Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Weoffer a theoretical account of how two types of
bricolage influence the entrepreneurial process.
The first type involves social relationships or
physical or functional assets, and thus pertains to an entre-
preneur’s external resources used in the instantiation of
operations of a new venture.The second type pertains to an
entrepreneur’s internal resources—experiences, creden-
tials, knowledge, and certifications—which the entrepre-
neur appropriates, assembles, modifies and deploys in the
presentation of a narrative about the entrepreneurial
process.We argue that both types of bricolage are essential
to the success of a venturing attempt.
Keywords: internal bricolage; external bricolage; entrepre-
neurial process; entrepreneurial opportunity; prior knowl-
edge
Bricolageis a concept first considered by French anthropol-
ogist Claude Levi-Strauss (1967) as a part of his exploration
of the natureof sensemaking in some societies.This notion
has been extended into many other disciplines. Briefly, it is a
propensity to rely on resources at hand in accomplishing crit-
ical tasks and/or in accomplishing goals (c.f.Duymedjian and
Rüling, 2010 for a recent review).We argue here that entre-
preneurship is enabled through a variety of types of entre-
preneurial bricolage (Baker & Aldrich, 2000), which we here-
after referred to only as “bricolage.” Bricolage is fundamental-
lyimportant to venturing because venturing is a process of
adaptive design (Sarasvathy, Dew, Read and Wiltbank, 2008).
Bricolage enables the adaptive design process by making
solutions to problems more achievable, by making critical
resources more obtainable and by reducing costs. We con-
tribute to efforts to identify further the various forms of
bricolage used by entrepreneurs, the strategies by which
those forms are employed, the mechanisms through which
they are expressed and the ways in which these change dur-
ing various stages of the entrepreneurial process. We argue
that if aspiring entrepreneurs can be given a concisely delin-
eated conceptual framework that identifies methods and
approaches for navigating the entrepreneurial process pro-
ductively, these individuals may have a greater chance of suc-
cess.
The main purpose of this paper is to address the following
research question:How does bricolage influence the process
of entrepreneurship? We theorize that bricolage makes entre-
preneurship viable by providing individuals with the means
to progress through the entrepreneurial process.
Entrepreneurs utilize the techniques of bricolage to leverage
internal and external resources to parse, to re-conceptualize,
to appropriate and to assemble resources and to rework and
to present narratives about the entrepreneur, venture and/or
the process in such a way as to solicit further contributions
of resources that can sustain and/or advance the venture.The
contributions of such a scheme consist of establishing the
importance of bricolage in the entrepreneurial process,
incorporating an understanding of the mechanisms and
methods bywhich bricolage is expressed and showing the
value of making a contrast between internal and external
bricolage to scholars of entrepreneurship.
In reviewing the literatureon bricolage,Baker and Nelson
(2005) characterize bricolage as a concept having three core
elements: making due with what’s at hand,taking on diverse
or novel tasks, and accumulating and using diverse skills and
resources. Baker and Nelson (2005) dealt particularly with
conditions of extreme environmental constraint and argued
that bricolage enables entrepreneurial activity under condi-
tions where the startup, growth or survival of a venture (and,
by implication, the entrepreneur) might not otherwise be
possible. Similarly, DiDomenico, Haugh and Tracey (2010)
characterize bricolage as making do with available resources,
a refusal to be constrained bylimitations, and improvisation.
These descriptions are not inconsistent with the work of
Sarasvathy (2001,2008) who argues that successful entrepre-
neurs more skillfully or completely exploit established social
relationships, existing knowledge, and claimable identities to
reduce the risk of investment loss in a new venture.
Sarasvathy examines closelythe mental processes of entre-
preneurs, and then makes a strong case for using this infor-
mation to derive theory that elucidates effective practice.The
author coins the wordeffectuation to describe the propensi-
ty of successful entrepreneurs to rely on controllable
resources as a means of limiting the risk of loss of invest-
ments in a venture.We argue that one important component
of her theory is that successful entrepreneurs make do with
VARIETIES OF BRICOLAGE AND THE PROCESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP 53
Varieties of Bricolage and the Process of Entrepreneurship
Jeff Vanevenhoven,
Doan Winkel, Debra Malewicki,
William L. Dougan, James Bronson
53
et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Fall 2011
Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2011
controllable resources at hand, which can be seen as a form
of bricolage.
We posit that bricolage takes two distinct forms—internal
and external—which serve different functions in the entre-
preneurial process under different conditions and at differ-
ent times. Internal bricolage employs as constituent compo-
nents the often idiosyncratic predicates associated with spe-
cific individuals—life and work experiences, professional and
academic certifications, idiosyncratic mental endowments,
etc., which constitute unique bundles of resources that can
be claimed as a basis for the legitimacy of the entrepreneur
to control other resources and to guide the venture through
the uncertainties and risks of venture development. Gabriel,
Gray and Goregaokar (2010) identify related activity among
managers and professionals who become unemployed late in
their careers and who must revise, recombine, and redeploy
narratives about previous employment experiences in the
service of obtaining new positions.This activity is akin to the
sense from whichthe notion of bricolage emerged—as a
means for assembling from the typical experiences common
to the membersof a social group (like a society) the specific
stories that provide guidance and a sensemaking framework
for the members of that group (Levi-Strauss, 1967).
External bricolage, on the other hand, employs the pool of
potential resources available to an entrepreneur in his or her
external environment.These resources can be social—com-
prising a portion or the entirety of the web of social relations
in whichthe entrepreneur is embedded (Baker, Miner &
Eesley, 2003).They can also be physical—comprising the col-
lection of tangible inputs like machines,materials, parts,land,
byproducts, waste, etc. We place financial resources in this
realm, but note that they have a rather unique character of
being relativelyeasily transformed into other resources. We
argue that external bricolage is closer in character to the
example of bricolage evoked by Levi-Strauss (1967, 1970) to
illustrate the concept—the use of available physical materials
to accomplish tasks of construction or repair.We place both
network bricolage (such as in the utilization of social capital)
and asset bricolage (such as the modification, deployment,
assemblage or transformation of physical or financial
resources) in the realm of external bricolage.We assert that
both internal and external types of bricolage are vital to suc-
cess in the entrepreneurial process, but for different reasons.
Weargue that these different forms may cast light on debates
regarding the agency of the entrepreneur in the venturing
process.
The reason for making this distinction is important.
Consistent with the work of Loundsbury and Glynn (2001),
we believe that the work of an entrepreneur is not just to cre-
ate an ongoing enterprise by“assembling a machine” for cre-
ating value. To obtain resources, the entrepreneur must
engage in rhetorical activity (Zott & Huy, 2007).An entrepre-
neur must tell a story that convinces others who command
resources to make those resources available (O’Connor,
2004).To do this the entrepreneur needs to describe a future
world where the ongoing venture is successful, but also to
represent himself or herself as the most appropriate individ-
ual to bring the new venture into being.
