This document summarizes a study on how prevailing institutional logics affect users' perceptions of affordances in crowdfunding platforms. The study found that entrepreneurs saw crowdfunding as offering opportunities to attract small amounts of funding from many investors and connect with networks. However, their perceptions were constrained by institutional logics prioritizing legitimacy and tangible resources. Specifically, platforms did not provide sufficient legitimacy or funding amounts to outweigh opportunity costs. The study illustrates how institutional context and platform features jointly shape affordance perceptions and whether crowdfunding is viewed as a viable option.

1. CROWDFUNDING IN ACTION:
HOW INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS
ENCOURAGE AND CONSTRAIN
AFFORDANCE PERCEPTION
Claire Ingram, Stockholm School of Economics
Robin Teigland, Stockholm School of Economics
Emmanuelle Vaast, McGill University

2. • The crowdfunding model has been treated as a new
form of venture capital investment
(cf., Belleflamme, et al., 2010; Carvajal, et al., 2012;
Schweinbacher and Larralde, 2012; Mollick, 2014)

4. “We haven’t had
that many
projects, and the
projects we’ve
had haven’t
really held the
kind of quality
that we had
hoped for... And
we don’t know
why.”
- Institutional
Actor, Stockholm
“I don’t get the
feeling that
crowdfunding is the
new thing and we
can forget
everything else.
That’s not the
feeling I have and
that’s not the talk I
hear.”
- IT entrepreneur,
Stockholm
The Puzzle

5. How do the prevailing institutional logics in an
institutional field affect the affordances perceived by
users of an ICT-enabled service?

6. Literature: Affordances
• …are “action possibilities and opportunities that
emerge from actors engaging with a focal
technology” (Faraj and Bijan, 2012: 238)
• The concept is relational; technology affordances
are enabled by human agency interacting with a
particular technology (Majchrzak and Markus,
2012; Faraj and Bijan, 2012).
• BUT human agency cannot be divorced from the
institutional context in which it is embedded
(Thornton et al, 2012; Battilana et al, 2009).

7. Literature: Institutional Theory
 Actors embedded in
environment defined by
cognitive, normative
and structural
considerations
 Pressure towards stasis
 Limited human agency
(Battilana et al. 2009)
 Focus here specifically
on Institutional logics,
which are part of a
broader, accepted
belief system about
what constitute
legitimate expectations
and goals within a
shared field.
(Thornton, 2002)

8. Methods
• Qualitative, theory-building
case study methodology
(Benbasat et al., 1987; Yin,
1994).
• Sample of those who self-
identified as searching for
funding at a Stockholm event
• 10 chosen, based activeness
on social media (Twitter,
LinkedIn, Facebook)
• Snowballing and purposive
sampling
• A total of 29 interviews with
27 actors
1 Entrepreneur #1 Mobile questionnaire
2 Entrepreneur #2 Co-working space
3 Entrepreneur #3 Crowd sourced food data
4 Entrepreneur #4 Online education
5 Entrepreneur #5 Digital design agency
6 Entrepreneur #6 Online storyboard
7 Entrepreneur #7 Co-working space
8 Entrepreneur #8 Digital storytelling
9 Entrepreneur #9 Blog aggregation tool
10 Entrepreneur #10 Travel experience app
11 Entrepreneur #11 Clothing size simulator
12 Entrepreneur #12 Wifi-sharing app
13 Entrepreneur #13 Student competition site
14 Entrepreneur #14 Crowdfunded advertising
15 Entrepreneur #15 Film producer
16 Entrepreneur #16 Early crowdfunding site
17 Institutional Actor #1 Business coach
18 Institutional Actor #2 Not-for-profit agency
19 Platform #1 Equity-based site
20 Platform #1 (follow-up) Equity-based site
21 Platform #2 Equity- and Reward-based site
22 Platform #2 (follow-up) Equity- and Reward-based site
23 Platform #2’s designers Digital design agency
24 Platform #3 Crowdfunding site that closed down
25 Repeat Funder #1 Media industry
26 Repeat Funder #2 Media and academia
27 Venture Capital Investor Large bank
28 Angel Investor #1 Invests in personal capacity
29 Angel Investor #2 Invests as part of a group

9. What are the features of the
platform?
1. The opportunity to attract small amounts of funding
from a large number of investors, thus making a large
amount of money.
2. The opportunity to attract and tap a crowd by
facilitating discussions about an entrepreneur’s
project both on social media and on the
crowdfunding platform.
3. The possibility of connecting with like-minded people
who may get involved with the business in the near
future, whether by sharing their network or by
sharing resources other than money, like information
or skills.

10. Constraints on features
• Going private:
“…we had a Swedish investor
that no one knew about in
other parts of the world…
these global investors, huge
investors didn’t know
anything about our biggest
investor in Sweden. [And did
that scare them off, do you
think?] Yeah it scared them
off; they want someone they
have been working with
before, and so we had a
problem.”
• Going public:
“I think that people are a bit
self-conscious, it feels like
they’re bragging or
something. Because in a way
funding a project is a bit like
buying a new handbag… and
I wouldn’t post a picture
saying ‘look at my handbag
it’s so damn nice’.”

11. How do these relate to
Institutional Logics?
• Pursuit of funding
• Pursuit of partnership and tangible resources
• Pursuit of legitimacy and intangible resources
• But a trade-off

12. Perceived Affordances
• Insufficient legitimacy
• Some funding, but not enough (especially given
opportunity cost(s) )
• Possible network benefits
• Neither tangible nor intangible benefits

13. Theoretical contribution
• Illustration of the role that institutional logics play
in affordance perception
• In other words, the institutional context that
entrepreneurs face as well as the material features
of the platforms jointly shape whether
entrepreneurs come to consider crowdfunding as a
worthwhile funding option.

14. Thank You!
Claire.Ingram@hhs.se
@Claire_EBI