This study investigates how market actors legitimize new categories that challenge the foundational understandings of established ones while simultaneously seeking to compete in the same market space. We analyze the development of the U.S. plant-based meat category from 2012 to 2019, focusing on how plant-based meat producers positioned their products as legitimate competitors within the meat category despite their nonanimal origins. We identify three key legitimation strategies used by entrepreneurs: reconfiguring the category basis by reframing the core attributes of meat from animal origin to shared biochemical components; creating experiential congruence by replicating the sensory qualities and social practices associated with traditional meat; and instilling value superiority by emphasizing health, environmental, and ethical benefits along with forward-thinking innovation. Our observations also lead us to theorize what we term category transmutation—a construct for understanding how the successful legitimation of a new category might reshape the meaning and boundaries of an existing one. We envision category transmutation as a process through which an existing category evolves to incorporate both traditional and new subcategories, thereby vertically modifying the category structure. This study advances our understanding of category dynamics and extends the role of cultural entrepreneurship beyond gaining legitimacy to reshaping category systems and market structures, with the potential to drive positive societal changes.

Category dynamics encompass the formation, evolution, and decline of categories. Market, product, and organizational categories help actors identify competitors and guide audiences in navigating offerings, facilitating efficient market exchanges and coordination among participants. Early research on categories and categorization in organization studies tended to view categories as stable systems that encourage conformity and sanction deviations; the so-called “categorical imperative” thesis suggests that entities not fitting into established categories face negative evaluations. However, research has since shifted from seeing categories as static and constraining to recognizing them as malleable constructs dynamically shaped by social processes. Scholars have investigated boundary conditions and contingencies of the categorical imperative, exploring when and how market actors can blend, span, or stretch categories without necessarily facing penalties. This literature also highlights how actors can strategically shape categorization to serve their interests rather than passively accepting the classifications externally assigned. These shifts have led to increasing scholarly focus on category dynamics; categories are seen no longer as given, but as outcomes to be explained. Drawing on multiple research traditions within contemporary organization theory, including institutional analysis, organizational ecology, social movement theory, and cultural entrepreneurship, scholars have examined the various factors driving new category formation and the evolution of existing ones, acknowledging the importance of a coherent identity, broader sociocultural forces, audience-side considerations, and the actions of category participants. Promising directions for future research include studying interactions among actors, the relational nature of categories, and the interplay of symbolic and material cultural resources in category dynamics.

How does the viability of a product category shift over time? Studies abound on how categories emerge and become established, or fall out of use. Yet, extant research has often examined the evolution of categories one at a time, leaving open the question of how related categories affect a focal category’s viability. In contrast, we consider both intra- and inter-category dynamics. Viewing categories as continuously shaped by actors’ efforts to position their products, we argue that these efforts alter the coherence that products exhibit not only within a category (a category’s heterogeneity), but also across related categories (a category’s distinctiveness). We theorize how the interaction between a category’s heterogeneity and distinctiveness shapes its subsequent viability. When a focal category’s distinctiveness is low, the heterogeneity–viability relationship takes an inverted U-shape. However, as distinctiveness grows, the relationship flattens and eventually flips to a U-shape. We explain this by considering the trade-off between the “classification” and “valuation” benefits that a category affords. We find support for our argument by tracking 170 categories over an 11-year period on Kickstarter, one of the largest crowdfunding platforms. By providing a nuanced understanding of category dynamics, we shed new light onto the fluctuating viability of categories.

How do new things in nascent markets become legitimate? Existing research points to a process where legitimacy is built by making associations with already legitimate ideas from other domains. In this study, however, we investigate the Internet boom of the 1990s, a nascent setting where something new—engagement metrics used to evaluate firms—gained legitimacy amongst investors, but not by being associated with already legitimate metrics. Using a question-driven mixed-methods approach, we reveal that these new metrics instead gained legitimacy through a novel process we term prospective legitimation, where a new basis of legitimacy was constructed by firms linking their otherwise unproven new metrics to future profitability. We discuss how these findings inform research on legitimacy, the development of nascent markets, and future-oriented communications.

Entrepreneurs frequently tout how their ideas and innovations will become the “next big thing.” Yet, many such innovations – after the initial excitement and an upsurge in expectations – may experience a bust following the initial boom. We develop a conceptual framework to theorize how entrepreneurs may attract attention and garner support from wider stakeholders through the use of framing strategies. Yet, these framing activities will also invite more diverse participants and lead to an increasingly incoherent and imbalanced frame at the collective level, making it challenging to maintain resonance among key stakeholders, in turn hampering the healthy development of the nascent market in the long run. Looking beyond just the positive and short-term effects of cultural entrepreneurship on market emergence, we offer a more balanced view by examining the potential downsides of entrepreneurial legitimacy-building strategies.

In a growing body of literature on categorization in organization theory, researchers are exploring the stabilizing role of categories and the processes by which they emerge. Because the literature focuses mainly on categories that emerge successfully or are already established, we know much less about why categories fall out of use or fail to emerge. Rather than viewing declining usage or failed emergence as different processes, we argue that they are two aspects of the single problem of understanding what makes a category viable. Focusing on the coherence of the items included in a category and how distinct they are compared to items in other categories, we develop the concept of category viability and argue that viable categories are those found useful for sensemaking, analysis, and coordination because they balance both coherence and distinctiveness to fall within what we call a zone of viability. To illustrate how category viability helps explain both change and continuity of categories, we also offer a framework to describe the process by which categories move in or out of the zone of viability with deliberate actions or with shifting circumstances that change their members or positions relative to other categories.

Drawing on the notion of imprinting, we develop a framework for understanding category emergence and durability by suggesting that the durability of a category reflects its emergence conditions. We propose four ideal-typical mechanisms – consensus, proof, fiat, and truce – that arise from differences in the degree of agreement and the centralization of the authority regarding category definitions. Our framework not only relates category durability to emergence but also highlights the role of category promoters and constituencies in an ongoing process of category maintenance. We discuss implications for understanding the dynamics of the categorization process in various social and product market contexts.

We contribute to the research on organizational accounts by examining the role of different framing languages and the credibility of the frame articulator on justifying controversial organizational actions. Drawing on regulatory focus theory and the literature on source credibility, we develop novel arguments as to how a gains-versus-nonlosses framing and the perceived credibility of the speaker influence stakeholder responses, as well as how the effectiveness of these aspects is influenced by context. We test our arguments using data on the framing of the adoption of “poison pills” by U.S. firms between 1983 and 2008. Using content analysis and an event study, we find that a gains framing aligned with the dominant institutional logic leads to a positive stock market reaction, while statements emanating from speakers with potentially self-serving interests negatively affect the stock market reaction. Our findings further show that the effectiveness of framing and source credibility are dependent on contextual attributes such as speaker visibility, prior performance, and practice prevalence.