Social immersion, spatial bricolage and entrepreneurship in the context of traditional communities

Imersão social, bricolagem espacial e empreendedorismo no contexto de comunidades tradicionais

Inmersión social, bricolaje espacial y emprendimiento en el contexto de las comunidades tradicionales

Gustavo Passos Fortes gustavo.fortes@unifesspa.edu.br

South and Southeast Pará (UNIFESSPA), Brasil

Cândido Vieira Borges Junior candidoborges@ufg.br

Federal University of Goiás (UFG), Brasil

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International.

Traditional communities are spaces of resource limitations that might affect the development and harnessing of local potential. Thus, it is worth highlighting actions of value improvement and creation in the community context since, historically, many traditional communities are inserted in isolation contexts, thus being the target of limited attention for public policies of development (Hocayen-da-Silva et al., 2016).

The features of traditional communities concerning their organization and understanding of entrepreneurship might involve different opportunities and methods of development with community participation, favoring the use of local potential (Korsgaard et al., 2015, 2021). Thus, rising entrepreneurship in traditional communities might be a way to meet the family's economic well-being, especially in the context of developing countries (Vial, 2020). However, it is because they were built in specific contexts that in traditional communities entrepreneurs experience institutional difficulties, ranging from the lack of government support and local structure to insufficient local logistics (Oliveira & Blos, 2012; Vestrum, 2014).

Almeida and Farias Júnior (2013) alert to the tendency to link the term “traditional communities” to the idea of backwardness and antiquity. Thereby, we run the risk of attributing traditional communities to a derogatory view based on the hegemonic thought of modern society. Such a reality reinforces the difficulty of researchers in administration science analyzing the entrepreneurship phenomenon in traditional communities, assuming the logic that these communities are examples of something that had prevailed in the world in the past but has no chance of adherence in the current corporate context (Hocayen-da-Silva et al., 2016).

It is worth mentioning that each community has its particularities, which implies that, in general, small businesses in these localities adopt alternative management methods (Costa et al., 2016; Hocayen da Silva, 2015), thus requiring different models of entrepreneurship though in these communities. Bricolage is characterized by the individual behavior toward adversities by using and reinterpreting the available or unusual resources, which might help realize different methods of entrepreneurship in contexts of resource limitations (Baker & Nelson, 2005), such as in traditional communities.

Traditional communities have a questioning potential concerning the organizational and corporate model that prevails in the literature. The possibilities of a culture of application of collectivist principles bring new perspectives to the study of entrepreneurship. In addition, it is worth adopting the logic of structural anthropology of Lévi-Strauss (1989) to understand and reinforce that the knowledge used by traditional cultures in modernity might reveal distinguished business methods of creativity, survival, and development in a given community space.

The features of these communities open space for theoretical reflections, especially in Brazilian rural traditional communities, also starting from discussions from other fields that have discussed such a theme longer, like Anthropology, Sociology, and Geography (Carvalho & Macedo, 2018). The reflection on the features and context of traditional communities might provide organizational studies with a new standpoint, going beyond the instrumental rationality, where the organization is aimed at growth and competitivity (Hocayen-da-Silva et al., 2016)

It is worth mentioning that the administration area has only a few studies centered on the peculiarities of local communities and their organizational dynamics (Hocayen-da-Silva et al., 2016). The authors point out that the studies generally focusing on the topic of traditional or local communities are not developed in the administration area and the themes often addressed concern traditional knowledge (Brandt & Nodari, 2011; Hanazaki et al., 2018) (or management of natural resources (da Silva, 2019). In addition, Hocayen-da-Silva et al. (2016) report that the dynamics of traditional communities is an interesting field, although little explored, for organizational studies. Such dynamics might reveal unconventional management methods and introduce new conceptions of organizations (Hocayen-da-Silva et al., 2016), hence entrepreneurship.

Some theoretical thoughts might favor the analysis by realizing that, in general, these communities are characterized by 1) a social immersion based on relationships and shared values (Granovetter, 1985) and 2) contexts of institutional and resource limitation (Baker & Nelson, 2005). The point of view of the new economic sociology and social immersion (Granovetter, 1985) might enhance the analysis of socioeconomic dynamics in communities since community development is shaped by the social relationship established among residents (Korsgaard et al., 2015). Thus, the occupation of the territory with historical and emotional value is a striking element for traditional communities and the origin of traditional peoples is marked by a history of great oppression, violence, and exclusion (Almeida & Farias Júnior, 2013; de Moraes et al., 2017). Such a reality reinforces a feeling of appreciation for common traditions, aligning the community's way of life with the features of each culture (Brandemburg, 2010; Cunha, 2007; Moraes et al., 2017).