We also attempt here to continue the tradition of unpack-
ing the entrepreneurial process into its constituent aspects,
forms, and phases and to examine how bricolage can apply
to the phases of that process. For us it is important to under-
stand how participants locate, delineate, evaluate, assemble,
and deploy the constituent inputs to the entrepreneurial
process, and how they derive or construe overarching oper-
ational or existential principles that can be examined empir-
ically for their relative importance and value in the venturing
process. Such an examination has the potential to inform
scholars of entrepreneurship by elucidating the means by
whichindividuals who are involved in venturing address and
surmount the common, recurring problem of adaptive design
of a new venture.
Webegin with a detailed explanation of bricolage and dis-
cuss how it can inform and advance entrepreneurial
research. We then discuss entrepreneurship and the impor-
tance of the notion of the “processing of an opportunity” for
models of the entrepreneurial process. We provide proposi-
tions regarding the importance of bricolage to the process of
entrepreneurship and the salutaryinfluence that bricolage
exerts on that process.We conclude with a discussion of the
implications of our approach.
LiteratureReview
Bricolage
Bricolage—“local, contextual, and sudden process . . . which
cannot be thought of outside the specific situation where it
appears” (Cunha, 2005:6)—is a concept that can lend
explanatory power to scholars of entrepreneurship. Scholars
in a variety of other disciplines have appropriated the notion
of bricolage to address a variety of phenomena (Duymedjian
&Rüling, 2010).As with many terms in the entrepreneurship
field, a consistent definition of bricolage has been elusive.
Organizational scholars have defined it loosely as making do
with “whatever is at hand” (Miner, Bassoff,& Moorman, 2001;
Weick,1993a: 351).Alternative definitions are “to use whatev-
er resources and repertoire one has to perform whatever task
one faces”(Weick, 1993b: 352);“tinkering through the combi-
nation of resources at hand” (Ciborra, 2002: 48–49); “the
invention of resources from the available materials to solve
unanticipated problems” (Cunha, 2005: 6) and “resource
cooptation” (DiDomenico, Haugh and Tracey, 2010:683). In
their literature review, Baker and Nelson (2005) found the fol-
lowing common themes across definitions of bricolage: (1)
active problem-solving and/or opportunity-seeking; (2)
54 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
54
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 [2011], No. 2, Art. 1
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/neje/vol14/iss2/1
reliance on pre-existing elements at hand; and (3) resource
recombination for novel uses.
Duymedjian and Rüling (2010) identify three important
components of bricolage: stock or repertoire (the compendi-
um or collection of the elements on which the bricoleur
acts), dialogue (the ongoing relationship that the bricoleur
maintains with the stock or repertoire), and outcome (the
end sought by the bricoleur).The elements of the repertoire
can be tools, raw materials, ideas,etc. From our point of view,
the adaptive process we identified earlier can easily be seen
as containing a dialogue in which the entrepreneur works
with ideas, predicates, technology, raw materials, tools,
money, relationships, etc. An important consideration about
the elements in the repertoire is that the classification or
identity of these elements is not fixed.Tools can become raw
materials; waste can become tools, etc. For us, the objective
would be the presence of a viable new venture.
Scholars have applied bricolage to address various facets
of both entrepreneurship and organizational improvisation
and transformation (Baker et al., 2003; Baker & Nelson,2005;
Ciborra, 1996; Engelen, et al., 2010; Garud & Karnøe, 2003;
Hendry and Harborne, 2011; Miner et al., 2001; Spicer and
Sewell,2010;Weick,1993a,b). Baker and Nelson (2005) found
that bricolageallowed firms to exploit inputs ignored by
other firms to render unique services.
Theorists also argue that bricolage is used by individuals
for personal benefit as well. For example, Nohria & Berkley
(1994) found that bricolage effectively prepared workers for
adopting new technology. Gabriel, Gray and Goregaokar
(2010) find that bricolage enables unemployed professionals
to cope with identity reconstruction.
Sometimes, both the personal and the social are inter-
twined. For example, Johannisson and Olaison (2007)
showed how bricolage enabled individuals and organizations
affected by a hurricane to cope with the loss and destruction
of a social fabric wrought by the storm. Cabantous et al.
(2010) explicate the process whereby the tools of rational
decision making are applied by analysts who are responsible
for executing the decision-making process. Boxenbaum and
Roleau (2010) argue that bricolage enables social theorists to
advance the collective theory building process.
While scholars have begun to test the waters of a brico-
lage¥¦ entrepreneurship relationship, the bricolage litera-
turehas yet to address its potential direct influence on the
entrepreneurial process.
Entrepreneurship
Some definitions of entrepreneurship focus on individual
actions while ignoring the profitable opportunities that must
also be present to incent entrepreneurial action. Weassert
that entrepreneurship pertains to the generation, evaluation
and exploitation of market opportunities by locating, obtain-
ing and assembling and deploying resources. Furthermore, it
involves the potential sources of opportunities, the activities
of opportunity creation and/or discovery, the activities of
development of one or more opportunities, the activities of
exploitation of one or more opportunities, and the individu-
als involved in those activities.The entrepreneurial process,
then, is activity which “processes” opportunities.This process
takes the form of a “dialogue” with these opportunities and
other elements of the entrepreneur’s repertoire, with the
objective of transforming an opportunity into a viable ven-
ture.Thus,understanding the character of opportunities, how
they enter the entrepreneurial process and how they move
through the entrepreneurial process is critical to understand-
ing how success can be achieved. Recently, a number of the-
orists have argued for the significance of opportunity as an
explanatory concept (Gartner, Carter & Hills, 2003; Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000;Venkataraman, 1997).
Opportunity Discovery v. Opportunity
Creation
Eckhardt & Shane (2003) define entrepreneurial opportuni-
ties as “situations in which new goods, services, raw materi-
als, markets, and organizing methods can be introduced
through the formation of newmeans, ends, or means-ends
relationships”(336). For decades, the dominant logic in entre-
preneurship theory was a person-centric perspective that
disregarded the role of opportunity (Eckhardt & Shane,
2003). However, the examination of how opportunity is now
treated by many as critical to understanding the entrepre-
neurial process. Much debate has centered on this particular
issue.An objectivist perspectivesees opportunities as objec-
tive realities that exist independently of the entrepreneur
and thus arediscovered by entrepreneurs. In contrast, a sub-
jectivist perspective, sees opportunities as enacted by an
entrepreneur and fellow actors through their unique knowl-
edge (e.g., Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Kirzner, 1979; Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000; Von Mises, 1949). The more recently
developed constructivist perspective sees opportunities as
“produced through a process of social construction and can-
not exist apart from the entrepreneur” (Wood & McKinley,
2010: 66; see also Mahoney & Michael, 2005; Sarasvathy,
2001). Placing bricolage into the entrepreneurship landscape
can be done through any of these three theoretical lenses;
whether an entrepreneur discovers, enacts, or socially con-
structs an opportunity,he or she can subsequently engage in
bricolage to navigate through the entrepreneurial process. It
is easy to see how the previously discussed, transformative
character of bricolage can change elements into an opportu-
nity,but how an opportunity can occur almost of a piece and
be “discovered” bythe entrepreneur.
