Abstract
Effectuation research posits that effectual networks are composed of self-selecting stakeholders who purchase voice to gain influence in how the effectual process proceeds when they commit to co-create. However, entrepreneurship scholars wrestle with theorizing the social action underlying a theory originally based on the individual decision-making of experts and, specifically, explaining how voice emerges prior to commitment to influence effectual network formation. This study combines the literatures on effectuation and hybrid institutional logics to examine how intermediaries can shape the creation of effectual networks among their members. Through a multiple case study of six makerspaces, the findings reveal how voice emerges and becomes collectivized in the transition from informal collaboration to co-creation. Makerspaces with a high degree of hybrid logics support voice emergence through three social interaction mechanisms: project socializing, market logic embedding, and community logic extending. The study builds a model of effectual network formation via voice emergence moderated by logic hybridity, thereby sharpening the parameters of effectual networks pertaining to voice and co-creation.
Keywords
Introduction
Effectuation research highlights the central role of sociality in entrepreneurial action (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005). Rather than following a fixed plan, effectual entrepreneurs pursue opportunities that evolve as new people join projects to co-create using the means at hand (Perry et al., 2012; Sarasvathy, 2001). The resulting web of stakeholders who commit resources to shape a venture is known as the “effectual network” (Sarasvathy, 2022, p. 101ff.). In effectual networks, social dynamics at a collective level allow “goals to emerge contingently over time from the varied imaginations and diverse aspirations” of actors who create ventures together (Fisher, 2012; Sarasvathy, 2022, p. 67). Effectual network members make a series of interactive commitments that “fabricate” their environment through co-creation (Read & Sarasvathy, 2005, p. 50), giving them “voice” or influence in the process (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005, p. 552). Thus, the ways “entrepreneurs orchestrate new organizations by bringing together a new and expanding network of stakeholders” form effectuation’s social underpinnings (Sarasvathy et al., 2009, p. 276). Theorizing about sociality in effectuation has focused on skilled actors who recognize the value of trust, self-commit as stakeholders, and make choices based on input from social channels (Agogué et al., 2015; Sarasvathy & Dew, 2008; Smolka et al., 2018).
However, a core challenge in the effectuation literature surrounds the social action central to a theory originally based on the individual decision-making of expert entrepreneurs. Scholars point to a need to sharpen a nebulous theoretical foundation for effectual networks and better account for social interaction (McKelvie et al., 2020; Reuber et al., 2016; Van Mumford & Zettinig, 2022). Read et al. s’ (2009) meta-analysis surfaced two unresolved issues: difficulty distinguishing social ties as means from partners who commit resources, and lack of operationalization of co-creation. Regarding partners, the literature’s emphasis on stakeholder self-selection evolved from strategic alliances forged by experts (Sarasvathy, 2001) to emergent self-organized networks of novices with vague networking opportunities and ambiguous goals (Galkina & Atkova, 2020; Galkina & Jack, 2022; Welter et al., 2016). For co-creation, scholars call for explicit theorizing to overcome conceptual murkiness and distinguish it from collaboration and co-construction (Arend et al., 2015; Grégoire & Cherchem, 2020). Although studies increasingly extend effectuation beyond the individual level by invoking distributed agency and a “social origin independent of expertise” (Karami & Read, 2021; Kerr & Coviello, 2019, p. 379), questions remain about how voice emerges as effectual networks form. Dew and Sarasvathy (2007, p. 279) acknowledge a “cacophony of voices” in early-stage ventures, yet treat the sorting of (ir)relevant contributors as a function of commitment itself. As a result, we lack theoretical clarity on how early, uncommitted input gains influence, how some ties begin to matter before resource exchange, and how individual action becomes collective.
While studying entrepreneurship in makerspaces, I realized they offer a rich context to examine how intermediaries influence the relationship between voice and effectual networks created by early-stage, non-expert entrepreneurs. Makerspaces are fabrication facilities where people share digital and traditional workshop tools for learning, hobbies, the arts, prototyping, invention, or small-scale manufacturing (Halbinger, 2018; Mortara & Parisot, 2016). Although they are characterized by extensive nonmarket activities and fluid participation, makerspaces can act as entrepreneurship intermediaries when users engage shared means to co-create ventures (Browder et al., 2019; Zakoth et al., 2023). In this context, I observed how effectual networks could form around projects that generated a variety of entrepreneurship outcomes. The theoretical lens of effectuation helped analyze factors enabling or inhibiting effectual network creation in makerspace communities (Grenier-Arellano & Engel, 2020).