Considering the scenario of appreciation of traditions in community life, social immersion, which is studied through new economic sociology (Granovetter, 1985), highlights entrepreneurs as a structuring element of the social dynamics of a population. Thus, native and resident entrepreneurs in a community are immersed in their social relations with other members, developing a local culture, habits, and values (Korsgaard et al., 2021). Social immersion helps understand the members of a traditional community as key actors in the social structure defined by the group of individuals, according to their positions in society (Johnson, 1997). In this context, entrepreneurs act as resource fundraisers (Jack & Anderson, 2002) who favor the local potential while interacting with other members, allowing the appreciation of local culture (Korsgaard et al., 2021).

The term bricolage is original to the French language and, in general, refers to impromptu labor and manual runs with the formation of tools from different or unusual raw materials (Lévi-Strauss, 1989). Spatial bricolage might be understood as the behavior of reinterpreting the resources available in the immediate spatial context through community participation or appreciation (Korsgaard et al., 2021). Thereby, spatial bricolage uses the social immersion of actors in the community and reveals entrepreneurship methods that are adapted to the habits of a given space (Yachin & Ioannides, 2020).

The theory of bricolage in entrepreneurship focuses on the creative process of individuals who undertake with poor resources or “with what they have in hands”, in environments of social vulnerability or even in scenarios of institutional limitations (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Carvalho & Cohen, 2019). In turn, spatial bricolage, regarded as a specific type of bricolage, considers the local culture and social participation. Thus, spatial bricolage highlights distinguished methods of doing more with less and coping with scenarios of limitations imposed by the social dynamics through community participation and local resources (Klerk, 2015; Korsgaard et al., 2021; Yachin & Ioannides, 2020).

Communities have features that are based on culture, habits, history, values, and interaction among their members. Community development is often only possible through the cooperative integration of its members since the access to resources for local development is boosted by the chain of residents (Brandemburg, 2010). Thus, we must understand the dynamics of entrepreneurship in these communities by seeing social immersion as a precursor to entrepreneur behavior in spatial bricolage (Korsgaard et al., 2021; Yachin & Ioannides, 2020).

Despite its simplifier role, the concept of spatial bricolage goes far beyond the “do it yourself” and refers to the way of execution through the direct use of cultural potential and community participation (Korsgaard et al., 2021). The use of community potential and participation reinforces the feeling of belonging; therefore, spatial bricolage becomes a directional positioning for business opportunities using the locally available resources, allowing community development when facing institutional difficulties (Korsgaard et al., 2021; Yachin & Ioannides, 2020).

Integrating concepts of social immersion from the new economic sociology (Granovetter, 1985) with spatial bricolage (Korsgaard et al., 2021; Roberts, 2018) might bring a fresh look at the dynamics of entrepreneurship in traditional communities, not only considering the context but understanding that the community experience establishes unique limits and potential that can only be operated by and for the community. Immersion emerges as an outlining element of spatial bricolage actions, which, to a greater or lesser extent, will provide local potential opportunities while engaging the community members in the whole local entrepreneurship dynamics (Korsgaard et al., 2021).

Thus, we aim to highlight the theoretical advances that not only consider the context to understanding entrepreneurship but also emphasize context particularities in the form of socioeconomic relations involved in the immersion in traditional communities. In addition, the literature lacks theoretical models that consider social immersion as a precursor to bricolage. Studying the dynamics of entrepreneurship in the context of traditional communities might help understand the theoretical elements of spatial bricolage. Thus, studies on bricolage in traditional communities might bring new creative solutions to reducing social vulnerability and harnessing local potential.

This essay aims to discuss the elements of spatial bricolage in the context of social immersion for entrepreneurship in traditional communities. Thereby, we present concepts of social immersion (Granovetter, 1985) and spatial bricolage (Korsgaard; Müller; Welter, 2021; Roberts, 2018). Our theoretical discussion on the topics is followed by theoretical propositions that might help understand spatial bricolage in traditional communities; finally, we suggest a theoretical model based on the theories and propositions mentioned.

Seeking to facilitate the methodological and epistemological understanding that the topic demands, this essay adopts the structuralist paradigm centered on the structures formed by human relations where knowledge is formed through relationships. The principle of such a concept is the unique networks of relations in each context and is based on the structural anthropology of Levi-Strauss (1962) for possible explanations of how knowledge develops from the relations between its elements. The same author introduced the term bricolage, which, later, with Baker and Nelson (2005), was incorporated into entrepreneurship studies, with entrepreneur bricolage. In turn, spatial bricolage emerges from the advance of entrepreneur bricolage in specific environments (Korsgaard et al., 2021), such as traditional communities.

The lack of specific studies on spatial bricolage in the national scenario and the possibilities of identifying this new approach to bricolage in the entrepreneurship context of traditional communities justify a study that advances the theory of spatial bricolage. We do not aim to cover all discussions on the theme but to introduce a debate on spatial bricolage in specific contexts of Brazilian reality, such as traditional communities.

Aiming to organize the discussion, this work is divided into five topics. The next topic brings a brief discussion on traditional communities and entrepreneurship. Subsequently, we present a discussion on social immersion – embeddedness – in entrepreneurship. Next, we introduce the formation of the bricolage topic and its advance toward spatial bricolage, as well as how it relates to the context of communities. Finally, we present our theoretical propositions and the theoretical model proposed with suggestions for further research on the topic, followed by our final remarks.

