制度興業 (Institutional Entrepreneurship) 是指行動者意圖重構特定的制度，並且透過既有的資源來形塑制度。不同於傳統的制度興業聚焦於人類能動性 (Human Agecny)的作用，越來越多的制度興業家(Institutional Entrepreneurs) 透過數位科技創造新的能動性，即透過整合人類與物質的能動性 (Human and Material Agencies)降低制度轉型的障礙。本研究認為此種能動性的結構受到制度興業者與其手邊科技的互動不斷變化，並且根據此種結構的特徵將其稱之"興業 IT" (Entrepreneurial IT)。然而，新的能動性於制度變革中的作用尚未得到完善地研究。儘管社會物質觀點 (Socio-Material) 提供了一個調查人類與物質能動性融合的方法，興業 IT 呈現一種更加動態與複雜的互動，不僅止於固定的融合。考量制度興業文獻受到數位化發展不斷地改變，本研究提出一套混合方法 (Mixed-Methods) - 主路徑分析式個案方法 (MPA-based Case Method)，從既有文獻與探索型個案研究中揭示重要觀點。為了追蹤結構化 (Structuration)與能動性 (Agency)文獻的發展軌跡，本研究首先採用一個系統性回顧方法 - 主路徑分析方法 (Main Path Analysis)形塑一個理論藍圖 (Theoretical Blueprint)，引領本研究蒐集並且分析金融科技產業個案中的興業 IT 現象。本研究藉由主路徑分析的結果以及四個個案的實證提出了一個整合模型，即制度興業家發展興業IT的三個維度，包括配置興業資源 (Configuring Entrepreneurial Resources)、混合能動性(Hybridizing Agencies)和生成科技表演性 (Engendering Technological Performativity)。總體而言，通過討論能動性的相互作用以促進興業 IT 的發展，本研究為以數位為基礎的制度興業以及社會物質性的文獻做出了重要貢獻。

Institutional entrepreneurship refers to actors who intend to restructure specific institutions and leverage resources to build new ones. Unlike traditional institutional entrepreneurship, which mainly focuses on the role of human agency, there is an increasing number of institutional entrepreneurs who adopt digital technologies to produce new agencies, which integrate the human and material agencies and thus lower the barriers to institutional change. This study found that the structure of these new agencies constantly change with the dynamic interaction between institutional entrepreneurs and the technologies at hand and follows their characteristics to term it "Entrepreneurial IT". However, the roles of the new agency on institutional change have not yet been convincingly demonstrated. Despite socio-material perspective offering a way of examining the convergence of human and material agencies, Entrepreneurial IT presents a more dynamic and complex interaction, rather than merely the fixed convergence. Considering the institutional entrepreneurship literature is changing with the development of digitalization, this study proposes mixed-methods - MPA-based Case Method - to identify important aspects of entrepreneurial IT from both existing literature and exploratory case studies. To trace the development trajectory of structuration and agency, this study first conducts a systematic review approach - Main Path Analysis - to form a theoretical blueprint, which guides this study in collecting and analyzing the entrepreneurial IT phenomenon within the FinTech industry cases. Based on the evidence from the MPA results and four cases, this paper proposes an integrated model, including the three mechanisms of enacting entrepreneurial IT, namely configuring entrepreneurial resources, hybridizing agencies, and engendering technological performativity. Overall, by discussing the interaction of socio-material, this study furthers the development of entrepreneurial IT and examines how social and material agencies enact each other, thereby offering an important contribution to the literature on digital-based institutional entrepreneurship and socio-material.

Abbasi, K., Alam, A., Du, M. A., & Huynh, T. L. D. (2021). FinTech, SME efficiency and national culture: evidence from OECD countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120454.
Andrew, T. (2006). The literature review in grounded theory: A response to McCallin (2003). The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 5(2/3), 29-41.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72-95.
Baptista, J. (2009). Institutionalisation as a process of interplay between technology and its organisational context of use. Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 305-319.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 28(3), 801-831.
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 how actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65-107.
