# Legitimacy Thesis — Simplified Guide

A plain-English digest of the interactive mind map (`map.html` — open it in a browser to explore the full expandable version; `index.html` renders this guide as a webpage; raw source text in `FULL_MAP.md`).

## The thesis in one paragraph

Judges (investors, clients, institutions) hold a mental yardstick for what a "real business" looks like. Founders send signals; judges deliver a verdict. Scholars have studied each piece separately — but nobody has tested whether **training founders** to send better signals actually changes the judge's verdict. This thesis runs that test: a field experiment where half of the founders in the ATENA program get a 12-hour legitimacy-training module and half don't.

**The chain:** Expectations (judge's yardstick) → Conformity (founder's signals — *what the module trains*) → Assent (judge's verdict — *what Siraz measured*) → legitimacy conferred.

## The 5 claims I defend

| # | Claim | Main risk | Hedge |
|---|-------|-----------|-------|
| 1 | Judges hold a yardstick | It differs France ≠ Italy | Treat context as a formal moderator |
| 2 | The module teaches the right signals | A signal could backfire | Teach consistency + audience-appropriateness, not tricks |
| 3 | Judges respond to these signals | Siraz used fake profiles | Add real behavior + milestones on top of her lab evidence |
| 4 | Nobody connected the two sides | Someone names a paper that did | Claim is precise: first **field RCT**, not first test ever |
| 5 | I can run the experiment | Dropouts, contamination, self-report | ITT + imputation + cohort separation + objective measures |

## The scholars — who showed what

| Scholar | In one line | Role in thesis |
|---------|-------------|----------------|
| **Schoon** (2022) | Legitimacy lives in the *relationship*: expectations + conformity + assent | The umbrella framework everything sits under |
| **Suchman** (1995) | Legitimacy = "appropriate within the system" (pragmatic / moral / cognitive) | The definition everything else footnotes |
| **Siraz** (2023–2026) | Looking like a *normal, recognizable* business beats endorsements; mixed signals stall judges; women/immigrants/minorities punished harder after identical failures | Proved which signals judges care about → what the module teaches |
| **Claes** (2025) | Industry-favorite defenses (foie gras) actively *hurt* legitimacy — strategies backfire | Why training must be tested, not assumed |
| **Ghods** (2021–2026) | Legitimacy makes international expansion pay; its meaning varies by country; it can be auto-scored from texts | Cross-border rationale + objective pitch-deck scoring |
| **Bertrand** (2025) | Built the self-legitimacy scale; founders who feel illegitimate get impostor syndrome and freeze | The psychological mediator the training should move |
| **Aldebert** (2021–2024) | Accelerators lend legitimacy only once trusted themselves; corporate partners bridge deeptech | What ATENA as a program can/can't do |
| **Überbacher** (2014) | The field's map — shows the evaluator-cognition gap | Positions the research gap |
| **Delmar & Shane** (2004) | Ventures that legitimate *first* survive longer (real data) | Empirical backbone of "legitimacy first" |

## The 5 legitimacy states (Siraz et al. 2023)

Legitimacy is not yes/no — it's a spectrum. **Where ATENA founders start: Unknown/Undecided.**

1. **Legitimate** — nobody even questions it (a bakery on your street)
2. **Conditional** — accepted *if* you meet conditions (GMOs with labels)
3. **Unknown** — judge can't decide, three sub-types:
   - *Undetermined* — invisible, nobody's looking → fix: get noticed
   - *Undecided* — looked at but unplaceable → fix: give a familiar frame ("it's like X for Y") ← **the module's job**
   - *Polarized* — half love it, half hate it (crypto) → fix: different framing per audience
4. **Conditionally illegitimate** — improper in principle, tolerated for necessity (medical cannabis)
5. **Illegitimate** — actively rejected (scams)

Key insight: a venture's state can flip purely because the *societal yardstick* shifted — no change in its own behavior.

## The method in brief

**Design:** randomized field experiment (Article 1) + interviews explaining the why (Article 2) + repeated surveys (T0 → T1 → T4).