The purpose of this study is to understand how intermediaries can shape the creation of effectual networks among their members. Doing so can advance effectuation’s theorizing regarding individual action intertwined with social action in two ways. First, makerspace communities are means-oriented environments where resourcefulness and experimentation abound (Browder, Seyb, et al., 2023) and collaboration occurs with non-owned “resources that can come from anywhere in the system” (Dew et al., 2022, p. 252). Understanding how collaboration turns into effectual networks with self-selecting stakeholders who co-create extends effectuation research by shedding light on social dynamics. Second, recent effectuation research has extended the theory to account for entrepreneurship driven by a community logic rather than a market logic alone (Murphy et al., 2020). Because effectuation research originated with studies of expert entrepreneurs espousing market logics as an underlying assumption, we need to better understand how nonmarket logics relate to effectual networks (Galkina & Atkova, 2020; Sarasvathy et al., 2009; Welter et al., 2016). By examining hybrid logics in makerspaces, this study connects effectuation research with the institutional logics literature (Thornton et al., 2012), which scholars identify as a promising area for theory development (Reuber et al., 2016).
This article proceeds by adopting an analytical lens combining the literatures on effectual networks and hybrid organizations that blend market and community logics (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache & Santos, 2013). Through a multiple case study of six makerspaces, this lens led to two main findings about the formation of effectual networks. First, voice emerges and becomes collectivized in the process of network formation, helping social actors build trust through project-based collaborations that precede commitment. Second, intermediaries such as makerspaces can shape effectual network formation when a high degree of logic hybridity (Battilana et al., 2017; Shepherd et al., 2019) influences the emergence of voice through three social interaction mechanisms: project socializing, market logic embedding, and community logic extending. These insights contribute to effectuation research by sharpening the parameters of effectual networks pertaining to voice and co-creation, and explaining how logic hybridity can support the formation of effectual networks. The study contributes to hybrid organizing research by introducing logic embedding and logic extending as ways hybrids can influence constituents.
Theoretical Background
Effectuation research posits that effectual networks form when self-selecting stakeholders make interactive commitments to co-create, thereby collectively fabricating their entrepreneurial environment (Read & Sarasvathy, 2005). A stakeholder is an internal or external partner who commits resources and shares in a venture’s risks and rewards, distinguishing them from other social network ties without such mutual commitment (Read et al., 2009). The self-selecting aspect refers to how stakeholders choose to join a network of partners, involving each other in open processes to elicit feedback with commitment-based trust (the crazy quilt principle; Reymen et al., 2015; Sarasvathy & Dew, 2019). Co-creation is defined as the process in which committed stakeholders interact, collaborate, and integrate resources to shape a venture, with the entrepreneur facilitating stakeholder interactions and formalizing commitments (Karami & Read, 2021). Effectuation research links co-creation to the way an emergent network leverages control (the pilot-in-the-plane principle 1 ) because stakeholder commitments gradually reduce uncertainty and prioritize the direction the co-creative process will take (Sarasvathy, 2022).
Self-selecting stakeholders who co-create in effectual networks—along with existing social ties that form part of an actor’s available means (i.e., “whom I know”; Read et al., 2009)—stretch effectuation beyond individual cognition to collective-level social dynamics (Engel et al., 2017; Murphy et al., 2020). Accordingly, Karami and Read (2021) called for research that takes networks as the unit of analysis and state that stakeholder interpretation of institutional logics may affect co-creation. Institutional logics are socially constructed patterns of human activity that shape values, practices, and meaning (Thornton et al., 2012; Tracey et al., 2011). However, it is unclear how institutional logics can influence how a constellation of stakeholders comes together to co-create as an effectual network. To build an analytical lens, I draw upon salient concepts from the research on effectual networks and hybrid logic organizations. Although these perspectives have seldom interacted, they emerged as suitable frameworks as I iterated between the literature and the phenomenon of entrepreneurship in makerspaces.
