Search results

Social enterprises (SEs) are increasingly expected to rely on formal methodologies to assess their social impact. These structured methodologies, which produce objective and evidence-based measures of impact, are sometimes opposed to bricolage approaches that “make do” with what is at hand. This paper aims to question this distinction by identifying the conflicting considerations that arise in the process of implementing a formal methodology, which might lead SEs to rely on bricolage mechanisms. The authors propose a model of “formally-driven” bricolage with core principles to navigate between those considerations.

Adopting an inductive approach, the authors draw on the in-depth case study of a work integration SE engaged in a formal social impact assessment (SIA) through collaborative research.

First, the authors identify five types of considerations (feasibility, efficiency, ethics, legitimacy and aim) that come into tension with the primary considerations of formality in formal methodologies, leading SEs to still rely on bricolage mechanisms. Second, the authors identify five principles (multidimensional, participative, cultural, mixed-method and adaptive) that permit navigation between those conflicting considerations. Based on the findings, the authors develop a model of “formally-driven” bricolage.

The contribution is methodological, theoretical and practical. The authors bridge the gap between theory and practice through long-term immersion in an SE. The authors contribute to the understanding of the use of bricolage in SIA by investigating why and how bricolage is still at play in formal assessments. The proposed model of “formally-driven” bricolage can help researchers and practitioners to better grasp the ins and outs of the SIA process.