**The 10 steps, condensed:**
1. Define variables on Schoon's dyad (train conformity, measure assent)
2. Adopt Bertrand's self-legitimacy scale + a perceived-legitimacy scale
3. Power analysis *before* recruiting (~100–175 per arm for d≈0.3–0.4)
4. Recruit → T0 baseline for everyone → randomize → separate cohorts
5. Deliver the 12h module: **5 capabilities** — Cognitive (fit a known category) · Pragmatic (show value) · Social (get vouched for) · Factual (show milestones) · Regulative (show compliance)
6. Survey both arms at T0/T1/T4 + collect objective milestones + pitch decks
7. Track dropouts (leaver/stayer comparison + imputation + ITT)
8. Analyze: ITT → TOT → DiD → effect size + confidence interval
9. Interview high *and* low responders; Gioia coding; second coder + kappa
10. Write it as the missing link: Siraz proved judges respond to signals; Campos proved training works; the connection was never tested in the field.

**Every problem has a fix:** small sample → pre-registered power analysis · attrition → leaver/stayer + imputation · contamination → cohort separation + staggered rollout · self-report → objective milestones + text scores · coding subjectivity → dual coders + kappa · CMV → temporal separation + varied formats.

## The numbers that matter

- **Campos et al. 2017 (Science):** psychology-based training → **+30% profits**, traditional training → +11% (n.s.). A short behavioral module beats content training — exactly what the 12h module is.
- **McKenzie 2021 (meta):** business training averages **+10.1% profits** across all RCTs. Key line: *"not finding a significant effect is not the same as finding no effect."*
- **Pollack et al. 2012:** founder preparedness (trainable!) → legitimacy → funding amount — the thesis chain on real money.
- **Tornikoski & Newbert 2007:** legitimation *actions* predicted venture emergence more than founder traits — what you DO beats what you ARE.
- **Siraz's evidence base:** ~20,000 conjoint ratings across 4 experiments.
- **Rule of thumb:** n per group ≈ 16/d² for 80% power.

## Fresh ammunition — 49 papers + the 3 validated scales

*P01–P30 = most-cited canon-citers (OpenAlex) · P31–P46 = Scopus export · P47–P49 = validated scales. Stable IDs — reorder freely (one line each). Formula first, names second, solves: = problem fixed.*
*Grouped by level on the dyad: **the judge** → **the connection** → **the object** → **the field**. Most new work sits in *the connection* — where this thesis lives.*

**L1 · The judge — evaluator side**
- **[P16]** verdicts → collective validity (masks low consensus) — Haack et al. '25 JMS · 14 · *solves: validity/agreement blur→multilevel split*
- **[P17]** societal acceptance ≠ institutional legitimacy — Alsheimer et al. '24 RSER · 14 · *solves: separate literatures→integration*
- **[P18]** norms → investor yardstick → IPO diversity↑ — Kenney et al. '24 SBE · 14 · *solves: norm-shift mechanism→30-yr panel*
- **[P20]** judgment = variance + prediction + wisdom — Tsoukas et al. '24 AMA · 12 · *solves: loose term→3 perspectives*
- **[P21]** CEO humor × schema-fit → social evaluation — König et al. '24 AMR · 12 · *solves: schema filtering→humor×fit model*
- **[P40]** validity cues × categorical fit → propriety (fit dominates) — Thaler, Sievert, Siraz & Pinz '26 JMS · 2 · *solves: evaluator propriety→factorial survey n=1,866*
- **[P42]** text scoring → legitimacy per dyad at scale — Ghods, Ricard, Aldebert & Schoon '26 BJM · 0 · *solves: uni-dim measures→multi-dim dyads (our instrument)*
- **[P43]** multi-source evals → validity↑ → action — Du et al. '26 BJM · 0 · *solves: single-source→multi-source*
- **[P38]** content endorsed + agent rejected → cooptive rejection — Bourgoin et al. '26 JMS · 2 · *solves: object-agent tie→dissociation*
- **[P37]** misconduct × stakeholder → defence varies — Oberhauser et al. '25 CSR · 4 · *solves: one-size repair→differentiated defence*