Along-standing dispute has developed between those
who posit that opportunities exist prior to the entrepreneur-
VARIETIES OF BRICOLAGE AND THE PROCESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP 55
55
et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Fall 2011
Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2011
ial process,and those who posit that opportunities are recog-
nized or discovered by entrepreneurs to start the process
(Read, Song, & Smit, 2009). Some scholars of entrepreneur-
ship posit that the entrepreneur is a sine qua non in the
instantiation and success of new enterprises (Sarasvathy &
Dew, 2005). Others, (Arrow, 1974; Kirzner, 1973, 1979) mini-
mize the creative role of the entrepreneur in the develop-
ment of new markets. Many models take intermediate posi-
tions by incorporating considerations of fundamental limits
on human cognition and perception (Knight, 1921; Shackle,
1969; March, 1978) as a way of tempering the agency of the
individual in the development of new markets. Still others
suggest that entrepreneurship can also be an accidental
process (Shah & Tripsas, 2007) emerging out of the interac-
tions between users of products.An issue central to entrepre-
neurship is identifying the role of individuals in producing
important ideas and innovations in today’s knowledge-based
economy(SØrensen & Stuart, 2000).
Weargue that a process approach that is agnostic to the
issue of whether an opportunity is created or discovered can
still advance theorywithout becoming entangled in the issue
of the origin of an opportunity.This is because we argue that
the bricolage process can allow both discovery and creation.
This can occur because a collection of elements can be per-
ceived as an opportunity (in some cases because highly spe-
cialized knowledge is not necessary) and in other cases spe-
cialized or idiosyncratic knowledge, information or entrepre-
neur characteristics may be necessary for further develop-
ment to be worthwhile. In fact, a number of “proto-opportu-
nities” may exist in the entrepreneur’s repertoire in forms
that cause them to be perceived as incomplete,unexploitable
or flawed, making the idea generation process incomplete.
This can changeif the entrepreneur gains access to another
newelement, the entrepreneur changes his or her percep-
tion of some elements or the opportunity, or external condi-
tions change,rendering the “proto-opportunity” into one that
is perceived as ready for development by the entrepreneur.
We argue that it is at this point that the phase of the entre-
preneurial process shifts from idea generation to idea devel-
opment.
We concentrate our efforts on theorizing about what hap-
pens to an opportunity prior to when an entrepreneur
decides to develop it as well as after that decision is made.
This is consistent with the notion of entrepreneurship as
adaptive design (Sarasvathy et al., 2008) that was presented
earlier. We contend that the entrepreneurial process moves
from opportunity generation to opportunity development
when the entrepreneur makes a decision that an opportuni-
ty has reached the point where it deserves special attention,
and the entrepreneur decides to changethe character of the
adaptive process to concentrate in a less tentative way on
rendering the opportunity into a viable venture. Many schol-
ars have focused a cognitive lens on the entrepreneurial
process in an attempt to isolate the factors that mold the
capability to generate new opportunities through superior
knowledge (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003; Gaglio & Katz,
2001; Krueger,2000; Shane, 2000).Other models take a differ-
ent approach to this issue, leaving aside more fundamental
issues of the entrepreneur’s agency and examining the
process of venture initiation (c.f. Steyaert, 2007).
An Entrepreneurial Process Model
One way to elucidate the effect of bricolage on the entrepre-
neurial process is to consider how bricolage enables the pro-
gression of opportunities throughout the entrepreneurial
process.This begs the question of what model of the entre-
preneurial process to use.We draw on an analogous model of
the entrepreneurial process posed by Shane (2000) and
depicted in Figure 1. Shane (2000) argued that discovering
entrepreneurial opportunities hinges on prior knowledge
developed through work experiences, personal events, and
education. The discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities
depends on idiosyncratic prior knowledge, and entrepre-
neurial opportunities become known to individual entrepre-
neurs through their recognition of the value of prior knowl-
edgeinstead of through activesearch. Shane argued that
prior knowledge enables entrepreneurs to imagine the use of
atechnology in different markets,serving a particular market
in different ways, and/or providing solutions to newand dif-
ferent problems. He also argued that prior knowledge influ-
ences the relationship between opportunity recognition and
opportunity exploitation by influencing the selection of the
market, of the wayto serve the market, and of the solutions
to customer problems.
Galunic and Eisenhardt (1994) found that knowledge is
essential to a firm’s entrepreneurial ability, and Audretsch and
Lehman (2006) found that differential knowledge is a key cri-
terion for success, bestowing a competitive advantage for
entrepreneurial firms. Shane and Venkataraman (2000)
argued that prior knowledge and the cognitive ability to
assess that knowledge are crucial to identifying opportuni-
ties. Shane (2000) argued that discovering entrepreneurial
opportunities hinges on prior knowledge developed through
work experiences, personal events, and education.
56 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Prior
Knowledge
Technological
Invention
Opportunity
Recognition
Approach to
Exploitation
Figure 1. Shane’s (2000) Conceptual Model
56
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 [2011], No. 2, Art. 1
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/neje/vol14/iss2/1
In this article we take an analogous approach to the entre-
preneurial process, conceptualizing entrepreneurship as
work on candidate opportunities, and we attempt to outline
the ensemble of critical behaviors, practices and principles
that are employed by entrepreneurs to navigate this process
successfully. Like the activity of obtaining knowledge in
Shane’s model, the activity of bricolage enables better out-
comes of the process (see Figure 2).
We add the phase “opportunity development” prior to
opportunity exploitation in order to mimic one established
definition of the entrepreneurial process (Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000). We have also included feedback loops
to imply that the entrepreneurial process is not strictly tem-
porally unidirectional. The testing, modification, evaluation,
and/or decision-making activities inherent in the process
mean that the activities of a particular phase of the process
will often return the entrepreneur to an earlier phase of the
process. The cycling of entrepreneurs through the process
means that newopportunities and/or resources are acquired
and/or created as a result of the process, and these can trig-
ger reinitiation of the cycle.
We also incorporate the distinction between serial and
parallel development of new opportunities.This corresponds
to a notion of serial and parallel bricolagethat is posited by
Baker and Nelson (2005). We indicate this by the parallel
arrows between phases. For a specific entrepreneur,multiple
opportunities maybe at various stages of the process, and
entrepreneurs may suspend, abandon, or rekindle efforts to
bring an opportunity to fruition. So,the progress of the entre-
preneur through successive stages of the process requires
neither a strict sequence of transitions through the states we
identify nor exclusive attention to a single opportunity.
We further modify and extend the model by incorporating
the influence of bricolage and by arguing that, like knowl-
edge, bricolage also enables the entrepreneurship process in
the sense that it, by definition, expands the utility of the crit-
ical inputs to the process (prior knowledge, idiosyncratic
characteristics and existing resources) and the adaptive abil-
ities (improvisation,active engagement,and integrative think-
ing) of the entrepreneur.These, of course, are fundamental to
success within the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurs
use bricolage to progress from the opportunity discovery to
the opportunity exploitation phase of the entrepreneurial
process.We introduce bricolage as an enabler of efforts with-
in and between each of the different phases of the process
(see Figure 3).
Also, as we argued earlier, we incorporate theoretical
approaches that argue that opportunities are discovered as
well as those that argue that opportunities arecreated. We
define “opportunity generation” as consisting of both “oppor-
tunity discovery” and “opportunity creation,” thus obviating
the mutual exclusivity of the opposing theoretical perspec-
tives. For our purposes, there is little need to exclude one
source of opportunities or another.These changes are depict-
ed in Figure 3 as the modifications of the Opportunity
Generation phase.