Aiming to characterize and understand the social phenomenon of entrepreneurship in traditional communities, we initially present the characterization of communities by emphasizing the multiple views on the term. Thereby, in the context of communities, we aim to highlight traditional and rural communities as a phenomenon of potential application to organizational, administration, and entrepreneurship studies. In addition, we describe the potential theoretical perspectives of economic sociology and entrepreneurship that might support the discussion of the entrepreneur phenomenon dynamics in traditional rural communities.

Characterizing communities, either local, traditional, or rural, involves discussing the conceptual formation of the term that fits the analysis categories of both sociology and anthropology. Over the past decades, the concept attributed to the term “community” or “traditional community” has added scientific considerations from different knowledge areas, introducing a multiplicity of categories where each researcher assumes their point of view based on their scientific inclination and theoretical position, bringing often conflicting and sometimes complementary results (Johnson, 1997; Mocellim, 2010).

Regardless of the community classification and profile, a local community is a long-lasting, organized human population sharing a space (Mocellim, 2010). Thus, the collective-solidary behavior among the community members so that its members share multiples bonds by being family members, friends, or simply acquaintances; in addition to people who buy and sell from each other, meet at the same places, or have common references (Mocellim, 2010).

From the sociological point of view, Johnson (1997) uses the logic of sociology categories to describe the main dimensions adopted to classify communities. Based on such a description, the author highlights two dimensions where communities might be delimited: a) rural/urban and b) traditional/modern. However, due to the essentially distinct features of each community, objective or quantitative criteria do not favor this classification (Johnson, 1997; Mocellim, 2010).

A rural community has a small-sized population with generally homogenous activities, predominantly agriculture. In turn, an urban community is larger and has residents living closer to each other and more heterogenous activities. However, identifying whether a community is rural or urban is, in general, more arbitrary than theoretical since each community might present different levels of population number, density, or diversity of activities, yet keeping a rural or urban identity (Johnson, 1997).

From the point of view of the traditional/modern dimension, traditional communities might be more homogeneous, less technological, and less dependent on the media. In a way, some authors attribute the difficulty of education, the most precious value to religion and traditional habits, which are generally passed from generation to generation preserving the ancient knowledge of discriminated and violated peoples, such as indigenous and quilombolas. In turn, modern communities have a more heterogenous culture and are less religious, more dependent on technologies, and have more diverse labor activities. In general, communities modern have more developed media and a more advanced education due to their more diverse institutions of formal education (Johnson, 1997).

Due to the difficulties in identifying the dimensions of communities in practice, classifying these communities becomes an even more complex task. Communities show different levels of tradition or modernity, and rural communities have distinct urbanization levels. Thus, communities might be classified into four typologies: 1) rural-modernized; 2) Urban-metropolitan; 3) Traditional in a rural environment, and 4) Traditional in the urban environment. Thus, communities might share features from different dimensions and levels of urbanization and modernity. Figure 1 shows a quadrant of classification possibilities of communities based on the logic of dimensions described by (Johnson, 1997).

Figure 1
Quadrant of the characterization dimensions of local communities.
Source: Elaborated by the authors based on Johnson (1997).

More specifically concerning traditional communities, their being recognized as a specific concept was marked by a conceptual imprecision that allows working with a vague or generic category, referring to ethnic or tribal populations or addressing historically specific and distinct social groups (Carvalho & Macedo, 2018). Thus, for a trend of thought, the single and wide concept of “traditional community” might disregard the particularities of each community, hence hampering their characterization. However, another trend considers that such a range of concepts is what allows the highlighting of several ways of life that survive and resist throughout the years (da Silva, 2019).

For Carvalho and Macedo (2018), in Brazil, the discussion on traditional communities and populations gains momentum from the need for specific policies for such a population; however, for Barretto Filho (2006), the debate takes shape due to the following three main agendas: 1) environmental agenda to create protected areas where there are conflicts with the local population; 2) dialogue on the formation process of the Brazilian people, and 3) prominence of social movements against violence in traditional territories. These agendas reinforce the need to understand the dynamics and recognition of concepts on populations and traditional communities (Castro & Oliveira, 2016).

According to the Ministry of Social Development (MDS), along with the National Commission of Sustainable Development of Traditional Communities (CNPCT), decree 6,040 from February 7, 2007, seeks the recognition and preservation of other social organization methods. Thereby, it establishes that Peoples and Traditional communities (PCTs) are defined as:

Culturally distinct groups that see themselves as such, with their own methods of social organization, which occupy and use territories and natural resources as a condition for their cultural, social, religious, ancestral, and economic reproduction, based on knowledge, innovations, and practices generated and transmitted through tradition. (Brazil, 2007, Decree 6040 from February 7, 2007).