**L2 · The connection — founder↔evaluator boundary**
- **[P09]** hype → expectations↑ → resources↑ — Rady et al. '25 JBV · 20 · *solves: hype≠always good→contingent value*
- **[P10]** founder updates ↔ backer sentiment — Wood et al. '24 JBV · 19 · *solves: hype decay→longitudinal pairs*
- **[P11]** internal challenges → 8 inward strategies — Loos & Spraul '24 JMS · 19 · *solves: external-only focus→internal repertoire*
- **[P13]** hype → legitimacy↑ then ↓↓ — Spivack et al. '25 JBV · 17 · *solves: hyped crashes→3-phase model*
- **[P15]** local legitimacy × brokerage → diffusion — Kansheba et al. '24 IJEBR · 15 · *solves: local-only→diffusion beyond ecosystem*
- **[P19]** crisis comms → crowdfunding outcome — McKenny et al. '24 ETP · 14 · *solves: comms black box→dims + vignette*
- **[P24]** rebranding → host-market legitimacy — Ramos da Silva et al. '24 IMR · 9 · *solves: untested cross-country→6-country case*
- **[P26]** make-or-break intermediary → 3 pathways — Neuberger et al. '24 AMJ · 7 · *solves: unstudied→accelerator ethnography*
- **[P29]** secrecy → 7 discursive strategies — Clarke et al. '24 JBE · 7 · *solves: secrecy legitimation→repertoire*
- **[P28]** eWOM → de-stigmatization → legitimation — Villers et al. '24 JSR · 7 · *solves: stigma mechanism→eWOM model*
- **[P32]** non-Western ↔ Western investors → tensions — Jones & Murray '26 JMS · 7 · *solves: universalism→tension lens*
- **[P33]** challenge×strategy configs → deals — Yang, Zhang & Wu '25 MD · 7 · *solves: single-strategy→fsQCA 328*
- **[P36]** wedging+alignment → revised assessments — Dahan & Leca '25 JMS · 4 · *solves: hybridity liability→reframing*
- **[P41]** political affinity → endorsements → IPO legitimacy — Song, Hu & Xia '25 JMS · 1 · *solves: transfer assumed→pathways*
- **[P44]** contradiction → myths → internal legitimacy — Howard & Brown '26 JMS · 0 · *solves: contradiction→myth model*
- **[P39]** crisis narratives → legitimacy managed — de Castilho Rossoni & Lima '26 CSR · 2 · *solves: disclosure→CDA+ethics*

**L3 · The object — venture side**
- **[P02]** green innovation → legitimacy → export↑ — Shu et al. '24 MOR · 35 · *solves: EMF barriers→innovation vehicle*
- **[P04]** rival alliances → ecosystem defence — Chen et al. '24 JMS · 27 · *solves: venture vulnerability→rival-alliance defence*
- **[P05]** resourcefulness → venture process — Williams et al. '24 JMS · 23 · *solves: fragmented lit→integrated model*
- **[P07]** category density → legitimacy spillover — Li, Cai & Bosma '24 SBE · 21 · *solves: new forms legitimize→spillover*
- **[P27]** category reconfiguration → new-category legitimacy — Rhee, Lo & Durand '25 OrgSci · 7 · *solves: challenger legitimation→3 strategies*
- **[P31]** awareness+motive+weak capability → decoupling — Xu et al. '25 JMS · 20 · *solves: signal w/o substance→config drivers*
- **[P34]** responsible ent. → social legitimacy — Adomako & Tran '25 CSR · 7 · *solves: boundary conditions→time-lag survey*
- **[P35]** EO → substitutive legitimacy → underconformity — Askarzadeh et al. '25 JMS · 6 · *solves: underconformity→substitutive mech*