Effectual Networks
Research on entrepreneurial networks shows that entrepreneurs change their networks by intentionally selecting ties based on homophily, task complementarity (i.e., overlap between needs and resources), and reputation (Hallen et al., 2020; Shane & Cable, 2002; Vissa, 2011). When facing network disadvantages (i.e., lack of resource access), they pursue dissimilar and distant ties through catalyzing strategies like “casual dating” to build a network of potential partners before formalizing commitments (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012, p. 42). While this clarifies deliberate building of resource networks to achieve intended outcomes, these studies emphasize a causal rather than effectual mode of action. 2 Causation entails goal-driven, planned entrepreneurship in which objectives are set up front and means selected to enact opportunities (Chandler et al., 2011; Fisher, 2012; Sarasvathy, 2001). Overall, the entrepreneurial network literature has yet to unpack the processes by which entrepreneurs shape their networks or how social dynamics transform potential ties into committed, meaningful ties (Hallen et al., 2020).
A growing research stream addresses this gap by examining how entrepreneurs create effectual networks (Galkina & Atkova, 2020). While effectuation research initially focused on experts making decisions, studies increasingly consider how novices develop effectual expertise and grow their networks (Dew et al., 2009; Welter & Kim, 2018; Welter et al., 2016). Although early studies prioritized individual agency, scholars now acknowledge the inherently social nature of network formation and the role of collective dynamics. Sarasvathy et al. (2009, p. 275) called for better explanations of how “entrepreneurship involves collective action.” Co-creation within an effectual network shifts from individual to collective action as entrepreneurs facilitate stakeholder interactions rather than serve as the sole central actor (Dew et al., 2022; Karami & Read, 2021). To explain how shared interests emerge, Kerr and Coviello (2020) reconceptualized effectuation around distributed agency among network members.
Three salient concepts help explore how effectual networks form through collective processes: voice, network constitution, and co-creation motivations. First, research on effectual networks increasingly invokes voice to describe the influence actors gain after committing resources to a venture (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005). Early effectuation research drew loosely on the organizational behavior concept of voice, yet that literature studies employee responses to dissatisfaction in established organizations (Hirschman, 1970), not how new stakeholders engage when joining to co-create a venture. Consequently, effectuation studies reduce construct clarity by invoking voice inconsistently, variously treating it as influence or as a proxy for actors or ties (“voices”), and at times shifting emphasis toward power grounded in resource dependence (Dew & Sarasvathy, 2007; Kerr & Coviello, 2020; Van Mumford & Zettinig, 2022).
Following organizational behavior research, this study defines voice as the proactive and prosocial provision of improvement-oriented content to actors able to act, aimed at benefiting a shared entity rather than individual interests (Detert et al., 2013; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Voice is distinct from advice seeking (requested for oneself), knowledge sharing (informational but not improvement-oriented), and affiliative behaviors (helping or relational support; Detert et al., 2013). Effectuation studies approximate this definition when describing influence that shapes venture creation by contributing improvement-oriented inputs (e.g., designs for new solutions) through ongoing participation in an effectual network (Kerr & Coviello, 2019; Sarasvathy, 2001). Van Mumford and Zettinig’s (2022) notion of “purchased voice” comes closest to capturing how committed stakeholders gain a say in effectual processes. They argued that commitment and purchased voice result from collective sensemaking, defined as intersubjective interaction that assigns meaning to information so potential stakeholders can adapt to differing motivations and resolve goal conflicts. However, despite recognizing that effectual networks entail both individual and collective motivations (Engel et al., 2017; Sarasvathy & Dew, 2019), we still lack conceptual clarity on how individual input becomes voice in a shared entity.
Second, effectual network constitution varies in how cohesive or diverse a stakeholder network is and the extent it forms from existing or new ties. A more cohesive network forms through docility—openness to advice, persuasion, and changing goals based on others’ views (Simon, 1993)—and favors collaboration, partnering, and accessing means from trusted social ties (Kerr & Coviello, 2020; Sarasvathy & Dew, 2019). However, a cohesive network may close itself off and trend toward homophily, whereas a more diverse network can welcome novel information and resources to encourage the experimentation, creativity, and adaptation essential to effectual action (Kerr & Coviello, 2019, 2020). Although effectuation research proposes starting with existing social ties (“whom I know”), new contacts who self-select into an effectual network can introduce valuable new contingencies (Engel et al., 2017; Kerr & Coviello, 2019).