As examples of PCTs in Brazil, we might mention the indigenous peoples, quilombolas, traditional communities of African origin or “terreiro”, extractivists, river dwellers, caboclos, artisanal fishermen, and Pomeranians, among others. Each of these communities has different peculiarities that must be preserved and respected considering the Brazilian tradition and historical formation. The habits, beliefs, way of life, and other aspects of the daily life of traditional communities are part of the Brazilian culture and the formation of our people (Brazil, 2007).

There is a tendency to consider the biological, social, and cultural factors in traditional communities since elements like family, tradition, myths, habits, beliefs, and values represent the understanding of the community. Complementarily, matters related to territory, locality, and way of life are also important to understand the limits of a community. Thereby, in traditional communities of the rural environment, territory, way of life, and alternative production are strongly based on collective agriculture and far from the limit of the urban structure of cities (Brandemburg, 2010).

Due to their distance from urban structures, the essentially rural way of life of communities might vary according to the dependence on the urban environment (Brandemburg, 2010). There are some fully dependent communities on the urban environment and others that are more self-sufficient, operating more autonomously regarding neighboring cities. This feature of the community might be a factor in the fragility of life conditions but also might arouse local potential through unique resources, with great cultural significance in the community (Hocayen-da-Silva et al., 2016). This illustrates the context of institutional and resource limitations present in the communities; therefore, a way to harness and develop local potential should be analyzed from the standpoint of bricolage and entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship might be seen as a driving element in the local economy, social well-being, and response to social demands (Vieira et al., 2022). Regarding entrepreneurship in the context of communities, it is worth noting that the whole local development starts from the action of fundraisers of internal resources; however, there is a need for the creation of social value that fills a gap or satisfies the community needs (Korsgaard et al., 2021). Such a movement bears a striking resemblance to social entrepreneurship, which consists of a type of entrepreneurship that seize opportunities derived from social needs that are not met in the locality (Barki et al., 2015; Iizuka et al., 2015).

It is worth mentioning that, in general, social entrepreneurship involves meeting social needs through community participation and mobilization in entrepreneur actions (Vieira et al., 2022). Such community engagement is also a striking feature in the reality of traditional communities, where entrepreneur actions are marked by social relations concerning the feeling of belonging to the group and shared habits (Brandemburg, 2010).

At first glance, social entrepreneurship and community are common to the structure of traditional communities; however, one of the features that define a structure of entrepreneurship in a community is the social relation that is established, which could be relationships of kinship, closeness, affinities, habits, shared ancestry, or simply for belonging to the community group (Brandemburg, 2010). Vale and Corrêa (2015) highlight that entrepreneurship is influenced by these social structures that express as relationship networks, influencing individual actions and even economic gains in the locality. Therefore, what characterizes entrepreneurship in communities is its action in the community structure through affinities, habits, and belonging (Brandemburg, 2010).

Finally, considering that both social immersion and the context of institutional limitation are present at different levels in communities, each community responds to limitations in a different way and the individuals immersed in their social experiences organize themselves to preserve their local interests (Korsgaard et al., 2015). In this sense, since the role of the entrepreneur in these communities might emphasize the important actors of resource mobilization and institutionalization, entrepreneurship in traditional communities should be studied based on the perspective of social immersion of Polanyi (2001) and Granovetter (1985). The next topic addresses the issue of social immersion more deeply.

According to Vale and Corrêa (2015), in the logic of classic and neoclassic economy, entrepreneurs are considered atomized actors who produce goods and services in the competitive market. However, by going beyond the neoclassic economy, it emerges a need to overcome the so-called economic rationality, which considers the individual (homo economicus) regardless of social structure and is guided by the system of price and maximization of usefulness in consumption. Thus, the integration of sociology and economy allows considering matters such as culture, values, and social rules in the economic action (and decisions) of individuals (Bovo, 2014).

The idea of Economic Sociology is centered on the integration of sociology and economy, whose main reference is the classic work called “The Great Transformation”, by Polanyi (2000). The author starts from the logic that there are different methods of economic integration and actions of individuals who are guided by essentially structural and institutional conditions. Thereby, moving this thought forward, Granovetter (1985) seeks to show how the social structure affects economic matters. Thus, the perspective of economic sociology understands that every action of an economic agent is the consequence of decision-making that considers both social and personal factors (Cárdenas et al., 2011).

Granovetter, (1985), in the formation of New Economic Sociology, fills a structural gap in the understanding of the entrepreneur as a social actor immersed in socioeconomic structures as a structuring element (Corrêa et al., 2020). Thus, the use of the term embeddedness is improved; in Portuguese, it might be equivalent to immersion, rooting, or inlay. Such a term refers to the social dynamics where individual actions are immersed “in networks of personal relations instead of being performed by atomized actors” (Granovetter, 1992, p 4). Therefore, entrepreneurs are immersed in their social relations and help develop local characteristics (Korsgaard et al., 2021; Vestrum, 2014). In this sense, the entrepreneur is an actor of social formation who mobilize resources and streamline social relations in the local culture.

