Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts
Volume 3, Issue 1
http://artivate.org
pp. 23-34
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SOCIAL BRICOLAGE IN ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP:
BUILDING A JAZZ SOCIETY FROM SCRATCH
Stephen B. Preece, Wilfrid Laurier University
Abstract
This paper applies the social bricolage construct to arts entrepreneurship, utilizing an indepth case study for illustration. The importance of six key elements including: making do, a
refusal to be constrained by limitations, improvisation, social value creation, stakeholder
participation, and persuasion, are identified and discussed in light of the recent formation of the
Grand River Jazz Society. Bricolage is shown to be a process whereby entrepreneurs with local
knowledge and access to local resources are best able to create enterprises using the materials at
hand, rather than overextending their efforts with externally directed attributes requiring
unattainable resources. As such, entrepreneurial process elements may be emulated from
successful social bricolage examples, recognizing that each context, community, and
circumstances will require their own unique solutions.
Introduction
Bricolage has become one of the leading emergent theories within the
entrepreneurship literature (Baker and Nelson, 2005; Fisher, 2012). Originating with
anthropologist Lévi-Strauss, bricolage reflects the spirit of “making do with what is at hand”
(1966, p. 17) when solving problems and uncovering opportunities and has been adapted to areas
as diverse as education, art, business, and law (Fisher, 2012). In entrepreneurship literature,
bricolage asserts a more constructivist start-up approach within constrained resource
environments, as compared to the more objectivist views, which dominated entrepreneurial
thinking in previous decades (Duymedjian and Rüling, 2010).
Entrepreneurial “bricoleurs” are argued to take an action-oriented, improvisational
approach to business formulation, refusing to acquiesce to standard norms and expectations
within industries (Tracey and Phillips, 2007). Traditional entrepreneurship perspectives, that is,
“causal” models focusing on planned, rational, and linear processes (Sarasvathy, 2001), have
given ground to more adaptive theories, including elements of improvisation, effectuation, and
bricolage (Fisher, 2012). These approaches suggest that entrepreneurial opportunities are more
enacted than discovered (Baker and Nelson, 2005).
Bricolage holds promise in the field of entrepreneurship for both descriptive and
normative reasons. Emerging research suggests that bricolage represents a more authentic
portrayal of entrepreneurial process as it occurs in practice, enabling stakeholders in and around
the entrepreneurial world to better grasp the realities of start-up processes and behaviors (Fisher,
2012). Arguably, this more accurate depiction can lead to better systems, supports, and
incentives to encourage entrepreneurial activity. Further, the bricolage metaphor is potentially a
more accessible approach for would-be entrepreneurs evaluating start-up opportunities, where
challenges are conceptualized within the grasp of individual capabilities, rather than postulating
unreasonable requirements as externally imposed.
The concept of “social bricolage” has been recently applied to particular challenges
concerning social enterprise start-ups (Di Domenico, Haugh, and Tracey, 2010). Special
attention has been given to topics such as community engagement, stakeholder participation, and
maintaining external legitimacy, all within the particularly resource-constrained area of social
enterprise entrepreneurship (Gundry, Kickuo, Griffiths, and Bacq, 2011). Social venture
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright © 2013, the author