Theory Building
The Importance of Bricolage in
Entrepreneurship
Weargue that bricolageis a pattern of behavior—a means for
enabling and accomplishing ad hoc responses to unforeseen
situations and opportunities—and that it can be an invalu-
able method in circumstances characterized by fluidity and
uncertainty. Bricolage is especially applicable when entrepre-
neurs face conditions that require rapid action, because in
these situations they are more likely to be limited by imme-
diately available resources and the need to balance planning
and improvisation without the benefit of time and resources
for modifying existing plans or developing new ones (Cunha,
2005). For entrepreneurs to use bricolage successfully in the
entrepreneurial process, they must have an intimate knowl-
edge of their available resources, they must be observant,
they must trust their ideas, and they must learn and correct
through feedback (Weick, 2001).
Successfully navigating the entrepreneurial process
requires the following characteristics, all of which are
enhanced or activated by bricolage: adaptability, improvisa-
tion, active engagement, and integrative thinking.
Entrepreneurs must be able to adapt to and exploit circum-
stances of opportunity.An opportunity holds no value to indi-
viduals or organizations unless they possess the knowledge
VARIETIES OF BRICOLAGE AND THE PROCESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP 57
Opportunity
Generation
Opportunity
Development
Opportunity
Exploitation
Figure 2. The Entrepreneurial Process
Opportunity
Generation
(Creation
Or
Discovery)
Opportunity
Development
Opportunity
Exploitation
Bricolage
Figure 3. The Potential Effect of Bricolage on the
Entrepreneurial Process
57
et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Fall 2011
Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2011
to recognize the opportunity and the recognized capability
to exploit it. If an opportunity is attractive enough, entrepre-
neurs must adapt their knowledge and other resources at
their disposal during the development and exploitation
stages of the process.To capitalize on the transformation of
an opportunity from generation to exploitation, entrepre-
neurs must act swiftly. Therefore, they must often fashion a
sufficient, instead of a perfect strategy from their prior
knowledge and the resources at hand. This urgency drives
entrepreneurs to spend their limited time surveying current
predicates, knowledge, and resources and developing novel
combinations of these to adapt opportunities to the chang-
ing environment or to discover new forms of opportunities
instead of searching for new, costly and unfamiliar resources
to develop opportunities. Another essential task is to con-
vince those who control critical resources to make those
resources available to the prospective venture.To secure con-
trol of these resources, it is paramount that the entrepreneur
represents himself or herself as a responsible, knowledge-
able, capable, and credentialed steward of those resources
(Loundsbury & Glynn, 2001).
Improvisational scenarios, such as responding to disrup-
tive innovation, generally contain time and uncertainty pres-
sures (Crossan et al., 2005). Consistent with Berliner’sdefini-
tion of jazz improvisation, entrepreneurial improvisation
“involves reworking precomposed material and designs in
relation to unanticipated ideas conceived, shaped, and trans-
formed under the special conditions of performance,thereby
adding unique features to every creation” (1994: 241).
Entrepreneurs often engage in a just-in-time strategy and
improvise by recombining resources at hand for novel uses,
which is bricolage.In time, they develop a practical approach
to experimentation byamalgamating their knowledge of
available resources and their past experiences.
This prior knowledge allows entrepreneurs to categorize
and evaluate information from the environment, which leads
directly to the possibility of opportunity creation or recogni-
tion. Individual prior knowledge accumulated through life
experiences also provides the means to discover and devel-
op entrepreneurial opportunities (Venkataraman, 1997;
Shane, 2000). However, because the evidence of this knowl-
edge and experience is often intangible, the entrepreneur
must make it salient to others.The integration of prior knowl-
edgeand progressive thinking will likely result in a better fit
between entrepreneur and opportunity because the
resources at hand will become more than just haphazard ele-
ments that are aggregated by chance and that lack key fea-
tures for success.
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) argued that knowledge pro-
vides a powerfullypredictivetool in terms of environmental
change and the suitability of strategic decisions, two areas of
significant stress for entrepreneurs. When successful entre-
preneurs harness and apply the appropriate prior knowl-
edge, they increase chances of adapting to environmental
change,taking appropriate strategic direction, and building a
sustainable competitive advantage through opportunity gen-
eration, development, and exploitation. Sometimes this
knowledge is present in the entrepreneur; sometimes the
entrepreneur must solicit the contributions of others to
obtain it. It is not enough that entrepreneurs recognize their
prior knowledge;they must be able to harness and apply it to
navigate the entrepreneurial process successfully. Finally, as
we have argued previously, just having the appropriate
knowledge is not enough. Creating persuasive accounts of
this knowledge capable of assuaging the inhibitions of poten-
tial providers of resources is also necessary. Bricolage is one
way entrepreneurs can accomplish these tasks.
As we have shown,bricolage can be an invaluable method
for entrepreneurs as they face a changing environment and
arerequired to apply their prior knowledge and existing
resources to makequickdecisions and to act rapidly to capi-
talize on opportunities.The above argument leads to the fol-
lowing proposition:
Proposition 1: Bricolage enables entrepreneurs to nav-
igate the stages of the entrepreneurial process success-
fully.
Internal and External Bricolage
As we argued before,bricolage can be both internal and exter-
nal.Internal bricolage refers to activities making use of an entre-
preneur’s idiosyncratic, internal predicates—such as the prior
knowledge of markets and ways to serve markets, customer
problems, life experiences, educational attainments, profession-
al knowledge, etc. More elaborate combinations of these are
likely to be more specific to the entrepreneur’s life experience
and the unique bundle of claimable sources of legitimacy to
which he or she has access. Internal bricolage may enable the
construction of arguments about these sources of legitimacy, or
may enable the entrepreneur to render the sources of legitima-
cy perceptible or salient to evaluators. External bricolage refers
to activities to exploit the pool of potential resources available
to entrepreneurs in the external environment. Entrepreneurs
can incorporate resources immediately at hand, can acquire
resources from external stakeholders whose contributions are
solicited, and can tap into external stakeholders’ knowledge
and then recombine these resources for their particular novel
use. For instance, entrepreneurs might scan their environments
for potential strategic alliances or personal contacts necessary
to obtain the required manufacturing or marketing capabilities,
or to gain quick access to vital markets in which they have no
experience.They might have developed viable prototypes but
lack the required financial or technological resources to manu-
facture tangible products.
58 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
58
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 [2011], No. 2, Art. 1
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/neje/vol14/iss2/1
Bricolage also provides a valuable means to enable appli-
cation of prior knowledge and experience and to render
resources in the external environment readily available for
the development and exploitation of an opportunity.
Bricolage is not simply environmental scanning. It combines
the act of imagining novel combinations of resources in
either the internal or external environment in combination
with the act of acting on those resource combinations to cre-
ate, develop or exploit a particular opportunity.
The sense in which bricolage was used by Levi-Strauss
(1970) is consistent with this notion. For Levi-Strauss, brico-
lage is more about constructing narratives out of the fabric of
experience to resolve existential contradictions inherent in
social milieus. It is in this sense that we evoke internal brico-
lage as a means for constructing myths to assuage the skepti-
cism of potential resource providers.