The central idea of social immersion is that individuals are connected by their social bonds in the environment and contexts in which they are inserted; therefore, entrepreneurs are, as everyone else, inserted in the context at different extents (Uzzi, 1997; Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022). These contexts establish conditions for social action and entrepreneurship immersion becomes a wide concept; thus, the limits of individual action, business processes, and resource acquisition interfere with different aspects of immersion and allow for different models of enterprises (Welter, 2011; Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022; Zahra et al., 2014).

The development of the study field of social immersion in entrepreneurship led to a growth of publications that incorporate the entrepreneur into social and institutional contexts (Nowak & Raffaelli, 2022; Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022). However, the technological and behavioral changes over the past decades combined with the conceptual divergence on social immersion provided some difficulties to the practical understanding of immersion; it might often be confused with integration or the studied context (Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022).

Another difficulty using social immersion in the entrepreneurship field is the issue of the entrepreneur's actions that might be thought by reflecting how the entrepreneur might act, considering them only reactive to immersion (Davidsson, 2015; Trettin & Welter, 2011). Such an issue is particularly important when studying the context of communities since immersion might either enable or hamper entrepreneurship in the context, Trettin and Welter (2011). Thus, the entrepreneur’s action must be understood as an important factor for their insertion in the community, in addition, not only the social values and relationships guarantee the presence of entrepreneurship in the community (Redhead & Bika, 2022), especially in the case of communities facing institutional difficulties (Larsen et al., 2022).

From a different point of view, Newbert & Tornikoski (2013) addresses immersion from the perspective that social bonds might increase the cost of resource acquisition. The authors further explore the dependence on strong social bonds, such as family members and friends. Thus, they conclude that by starting a business, the entrepreneur relies on resources that are supplied by their social bonds. However, along the trajectory, such a dependence might become harmful since as it incorporates and positions in the immersion, resources might become too specific and more expensive.

Likewise, Pahnke et al. (2015) highlight and investigate the disadvantages of entrepreneurs being inserted in a rich network of inter-organizational relationships. The authors emphasize that social immersion through a competitive exposition in relationships with intermediate powers might inhibit innovation. They developed the concept of “leakage of competitive information”, which occurs through the indirect bond of competitors through shared bonds and contacts. Thus, social immersion with indirect bonds with competitors hampers innovation because of factors related to identifying opportunities, relationship motivation, and information leakage.

Social immersion might be an enabler of the entrepreneurship process due to its support role in business, favoring identifying opportunities and accessing important resources (Jack & Anderson, 2002). However, competition and local social structure might favor a distancing that makes several types of business unfeasible. Thereby, by being an element that shapes social dynamics, social immersion might also reinforce an inadequate culture of entrepreneurship (McKeever et al., 2015)

To emphasize the phenomenon of spatial bricolage in the context of entrepreneurship in traditional communities, this section initially describes concepts and applications of bricolage in the context of entrepreneurship, followed by the peculiarities of spatial bricolage by pointing out how it might help understand entrepreneurship in traditional communities.

4.1 Concepts and Applications of Bricolage

In his work “Wild Thought”, the anthropologist Lévi-Strauss (1989), one of the first to use the term bricolage, states that a piece of more striking evidence on the use of bricolage is the use of creativity to make something happen (or transform) with poor resources, through partnerships and background or traditional knowledge. Thus, the term bricolage refers to the way of understanding and making something happen creatively, without systematic planning, in different cultures and communities (Baker & Nelson, 2005).

Creativity is one of the peculiar resources of bricolage (Machado, 2020) that is expressed through innovative behavior toward difficulties, resulting in solutions that would be unusual to ordinary eyes (Davidsson et al., 2017). According to Di Domenico et al. (2010), recombining resources along with creativity is what allows the creation of something valuable, especially by adding social value. Complementarily, social relationships are also an important element of bricolage (McKague & Oliver, 2016); therefore, Klerk (2015) states that the bricolage process carried out by a group of people who work with each other in a co-creation scheme is cooperative bricolage, which is regarded as a bricolage sub-form. Thus, the importance of relationships for the concrete application of bricolage in a specific context of communities is highlighted (McKague & Oliver, 2016).

Social relationships are also an important element of bricolage. Indeed, Klerk (2015) described that bricolage performed by a group of people who work with each other in a scheme of co-creation is a cooperative bricolage – regarded as a bricolage sub-form –; therefore, the importance of relationships is emphasized for the concrete application of bricolage in a specific community context (McKague & Oliver, 2016).

To measure bricolage in organizations, Salunke et al. (2013) propose variables such as resource dynamization in the business model and the adding of value from these innovative solutions. Likewise, (Davidsson et al., (2017) and Senyard et al. (2014) emphasize that bricolage is identified in organizations by proposing solutions using the existing resources, as well as through the effective use of these resources to cope with challenges.

In the organizational and administration context, bricolage has a corporate problem-solving role while streamlining resources in the harnessing of opportunities (Perkmann & Spicer, 2014). Most companies are managed with resource limitations; therefore, organizational bricolage might allow the breaking of institutional limits and barriers, including in entrepreneurship (Korsgaard et al., 2016).