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

literature tends to focus on nascent organizations addressing such areas as poverty alleviation,
environmental degradation, literacy, and health care issues (Zeyen, et al., 2013).
Within this context, organizational challenges related to arts and culture are not always a
natural fit. Organizations in this sector typically enrich entire communities across the socioeconomic spectrum, yet may be seen as serving the privileged and elite, rather than the
downtrodden (Feder and Katz-Gerro, 2012). This combined with the unique challenges of
managing within the arts and culture sector (Preece, 2005), can result in these organizations
becoming conceptually marginalized and neglected from a research standpoint (Smith, Besharov,
Wessels, and Chertok, 2012). With this in mind, this paper seeks to initially confirm and
reinforce the emerging “social bricolage” model forwarded by Di Domenico, et al., (2010). It
further seeks to broaden the theoretical application of the social bricolage model as it applies to
the arts and culture sector.
Using details and data from a recent case study, this paper examines the start-up
experience first-hand through the lens of bricolage in the arts world. The case is built on the
experience of starting the Grand River Jazz Society (GRJS), a non-profit arts organization
presenting professional music in a venue called The Jazz Room in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Since opening in September 2011, the GRJS presented 80 weekend performances annually to
over 6500 audience members per year, in partnership with The Huether Hotel. The author is a
participant-observer in the start-up as founder and president of the society. While this dual role
presents the expected challenges to objectivity and bias, benefits include access to an
extraordinary amount of data and otherwise difficult-to-access information (Watson, 2011).
Social Bricolage In Arts Entrepreneurship
Drawing data from eight social enterprise start-up cases in the United Kingdom, Di
Domenico et al. (2010) developed a theoretical framework for social bricolage. Using their
model as a launching point for this paper, the six tenets of social bricolage include: making do, a
refusal to be constrained by limitations, improvisation, social value creation, stakeholder
participation, and persuasion. For purposes of this paper, we start with a conceptual discussion
of each of these six components, followed by a description from the GRJS case including
illustration, application, and discussion (see Figure 1).
Making Do
The entrepreneurial application of social bricolage theory suggests the concept of making
do to assume one or more of three different forms: 1) creating something from nothing (a market
or service emerging where there was previously none); 2) using discarded, disused, or unwanted
resources for new purposes; and 3) engaging hidden, untapped local resources others fail to
recognize, value or use (Baker and Nelson, 2005). Operating under the assumption of extreme
resource scarcity (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006), emerging social enterprises also operate in fields
where markets function particularly poorly (Di Domenico et al., 2010), creating a pernicious
challenge for social entrepreneurs.
With traditional assets not readily available, the prospects of a functioning social
enterprise will frequently be deemed unmanageable, comprising hurdles too formidable to
overcome. In the social sector, alternative start-up measures require ingenuity and insight to find
or uncover value through non-obvious sources. As such, these challenges require a kind of
“opportunity arbitrage” (Arentz, Sautet, and Storr, 2012), drawing on the insight and experience

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

24

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

of the entrepreneur to envision value—both social and economic—that others neglected or failed
to identify.

Figure 1. Principles of Social Bricolage Applied to the Grand River Jazz Society
The emergence of the GRJS included all three elements of making do (see Figure 1).
Presenting professional jazz on a regular, weekend basis in a club format was something new in
the local community. While jazz appeared in a variety of concert, festival, and dinner-music
settings, the club presentation format and frequency was both untried and untested. The concept
of a persistent and reliable flow of professional music performance, every weekend during the
10-month season created a consistent frame and concept to build the society. As such, the GRJS
thrust a new service format onto a scene where there previously was none—essentially creating
“something out of nothing.”
Further, the new venue setting represented a largely abandoned and discarded resource,
possessing significant repurposing potential. Part of a large hospitality complex of rooms within
a historic hotel (including café, movie theatre, bar, billiards room, deck-patio, and restaurant), a
substantial room (seating for 130) was sitting empty most nights of the year and suffered from
neglect. For decades, the venue was used for a hodgepodge of purposes, including a several-year
stint with exotic dancers, complete with stage, wall-sized mirrors, and brass pole. Once adultentertainment had run its course, other short-lived efforts emerged, including one-off rock n’ roll
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

