Table 3.1 provides an overview of the key measures used in the quantitative analysis, including the independent, moderators and dependent variables used in each study. Further specifics around the moderator and dependent variables measures are provided in Chapter 4 (Study I) and Chapter 5 (Study II). I now discuss the development of the bricolage measure.
Table 3.1 Key Measures Used in Study I and Study II Study Independent Moderator Dependent Study I Bricolage Environmental
Dynamism
-Venture Emergence (Nascent Firms)
-Sales (Log) Young Firms Study II Bricolage -Relationship Affiliation
-Functional Diversity
-Sales (Log) Young Firms
Development of the Bricolage Measure
The bricolage measure was developed using standard protocols for scale development (Brown et al., 2001; DeVellis, 2003). The measure was created by Professor Ted Baker and Professor Per Davidsson.
Ted Baker is a leading academic in entrepreneurial bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Baker, 2007; Baker & Welter, 2014) being the lead author on the most cited bricolage research in entrepreneurship, and Per Davidsson has substantial expertise in survey research and development (Davidsson, 1989a; 1989b; 1991; Davidsson & Wiklund,1997).
One key challenge was the need to design the bricolage construct to enable its applicability across multiple heterogeneous industries, and across different stages of firm growth. As a result both authors independently began by writing a large number of items based on the literature. Through a process of selection, revision and deletion, the number of items was reduced through a variety of processes, including review by other scholars familiar with the entrepreneurship and bricolage literatures, and completing pilot testing using a questionnaire. After extensive pretesting and screening the final measure contained 9 items that were developed to tap each element of the Baker and Nelson’s (2005, p.333) definition of the bricolage: “making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities.” The bricolage items use a response scale where 1 means “never” and 5 means “always” (rather than levels of agreement) in order to reflect the behavioural nature of the phenomenon. (Refer Table 3.2).
During pre-tests of the bricolage measure I joined the CAUSEE project and I, along with my colleagues, considered the appropriateness of the bricolage measure being either a reflective measure or formative measure40. However, further assessment and consideration of bricolage, discussion with scholars, and the use of decision criteria by Mackenzie et al. (2005) indicated that it should treat the measure as reflective.
40 “A formative measures the construct appeared as a manifestation of the items, such that variations at the level of the items induce variations in the construct (the reverse does not hold); items are not exchangeable and do not co-vary. With reflective measures, items are seen as manifestations of the hypothesized construct whose variations are directly reflected in items responses; items are
Frequencies were initially run on all 9 items of the bricolage scale. Analysis was conducted on missing values on the items as a potential threat to internal validity (Rose & Fraser, 2008). The highest missing value was on bricolage item 9: “To deal with new challenges we acquire resources at low or no cost and combine them with what we already have” (2.1%) in wave 1 (all samples). The distribution indicated items were positively skewed. The bricolage measure was then assessed using exploratory factor analysis (Table 3.3)41.
Table 3.3 Bricolage Items (1-9) Factor Results (Wave 1)
Items Sample Factors (Wave 1) Cronbach (Wave 1) Bricolage 1_9 (All Samples) 2 .824 positive correlation Bricolage 1_9 (All HP) 2 .793 positive correlation Bricolage 1_9 (All RD) 2 .828 positive correlation Bricolage 1_9 (NF HP) 2 .839 positive correlation Bricolage 1_9 (NF RDD) 2 .826 positive correlation Bricolage 1_9 (YF HP) 3 .738 negative correlation
on item 1 and item 942 Bricolage 1_9 (YF RDD) 1 .829 positive correlation
During these assessments, it became apparent that one item (item 9) of the scale had a negative correlation with item one in the high potential young firm sample. It also used of the verb “acquire” which may trigger the unintended interpretation “buy at full cost” where the intended meaning was “obtain at little or no cost” and as previously discussed it was the item that had the highest percentage of missing values. Consequently, item 9 was dropped.
The bricolage items (1-8) were analysed using factor analysis (Table 3.4), highlighting relative consistency across waves with total variance over 40% in all samples, across waves.
