Social entrepreneurship operates under persistent resource scarcity, and collective bricolage offers one strategic response. Existing research has left the conceptual boundaries of collective bricolage underspecified, and its collaborative models and operational mechanisms remain underexamined. This paper takes up these issues. It clarifies what collective bricolage is, builds a typology of its models, and traces how each model works. Two dimensions organize the analysis: power symmetry and the mode of cooperative order formation. Along these dimensions, two models emerge as typical—consensus-based and hub-based—while the remaining two combinations are discussed as boundary forms. At its core, collective bricolage is a process in which multiple actors, facing resource scarcity, reconfigure resources at hand and reconstruct their meanings through improvisation and trial-and-error to arrive at novel solutions. The two models do not operate the same way. Consensus-based bricolage moves through three stages—resource aggregation, consensual reconfiguration, and outcome sharing—with trust running through every stage. Hub-based bricolage pools resources across ownership boundaries, assembles heterogeneous resources through improvisation, and anchors the arrangement in formal institutions. This study contributes to process-oriented research on entrepreneurial bricolage and offers practical guidance for social entrepreneurs.
References
[1]
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? EntrepreneurshipTheoryandPractice,30, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x
[2]
Carstensen, M. B., & R？per, N. (2024). Working with Ideas: Collective Bricolage, Political Tests and the Emergence of Policy Paradigms. Governance,38, e12882. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12882
[3]
Dees, J. G. (1998). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
[4]
Desa, G., & Basu, S. (2013). Optimization or Bricolage? Overcoming Resource Constraints in Global Social Entrepreneurship. StrategicEntrepreneurshipJournal,7, 26-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1150
[5]
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises. EntrepreneurshipTheoryandPractice,34, 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x
[6]
Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. C. (2010). Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization and Management Theory. OrganizationStudies,31, 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609347051
[7]
Garud, R., & Karn？e, P. (2003). Bricolage versus Breakthrough: Distributed and Embedded Agency in Technology Entrepreneurship. ResearchPolicy,32, 277-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00100-2
[8]
Ghalwash, S., & Ismail, A. (2024). Resource Orchestration Process in the Limited-Resource Environment: The Social Bricolage Perspective. JournalofSocialEntrepreneurship,15, 866-893. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.2020152
[9]
Glasbeek, L. (2025). Bricolage and Its Strategic Connotations: A Study of Greek Social Entrepreneurs in Times of Crisis. BritishJournalofManagement,36, 1003-1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12880
[10]
Gulati, R. (1995). Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances. AcademyofManagementJournal,38, 85-112. https://doi.org/10.2307/256729
[11]
Kerlin, J. A. (2013). Defining Social Enterprise across Different Contexts: A Conceptual Framework Based on Institutional Factors. NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,42, 84-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011433040
[12]
Kwong, C., & Tasavori, M., Cheung, C. W. (2017). Bricolage, Collaboration and Mission Drift in Social Enterprises. Entrepreneurship&RegionalDevelopment,29, 609-638. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1328904
[13]
Liu, Z. Y., & Chen, Y. C. (2021). Social Enterprise’ Hybrid Logic and Cross-Sectoral Collaboration. Academic Monthly,53, 85-98. (In Chinese)
[14]
Peng, W., Yu, X. J., Zheng, Q. L., & Zhu, Z. D. (2018). Resource Bricolage, Organizational Legitimacy and the Growth of Social Start-Ups: A Multi-Case Study Based on the Grounded Theory. Foreign Economies and Management, 40, 55-70.
[15]
Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements? StrategicManagementJournal,23, 707-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.249
[16]
Wang, J. C., & Lin, X. (2021). Resource Integration Process of Social Entrepreneurship: A Multi-Case Study. Journal of Management Case Studies, 14, 153-164. (In Chinese)
[17]
Wang, Z., Liao, Y., & Wu, L. (2014). The Research on Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Structure and Operating Mechanism. Journal of Hunan University (Social Sciences), 28, 61-65. (In Chinese)
[18]
Xu, G. C., & Song, Z. Y. (2024). Bricolage-Based Cooperation: An Expedient for Grassroots Governance under Resource Constraints? Journal of Public Administration,17, 65-82+197-198. (In Chinese)
[19]
Zhang, W. G., & Mai, Y. Y. (2026). Holding the Great Image, All under Heaven Will Follow: Research on the Construction Mechanism of Platform-Based Business Model of Cooperatives from the Perspective of Social Bricolage. Journal of Management Case Studies,19, 62-74. (In Chinese)