Using bricolage, an entrepreneur can generate opportuni-
ties, develop and exploit particular opportunities and mini-
mize the onerous and costly workof modifying existing
plans or developing entirely new plans. Entrepreneurs can
also create convincing stories that enable the acquisition of
new resources at low risk and low cost.By implication, inter-
nal bricolage enables an entrepreneur to represent to poten-
tial resource providershis or her correctness as the unique
individual to exploit the opportunity via creative manage-
ment of identity. Both of these activities lead to what
Sarasvathyand Dew(2005) call an “expanding cycle of
resources”that are available to the entrepreneur.The expand-
ed pool of resources can be used as a basis for acquiring
other resources.
As we discussed earlier therearethree critical tasks that
must be successfully accomplished to capitalize on entrepre-
neurial opportunities: generation, development, and exploita-
tion. By generation, we mean the portion of the process by
which the possibility to do something novel (e.g., to make a
product, to perform a service, or create new ideas) becomes
known to an individual.This may not necessarily be by way
of conducting a conscious search, but may be a result of a
conscious search. It may come from attempts to develop an
opportunity and may come from collective attempts to serve
the agendas and/or interests of a number of participants
(Garud and Karnøe, 2003). After generating opportunities
and deciding to develop them, entrepreneurs move into the
development phase.While some scholars argue that opportu-
nity development encompasses opportunity generation
(Gartner et al., 2003; Sanz-Velasco, 2006), we argue that the
generation and the development of opportunities are two
distinct activities, the combination of which leads to the pos-
sibility of exploitation.While it is true that they can be tem-
porallyintertwined (corresponding to the feedback loops in
our model),they are distinctly different in terms of how inter-
nal and external bricolage can be employed. Generation of
opportunities does not necessarily require physical action
(or even extended periods of time) whereas development
necessitates some physical action (if only to contact cus-
tomers) to move an opportunity forward in the process.
Entrepreneurs often do not physically search for opportuni-
ties, but utilize prior knowledge to fabricate them through
recombination of information, a process that lacks visible
activity (Shane, 2000). We do not exclude physical search,
however.
As we stated previously, development by its definition
necessitates both action and visible activity through the uti-
lization of resources and prior knowledge to realize the full
potential of an exploitable opportunity. In addition, it is the
development phase, in part through tacit knowledge, that is
the occasion for formation of strategy in preparation for
exploitation of an opportunity. Generation does not necessi-
tate strategy, for it is often an unplanned occurrence or hap-
pens through casual environmental scanning. Strategy is
necessaryto movefrom generation to exploitation because
that transition may require acquisition, evaluation, choice,
assembly, modification, and/or disposal of external
resources.Thus:
Proposition 2: Opportunity development is a distinct
phase of the entrepreneurial process; after perceiving
an opportunity, an entrepreneur will decide whether
to direct effort to develop that opportunity to exploit
it successfully.
From Generation to Development
In this article, weassume that manyimportant behaviors and
inputs initiate the activity that results in entrepreneurial
opportunity generation. These behaviors can consist of
recognition, scanning, search, discovery and/or construction.
An opportunity can emerge as a result of accident or system-
atic effort, or it can be the result of years of painstaking
research or a momentary conversation.We are relatively indif-
ferent to the implications of whether this implies that oppor-
tunities are created or discovered. Our formulation argues
that making do with available resources can serve both of
these sources of ideas.
Once entrepreneurs decide to develop an opportunity,
they face a risky choice: to commit time and effort toward
development and exploitation of the particular opportunity
or to forego the chance to do so (in the short term or perma-
nently) and to pass on the prospective benefits the opportu-
nity holds. If they commit to development, entrepreneurs
engage in two important activities:
1. Internal searchof their web of “knowledge corridors”
for information and claimable predicates that are appli-
cable to the particular opportunity.
VARIETIES OF BRICOLAGE AND THE PROCESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP 59
59
et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Fall 2011
Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2011
2.A scan of their surroundings for available resources they
can use to further the exploitation of the opportunity.
Due to time and financial constraints that often subtend
strategic options,it is most effective for entrepreneurs to first
evaluate the applicability of existing resources that are imme-
diately available. In Sarasvathy’s (2001) model, when entre-
preneurs exploit existing knowledge, credentials and experi-
ence to construct compelling narratives that attract the con-
tributions of others, they reduce or obviate demands that
arise from the perception of risk on the part of resource
provider’s outcomes. When entrepreneurs exploit selected,
trusted social relationships to form partnerships, they also
reduce or obviate demands by partners that arise from the
perception of risk.
If entrepreneurs cannot identify appropriate internal
resources from the pools available to them,they will have dif-
ficulty assuaging the fears of potential resource providers. If
these providersof resources increase their demands for con-
cessions, the entrepreneurs must explore their external envi-
ronments for attainable resources and then use external
bricolage to exploit them.The pharmaceutical and biotech-
nology industries provide good examples of social external
bricolage. It is commonplace in these industries to form
strategic alliances, joint ventures, or other forms of partner-
ship.These partnerships often center on R&D or manufactur-
ing capabilities. For example, one firmmaydiscover a new
drug, but not have the R&D or manufacturing capability to
successfully develop the drug.Because the firm does not con-
trol these resources,the firm must scan the external environ-
ment for firms that possess the necessary resources. The
firms then enter into some form of partnership to develop
the newdrug. Partnerships often grow out of personal rela-
tionships gained through family relationships, common edu-
cation,professional conferences,or social networking events.
Auto salvage yards are good examples of physical external
bricolage.Automobiles that are no longer functional end up
in salvage yards.The salvage yard can then disassemble the
automobiles and sell the salvageable parts to businesses such
as auto repair shops.The salvage yards use bricolage to devel-
op these opportunities by identifying the parts from each
automobile that are salvageable, and using the machinery
they already possess to remove these parts from the automo-
biles. Identifying appropriate resources—in the case of the
salvage yards,the parts and the tools necessary to salvage the
parts—will speed the process from discovery to develop-
ment to exploitation.
Entrepreneurs need a catalyst to facilitate their progress
from opportunity generation to opportunity development.
Bricolageis that catalyst because it provides the means to
apply prior knowledge and combinations of resources at
hand to the progression of opportunities; it allows an entre-
preneur to progress from thinking to doing in the rhetorical
as well as the executional realm.The above arguments lead to
the following proposition:
Proposition 3: Either internal or external bricolage or
acombination of the two can facilitate the movement
of an opportunity into a subsequent stage of the entre-
preneurial process.
Development and the Move to Exploitation
Research has shown that available resources and prior
knowledge (particularly of ways to serve markets) shape the
development of an opportunity (Sanz-Velasco,2006). By def-
inition, bricolage is a concept that incorporates the utiliza-
tion of both available resources and prior knowledge.As the
development phase progresses, entrepreneurs begin fashion-
ing strategy in preparation for exploitation of an opportuni-
ty. At this point, bricolage helps the entrepreneur to sur-
mount the cognitiveimpediments to the entrepreneurial
process and enables strategy formation by encouraging
entrepreneurs to see novel combinations of resources they
can immediately and successfully apply to a particular situa-
tion. Because it provides for proactive management of the
necessary resources and prior knowledge to navigate this
phase, and because it aids in vital strategy formation, brico-
lage can increase an entrepreneur’s chances of successfully
developing an opportunity and moving a ventureto the
exploitation phase.