In the scope of entrepreneurship, Fisher (2012) describes that bricolage might be highlighted in the creation of new business since by using their own skills, entrepreneurs provide products and solutions that would not be possible without the improvisation process. Thus, bricolage adds value to simple materials, allowing the expansion of small businesses and consumption based on the economic benefit of recombining creative processing (Machado, 2020). Baker and Nelson (2005) revealed that when companies are in an environment of limitations, one of the feasible alternatives is to engage in bricolage from the following three basic features: 1) improvisation, also known as “making do”; 2) internal and external resources in hands and available for free or at a small cost, and 3) combination of resources for a new objective.

Entrepreneur bricolage addresses opportunities and solves problems by appealing to resources that are discontinued or discarded and usually available for free or at a low cost, such as in the case of solid residues that could be reused through a set of activities resulting from creativity and improvisation (Davidsson et al., 2017). In this sense, it is clear that bricolage stimulates innovation, and despite the resource restrictions that might difficult new competitive strategies, the companies involved with bricolage are willing to experiment with it to face the challenges of innovation (Yu et al., 2020). Considering the personal practice applied to the use of poor resources, the actions of bricolage might be carried out in different complementary fields, such as shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Bricolage application fields in the context of entrepreneurship.

Source: Adapted by the authors from Fisher (2012) and Baker and Nelson (2005).

It is worth noting that some recent studies have addressed bricolage in the organizational and entrepreneurship context. Machado (2020) analyzes the whole entrepreneur and development processes of a contemporary circus through entrepreneur bricolage. With a case study, the author describes the birth of the circus, referring to the “making do”, to the responses to environmental limitations through bricolage actions, in addition, to pointing out the creative use of improvisation, unusual mobilization of networks, and reputation. The data demonstrate a clear example of the application of entrepreneur bricolage in the context of difficulties and creative solutions.

In the international context, seeking social inclusion through entrepreneurship, Villares-Varela et al. (2018) conducted a study centered on the bricolage practice in low-cost entrepreneurship, highlighting important behaviors to understand entrepreneurship as subsistence for immigrants in France. The authors led interviews with immigrant entrepreneurs and reported that due to the lack of financial capital, the activities are generally low-cost, thus adding a survival appeal to bricolage. Nonetheless, they also demonstrate that cooperative bricolage work produces corporate results that go beyond mere survival, being highly active social agents, and showing a considerable capacity for innovation.

Reypens et al. (2021) argue the need for entrepreneurs in regions with little and poor resources to be resourceful. For the authors, such resourcefulness derives from the meeting of basic needs in economically marginalized communities. These communities are often underserved by the lack of more sophisticated services, demanding, for example, technological medical solutions. In the context studied by the authors, bricolage emerges as an approach through which entrepreneurs work using what they have available to overcome resource restrictions, in the case of medical solutions. However, the authors clarify that the excessive use of bricolage might jeopardize the product quality and the innovation scale, which are both important items for the technology and health sectors.

Thus, to cope with the matter of quality, another literature approach called the search for resources, explains how technology companies can mobilize and use sophisticated resources (Desa, 2012; Reypens et al., 2021), such as those required for health services. In this sense, Reypens et al. (2021) highlight a tendency in the literature to address bricolage in contrast with other ways of resource mobilization, often without understanding bricolage as complementary to the search for resources (or vice-versa). For the authors, it should be addressed dynamically by examining the methods employed by companies both for bricolage and the search for sophisticated resources (Reypens et al., 2021).

Presented so broadly, the concept of bricolage has acted as the root to terms such as entrepreneur bricolage (Davidsson et al., 2017), organizational bricolage (Salunke et al., 2013), social bricolage (Di Domenico et al., 2010), and spatial bricolage (Korsgaard et al., 2021). These terms have been considered both as particular types of such a phenomenon and peculiar mechanisms of bricolage actions. The implications of this number of terms to the entrepreneurship area are yet to be better defined (Scazziota et al., 2020). Table 2 shows the main applications of the bricolage concepts.

Table 2
Concepts and applications of bricolage.

Source: Adapted by the authors.

As highlighted above, spatial bricolage involves community participation and the use of cultural and local resources. In the reality of traditional communities, the value of local culture and community feeling might be key factors for community survival and entrepreneurship development (Carvalho & Macedo, 2018; Moraes et al., 2017). Thereby, spatial bricolage provides an important theoretical view for the understanding of the phenomenon in this context. The next subtopic discusses the particularities and peculiarities of spatial bricolage from a theoretical perspective.

According to Scazziota et al., (2020), in general, the bricolage approach occurs from different behavioral mechanisms and developed tools, in addition to reviewing matters emerging from entrepreneurship. Related studies usually address the benefits of bricolage to entrepreneurs in different structural situations, Stinchfield et al., (2013), like Maciel et al. (2014), and Duymedjian & Rüling, (2010). Regardless of the bricolage approach or application, these concepts converge and create a spatial analysis like spatial bricolage, especially in the context of communities.