**L4 · The field — macro environment**
- **[P01]** strategies×positions×foundations×time×arenas → legitimation — Vaara et al. '24 JoM · 68 · *solves: fragmented→5-element framework*
- **[P03]** legitimacy = create→maintain→lose — Meyer & Tse '25 IBR · 30 · *solves: snapshots→process view*
- **[P06]** illegitimate actors → institutional repair — Rintamäki et al. '24 AMR · 22 · *solves: threat framing→repair role*
- **[P08]** intensive mentoring → accelerator effect — Rechter & Avnimelech '24 SBE · 21 · *solves: active ingredient→mentoring*
- **[P12]** university incubator → social intrapreneurship — Nafari et al. '24 Technovation · 18 · *solves: econ-only→social value*
- **[P14]** racial identity → lived experience — Santos et al. '24 SBE · 17 · *solves: race as control→identity-centered*
- **[P22]** underexploited opportunity → inequality — Lewis et al. '24 AMR · 12 · *solves: equalizer myth→inequality*
- **[P23]** outcome = institution + cohort — Avnimelech et al. '24 SMJ · 12 · *solves: confound→Bayesian decomposition n=1,350*
- **[P25]** 3R strategies → marginalized legitimation — Spanuth & Urbano '24 AMP · 8 · *solves: marginalization→3R strategies*
- **[P30]** accelerator × ecosystem = complement/substitute — Qin '25 JIBS · 3 · *solves: uniform effect→ecosystem moderator*
- **[P45]** invoked past → evaluative authorization — Markman et al. '26 JMS · 0 · *solves: legacy divergence→authorization theory*
- **[P46]** digital forces → evaluation assumptions break — Clemente et al. '26 JMS · 0 · *solves: stable audiences→rethink*

**S · Scale anchors — validated instruments (any year)**
- **[P47]** self-legitimacy scale (4 dims) → impostor syndrome → intention↓ — Bertrand, Benamara & Aldebert '25 HAL · wp · *solves: self-legitimacy never measured → validated scale n=122*
- **[P48]** individual perceptions → pragmatic/moral/cognitive legitimacy scale — Alexiou & Wiggins '19 Strategic Organization · 138 · *solves: collective-only measures → individual-perception scale*
- **[P49]** entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale — Chen, Greene & Crick '98 JBV · ~4k · *solves: no ESE measure → validated scale (Q6's foil)*

## The committee's hardest questions — short answers

- **"Just a gap nobody filled?"** No — a theoretical tension: legitimacy lives in the *judge's* head, training operates in the *founder's*. Theory can't predict whether signals cross that boundary.
- **"What if you get a null result?"** Still a contribution: it proves founder-side training can't cross the boundary → policy should target judges/platforms instead.
- **"Isn't it all self-report?"** No — objective milestones + Ghods text-scoring of pitch decks + a planned conjoint study with real bank officers.
- **"Why Bertrand's scale, not self-efficacy?"** Self-legitimacy measures *entitlement to be a founder*, not skill — it's what triggers impostor syndrome.
- **"Won't bias override training?"** Possibly — that's why subgroup analysis (gender, origin) is built in. A ceiling effect is itself a finding.
- **"France ≠ Italy?"** Ghods shows legitimacy representations differ by context → modeled as a formal moderator, not pooled.
- **"Why only 12 hours?"** Clean causal identification — long incubators confound training with peer effects and mentoring.

## Where each paper goes in the thesis

| Chapter | Core argument | Key papers |
|---------|---------------|------------|
| Introduction | The legitimacy deficit is structural, not merit-based | Siraz JBE 2026, AOM 2020; Bertrand 2025 |
| Theory | Legitimacy = multi-state relational judgment | Siraz JMS 2023; Schoon 2022; Suchman 1995 |
| Hypotheses | Categorical fit dominates; training improves cue coherence | Thaler/Siraz JMS; Siraz EMR 2026; Aldebert 2021/23 |
| Boundary conditions | Strategies can backfire; bias may cap effects | Claes EMR 2025; Siraz JBE 2026 |
| Methods | Founder-side node of the dyad + objective validation | Schoon 2022; Ghods BJM 2026; Bertrand 2025 |
| Contribution | First field RCT crossing the founder→evaluator boundary | Full network synthesis + Ghods 2021 template |

**The closing line:** *Everyone studied one link of the chain. I test whether pulling on the middle link — training the founder — actually moves the last link — the judge's verdict.*

## New: full paper-collection map

`PAPERS_COLLECTION_MAP.md` — all 93 PDFs from the local Legitimacy repository, re-sorted by what each paper *does* for the research (foundations / evaluator side / scales / rhetoric / lifecycle / contexts / training / own working papers), with a final branch mapping each cluster onto the crowdfunding project.