Once an opportunity has been sufficiently developed,
entrepreneurs must turn their attention to the exploitation of
that opportunity. Knowledgeand its application are critical
links between development and exploitation because they
augment the entrepreneur’sintangible ability to predict the
suitability of strategic actions more accurately (Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990). Prior knowledge of markets, of the ways to
serve markets,and of customer needs and problems are indis-
pensable dimensions of knowledge that entrepreneurs must
employ to prepare successfully for exploitation. Inventories
of existing resources are another critical link between devel-
opment and exploitation because they provide entrepre-
neurs with the tangible means with which to prepare their
developed opportunities for exploitation and to prepare the
prospective markets and customers for their new products,
services, raw materials or organizing methods. In the case of
auto salvage yards,entrepreneurs use physical external brico-
lage to exploit the opportunity of salvaged automobile parts.
In their natural course of business, they maintain relation-
ships with insurance companies and auto repair shops that
need parts.They also possess the machinery and trucks nec-
essaryto exploit opportunities, whichin this case mean
delivering the parts.The salvage yards possess the knowledge
and resources required to exploit the opportunities. In the
60 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
60
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 [2011], No. 2, Art. 1
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/neje/vol14/iss2/1
case of the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries, a
given entrepreneur may not possess the resources necessary
to exploit the drug he or she has developed,so he or she may
use external bricolage to acquire the means to do so. The
entrepreneur may not have the financial resources necessary
to get the drug approved and may not have the marketing
expertise necessary to bring the drug to market. The entre-
preneur will therefore scan the external environment for a
firm or firms that possess the necessary financial and/or mar-
keting resources and will enter into a partnership of some
sort to exploit the opportunity by bringing the drug to mar-
ket. Because bricolage combines the treatment of both prior
knowledge and existing resources, entrepreneurs can use
bricolage to progress from the opportunity development to
opportunity exploitation.
Entrepreneurs use internal bricolage to serve the rhetori-
cal aspect of the opportunity development activity (such as
through elevator pitches or business plans).They construct
goals towardwhich they are best equipped to advance.They
craft narratives for which they are uniquely equipped to be
the central protagonists and which result in favorable out-
comes for contributors.The above arguments lead to the fol-
lowing:
Proposition 4: Internal bricolage, external social
bricolage or external physical bricolage, or a combina-
tion of the three will help entrepreneurs to exploit a
developed opportunity.
Conceptual Model
In this article, wehave offered the following refinements and
additions to Shane’s (2000) model.Our theoretical arguments
about bricolage are graphically depicted in a model provided
in Figure 4.
1. Discovery is not the only source of opportunities.
Following from a number of authors cited in this article,
we believe that opportunities can be created through
the interaction between entrepreneur and an enacted
environment.
2. Opportunity discovery and opportunity creation lead to
what we term “opportunity generation,” which leads to
opportunity development which leads to opportunity
exploitation.
3.The entrepreneurial process is not strictly temporally
unidirectional. An opportunity can be modified, aban-
doned, rekindled, revised,etc., and this means that it can
return to the beginning of the process.This is indicated
by the feedback loops at the bottom of Figure 4.
4.The entrepreneurial process may incorporate the devel-
opment of many opportunities in parallel. These are
indicated by parallel lines across the different stages of
Figure 4.
5. Bricolage, which incorporates prior knowledge as well
as other existing internal and external resources,
enables the success of the efforts of entrepreneurs at all
phases of the process and it also enables the transition
of opportunities from one phase of the process to
another.
6. Both internal bricolage and external bricolage have the
potential to enhance the efforts of an entrepreneur dur-
ing all phases of the process.
7. Both internal bricolage and external bricolage have the
potential to enhance the efforts of an entrepreneur to
move an opportunity across phases of the process.The
moreskillfullybricolageis applied to developing a gen-
erated opportunity, the more likely the entrepreneur
will progress to the development phase.The more skill-
fullybricolage is applied to a developed opportunity,
the more likely an entrepreneur will progress to the
exploitation phase.
The transitions between phases can certainly be accom-
plished without the presence of bricolage. Bricolage is not a
necessary precondition for moving from generation to devel-
opment to exploitation. Bricolage does, however, influence
the likelihood of traversing these phases successfully and
overcoming any hurdles which may inhibit progression
through the phases. By persistent and/or skillful use of brico-
lage, entrepreneurs are much more likely to progress to the
final phase of the entrepreneurial process.
Discussion
How does entrepreneurship happen? It happens when entre-
preneursleverage their prior predicates and other existing
resources, engage in bricolage and navigate the entrepre-
neurial process effectively. To navigate this process readily
VARIETIES OF BRICOLAGE AND THE PROCESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP 61
Opportunity
Generation
(Creation
Or
Discovery)
Opportunity
Development
Opportunity
Exploitation
Bricolage
Internal &
External Bricolage
Internal &
External Bricolage
Internal &
External Bricolage
Internal &
External Bricolage
Internal &
External Bricolage
Figure 4. Conceptual Model for the Effect of Bricolage
on the Entrepreneurial Process
61
et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Fall 2011
Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2011
and easily, entrepreneurs need a competitive edge beyond
widely available tools, skills, and knowledge. Competitors
with similar tools, characteristics and skills in similar environ-
ments, using widely known logic (Kilroy, 1999) are likely to
arrive at similar conclusions (Barney, 1986). Bricolage is one
of the most valuable techniques that entrepreneurs can use,
and is an omnipresent but underappreciated catalyst of ven-
ture success.
We have argued for integrating bricolage into models of
the entrepreneurial process because it provides entrepre-
neurs with the wherewithal to make entrepreneurship hap-
pen successfully.While our conceptual model is analogous to
Shane’s (2000),we take a different approach to the entrepre-
neurial process by adding bricolage as a mechanism with
which to apply entrepreneurial predicates and available
resources to the opportunity generationÝdevelopmentÝ
exploitation process of entrepreneurship.We also model the
entrepreneurial process differently, choosing for this paper to
modify the opportunity generation phase to incorporate
both discovery and creation, and adding the critical develop-
ment phase that links discovery to exploitation. While each
phase of this process presents unique challenges for the
entrepreneur,a bigger challenge is moving from one phase to
the next, whichis in many ways a leap of faith.To offset the
risks of such a move, entrepreneurs need the tools with
which to decrease uncertainty and increase the likelihood of
asuccessful transition (Sarasvathy, 2001). Bricolage is such a
tool that provides the means with which to bring an oppor-
tunity to fruition by applying readily available resources and
prior knowledge in a way that is adaptable, improvisational,
active, and integrative.
Contributions to Research
This article makes three important contributions to the
entrepreneurship literature. First, it more fully articulates the
concept of bricolage and highlights its fundamental impor-
tance to the entrepreneurial process. The entrepreneurial
process is teeming with uncertainty, time pressures, and cir-
cumstances that necessitate immediate decisions and action.