4.2 Peculiarities of spatial bricolage and traditional communities

In the entrepreneur practice in a traditional community, spatial bricolage should develop outings and solutions upon facing specific local barriers and difficulties. An entrepreneur who is a resident and native of the community understands the limitations and seizes the potential and existing resources in the local culture. Therefore, exploiting difficulties and specific local resources is an important category in the analysis of entrepreneurship in traditional communities, and studying it allows an understanding of the community point of view and reveals how the entrepreneur’s improvisation establishes a distinct form of entrepreneurship (Korsgaard et al., 2021; Roberts, 2018; Yachin & Ioannides, 2020).

Combined with the classic model, spatial bricolage highlights the appreciation and resignation of community resources, in addition to increasing the community behavior of the members in search of the appreciation of the local potential. Thus, among other methods, spatial bricolage might be a way to study the emergence of entrepreneurship in communities since it considers the local cultural aspects and community engagement in entrepreneurship (Yachin; Ioannides, 2020).

Somewhat, spatial bricolage considers a delimited space action and might be highlighted as a behavior of community action based on: a) the reinterpretation of existing resources, b) the unique features of the local culture, and c) the engagement of community members (Korsgaard et al., 2021). The reinterpretation of existing resources pervades the appreciation of local potential while incorporating local particularities. These resources would only be enhanced in the community space, thus adding value and income to local members (Korsgaard et al., 2016). In addition, the engagement of community members in the spatial bricolage process allows not only for cooperation and strategic networks but also the appreciation of the neighbor entrepreneur as part of the whole community, reversing the understanding of competition or competitive advantage (Korsgaard et al., 2021; Vestrum, 2014; Yachin & Ioannides, 2020).

(Klerk, 2015a) highlights the importance of social relations and networks in the bricolage process by rediscussing the role of bricolage in creative industry and economy, which might also apply to the context of traditional communities in situations of social vulnerability, considering the formation of participative processes in the social organization of these communities (Oliveira & Blos, 2012). Thus, spatial bricolage reinforces the importance of local culture and emphasizes the unique entrepreneurship processes in each community (Korsgaard et al., 2021).

In general, spatial bricolage actions refer to the engagement of agents present in the social structure shaped by restricted environments and institutional difficulties (Korsgaard et al., 2021). Such a conceptual base of bricolage pervades the idea of resource mobilization by the actors involved in this social structure. Thus, just as it establishes a link to the theories of social immersion (Granovetter, 1985), bricolage, as a whole, is also associated with the theory based on resources (Alvarez & Barney, 2014; Barney, 1991) by considering the acquisition and use of available resources as a source of competitive advantage (Scazziota et al., 2020). Therefore, even in a scenario of resource limitations, competition is a key factor for resource acquisition (Lopes et al., 2021) and bricolage actions might enable such a competitive advantage.

However, the structuralism of Levi-Strauss (1962) describes that the knowledge and ways of small localities might provide unique knowledge methods. Such knowledge allows reinterpreting the use of local resources, which is especially important for spatial bricolage discussions, considering that the local potential and culture are key elements for the community behavior to effectively provide the community with positive results (Yachin & Ioannides, 2020).

Based on the entrepreneurship dynamics in traditional communities, we highlight two theoretical thoughts that might benefit the research: 1) Contexts of institutional and resource limitation (Baker & Nelson, 2005) and 2) Social immersion (Corrêa et al., 2020; Granovetter, 1985, 1992). In addition, there is the perspective of spatial bricolage that considers the cultural and participative behavior of the community (Korsgaard et al., 2021). Combined, these categories might help the discussion of spatial bricolage and advance toward a theoretical perspective of social immersion of the entrepreneur in traditional communities.

Thereby, we highlight four propositions to be further studied seeking to better understand the logic of spatial bricolage in the context of traditional communities.

The first proposition considers that a clear way to overcome local resource restrictions is to reinterpret creatively what is available, such as outdated technologies, non-standard resources, local history, and less educated human capital (Senyard et al., 2014). Such a reinterpretation of resources might be encouraged by evidence of spatial bricolage since the value given to the resource is bound to the shared history and feeling in the community (Yachin & Ioannides, 2020). Thus, considering that the local potential is common to all community members, this reinterpretation involves the need for cooperation or even partnerships among entrepreneurs of different activities.

P1: The use or reinterpretation of resources and local potential favors cooperation between entrepreneurs and other actors in the traditional community.

Traditional communities might show different levels of tradition or modernity, and rural communities have distinct urbanization levels (Mocellim, 2010). Spatial bricolage actions have been suggested to be more evident in communities with greater local difficulties, hence less access to formal infrastructure services. In addition, local difficulties favor cooperation actions among the community members allowing creative problem-solving. Such cooperation enhances the feeling of appreciation for the local culture and local potential. Institutional difficulties might stimulate cooperation, cultural appreciation, and opportunities for the local potential, thus favoring spatial bricolage actions (Korsgaard et al., 2021). The second proposition emphasizes that local difficulties combined with the appreciation of traditional culture might stimulate spatial bricolage actions in the community.

