Reviewing Effectuation and Bricolage in the Context of Social Entrepreneurship Multisector Collaborations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Traditional perspectives are insufficient for understanding/framing Social Entrepreneurship Triple Helix arrangements. This paper explores the extent to which specific alternative theoretical perspectives of entrepreneurship might be evident in the context of social entrepreneurship 'ventures' through multisector collaboration amongst university, government and private sector partners. Design/methodology/approach: Within the past twenty years, more established economics-based views of entrepreneurial behavior have been complemented with several alternative theoretical perspectives for entrepreneurship research; including effectuation and entrepreneurial bricolage. This conceptual paper reviews these literatures against the context of multisector collaboration within the triple helix. Findings: Specifically, the paper discusses and illustrates the interplay of effectuation and social entrepreneurship given the fact that resource-constrained environments push social entrepreneurs to employ alternative strategies to compensate the more complex external conditions. Collaborative efforts deemed to be more social entrepreneurship in orientation appear to draw on effectuation and bricolage. Originality/value: With an emphasis on affordable loss rather than expected returns; strategic alliances and collaboration rather than competitive analysis; exploitation of contingencies rather than exploitation of pre-existing knowledge; and controlling an unpredictable future rather than predicting an uncertain one, effectuation and bricolage in the context of social entrepreneurship requires quite different guiding policies. Not necessarily being as resource-constrained, but certainly attempting to address complex societal or social issues, multisector collaboration through social entrepreneurship appears to be a fruitful arena for the application of effectuation and bricolage.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".