We argue that by relying on bricolage,entrepreneurs can mit-
igate uncertainty and time pressures, can make urgent deci-
sions in an informed way, and can take the actions necessary
to navigate the entrepreneurial process successfully.
Second, the article develops the concepts of internal and
external bricolage. To date, most bricolage research has
focused primarily on external social resources or on prior
knowledge. While these are critical to the success of any
entrepreneurial venture, so are internal resources. Most indi-
viduals and firms beginning the entrepreneurial process do
not possess all the necessarycapabilities and resources to
navigate the process, so they must at some point attract
resources from their external environment. Internal brico-
lage is an important conduit for this process.The two types
of external bricolage are also invaluable to entrepreneurs;
social external bricolage enables entrepreneurs to make use
of the web of social relations in which they are embedded,
and physical external bricolage enables them to creatively
deploy social and physical resources.
Third, this article argues that opportunity generation and
development are two separate phases of the entrepreneurial
process instead of competing conceptualizations of the same
process (Sanz-Velasco, 2006), and that opportunity develop-
ment is a critical mediator between generation and exploita-
tion. We argue that developing an opportunity takes direct
action and strategy, and draws a contrast with the passivity
inherent in merely discovering an opportunity. We do, how-
ever, allow for the discovery of opportunities, and the role of
chance, technology or institutional forces as the sources of
opportunities.We do not restrict the sources of opportunities
to chance, however.We argue that entrepreneurs can play a
role in generating opportunities by their own actions to cre-
ate, evaluate and revise those opportunities. We also argue
that entrepreneurs cannot progress from discovering an
opportunity to exploiting it without first developing it.
Implications for Research and Practice
The theory as presented addresses many of the primary con-
cerns of entrepreneurs, especially in the areas of managing
uncertainty and howto progress effectivelyfrom generating
an opportunity to exploiting it. In today’s rapidly expanding,
competitive global economy, entrepreneurs find themselves
more frequently engaged in a battle for resources and time.
The theorysuggests that entrepreneurscan, and should,
engage in internal and external bricolage to utilize resources
moreeffectively and to capitalize on an idea more readily.
Possible extensions and empirical testing of this concep-
tual model could prove interesting. Bricolage enables the
transition of opportunities through the entrepreneurial
process, and understanding its intricacies and its influence
on the various phases of the process will provide scholars of
entrepreneurs with a better understanding of this controver-
sial process. We have shown that bricolage is necessary to
move rapidly or inexpensively from one phase to another
within this process.Bricolage similarly provides the means to
obtain the requisite knowledge and other resources neces-
saryto begin developing and exploiting an opportunity.
Bricolage increases the chance of success as individuals tra-
verse the entrepreneurial process and reduces the time that
required developing an opportunity at each phase of the
process. One main question to be answered is whether there
is a relatively consistent pattern of behaviors that can be sys-
tematicallyapplied during these phases, or whether brico-
lage is a chaotic response to a specific situation.We would
argue that internal bricolage is always in order during the
62 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
62
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 [2011], No. 2, Art. 1
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/neje/vol14/iss2/1
transition between generation and development and during
the development phase.
We would argue that it is also important to consider the
entrepreneurial process in a more macro social context as a
basis for further modeling of the process of venturing. Garud
and Karnøe (2003), for example, assert that bricolage is as
much an emergent outcome of collective efforts and activi-
ties of individuals in a number of social collectives as it is an
individual behavior.Their model argues that the development
of an industry is a collective product of bricolage by govern-
ment functionaries, individual entrepreneurs and providers
of resources such as financing. The implication is whether
the behaviors prescribed above will enable more successful
development of industries, not just individual firms.
Furthermore, we think that it would be interesting to con-
sider the adaptive behaviors that we describe here in a nor-
mative as well as a behavioral context. It would be interest-
ing to distinguish between what the best entrepreneurs do
and what most entrepreneursactuallydo. By establishing a
normative theory as well as a theory of variance from the
norm, we can generate a more comprehensive theory.
Of course, empirical testing of the model is a logical next
step. While Shane’s (2000) study found interesting results
using a case studymethod, the model posited hereshould be
tested with robust empirical data across industries, and longi-
tudinally if possible.We hope our theoretical arguments sur-
rounding the entrepreneurial process will spark debate and
discovery regarding the entrepreneurial phenomenon.
Conclusion
In the current business environment, examination of the
entrepreneurial process is a significant and relevant concern.
As new markets are discovered,and existing markets consol-
idate and show the characteristics of turbulence, it is the
enlightened use of entrepreneurial techniques that can lead
to success and survival for individuals, organizations, and per-
haps societies. Our purpose has been to refine the existing
theoretical framework for activities of entrepreneurship and
to incorporate the important explanatory mechanism of
bricolage into emerging models of the entrepreneurial
process.We argue that the use of bricolage as an explanatory
concept is an appropriate means to examine entrepreneur-
ship, and that opportunity development is a necessary link
between opportunity generation and exploitation. We
explain that bricolageis an invaluable means by which entre-
preneurs can quickly and successfully move through the
process from opportunity generation to exploitation.While
our conceptual framework needs the support of subsequent
data, we hope we have advanced efforts to create a reasoned
model of the entrepreneurial process that will provide valu-
able insights when tested empirically.
VARIETIES OF BRICOLAGE AND THE PROCESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP 63
Acknowledgements
Aprior version of this paper was presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management in Anaheim, CA.We
wish to thank several anonymous reviewers who provided their comments at that time.We, of course, are responsible for any
errors.
We dedicate this work to the late Deborah Malewicki, who received her Ph.D. in marketing and entrepreneurship at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. She is sorely missed by her colleagues and friends.
References
Alvarez, S.A., & Barney,J.B. 2007. Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2): 11–26.
Ardichvili,A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S.2003.A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of
Business Venturing, 18: 105–123.
Arrow, K. 1974. Limited knowledge and economic analysis. American Economic Review, 64(1): 1–10.
Audretsch,D.B. & Lehmann, E. Entrepreneurial access and absorption of knowledge spillovers: Strategic board and managerial
composition for competitive advantage.Journal of Small Business Management, 44: 155–166.
Baker,T.,& Aldrich,H. 2000. Bricolage and resource seeking: improvisational responses to dependence in entrepreneurial
firms. Unpublished paper, http://www.unc.edu/~healdric/Workpapers/WP134.pdf.
Baker,T., Miner,A.S., & Eesley,D.T. 2003.Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the
founding process. Research Policy, 32: 255–276.
Baker,T.,& Nelson, R.E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage.
AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 50: 329–366.
Barney,J. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 32: 1231–1241.
Berliner, P.F. 1994.Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63
et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Fall 2011
Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2011
Boxenbaum, E., & Roleau, L. 2011. New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organization theory.
Academy of Management Review, 36(2):272–296.
Cabantous, L., Gond, J.,and Johnson-Cramer, M. 2010. Decision theory as practice: Crafting rationality in organizations.
Organization Studies, 31(11): 1531–1566.
Ciborra, C.U. 1996.The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures, and surprises. Organization Science, 7:
103–118
Ciborra, C.U. 2002. The labyrinths of information: Challenging the wisdom of systems. New York:Oxford University Press.
Cohen,W.M., & Levinthal, D.A.1990.Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152.