25

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

shows and karaoke nights, though none persisted. Except for a smattering of special events
throughout the year, the room stood empty, essentially discarded, disused, and unwanted (Di
Dominico et al., 2010).
As a long-time city resident and aware of the hotel’s various offerings, the founder of the
GRJS was aware of the room, though it was not until an active search for a shared-space venue
took place that the inspiration to convert to a jazz club occurred. It took substantial imagination
to transform the room from a dodgy strip club to a classy jazz venue, including rethinking floor
plans, installing curtains, relocating the stage, and painting the walls. These changes, combined
with the installation of sound, lighting, and a house piano, completed the transformation of an all
but discarded building into a lively functioning entertainment venue.
Another needed resource was a concert grand piano costing over $50,000. This seemingly
overwhelming capital expense during the initial start-up phase seemed insurmountable when
resources were in dramatically short supply. Options were discussed, such as eliminating the
piano, using an electric keyboard and employing a substantially smaller instrument, yet none
aligned with the founding team’s aspirations. Substantial networking in the community yielded
information about a former theater concert grand piano, which had fallen into disrepair. The
owner was a developer, supportive of the jazz club concept, and ultimately sold the piano to the
GRJS for roughly half the cost of a new instrument, even after refurbishment. Once again,
during its initial start-up phase, the GRJS was able to “make do” with an unwanted and
underutilized asset.
Finally, there was the question of finding talent for the headline acts. An important
component of the GRJS was to present top artists from nearby Toronto, other parts of Canada
and beyond, including showcasing local artists. Given the dearth of existing performance
opportunities available, it was difficult to know if there were enough jazz musicians in the area
who possessed the capacity to headline on the weekends. There was a strong aspiration to keep
the artistic level high for all headline bookings, thus requiring musicians with substantial training
and experience. Once the club began operating, however, an abundance of highly talented, local
jazz artists surfaced. It was an impressive cohort previously fragmented and unknown to the
community, arguably due to the lack of appropriate venues. In retrospect, a major
accomplishment of the GRJS was the enabling and galvanization of a scattered and
unacknowledged local jazz “scene.”
In sum, each of these three elements illustrates the theoretical frame for “making do” (Di
Domenico et al., 2010). The act of constructing a weekly presentation in a club format created
the structure for a regular art offering essentially “creating something out of nothing” (p. 689).
The transformation of an abandoned strip club into a professional music venue represented
“using discarded, disused, or unwanted resources for new purposes” (p. 691). Finally,
galvanizing a formerly scattered and disparate community of jazz players drew on “. . . hidden or
untapped local resources that other organizations fail to recognize, value or use” (p. 691).
Limitations and Constraints
The second conceptual dimension in the social bricolage framework is characterized by a
refusal to be constrained by limitations (Di Domenico et al., 2010). This includes “trying out
solutions to counteract limitations imposed by institutional/political settings,” as well as
“subverting limitations imposed by available resource environments in their ability to create
social value” (p. 691). Social entrepreneurs are particularly subject to harsh resource constraints
(Zahra et al., 2009). Limitations imposed either by traditional practice, sector norms, or
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

26

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

institutional rules are frequently formidable barriers to progress, arguably creating enough
disincentive for would-be entrepreneurs to give up -- and are necessarily circumvented in order
to achieve necessary progress. Relentless effort and creativity are essential to work through the
barriers, complexities, and even paradoxes of achieving financial viability while maintaining a
core social value focus (Smith, Besharov, Wessels, and Chertok, 2012).
For the GRJS, standard jazz presentation operating models, 90% of which were reported
to be functioning with a for-profit organizational frame (Powell and Steinberg, 2006), were
considered problematic. The traditional model where private sector bar owners ran venues
selling food and beverages while also programming music was showing signs of strain, and even
failure. Paying appropriate artist fees was proving difficult with audiences unwilling to pay
adequate ticket prices, which necessitated food and drink sales to cover entertainment costs.
Nearby Toronto with a population of 4 million, experienced the closing of two major dedicated
jazz clubs in recent memory (both for-profit models) and despite the existence of a large number
of talented performers, the club format had trouble flourishing, leaving some wondering if jazz
as an art form was dead or, at best, floundering (Infantry, 2006; Teachout, 2009). Regardless of
overall audience trends, the traditional model seemed broken, leaving potential jazz
entrepreneurs no choice but to innovate around established norms.
The application of an alternative model was showing some promise in a least two other
Canadian cities, Edmonton, Alberta and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, both operating as not-forprofits. However, in both those cases, these organizations were the beneficiaries of government
grants where special building rental rates were provided at no cost by municipalities interested in
encouraging cultural nightlife. The GRJS had no such luck in gaining these municipal support
resources.
Recognizing the dilemma and unwilling to be constrained by limitations imposed by
existing norms and practices in the jazz presentation world, the GRJS realized it needed to
explore other options to contravene these constraints. One option was to consider the possibility
of a shared space in order to avoid the high cost of building maintenance with the hope of some
kind of organizational synergy. Numerous options explored included: existing restaurants, a
community arts center, club buildings, and even an abandoned train station. One afternoon,
while riding bikes around the city with the express purpose of searching for a venue, two of the
GRJS team members happened onto what was essentially an abandoned hotel bar room and in a
moment of epiphany, imagined its potential as a dedicated jazz venue.
In an effort to subvert traditional norms, the GRJS business model was taking shape. Not
only would it benefit from the not-for-profit model, it would also benefit from a shared space
arrangement that would essentially create a for-profit/not-for-profit partnership. The hotel would
manage all building maintenance (security, insurance, wait staff, cleaning, upkeep, etc.) in
exchange for food and beverage sales on the premises. The GRJS would use the venue without
paying a fee, securing and paying for musical talent, while also raising funds from ticket sales,
government grants, and corporate sponsorships; both saw the arrangement as mutually
beneficial. More than two years into the operation, the model was working extremely well with
The Huether Hotel seeing a steady flow of customers on Friday and Saturday nights (as well as a
variety of miscellaneous users on off-nights), while the GRJS received full use of a venue rent
free and not burdened with providing food and beverage service.
Breaking free from the idea that the venue needed to be constructed from scratch, or
operated with full ownership and control, the GRJS was able to envision an arrangement that
would include a substantial collaborative element. In the words of Di Domenico et al., (2010)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