Beath, C., Berente, N., Gallivan, M. J., & Lyytinen, K. (2013). Expanding the frontiers of information systems research: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(4), 4.
Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization science, 16(1), 3-18.
Bouncken, R. B., Aslam, M. M., & Qiu, Y. (2021). Coworking spaces: Understanding, using, and managing sociomateriality. Business horizons, 64(1), 119-130.
Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer–to–peer innovations. In: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
Buchak, G., Matvos, G., Piskorski, T., & Seru, A. (2018). Fintech, regulatory arbitrage, and the rise of shadow banks. Journal of Financial Economics, 130(3), 453-483.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, B., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S., & Vidgen, R. (2010). On sociomateriality of information systems and organizing. MIS Quarterly Special Issue.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, R. D., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S., & Vidgen, R. (2014). The sociomateriality of information systems. MIS quarterly, 38(3), 809-830.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage.
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 2, 347-365.
Chia, R. (2003). From knowledge-creation to the perfecting of action: Tao, Basho and pure experience as the ultimate ground of knowing. Human relations, 56(8), 953-981.
Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8(4), 342-367.
Cho, R. L.-T., Liu, J. S., & Ho, M. H.-C. (2021). The development of autonomous driving technology: perspectives from patent citation analysis. Transport Reviews, 1-27.
Chu, T.-H., & Robey, D. (2008). Explaining changes in learning and work practice following the adoption of online learning: a human agency perspective. European Journal of information systems, 17(1), 79-98.
Ciborra, C. (2006). Imbrication of representations: Risk and digital technologies. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1339-1356.
Cojoianu, T. F., Clark, G. L., Hoepner, A. G., Pažitka, V., & Wójcik, D. (2020). Fin vs. tech: are trust and knowledge creation key ingredients in fintech start-up emergence and financing? Small Business Economics, 1-17.
Danneels, E. (2003). Tight–loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 559-576.
De Vaujany, F.-X., Adrot, A., Boxenbaum, E., & Leca, B. (2019). Introduction: How Can Materiality Inform Institutional Analysis? In Materiality in institutions (pp. 1-31). Springer.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization science, 5(2), 121-147.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional patterns and organizations culture and environment, 3-21.
Du, W., Pan, S. L., Zhou, N., & Ouyang, T. (2018). From a marketplace of electronics to a digital entrepreneurial ecosystem (DEE): The emergence of a meta‐organization in Zhongguancun, China. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1158-1175.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1980). Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs, and social change: Comparative analysis of traditional civilizations. American journal of sociology, 85(4), 840-869.
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28(1), 62-70.
Fu, R., Huang, Y., & Singh, P. V. (2021). Crowds, lending, machine, and bias. Information Systems Research, 32(1), 72-92.
Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. In: Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). Univ of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. John Wiley & Sons.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. University of California.
Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., & Weber, B. W. (2018). On the fintech revolution: Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 220-265.
Gosain, S. (2004). Enterprise information systems as objects and carriers of institutional forces: the new iron cage? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(4), 6.
Gozman, D., Liebenau, J., & Mangan, J. (2018). The innovation mechanisms of fintech start-ups: insights from SWIFT’s innotribe competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 145-179.
Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 472-488.
Hedström, P., Swedberg, R., Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). An introductory essay. Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory, 1-31.
Henfridsson, O., Nandhakumar, J., Scarbrough, H., & Panourgias, N. (2018). Recombination in the open-ended value landscape of digital innovation. Information and Organization, 28(2), 89-100.
Henfridsson, O., & Yoo, Y. (2014). The liminality of trajectory shifts in institutional entrepreneurship. Organization science, 25(3), 932-950.
Hernes, T. (2007). Understanding organization as process: Theory for a tangled world. Routledge.
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52-61.
Ho, M. H.-C., & Liu, J. S. (2021). The swift knowledge development path of COVID-19 research: the first 150 days. Scientometrics, 126(3), 2391-2399.
Hua, X., Huang, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Current practices, new insights, and emerging trends of financial technologies. Industrial Management & Data Systems.
Huang, C.-H., Chou, T.-C., & Liu, J. S. (2021). The development of pandemic outbreak communication: A literature review from the response enactment perspective. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1-11.
Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., & Newell, S. (2017). Growing on steroids: Rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovaton. MIS quarterly, 41(1).
Huizing, A. (2007). The value of a rose: rising above objectivism and subjectivism. In Information management: Setting the scene (pp. 91-110). Elsevier.
Hummon, N. P., & Doreian, P. (1989). Connectivity in a citation network: The development of DNA theory. Social networks, 11(1), 39-63.
Introna, L. D., & Hayes, N. (2011). On sociomaterial imbrications: What plagiarism detection systems reveal and why it matters. Information and Organization, 21(2), 107-122.
Jarrahi, M. H., & Nelson, S. B. (2018). Agency, sociomateriality, and configuration work. The Information Society, 34(4), 244-260.
Jensen, T. B., Kjærgaard, A., & Svejvig, P. (2009). Using institutional theory with sensemaking theory: a case study of information system implementation in healthcare. Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 343-353.
Jones, M. (2014). A Matter of Life and Death. MIS quarterly, 38(3), 895-A896.
Jones, M. R., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens's structuration theory and information systems research. MIS quarterly, 127-157.
Jung, D., Dorner, V., Glaser, F., & Morana, S. (2018). Robo-advisory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(1), 81-86.
Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. MIS quarterly, 357-370.
Kautz, K., & Jensen, T. B. (2013). Sociomateriality at the royal court of IS: A jester's monologue. Information and Organization, 23(1), 15-27.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS quarterly, 67-93.
Kolokas, D., Vanacker, T., Veredas, D., & Zahra, S. A. (2020). Venture Capital, Credit, and FinTech Start-Up Formation: A Cross-Country Study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258720972652.
Kozinets, R. V. (1998). On netnography: Initial reflections on consumer research investigations of cyberculture. ACR North American Advances.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.
Lee, C. K., & Hung, S. C. (2014). Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Informal Economy: C hina's Shan‐Zhai Mobile Phones. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(1), 16-36.
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS quarterly, 147-167.
Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Information and Organization, 23(2), 59-76.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1-51.
Leong, C., Tan, B., Xiao, X., Tan, F. T. C., & Sun, Y. (2017). Nurturing a FinTech ecosystem: The case of a youth microloan startup in China. International Journal of Information Management, 37(2), 92-97.
Leong, C., Tan, F. T. C., Tan, B., & Faisal, F. (2020). The emancipatory potential of digital entrepreneurship: A study of financial technology-driven inclusive growth. Information & Management, 103384.
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2015). Leveraging archival data from online communities for grounded process theorizing. In Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research (pp. 247-256). Routledge.
Liu, J. S., Ho, M. H.-C., & Lu, L. Y. (2017). Recent themes in social networking service research. PloS one, 12(1), e0170293.
Liu, J. S., & Lu, L. Y. (2012). An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 528-542.
Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y., & Ho, M. H.-C. (2019). A few notes on main path analysis. Scientometrics, 119(1), 379-391.
Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y., & Ho, M. H.-C. (2020). A note on choosing traversal counts in main path analysis. Scientometrics, 124(1), 783-785.
Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y., & Lu, W.-M. (2016). Research fronts in data envelopment analysis. Omega, 58, 33-45.
Möhlmann, M., & Henfridsson, O. (2019). What people hate about being managed by algorithms, according to a study of Uber drivers. Harvard Business Review, 30.
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of management journal, 47(5), 657-679.
Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2012). Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS). Encyclopedia of Management Theory,(Ed: E. Kessler), Sage Publications, Forthcoming.
Marabelli, M., & Newell, S. (2012). Knowledge risks in organizational networks: The practice perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(1), 18-30.
McCallin, A. (2003). Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study. Contemporary Nurse, 15(1-2), 61-69.
McCoy, C., & Rosenbaum, H. (2019). Uncovering unintended and shadow practices of users of decision support system dashboards in higher education institutions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(4), 370-384.
Mutch, A. (2013). Sociomateriality—Taking the wrong turning? Information and Organization, 23(1), 28-40.