Crossan, M., Cunha, M.P., Vera, D.,& da Cunha, J.V. 2005. Time and organizational improvisation. The Academy of Management
Review, 30: 129–145.
Cunha, M.P. 2005.“Bricolage in organizations.” FEUNL Working Paper No. 474 http://portal.fe.unl.pt/FEUNL/bibliotecas/BAN/
WPFEUNL/WP2005/wp474.pdf.
DiDomenico, M., Haugh, H. & Tracey, P. 2010.Social bricolage:Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4):601–703.
Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. 2010. Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory.Organization
Studies, 31(2):133–151.
Eckhardt, J.T., & Shane, S.A. 2003. Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29, 333–349.
Engelen, E., Ertuk, I., Froud,J. Leaver,A., & Williams, K. 2010. Reconceptualizing financial innovation: frame, conjuncture and
bricolage. Economy and Society, 39(1):33–63.
Gabriel,Y., Gray, D. & Goregaokar, H. 2010.Temporary derailment or the end of the line? Managers coping with unemploy-
ment at 50. Organization Studies, 31(12):1687–1712.
Gaglio, C.M., & Katz, J.2001.The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business
Economics: An International Journal, 16, 95–111.
Galunic, D., & Eisenhardt, K. 1994. Renewing the strategy-structure-performance paradigm. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 16: 215–255.
Gartner,W., Carter, N., & Hills, G. 2003.The language of opportunity.In C. Steyaert and D. Hjorth (Eds.), New Movements in
Entrepreneurship, 103–124. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneur-
ship. Research Policy, 32: 277–300.
Hendry,C. & Harborne, P. 2011. Changing the view of wind power development: More than bricolage. Research Policy,
40:778–789.
Johannisson, B., and Oliason, L.2007.The moment of truth—reconstructing entrepreneurship and social capital in the eye of
the storm. Review of Social Economy, 65(1):55–78.
Kilroy, D.1999. Creating the future: How creativity and innovation drive shareholder wealth.Management Decision, 37:
363–374.
Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kirzner, I. 1979. Perception, Opportunity, and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Knight, F.H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. August M. Kelley, New York.
Krueger, N.F. 2000.The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity recognition. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24, 5–23.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1967. The savage mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1970. The Raw and the Cooked. Trans. John and Doreen Weightman. New York: Harper & Row.
Loundsbury, M., &Glynn, M. 2001.Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy and the acquisition of resources. Strategic
Management Journal, 22(6-7): 545–564.
64 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
64
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 [2011], No. 2, Art. 1
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/neje/vol14/iss2/1
Mahoney, J.T., & Michael, S.C. 2005. A subjectivist theory of entrepreneurship. In Alvarez, S.A.,Agarwal, R.,& Sorenson, O.
(eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Springer: New York, pp. 33–54.
March, J. 1978. Bounded rationality, ambiguity and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2): 587–608.
Miner,A.S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. 2001. Organizational improvisation and learning:A field study. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46: 304–337.
Nohria, N., & Berkley, J.D. 1994. Whatever happened to the take-charge manager? Harvard Business Review, January-
February: 128–137.
O’Connor, E. 2004. Storytelling to be real: narrative, legitimacy building and venturing, in Hjorth, D. and Steyaert, C. (eds),
Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar,pp. 105–124.
Read, S., Song, M. and Smit, W. 2009.A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance, Journal of Business
Venturing, 24:573–587.
Sanz-Velasco, S.A. 2006. Opportunity development as a learning process for entrepreneurs. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 12: 251–271.
Sarasvathy, S. 2001. Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial con-
tingency. Academy of Management Review, 26:243–263.
Sarasvathy, S. 2008. Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK.
Sarasvathy, S., Dew, N. 2005. New market creation through transformation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15:533–65.
Sarasvathy, S., Dew,N., Read, S., & Wiltbank, R. 2008. Designing organizations that design environments: Lessons from experi-
mental expertise. Organization Science, 29:331–350.
Shackle, G. 1969. Decision, order and time in human affairs 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Shah, S. &Tripsas, M. 2007.The accidental entrepreneur:The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2):123–140.
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448–469.
Shane, S., &Venkataraman, S. 2000.The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academyof Management Review,
25: 217–226.
Spicer,A. & Sewell, G. 2010. From national service to global player:Transforming the organizational logic of a public broad-
caster. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 913–943.
SØrensen, J.B.,& T.E. Stuart. 2000.Aging, obsolescence,and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45:
81-112.
Steyaert, C. 2007.‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor:A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship
studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19:453–477.
Venkataraman, S. 1997.The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J.A.Katz and R.H. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances
in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, Vol.3: 119–138, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Von Mises, L. 1949. Human action:A treatise on economics. New Haven,CT:Yale University Press.
Weick, K.E. 1993a.The collapse of sensemaking in organizations:The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly,
38: 628–652.
Weick, K.E. 1993b. Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G.P. Huber and W.H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational Change and
Redesign, 346–379. New York:Oxford University Press.
Weick, K.E. 2001. Substitutes for strategy: Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wood, M.S., & McKinley, W. 2010.The production of entrepreneurial opportunity: A constructivist perspective. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 4: 66–84.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 52: 70–105.
VARIETIES OF BRICOLAGE AND THE PROCESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP 65
65
et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Fall 2011
Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2011
About the Authors
JEFF VANEVENHOVEN (vanevenj@uww.edu) is an assistant professor of management and the entrepreneurship
coordinator at the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater.He received a Ph.D. in Management Science from the
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Primary teaching interests are strategic management, organizational the-
ory, and entrepreneurship. Dr. Vanevenhoven is an active researcher in the study of entrepreneurship educa-
tion (see www.entrepeduc.org) and the determinants of entrepreneurship success. His research focuses on
bricolage, executive scanning, environmental uncertainty, and cross-cultural cognition comparison.
DOAN WINKEL (dwinkel@ilstu.edu) is an assistant professor of entrepreneurship in the Department of
Management and Quantitative Methods at Illinois State University. He received a Ph.D.in Management Science
from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. His teaching interests focus on using active learning, problem-
solving, and experiential approaches to open students’ eyes to the wonder of entrepreneurship. Dr.Winkel is
an active researcher in the study of entrepreneurship education (see www.entrepeduc.org) and the determi-
nants of entrepreneurship success. His work has been published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, has been recognized in the 2008 and 2010
Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings and with the 2010 Academy of Management Careers Division
Best Overall Paper Award.
DEBRA MALEWICKI sadly passed away during the review process of this manuscript.We dedicate this work to
her.
WILLIAM L. DOUGAN (douganw@uww.edu) is currently the Irvin L.Young Professor of Entrepreneurship and
Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater. He received his Ph.D.from the Johnson
Graduate School of Management at Cornell University. He serves as an executive board member of the
Organization and Management Theory Division of the Academy of Management.His current research interests
are in venture proposal evaluation and university venturing.
JAMES BRONSON (bronsonj@uww.edu) is an Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater.
Teaching and research interests include strategic management and small business performance. His research
appears in such publications as the Journal of Business Research, Journal of Small Business Management,
and New England Journal of Entrepreneurship.
66 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
66
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 [2011], No. 2, Art. 1
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/neje/vol14/iss2/1