27

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the GRJS was “ . . . subverting limitations imposed by available resource environments in their
ability to create social value” (p. 691).
Improvisation
The third component in the social bricolage model suggests creative thinking through
improvisation is necessary to counteract environmental limitations. Improvising in this context
occurs by “initiating a range of projects and constantly responding to potential opportunities” (Di
Domenico et al., 2010: p. 694). This approach enables the social enterprise organization to
evolve and grow in an organic way, seizing opportunities to achieve organizational effectiveness
as opportunities arise, while also expanding social value when possible.
For the GRJS, the start-up process required numerous improvisational decisions. While
consultation and advice was frequently sought, there was no reliable template for this type of
organization. It was recognized early on that not all the answers were clear, but that action was
required. Attempts were made to “get things right” yet the final bias was towards “getting things
going” and improvising along the way. Musician compensation serves as an example of this
improvisation. As an initial impulse, the founder originally intended to pay all artists the same
fee across the board. In consultation with those experienced in the entertainment industry, fixed
financial obligations associated with a consistent payment schedule could be risky, inflexible,
and onerous. Playing with possibilities, it was determined that while the bands from out of town
would need enticements to perform for a fixed fee (including travel expenses), local performers
could be conceptualized differently.
A suggestion was made that local bands possess a local following and could therefore—
with some motivation—convince their supporters (relatives, friends, colleagues, etc.) to attend
performances. To initiate this, there would be a minimal flat fee provided to local players, in
combination with a portion of “the door.” If the musicians were successful in bringing in a
crowd, they would walk home with substantially greater compensation. This improvised
alternative to high fixed artist costs, also motivated a kind of partnership with local artists to
market themselves (and the club), which encouraged a deeper engagement with the society and
minimized financial risks. Interestingly, this flexible approach to compensation resulted in strong
audience numbers compared to visiting artists.
Other improvised efforts included the concept of opening acts (6:00-8:00pm) prior to the
headline performances (8:30-11:30pm). It was determined that an opening slot for musicians
during the dinner hour would give emerging artists (not quite ready for headline status) an
opportunity to perform and gain experience; the problem was paying these artists. Various
experiments ensued, including “passing the hat” for these opening act, an activity that cheapened
the experience for both musicians and audiences, and later abandoned for that reason.
Subsequent permutations included gaining grants and sponsorships dedicated to paying these
emerging artists for their performances, a concept that resonated well with donors. This approach
to experimentation, adjustment, and evolution embodied the spirit of improvisation for the GRJS
from the start, eventually solving these challenges through trial and error.
Other improvised efforts of varying success included: workshop/clinics, jam sessions,
participation in a summer jazz festival, and collaboration with other arts groups (e.g., visual
artists, authors). In each case, attempts were made to achieve the best outcome, while iterating
until the arrangement “felt right.” As a volunteer-driven, not-for-profit, the GRJS is willing to
expand its operations while taking on new initiatives and activities as individuals step forward
and champion efforts. Not all ideas work. Regardless of the result, all improvised efforts are put
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

