The development of empirical scales and initial empirical tests within bricolage research indicate a theoretical field in progress, with growing maturity (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). I find some progress, though limited research exists with empirical measures of bricolage (I found a total of 10 studies) to test or apply bricolage to empirical tests (Table. 2.6). Overall, the review suggests that bricolage measures have been used on various samples, applying various analysis techniques. Some studies provide evidence of validating new measures (e.g. Rönkkö et al., 2013) while others have applied content analysis techniques (Desa, 2012) with measures based on Baker and Nelson’s domains (Desa, 2012; Rönkkö et al., 2013). Others have applied a measure based on the Baker and Nelson’s definition of bricolage (Davis et al., 2013; Senyard et al., 2014). Both cross sectional and longitudinal data have been used in these empirical tests.
Initial work in the development of a bricolage measure aligned with the theorising of the time when bricolage was considered primarily a component of improvisation (e.g. Cunha & Cunha, 2006). As a consequence, the first measures of bricolage had only a few “bricolage” items as part of a larger improvisation measure. These measures (e.g. Hmieleski & Corbett, 2006; Leybourne & Sadler Smith, 2006) did not attempt to capture the entrepreneurial bricolage definitions or domains defined in Baker and Nelson (2005).
Banerjee and Campbell (2009) then used an unusual sample of longitudinal patent data to develop a measure of inventor bricolage, defined as the “reconstruction of technological capabilities through reallocation of extant individual inventors to address new opportunities embodied in patents” (p. 473). While this is a novel theoretical contribution to the establishment of the entrepreneurial bricolage domain, it lacks relevance to the numerically dominant “modest majority” of entrepreneurial firms (Davidsson & Gordon, 2012) who typically do not hold patents, limiting its relevance and application to a broader scope of entrepreneurship theory.
Table 2.5 Levels of Analysis, Setting and Theoretical Lens Used in Bricolage Literatures
Analysis Sample Authors Setting Theoretical Lens Described
Institutional Water rights in Africa N.A.
BRAC, Rural Bangladesh N.A.
8 UK Social Enterprises 3 Japanese MNC in China Water rights in California 202 tech social ventures 202 tech social ventures24 SME sustainability firms
Cleaver (2002) Spencer et al. (2005) Mair & Marti (2009) Zahra et al. (2009) Di Dominco et al. (2010) Gamble (2010)
Booher & Innes (2010) Desa (2012)
Desa & Basu (2013) Faulconbridge (2013) Natural Resources Institutional Institutional NGO Local Community Local Social Retail Internationalisation Institutions, Policy Institution, International Social Mobilisation Institutions Regional Culture Structure, Innovation Relationship Poverty Innovation, Scale Value, Persuasion Hybrid, Local Adaptation Governance, Relationship Legitimacy, Reconfiguration Optimisation vs. Bricolage Design, Knowledge Industry Wind Turbine Industry
Gastronomy and French Cuisine Construction Industry
Dutch Employment Security Wind Turbine Industry Irish Shellfish Sector
Garud & Karnøe (2003) Rao et al. (2005) Stewart & Fenn (2006) Soeparman et al. (2009) Hendry & Harbourne (2011) Evers & O’Gorman (2011)
Industry Paths in Making Industry Food Categories Discourse
Intermediaries Industry R&D Internationalisation
Break-through vs. Bricolage Knowledge, Status, Hybrid Strategy, Innovation Relationship, Innovation Innovation, Learning Network, Knowledge Firm Olivetti
2 new product development firms 25 start-up consulting firms 29 small firms in constraint
60 young firms knowledge-based growth Recruitment, pet enthusiast production 2 L3C social ventures
2 Case Companies Nokia and ABB Chinese IT service suppliers 658 Nascent and Young Firms
Ciborra (1996) Miner et al. (2001) Baker et al. (2003) Baker & Nelson (2005) Gong et al. (2005) Ferneley & Bell (2006) Florin & Schmidt (2011) Halme et al. (2012) Ning (2013) Senyard et al. (2014) Firm R&D Product Development Competencies Firm Growth Knowledge Information Bus. Model Intrapraneurship MNC Internationalisation Innovation Innovation, Imprinting
Imprinting, Learning, Knowledge Improvisation, Network
Rule Breaking, Domains, Selective/ Parallel Capabilities, Inertia, Learning
Improvisation, Learning Innovation Hybrid, Process Frameworks, Innovation Capabilities, Networks Environmental Constraint 24
Analysis Sample Authors Setting Theoretical Lens Described
Project Service Innovation Projects
3 Firms conducting Financial Project
Salunke et al. (2013) Gallo & Gardiner (2007)
Projects
Finance, Improvisation Flexibility
