On the importance of being scrappy : entrepreneurial orientation and bricolage in social enterprises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social enterprises are hybrid organizations that create social value using market-based models. Social entrepreneurship (SE) as a process is increasingly seen as holding promise for tackling mounting social and environmental problems in a financially sustainable manner. While the research field of SE has grown substantially over the past 20 years, much more empirical work is needed to add to its credibility and validate theoretical propositions. \n \nThis thesis begins from the premise that SE is not a unique domain of entrepreneurship, but rather a context in which entrepreneurship happens (Chell, 2007; Dacin, Dacin & Matear, 2010). However, entrepreneurship constructs that have been applied in commercial settings are expected to manifest differently in SE given the resource-constrained environments within which they operate (Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern, 2006). The analysis examines three entrepreneurship constructs that are prevalent in the study of entrepreneurship in for-profit firms: entrepreneurial orientation (EO), which consists of three sub-dimensions (innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness) (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Hughes & Morgan, 2007); entrepreneurial bricolage (making do and being creative with existing resources) (Baker & Nelson, 2005); and, economic productivity (Battilana, Sengul, Pache & Model, 2015). These constructs are studied in terms of how they affect perceived social impact (Brown 2005). \n \nBased on a survey of 233 social enterprises in Nova Scotia, Canada, findings indicate that both EO and bricolage are predictors of social impact, and that when EO is studied as a uni-dimensional construct bricolage partially mediates the relationship between EO and impact. When EO is studied as a three-dimensional construct, only proactiveness is a significant indicator of social impact and its effect is fully mediated by bricolage. \n \nThis study makes several important contributions to the field. It offers empirical evidence to support the predictive relationship of EO on social impact. It also advances EO theory in social contexts by providing insights on the relationships of each dimension of EO on social impact. The mediating role of bricolage in the relationship of EO and social impact is a strong contribution for understanding organizational behaviours in social enterprises, and antecedents of social impact. Finally, the relative importance of proactiveness compared to other EO dimensions and the mediating role of bricolage in the relationship between proactiveness and social impact offers insights that have implications for decision-makers and practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".