28

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

forward in good faith and are seen as both creating social value, as well as raising the profile of
the GRJS and its various activities.
Creation of Social Value
A defining element of social entrepreneurship, in contrast to the broader field of
entrepreneurship, is the central purpose of creating social value (Di Domenico et al., 2010).
While social enterprises possess numerous formats, purposes, and business models (Zahra et al.,
2009), the common denominator is contributing to solve a social problem. As mentioned earlier,
the broadest sweep of these types of organizations come from what would be “the creation of
social value for disenfranchised members of society” (Gundry, Kickuo, Griffiths, and Bacq,
2011). Arts and culture organizations, however, serve to enrich the social landscape for
individuals from across the spectrum, emphasizing inclusion, cohesiveness, and societal
enrichment for the broader community.
While there are many university-aged entertainment services available in Waterloo,
Onterio, the GRJS provides an exceptional cultural amenity in a city where such opportunities
are limited for adults over the age of 25. Urban planners have long recognized the value of such
amenities to the perceived liveability of cities (Bailey, Miles, and Stark, 2004). Not only do
citizens have a place to hear quality music, they also benefit from living in a city where such
activities take are present and supported.
Art spaces such as theaters, venues, galleries and the like are—in addition to serving the
specific artistic delivery—physical manifestations of culture with substantial symbolic value to
both regular citizens and, even more significantly, to artists who have the option and potential to
live and conduct their art anywhere. Municipalities that sustain and encourage such artistic
spaces send a signal that art is valued and that the work of artists matters. Even if the work or
events are tangentially related to their daily work and art, the existence of artistic amenities have
a proportionately large impact when it comes to welcoming artists, integrating artists into the
broader community, and forging a robust and healthy cultural identity (Cohendet, Grandadam,
and Simon, 2010).
The commitment of the GRJS to promoting local artists generated substantial impact in
galvanizing a local music scene. What was previously fragmented, isolated, and largely hidden,
now moves towards cohesiveness, collectivist and pride, due in part to the availability of an
exceptional performance venue. One indicator is the high level of audience attendance as local
artists’ family, friends, colleagues, and associates can now publically support these ensembles.
The ripple effects for this dynamic are many: helping sustain artistic careers, forwarding the
reputation of the club, keeping overall venue revenues up, enhancing a sense of “a scene,”
stepping up performance professionalism and enriching the appeal of the art form.
Broader reputation also factors into the creation of social value. Maintaining a venue that
becomes renowned beyond its borders contributes to a pride of place that infuses a city with a
sense of value and cohesion. Being known for something positive beyond municipal borders
creates many spillover effects, not least of which is a collective sense of community pride and
identity, as well as impacting the tourism and hospitality industries (Deeke and Walter, 2011). In
a very short period of time, the GRJS has risen to the top of select Canadian jazz venues for
major national and international talent. Adherence to top quality production values, relatively
sophisticated audiences, and respectable artist fees propelled the GRJS and The Jazz Room to
amongst the elite clubs in Canada (Knowles, 2014; Toman, 2014).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

