giuliani AP (2014) Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: a narrative per-
spective. Research Policy 43(7): 1177–1188.
Garud R and Giuliani AP (2013) A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of
Management Review 38(1): 157–160.
Gavetti G and Levinthal D (2000) Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search.
Administrative Science Quarterly 45(1): 113–137.
Gephart RP, Topal C and Zhan Z (2010) Future-oriented sensemaking: temporalities and institutional legit-
imation. In: Hernes T and Maitlis S (eds), Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 275–312.
Gheondea-Eladi A (2016) The evolution of certainty in a small decision-making group by consensus. Group
Decision and Negotiation 25(1): 127–155.
Niemi et al. 21
Gilbert-Saad A, Siedlok F and McNaughton RB (2018) Decision and design heuristics in the context of
entrepreneurial uncertainties. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 9: 75–80.
Gime´nez Roche GA and Calcei D (2021) The role of demand routines in entrepreneurial judgment. Small
Business Economics 56(1): 209–235.
Gioia DA and Chittipeddi K (1991) Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic
Management Journal 12(6): 433–448.
Gioia DA, Corley KG and Hamilton AL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational
Research Methods 16(1): 15–31.
Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London, England: Harper &
Row.
Hakala H, Niemi L and Kohtama¨ki M (2017) Online brand community practices and the construction of brand
legitimacy. Marketing Theory 17(4): 537–558.
Harries T, McEwen L and Wragg A (2018) Why it takes an ‘ontological shock’ to prompt increases in small
firm resilience: sensemaking, emotions and flood risk. International Small Business Journal 36(6): 712–
733.
Hill RC and Levenhagen M (1995) Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative
and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management 21(6): 1057–1074.
Hoang H and Antoncic B (2003) Network-based research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing
18: 165–187.
Holt R andMacpherson A (2010) Sensemaking, rhetoric and the socially competent entrepreneur. International
Small Business Journal 28(1): 20–42.
Hoyte C, Noke H, Mosey S, et al. (2019) From venture idea to venture formation: the role of sensemaking,
sensegiving and sense receiving. International Small Business Journal 37(3): 268–288.
Huang L and Pearce JL (2015) Managing the unknowable. Administrative Science Quarterly 60(4): 634–670.
Ho¨llerer MA, Jancsary D and Grafstro¨m M (2018) ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’: multimodal
sensemaking of the global financial crisis. Organization Studies 39(5–6): 617–644.
Jack S, Moult S, Anderson A, et al. (2010) An entrepreneurial network evolving: patterns of change. In-
ternational Small Business Journal 28(4): 315–337.
Jones O and Li H (2017) Entrepreneurial becoming: sense-making in a family-based start-up. Entrepreneurship
& Regional Development 29(5/6): 467–499.
Kaplan S (2008) Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science 19(5): 729–752.
Kimmitt J and Muñoz P (2018) Sensemaking the ‘social’ in social entrepreneurship. International Small
Business Journal 36(8): 859–886.
Kirzner IM (1985) Uncertainty, discovery, and human action. In: Kirzner IM (ed),Discovery and the Capitalist
Process. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago University Press, pp. 40–67.
Klein G, Moon B and Hoffman RR (2006) Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE
Intelligent Systems 21(4): 70–73.
Kozinets RV, Hemetsberger A and Schau H (2008) The wisdom of consumer crowds. Journal of Macro-
marketing 28(4): 339–354.
Lawrence TB and Phillips N (2002) Understanding cultural industries. Journal of Management Inquiry 11(4):
430–441.
Lerner M and Haber S (2001) Performance factors of small tourism ventures. Journal of Business Venturing
16(1): 77–100.
Lindgren M and Packendorff J (2009) Social constructionism and entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 15(1): 25–47.
22 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
988 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
Lounsbury M and Glynn MA (2001) Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of
resources. Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7): 545–564.
Lumpkin GT and Lichtenstein BB (2005) The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition
process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(4): 451–472.
Maclean M, Harvey C and Chia R (2012) Sensemaking, storytelling and the legitimization of elite business
careers. Human Relations 65(1): 17–40.
Madill A, Jordan A and Shirley C (2000) Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist
and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology 91(1): 1–20.
Maitlis S (2005) The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 48(1): 21–49.
Maitlis S and Christianson MK (2014) Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward.
Academy of Management Annals 8(1): 57–125.
Maitlis S and Lawrence TB (2003) Orchestral manoeuvres in the dark: understanding failure in organizational
strategizing*. Journal of Management Studies 40(1): 109–139.
Mathias BD and Williams DW (2017) The impact of role identities on entrepreneurs’ evaluation and selection
of opportunities. Journal of Management 43(3): 892–918.
Mathias BD, Williams DW and Smith AR (2015) Entrepreneurial inception: the role of imprinting in en-
trepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing 30(1): 11–28.
McKeever E, Jack S and Anderson A (2015) Embedded entrepreneurship in the creative re- construction of
place. Journal of Business Venturing 30(1): 50–65.
McMullen JS (2015) Entrepreneurial judgment as empathic accuracy: a sequential decision-making approach
to entrepreneurial action. Journal of Institutional Economics 11(3): 651–681.