41 Tests used PC extraction, Varimax Rotation, and visual assessments of Scree plots.
42 There was a negative relationship between Item 1 “We are confident of our ability to find workable solutions to new challenges by using our existing resources” and item 9 “To deal with new challenges we acquire resources at low or no cost and combine them with what we already have” such that as the value of one variable increases, the other decreases.
Table 3.4 Bricolage Items (1-8) Factor Results (Waves1-3)
Items Sample No. of Factors
(wave 1)43
No. of Factors (wave 2)
No. of Factors (wave 3)
Bricolage 1_8 (All Samples) 1 (45.20)% 1 (47.47)% 1 (50.35)% Bricolage 1_8 (All HP) 1 (41.68)% 1 (45.16)% 2 (59.01)% Bricolage 1_8 (All RD) 1 (45.54)% 1 (47.60)% 1 (50.90)% Bricolage 1_8 (NF HP) 1 (47.66)% 2 (58.84)% 2 (61.89)% Bricolage 1_8 (NF RDD) 1 (45.12)% 1 (45.97)% 2 (60.57)% Bricolage 1_8 (YF HP) 2 (49.64)% 1 (46.16)% 1 (44.93)% Bricolage 1_8 (YF RDD) 1 (46.18)% 2 (62.31)% 1 (52.69)%
The Cronbach Alpha’s across the samples were also evaluated at this stage44
to ensure convergent validity among the items (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). This method was chosen as the sub-dimensions of bricolage were expected to be highly correlated with each other. These tests illustrate a high level of internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978) across various samples and all waves. (Refer Table 3.5).
Table 3.5 Bricolage Items 1-8 (Cronbach) Items Sample Cronbach
(Wave 1)
Cronbach (Wave 2)
Cronbach (Wave 3) Bricolage 1_8 (All Samples) .823 .836 .853 Bricolage 1_8 (All HP) .797 .817 .824 Bricolage 1_8 (All RD) .824 .837 .857 Bricolage 1_8 (NF HP) .797 .817 .834 Bricolage 1_8 (NF RDD) .821 .826 .836 Bricolage 1_8 (YF HP) .742 .825 .818 Bricolage 1_8 (YF RDD) .829 .847 .867
The bricolage measure was then calculated as the average (mean) of items 1-8. The reliability tests were then conducted and illustrate strong correlations and criterion validity tests indicate the mean decreasing over time with a higher standard deviation between the measures over the 3 waves of data. (Tables 3.6 to 3.8). I sought to understand these changes of the measure over time. I expected strong correlations between waves 1-3.
Given most of the theorising around bricolage suggests resource constraints (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Fisher, 2012) I considered how constraints may change as the firm developed. The literature suggests that firms become more established, they continue to build and develop their resource troves, through creating new resources, scavenging, and accessing resources through local environments (Lévi-Strauss, 1966) or through network bricolage approaches (Baker et al., 2003). Further, through acts of tinkering and experimentation entrepreneurs gain a better understanding of the resources on hand, their benefits and limitations. As a result of more resources (which may better support resource seeking behaviours) and as a result of learning effects I expected to see a reduction in the average score of bricolage and as a result increased variance over time.
Table 3.6 Sample NF and YF (RDD)
Table 3.7 Sample NF (RDD)
Table 3.8 Sample YF (RDD) Mean St Dev. N Wave 1
Bricolage Wave 2 Bricolage Wave 3 Bricolage Wave 1 Bricolage 3.9470 .63902 1408 1 Wave 2 Bricolage 3.8594 .69485 880 .421** 1 Wave 3 Bricolage 3.7889 .73625 641 .395 ** .475 ** 1 Mean St Dev. N Wave 1 Bricolage Wave 2 Bricolage Wave 3 Bricolage Wave 1 Bricolage 3.9767 .63172 623 1 Wave 2 Bricolage 3.8513 .67731 325 .305** 1 Wave 3 Bricolage 3.7735 .67774 308 .279** .481** 1
Mean St Dev. N Wave 1 Bricolage Wave 2 Bricolage Wave 3 Bricolage Wave 1 Bricolage 3.8502 .66999 623 1 Wave 2 Bricolage 3.7827 .71965 325 .505** 1 Wave 2 Bricolage 3.6995 .78640 308 .417** .455** 1