Relationship, Innovation Improvisation, Flexibility Team Fire Fighters
Service technicians
2 Cases (SWAT and film crews)
Weick (1993) Orr (1996)
Bechky & Okhuysen (2011)
Unexpected Events Events, Collective Surprise
Sense-making
Rule Breaking , Learning Team Knowledge Individual 430 College Students
231 Family Enterprise Advisors
Hmieleski & Corbett (2006) Davis et al. (2013)
Intentions Family
Improvisation
Table 2.6 Empirical Measures of Bricolage
Bricolage Measure Data Sample Analysis Authors
Improvisation measure includes bricolage
2 Part Study 430 College Students Hierarchical
Regression Hmieleski & Corbett (2006) Improvisation
measure includes bricolage
Cross Sectional 161 Project managers
and consultants
Mediated regression
Leybourne & Sadler Smith (2006)
Inventor Bricolage Longitudinal
Patent Data
Patenting Teams in Life Science Diagnostic firms
Panel Regression
Banerjee & Campbell (2009)
Bricolage Measure (3 items)
Cross Sectional 14 Project Based
192 Aust 261 US Firms
SEM Sanluke et al. (2012)
CAUSEE Bricolage measure (8 items) Cross Sectional Cross Sectional Longitudinal 231 Family Firm Advisors 113 Social entrepreneurs 658 Nascent and young firms CFA,SEM Mediation, OLS Regression Davis et al. 2013) Gundry et al. (2011) Senyard et al. (2014) Bricolage measure based on domains of Bricolage
Baker & Nelson, (2005)
2 Part Pilot and Revision
315 Software firms CFA Rönkkö et al.(2013)
Measure content analysis bricolage domains (physical, labour, skills)
Longitudinal 202 Technology social
ventures (TSV) database in 45 countries
GLS Regression
Desa (2012), Desa & Basu (2013)25
The subsequent 3 measures that were developed were created around Baker and Nelson’s (2005) theorising of entrepreneurial bricolage. Desa (2012) focused on specific domains (e.g. materials, labour & skills)26, applying content analysis techniques. The measure developed by Rönkkö et al., (2013)27 attempted to capture serial/parallel bricolage outlined in Baker and Nelson (2005) in software firms. It is important to note that both the measures from Desa’s research (Desa, 2012; Desa & Basu, 2013) and Rönkkö et al. (2013) were tested in technology or high technology firms, which are typically not the contexts described in the prior inductive theorising
25 Both use the same dataset and technique. Domains are described in Baker and Nelson (2005, p. 349).
26 Whilst a novel contribution and extending the domains in social bricolage theorising, Baker and Nelson (2005) when delineating these domains indicted they were not mutually inclusive and outlined 5 domains, not 3 domains.
27
The Rönkkö et al. (2013) measure provides an important contribution in shifting bricolage theory towards greater maturity. Despite wanting to capture parallel/serial bricolage (based on 5 domains) only 3 domains were tested in this paper. Elements described in Baker and Nelsons domains are not wholly captured in the questions. For example, the labor domain includes suppliers in the Baker and Nelson discussion, and also describes discarded word materials being used a valuable inputs. Both of these however, are not captured in the final questions established in their study.
in bricolage research (for a notable exception see Bannerjee & Campbell, 2009; Garud and Karnøe, 2003). Bricolage theorising commonly describes it as a “bottoms up” process (Halme et al., 2012, p. 748) creating incremental innovations in context (Anderson, 2008).
This is important as this focus of high technology firms in bricolage empirical tests may not be representative of the results of the typical imitative types of firms that are developed as “lifestyle” firms (Ateljevic & Doorne, 2000, p. 378) early stage firms that start small and remain intendedly small (Timmons & Spinelli, 1999) found in large representative samples of emerging firms (Davidsson et al., 2011).
The most recent bricolage measure was developed within the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) study to capture each element of the Baker and Nelson (2005, p. 333) definition: “making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities” rather than domains. It has been the one most frequently used in published research. This measure has been applied in a large representative sample of emerging firms (Senyard et al., 2014), family firms (Davis et al., 2013) and social ventures (Gundry et al., 2011). I use this measure in Study I and Study II and as part of triangulation techniques in Study III.
Theory shifts as different themes evolve over time. I now focus on themes related to firm outcomes, and the current theorising around bricolage and firm performance. The thematic analysis indicates innovation as the dominant evolving outcome measure used to assess bricolage and firm performance.
2.8 EVOLVING THEME: FIRM PERFORMANCE (INNOVATION)