McMullen JS and Dimov D (2013) Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problems and promise of studying
entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies 50(8): 1481–1512.
McMullen JS and Shepherd DA (2006) Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the
entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review 31(1): 132–152.
Nairn A, Griffin C and Wicks PG (2008) Children’s use of brand symbolism. European Journal of Marketing
42(5/6): 627–640.
Nambisan S and Zahra SA (2016) The role of demand-side narratives in opportunity formation and enactment.
Journal of Business Venturing Insights 5: 70–75.
Olcott G and Oliver N (2014) Social capital, sensemaking, and recovery: Japanese companies and the 2011
earthquake. California Management Review 56(2): 5–22.
Orton JD (2000) Enactment, sensemaking and decision making: Redesign processes in the 1976 reorganization
of US intelligence. Journal of Management Studies 37(2): 213–234.
Packard MD, Clark BB and Klein PG (2017) Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process.
Organization Science 28(5): 840–856.
Penaloza L and Price LL (2003) Consumer resistance: a conceptual overview. Advances in Consumer Research
20(1): 123–128.
Porac JF, Thomas H and Baden-Fuller C (1989) competitive groups as cognitive communities: the case of
scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies 26(4): 397–416.
Prandelli E, Pasquini M and Verona G (2016) In user’s shoes: an experimental design on the role of perspective
taking in discovering entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing 31(3): 287–301.
Priem RL, Li S and Carr JC (2012) Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology
innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management research. Journal of Management 38(1): 346–374.
Purdy J, Ansari S and Gray B (2017) Are logics enough? Framing as an alternative tool for understanding
institutional meaning making. Journal of Management Inquiry 28(4): 409–419.
Randall WS, Nowicki DR, Deshpande G, et al. (2014) Converting knowledge into value. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44(8/9): 655–670.
Niemi et al. 23
Niemi et al. 989
Lounsbury M and Glynn MA (2001) Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of
resources. Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7): 545–564.
Lumpkin GT and Lichtenstein BB (2005) The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition
process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(4): 451–472.
Maclean M, Harvey C and Chia R (2012) Sensemaking, storytelling and the legitimization of elite business
careers. Human Relations 65(1): 17–40.
Madill A, Jordan A and Shirley C (2000) Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist
and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology 91(1): 1–20.
Maitlis S (2005) The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 48(1): 21–49.
Maitlis S and Christianson MK (2014) Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward.
Academy of Management Annals 8(1): 57–125.
Maitlis S and Lawrence TB (2003) Orchestral manoeuvres in the dark: understanding failure in organizational
strategizing*. Journal of Management Studies 40(1): 109–139.
Mathias BD and Williams DW (2017) The impact of role identities on entrepreneurs’ evaluation and selection
of opportunities. Journal of Management 43(3): 892–918.
Mathias BD, Williams DW and Smith AR (2015) Entrepreneurial inception: the role of imprinting in en-
trepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing 30(1): 11–28.
McKeever E, Jack S and Anderson A (2015) Embedded entrepreneurship in the creative re- construction of
place. Journal of Business Venturing 30(1): 50–65.
McMullen JS (2015) Entrepreneurial judgment as empathic accuracy: a sequential decision-making approach
to entrepreneurial action. Journal of Institutional Economics 11(3): 651–681.
McMullen JS and Dimov D (2013) Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problems and promise of studying
entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies 50(8): 1481–1512.
McMullen JS and Shepherd DA (2006) Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the
entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review 31(1): 132–152.
Nairn A, Griffin C and Wicks PG (2008) Children’s use of brand symbolism. European Journal of Marketing
42(5/6): 627–640.
Nambisan S and Zahra SA (2016) The role of demand-side narratives in opportunity formation and enactment.
Journal of Business Venturing Insights 5: 70–75.
Olcott G and Oliver N (2014) Social capital, sensemaking, and recovery: Japanese companies and the 2011
earthquake. California Management Review 56(2): 5–22.
Orton JD (2000) Enactment, sensemaking and decision making: Redesign processes in the 1976 reorganization
of US intelligence. Journal of Management Studies 37(2): 213–234.
Packard MD, Clark BB and Klein PG (2017) Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process.
Organization Science 28(5): 840–856.
Penaloza L and Price LL (2003) Consumer resistance: a conceptual overview. Advances in Consumer Research
20(1): 123–128.
Porac JF, Thomas H and Baden-Fuller C (1989) competitive groups as cognitive communities: the case of
scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies 26(4): 397–416.
Prandelli E, Pasquini M and Verona G (2016) In user’s shoes: an experimental design on the role of perspective
taking in discovering entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing 31(3): 287–301.
Priem RL, Li S and Carr JC (2012) Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology
innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management research. Journal of Management 38(1): 346–374.
Purdy J, Ansari S and Gray B (2017) Are logics enough? Framing as an alternative tool for understanding
institutional meaning making. Journal of Management Inquiry 28(4): 409–419.
Randall WS, Nowicki DR, Deshpande G, et al. (2014) Converting knowledge into value. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44(8/9): 655–670.