P2: Local difficulties combined with the appreciation of local culture in the traditional community encourage spatial bricolage actions.

In traditional communities, the use of cultural, and historical matters by entrepreneurs concerned with the community's well-being favors spatial bricolage. In addition, there are different levels of social immersion and spatial bricolage actions (Korsgaard et al., 2015). Thus, the third proposition considers that what matters the most in spatial bricolage actions is the role of each entrepreneur in the mobilization of community resources (Korsgaard et al., 2015, 2021; Vestrum, 2014).

P3: Participation and cooperation of entrepreneurs with other local actors in the traditional community favor spatial bricolage actions.

The fourth and last proposition considers that spatial bricolage creates opportunities by providing the community with a cooperative attitude toward entrepreneurs (Korsgaard et al., 2021). Therefore, social immersion is an enabler of the spatial bricolage process since the interaction and formation of relationship networks allow cooperative actions through the local potential.

P4: Social immersion is an enabler of spatial bricolage in the traditional community by favoring cooperative actions with the use of local culture.

Complementing the study, according to Figure 2 and based on the propositions and concepts highlighted in the literature on social immersion, bricolage, and entrepreneurship in traditional communities, we suggest the following theoretical model.

Figure 2
The theoretical model proposed.
Source: Elaborated by the authors.

This theoretical model suggests a cycle that relates the issue of resource use to the local potential since, as Yachin and Ioannides (2020) highlight, local resources are exploited by entrepreneurs who mobilize the community as a whole. Thus, cooperation is influenced by resource mobilization in the community and each community might have different cooperation levels among entrepreneurs or residents (Korsgaard et al., 2015).

A traditional culture might be improved through cooperation, which is also related to local difficulties (Brandemburg, 2010; Urano & Nóbrega, 2020) since traditional communities were built in spaces and contexts of attacks and exploitation (Hocayen-da-Silva et al., 2016). Thus, local difficulties combined with local culture allow for the reinterpretation and use of new resources (Yachin & Ioannides, 2020).

In turn, social immersion influences: i) the local potential by allowing the joint interaction of community members; ii) cooperation by setting different cooperation levels in the community context; iii) the local culture by considering the traditional knowledge of habits; iv) local difficulties by learning how the members cope with them, and v) resources since social immersion facilitate the process of knowing the place.

Finally, spatial bricolage actions demand a reinterpretation of resources of local potential, cooperation among the members, local culture, and the solution of local difficulties. Thus, immersion emerges as an important precursor to spatial bricolage actions.

This essay sought to present and discuss theoretical aspects of spatial bricolage considering the perspective of social immersion in entrepreneurship in the context of traditional communities. In addition, we aimed to describe the related theoretical propositions and propose a theoretical model that relates spatial bricolage and social immersion with entrepreneurship in traditional communities.

Briefly, we highlighted the features of traditional communities through theoretical perspectives that might help understand the peculiarities of entrepreneurship in this type of community. Thus, we presented issues of social immersion and its relationship with spatial bricolage in the context of entrepreneurship.

This study found that the logic of Levi-Strauss (1962) helps incorporate bricolage in the context of entrepreneurship since the entrepreneur’s behavior in places with a lack of resources might be explained by the findings in the classic work of the author (Stinchfield et al., 2013). Thus, inserting the spatial scenario of traditional communities into the logic of the classic bricolage of Levi-Strauss (1962) and entrepreneur bricolage of Baker and Nelson (2005) involves using the concepts of social immersion of Granovetter (1973), introducing a specific type of bricolage, spatial bricolage.

Neither the review nor the discussion presented herein aims to cover either the literature or the theoretical findings on the topic. Thereby, a major limitation of this theoretical essay is not accessing the empirical data to test the propositions and theoretical model proposed. Another limitation is the poor availability of theoretical or empirical works directly addressing spatial bricolage, even more in the national context.

We suggest that our theoretical propositions are tested in empirical contexts of traditional communities. However, it is worth mentioning that each community has its own context, which hinders singling out theoretical patterns. Such a reality might be particularly interesting for allowing comparing distinguished bricolage methods in delimited community spaces.

Further empirical studies should involve different types of traditional communities and peoples, such as quilombolas, indigenous, and river dwellers, among others. Thus, we suggest that further research address spatial bricolage actions in different traditional territories. Each people have their way of seeing the world and organizing themselves; therefore, highlighting specific organization forms might generate deeper theoretical findings on bricolage.

Finally, we also suggest the use of the structural anthropology approach of Lévi-Strauss (1989), which requires the researcher to go beyond Eurocentrism and consider the knowledge produced in communities that have their own technologies, which are, in turn, artifacts that will help unveil and deepen the theory of the spatial bricolage concept.