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS quarterly, 41(1).
Niemimaa, M. (2016). Sociomateriality and information systems research: Quantum radicals and cartesian conservatives. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 47(4), 45-59.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization science, 11(4), 404-428.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2006). Material knowing: the scaffolding of human knowledgeability. European Journal of information systems, 15(5), 460-466.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12(2), 174-207.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization science, 6(4), 423-444.
Pan, S. L., & Tan, B. (2011). Demystifying case research: A structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Information and Organization, 21(3), 161-176.
Pascucci, S., Dentoni, D., Clements, J., Poldner, K., & Gartner, W. B. (2021). Forging forms of authority through the sociomateriality of food in partial organizations. Organization studies, 42(2), 301-326.
Pee, L. G., Pan, S. L., Li, M., & Jia, S. (2020). Social informatics of information value cocreation: A case study of xiaomi's online user community. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(4), 409-422.
Perkmann, M., & Spicer, A. (2014). How emerging organizations take form: The role of imprinting and values in organizational bricolage. Organization science, 25(6), 1785-1806.
Pozzebon, M., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Challenges in conducting empirical work using structuration theory: Learning from IT research. Organization studies, 26(9), 1353-1376.
Puschmann, T. (2017). Fintech. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(1), 69-76.
Ravishankar, M. (2021). Social innovations and the fight against poverty: An analysis of India's first prosocial P2P lending platform. Information Systems Journal.
Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. (2019). The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline: Its historical legacy and its continued relevance. MIS quarterly, 43(3), 695-720.
Scott Poole, M., & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human communication research, 19(1), 5-49.
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222-247.
Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization science, 16(2), 180-200.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Citeseer.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International journal of social research methodology, 6(1), 61-77.
Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). sage.
Taylor, J. R. (2007). Toward a theory of imbrication and organizational communication. The American Journal of Semiotics, 17(2), 269-297.
Thakor, A. V. (2020). Fintech and banking: What do we know? Journal of Financial Intermediation, 41, 100833.
Tidhar, R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2020). Get rich or die trying… finding revenue model fit using machine learning and multiple cases. Strategic Management Journal, 41(7), 1245-1273.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization science, 22(1), 60-80.
Tseng, Y.-C., & Chan, C.-L. (2019). When the Sharing Economy Meets Established Institutions: Uber and Airbnb in Taiwan. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
Urquhart, C., & Fernández, W. (2016). Using grounded theory method in information systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. In Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems: Volume 1 (pp. 129-156). Springer.
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357-381.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS quarterly, 21-54.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Sullivan, Y. W. (2016). Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: An extension and illustration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(7), 2.
von Briel, F., Recker, J., Selander, L., Jarvenpaa, S. L., Hukal, P., Yoo, Y., . . . Alpar, P. (2021). Researching digital entrepreneurship: Current issues and suggestions for future directions. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(1), 33.
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of information systems, 4(2), 74-81.
Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of information systems, 15(3), 320-330.
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations [1]. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305-317.
Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M. C., Yetton, P. W., & Krcmar, H. (2017). Grounded theory methodology in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 41(3), 685-701.
Wilkin, C. L., Campbell, J., & Moore, S. (2013). Creating value through governing IT deployment in a public/private-sector inter-organisational context: A human agency perspective. European Journal of information systems, 22(5), 498-511.
Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of information systems, 22(1), 45-55.
Wunderlich, P., Veit, D. J., & Sarker, S. (2019). Adoption of Sustainable Technologies: A Mixed-Methods Study of German Households. MIS quarterly, 43(2).
Yates, J., Orlikowski, W. J., & Okamura, K. (1999). Explicit and implicit structuring of genres in electronic communication: Reinforcement and change of social interaction. Organization science, 10(1), 83-103.
Ye, L., Pan, S. L., Li, M., Dai, Y., & Dong, X. (2021). The citizen-led information practices of ICT4D in rural communities of China: A mixed-method study. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102248.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735.
York, J. G., Hargrave, T. J., & Pacheco, D. F. (2016). Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Academy of management journal, 59(2), 579-610.