29

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Word can spread quickly in the art world, filtering back through aficionados and then to
the general public who may not be interested in a particular art form, but benefit from the city’s
reputation nonetheless. The social value created at the instigation of the GRJS is representative
of the kind of contribution the arts can make in general. While the arts do not address social ills
or the disenfranchised directly, it can encourage social cohesion, artistic expression and
community health across the board (Kagan and Hahn, 2011).
Stakeholder Participation
Active involvement with stakeholders in the “creation, management, and governance of
their social enterprise” is a uniquely critical component for social bricolage (Di Domenico, et al,
2010, p. 695). Stakeholder engagement has the dual advantage of enabling access to specific
resources in otherwise difficult environments, as well as building interest in, and support for,
what is being created. This is particularly important for an artistic endeavor, where resources are
perpetually tight, but also where audience, reputation, and broader word-of-mouth is so critical to
the well being and survival of the venture.
The GRJS opted for a completely volunteer-management model where only artists and
technical support people are paid; the rest of the operation functions with unpaid volunteers. In
addition to this format decreasing costs, it also builds a “volunteer ethic” into the cultural DNA
of the operation. On the downside, there can be cracks where volunteer priorities can vary for
individuals, though this is counterbalanced with an overall enthusiasm and commitment to create
a successful venture.
Numerous levels of stakeholder participation propelled the GRJS during its establishment
and growth. One key area of engagement was the contribution of in-kind donations by friends
and acquaintances. Such efforts included: web-site design, logo development, posters and visual
arts design, accounting, legal, book-keeping, and marketing—all donated by professionals and
contributed with the intent of building a community arts resource. In addition, volunteers were
solicited to take on numerous tasks such as putting up posters, taking tickets, managing web
listings, staffing promotional booths, taking photographs, and organizing events. Feeling the
venue to be a kind of “home” for the jazz scene, local bands are active stakeholders by recruiting
audience members to their shows and those of their peers, essentially becoming partners in the
venture.
An eclectic mix of other partners also contributed. The family who owns and operates
the Huether Hotel (where The Jazz Room is housed) is obviously a key stakeholder in
management and operation decisions. Other arts have also been pulled into the mix. A local
visual artist painted three oversized murals depicting musicians performing live on stage, adding
a unique level of “class,” meaning, and aesthetic beauty to the venue. The paintings are for sale
and when sold, are replaced with a similar work. A local literary quarterly also has an annual
writer’s festival event in The Jazz Room, collaborating on a theme straddling music and the
written word. Finally, other music presenters use the venue on off-nights for other genres
including contemporary classical and world music, among others.
The collective impact of these eclectic actors further cements the notion of stakeholder
participation as the central guiding energy behind the overall endeavor. With an organization
consisting of all volunteers (except musicians and technical support) there exists a communal
culture encouraging individuals to “pitch in” and make it all happen. Stakeholder participation
(both in-kind and financial support) is critical to the functioning of emergent social enterprises;

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

30

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

with social mission as a central tenet, individuals from many sectors are pulled into the collective
effort.
Persuasion
Persuasion is central to any start-up and accessing resources via social assets such as
friendship, liking, trust, obligation, and gratitude are key (Starr and Macmillan, 1990).
Persuasion plays a particularly significant role in social bricolage—the sixth component outlined
by Di Domenico, et al., (2010)—where stakeholders engage to dedicate resources, capital, time,
expertise, and energy towards a social cause. Necessary conditions are set to bring about change
through social legitimacy. This persuasive effort is relevant to individuals, private sector
businesses, political players, employees, volunteers and all other stakeholders needed to piece
together a social enterprise in the face of resource-poor environments.
Multiple levels of persuasion engaged stakeholders in the GRJS start-up process
including an indefinable number of micro efforts such as: conversations, formal bids, speeches,
emails, letters, facebook posts, etc. Conceptually defining these efforts, essential stakeholder
supporters can be divided into four major groupings, along with the key success factor when it
comes to persuasion towards support: governments/foundations respond to mission, individuals
respond to vision, private sector businesses are most sensitive to action, and audience members
seek connection (Preece, 2013). We now examine these stakeholder relationships as encountered
by the GRJS.
Initially, some government funders were wary of the ability of GRJS to achieve its
aspirations. The Ontario Arts Council turned down their first grant application, suggesting the
program was too ambitious and should be scaled down. A revised grant proposal reduced the
request amount, and more directly reflected priorities articulated by the provincial arts granting
body. This was successful and subsequent application to municipal, provincial, and federal
funders have been encouraging. In this context, persuasion centers on the ability to deliver on the
articulated government mission.
Personal networks were lobbied to purchase an annual pass ($350 per year for unlimited
access to the club). This is a substantial amount for many and success pivoted on both the pass’
value (80 shows per year), but more importantly, on the ability to communicate a sense of a
community’s collective vision, which was articulated though media articles, presentations, direct
conversations and correspondences.
Private sector businesses were persuaded to “give back,” leveraging social responsibility
and company reputation. A local construction company CEO with a particular taste for jazz
emerged as the initial corporate sponsor. His enthusiasm and support, even amongst other
sponsors, has been pivotal in securing broader private sector support. To give some definition to
the “ask,” the GRJS devised the notion of room sponsors (defined by three distinct sections in
the venue) at the cost of $10,000 per room.
Finally, audiences were persuaded. There was little initial indication as to what they
would be willing to pay, however. Some suggested anything over $10 was too much, while
others thought $20 was a bargain given the quality of the club. The GRJS now charges each
audience member between $10 and $20 per show, while reserving the right to adjust pricing over
time. With audiences averaging around 80 per performance, this proved to be the correct
decision. Audiences are responding to the exceptional production values (lights, sound, stage,
etc.) and in many ways, needed training as to the value of the performances.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