Niemi et al. 23
Read S, Dew N, Sarasvathy SD, et al. (2009) Marketing under uncertainty: the logic of an effectual approach.
Journal of Marketing 73(3): 1–18.
Reinecke J and Ansari S (2021) Microfoundations of framing: the interactional production of collective action
frames in the occupy movement. Academy of Management Journal 64(2): 378–408.
Sandberg J and Tsoukas H (2011) Grasping the logic of practice: theorizing through practical rationality.
Academy of Management Review 36(2): 338–360.
Sandberg J and Tsoukas H (2015) Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations,
and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36(S1): S6–S32.
Sandberg J and Tsoukas H (2020) Sensemaking Reconsidered: Towards a Broader Understanding through
Phenomenology. Organization Theory.
Sanders CR (1985) Tattoo consumption: risk and regret in the purchase of a socially marginal service. Advances
in Consumer Research 12: 17–22.
Sarasvathy SD (2001) Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to
entrepreneurial contingency. The Academy of Management Review 26(2): 243–288.
Selden PD and Fletcher DE (2015) The entrepreneurial journey as an emergent hierarchical system of artifact-
creating processes. Journal of Business Venturing 30(4): 603–615.
Shackle GLS (1961) Decision, Order, and Time in Human Affairs. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambirdge
University Press.
Shah DV, Watts MD, Domke D, et al. (2002) News framing and cueing of issue regimes. Public Opinion
Quarterly 66(3): 339–370.
Shepherd DA (2015) Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based,
cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing 30(4): 489–507.
Shepherd DA, Souitaris Vand Gruber M (2021) Creating new ventures: a review and research agenda. Journal
of Management 47(1): 11–42.
Singh A and Kumar A (2021) Designing the marketspace for millennials: Fun, functionality or risk? Journal of
Marketing Analytics 9: 1–17.
Sonenshein S (2010) We’re changing-or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability
narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal 53(3): 477–512.
Starbuck WH and Milliken FJ (1988) Challenger: fine-tuning the odds until something breaks. Journal of
Management Studies 25(4): 319–340.
Steyaert C and Bouwen R (1997) Telling stories of entrepreneurship: towards a narrative contextual epis-
temology for entrepreneurial studies. In: Donckels R and Taylor A (eds), Sources of the Self: The Making
of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 47–62.
Strauss A and Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Sutcliffe KM (2013) Sensemaking. In: Augier M and Teece DJ (eds), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic
Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1–4.
Townsend DM, Hunt RA, McMullen JS, et al. (2018) Uncertainty, knowledge problems, and entrepreneurial
action. Academy of Management Annals 12(2): 659–687.
Tribble E (2005) Distribution cognition in the globe. Shakespeare Quarterly 56(2): 134–155.
Tuchman G (1978) Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Macmillan.
van Werven R, Bouwmeester O and Cornelissen J (2015) The power of arguments: How entrepreneurs convince
stakeholders of the legitimate distinctiveness of their ventures. Journal of Business Venturing 30(4): 616–631.
Venkataraman S and Sarasvathy SD (2001) Strategy and entrepreneurship: outlines of an untold story. In: Hitt
M, Freeman RE and Harrison J (eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management. Oxford:
Blackwell, pp. 650–668.
Weick KE (1969) The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: Random House.
24 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 0(0)
990 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40(8)
Weick KE (1988) Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies. 25(4): 305–317
Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Weick Karl E.X (1988) Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies 25(No. 4)
305–317.
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM and Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization
Science 16(4): 409–421.
Welter C, Mauer R and Wuebker R (2016) Bridging behavioral models and theoretical concepts: Effectuation
and bricolage in the opportunity creation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 10: 5–20.
Welter F, Baker T and Wirsching K (2019) Three waves and counting: the rising tide of contextualization in
entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics 52: 319–330.
Welter F, Baker T, Audretsch DB, et al. (2017) Everyday entrepreneurship-a call for entrepreneurship research
to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41(3): 311–321.
Wilson M (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9(4): 625–636.
Laura Niemi is a development specialist and a post-doctoral researcher at University of Turku. Her
research interests are within entrepreneurial decision making, entrepreneurial uncertainty, co-
creation of new value and consumer behavior.
Pekka Stenholm is a senior research fellow at the University of Turku, Turku School of Economics.
His research interests cover the country-level, firm-level and individual-level determinants of
entrepreneurial behavior, entrepreneurial uncertainty, and new venture formation.
Niemi et al. 25
Author biographies
Henri Hakala (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3612-7391) is a professor of entrepreneurship at the 
School of Business and management (LBm) at LUT University, Finland. His research interests are 
within entrepreneurship, small business management, strategy as well as sustainable entrepreneur-
ship. His research has previously appeared in journals such as Journal of Management, Journal of 
Small Business Management, Small Business Economics, International Journal of Management 
Reviews and Long Range Planning.
Jenni Kantola is a university lecturer and program manager in University of Vaasa, Finland. Jenni’s 
research is in the area of human resources management with particular focus on individual-level 
processes, such as coping, change readiness and self-management.