31

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As discussed, the entire process of social bricolage is a non-stop stream of persuasive
effort. Convincing key stakeholders to devote resources towards a legitimate social good that
achieves public benefit, while also remaining fiscally viable (or even profitable) is the essential
job of any social entrepreneur.
Discussion
This paper presents case study data further validating the social bricolage model put
forward by Di Domenico et al., (2010) including the key elements of: making do, refusal to be
constrained by limitation, improvisation, creation of social value, stakeholder participation, and
persuasion. While intimate connection by the author to the focal organization creates challenges
of perspective and bias, it counters with the benefit of data access and examples otherwise
difficult to obtain. This paper also extends the social bricolage discussion into the arts and
culture sector, an oft-neglected area of study within the social ventures literature.
Mentioned above, the initial years of operation resulted in a substantial level of success
for the GRJS. A post-hoc conceptual analysis maintains that the core principles of social
bricolage played a major role in achieving significant outcomes. This brings us to an important
question possessing both theoretical and practical importance: to what degree might the insights
from this research—and the experience of the GRJS—be transferable to other settings,
organizations and new ventures?
Noted for embracing “hero” stories that sometimes perpetuate stereotypes and overinflated perceptions, the entrepreneurship field has been doing little to encourage start-up activity
in the real world (Warren, 2005). By uncovering the processes followed by the GRJS as an
illustration using conceptual analysis, the attempt has been to peer behind the scenes and thereby
providing encouragement to others who may follow a similar path. Identified as one of the
brighter lights of success in a jazz sector (Knowles, 2014; Taman, 2014), the GRJS now
encounters more good news than bad (James, 2013). Visitors from out of town inquire about
replicating the GRJS’ successes in their own communities. What should be the reply?
The key point is that social bricolage refers primarily to a process or conceptual approach
that may be emulated, recognizing that each context, community, problem and set of resources
will be different. A major assumption is that local knowledge enables the necessary adaptations
once the bricolage process is initiated. This becomes an essential point within the bricolage
framework: only those intimately familiar with the local context, local resources, and local
community will be able to work the essential materials to piece together a successful arts start-up
organization. For the formidable resource constraints confronting the arts, this is arguably the
most viable route to start-up success. Successful examples can present potential ideas and act as
inspirational starting points, yet do not represent a definitive formula.
In the case of the GRJS, its volunteer-driven, not-for-profit model was inspired by the
Yardbird jazz venue in Edmonton, Alberta. At that venue, local government saw fit to bequeath
a performance space to the local jazz society for one dollar a year, making the municipal
government an important supporter in the venue. The GRJS had no such advantage and therefore
needed to explore other options for support. Management at the Yardbird was also leery of
engaging corporate funding with the baggage it might bring, at one point cheekily suggesting the
only appropriate place for a corporate logo in the club would be at the bottom of the urinals in
the bathroom. In contrast, the GRJS benefited by substantial corporate support, which enabled
the club to thrive. Such differences illustrate the variety evolving within specific contexts while
trying to solve similar problems, though each following principles of social bricolage uniquely.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

32

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Given the highly specific coupling of problems, resources and entrepreneurs exclusively
shaped by the unique context, there is little likelihood for direct replication to make sense in
another context. The emphasis, however, would be towards embracing a process for identifying
problems and assembling resources within one’s own unique context, with the end result being
naturally tailored to each specific environment. For would-be arts entrepreneurs, the initial path
is defined by the people, ideas, and resources immediately at hand, rather than following a
prescribed formula and assembling a pre-conceived, perfectly-construed set of circumstances—a
situation most likely to never exist.
List of References
Arentz, J., Sautet, F., and Storr, V. (2012). “Prior-knowledge and Opportunity Identification.”
Small Business Economics, 41(2) 461-478.
Bailey, C., Miles, S., and Stark, P. (2004). “Culture-­‐led Urban Regeneration and the
Revitalization of Identities in Newcastle, Gates Head and the North East of England.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(1), 47-65.
Baker, T., and Nelson, R. E. (2005). “Creating Something From Nothing: Resource Construction
Through Entrepreneurial Bricolage.” Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
Cohendet, P., Grandadam, D., and Simon, L. (2010). “The Anatomy of the Creative City.”
Industry and Innovation, 17(1), 91-111.
Deeke, J., and Walter, M. (2011). “Cultural Tourism.” In Papathanassis, Alexis (Ed.), and The
Long Tail of Tourism, Germany: Gabler, 191-199.
Di Domenico, M, Haugh, H. and Tracey, P. (2010). “Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value
Creation in Social Enterprises.” Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice, 35(4) 681-703.
Duymedjian, R., and Rüling, C. C. (2010). “Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization
and Management Theory.” Organization Studies, 31(2), 133-151.
Feder, T., and Katz-Gerro, T. (2012). “Who Benefits from Public Funding of the Performing
Arts? Comparing the Art Provision and the Hegemony–Distinction Approaches.” Poetics,
40(4), 359-381.
Fisher, G. (2012). “Effectuation, Causation, and Bricolage: A Behavioral Comparison of
Emerging Theories in Entrepreneurship Research.” Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 36(5), 1019-1051.
Gundry, L. K., Kickul, J. R., Griffiths, M. D., and Bacq, S. C. (2011). “Creating Social Change
Out of Nothing: The Role of Entrepreneurial Bricolage in Social Entrepreneurs' Catalytic
Innovations.” Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 13, 1-24.
Infantry, A. (2006). “Her Jazz Dream Dies: Montreal Bistro Abruptly Closes After 25 Years,
Shocking Patrons.” Toronto Star, July 6.
James, R. (2013). “Local Legendary Jazz Club the Artists' Quarter Closing Its Doors.”
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, October 10.
Kagan, S., and Hahn, J. (2011). “Creative Cities and (Un) Sustainability: From Creative Class to
Sustainable Creative Cities.” Culture and Local Governance, 3(1), 11-27.
Knowles, P. (2014). “Doctor Jazz: Stephen Preece has Sparked a New Trend in Music Venues.
Exchange: Magazine for Entrepreneurs/Enterprises/Economic Development/Educators,
31(3): 29-30.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). Levi-Strauss/Weightman: Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

33

Preece
Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Peredo, A. M., and Chrisman, J. J. (2006). “Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise.”
Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309-328.
Powell, W., and Steinberg, R. (Eds.). (2006). The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Preece, S. (2005). “The Performing Arts Value Chain.” International Journal of Arts
Management. 8(1): 21-32.
Preece, S. (2013). “Managing the Emergent Arts Organization: Assembling a Portfolio of
Support.” Wilfrid Laurier University, Working Paper.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). “Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift From
Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency.” Academy of Management
Review, 26(2), 243-263.
Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K.,and Chertok, M. (2012). “A Paradoxical
Leadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs: Challenges, Leadership Skills, and
Pedagogical Tools for Managing Social and Commercial Demands.” Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463-478.
Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. (1990). “Resource Cooptation via Social Contracting: Resource
Acquisition Strategies for New Ventures.” Strategic Management Journal, 11, 79-92.
Teachout, T. (2009). “Can Jazz be Saved?” Wall Street Journal. Aug 9.
Toman, S. (2014). “Always Room for Jazz: Music Fans Treated to the Best Thanks to
Flourishing Non-Profit in Waterloo.” Grand Magazine, January-February: 56-59.
Tracey, P., and Phillips, N. (2007). “The Distinctive Challenge of Educating Social
Entrepreneurs: A Postscript and Rejoinder to the Special Issue on Entrepreneurship
Education.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2), 264-271.
Warren, L. (2005). “Images of Entrepreneurship: Still Searching for the Hero?.” The
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6(4), 221-229.
Watson, T. J. (2011). “Ethnography, Reality, and Truth: The Vital Need for Studies of ‘How
Things Work in Organizations and Management.” Journal of Management Studies, 48(1),
202-217.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., and Shulman, J. M. (2009). “A Typology of
Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges.” Journal of
business venturing, 24(5), 519-532.
Zeyen, A., Beckmann, M., Mueller, S., Dees, J. G., Khanin, D., Krueger, N., and Zacharakis, A.
(2013). “Social Entrepreneurship and Broader Theories: Shedding New Light on the
‘Bigger Picture’.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 88-107.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 3 (1)

34