Third, studies call for analysis of co-creation motivations to explain why stakeholders commit to effectual networks. Effectuation research points to intelligent altruism to explain how boundedly rational actors trust others to reciprocate (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2008; Simon, 1993). However, it is unclear whether this drives novices’ communal exploration and experimentation, where networking may precede entrepreneurial intent (Engel et al., 2017; Grégoire & Cherchem, 2020; Read & Sarasvathy, 2005). Van Mumford and Zettinig (2022) proposed examining how co-creation may be driven by value rationality rather than only instrumental rationality.Value rationality refers to actors’ intrinsic motivation to imagine and create because participation in the co-creative process is valuable in itself, even when affordable losses are not a central concern. Instrumental rationality, by contrast, is guided by means, affordable loss thinking, and leveraging control under uncertainty or goal ambiguity.
Studying these concepts in the makerspace context is intriguing because makerspaces tend toward homophily, strong value rationality, and a cacophony of novice input. This suggests key ingredients for effectual networks—stakeholder diversity, instrumental co-creation motivation, and voice sorting—may be underdeveloped. Indeed, makerspaces are better known as a social domain reflecting the shared values and reciprocity of a community logic more than a market logic (Browder, Crider, & Garrett, 2023). However, recent research involving collectives indicates effectual modes of action can be based on more than a market logic alone (Murphy et al., 2020) and points to a need to understand how institutional logics can influence effectual networks.
Hybrid Logic Organizations
Following effectuation studies calling for more attention to institutional logics (Murphy et al., 2020; Reuber et al., 2016), the analytical lens for this study incorporates research on how hybrid organizations attempt to combine multiple logics (Battilana & Dorado, 2010). Multiple logics can operate to varying extents within and between groups or organizations to motivate resource access (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). Although a market logic focuses on the economic and calculative use of resources for commercial ends, a community logic emphasizes social relations, shared values, cultural context, and community development (Greenwood et al., 2010; Lee & Lounsbury, 2015; Marquis et al., 2011).
Research on hybrid organizing examines how multiple logics compete in organizations, requiring them to reconcile conflicts (Battilana et al., 2015). Organizations respond to logic incompatibility based on how multiple logics are internally represented and whether they create conflict over goals or means (Pache & Santos, 2010), prompting them to selectively couple elements from different logics (Pache & Santos, 2013) or attempt to alter the competing demands (Pache et al., 2024). To understand how hybrid organizations combine logics, hybridity can be analyzed as a matter of degree (Battilana et al., 2017; Shepherd et al., 2019). Besharov and Smith (2014) offered a framework to analyze hybrids along two dimensions of logic multiplicity: logic compatibility—the extent to which multiple logics enable consistent actions—and logic centrality—the extent to which multiple logics are core to organizational functioning.
Entrepreneurship intermediaries can be hybrids because, beyond using market logics to support venture financial success, they can also exhibit nonmarket logics aimed at social impact (Kher et al., 2022). Scholars increasingly study how effectual and causal modes of action invoke competing institutional logics in entrepreneurship support organizations (Galkina et al., 2022). Makerspaces are a context where these issues coalesce due to differing goals for using shared means. Makerspace members often seek to break from the “growing pervasiveness of the market logic,” and their practices reflect a strong collective ethos (Greenwood et al., 2011, p. 321).
Makerspaces as a Research Context
Spending time in makerspaces, I discovered they were a fertile context for studying how intermediaries’ logic hybridity influenced network interactions among members. Intermediaries like makerspaces are settings where (un)solicited advice is available to novice entrepreneurs, who must sort through varied contributions and discern which relationships merit engagement (Bergman & McMullen, 2022). Although makerspaces offer few services directly supporting entrepreneurs (Browder, 2020), they are a means-driven environment conducive to effectual networks. Members access shared means: material (workspace and fabrication tools), knowledge (tool-use classes), and social resources (diverse tinkerers, artists, engineers, and small business operators; Browder et al., 2019). While shared material resources are thought to constitute the raison d’être—especially for entrepreneurs benefiting from lowered access barriers (Ramella and Manzo, 2018)—“(t)he purpose of entering makerspaces is increasingly shifting from accessing technologies to accessing knowledge and the community” (Gantert et al., 2022, p. 1571).
Studies show ventures emerge from makerspaces (Bao, 2025; Mortara & Parisot, 2016), but competing logics may inhibit entrepreneurial action and cast it as incompatible with the maker ethos (Grenier-Arellano & Engel, 2020). Makers espouse democratizing innovation and leveraging technology for personal utility and community building (Halbinger, 2018; Vincent, 2022; Zakoth et al., 2023). The value rationality of such collective ideals can clash with a market logic prioritizing economic rent seeking (Browder, Crider, & Garrett, 2023; Langley et al., 2017). However, shared values and means can spur makerspace members to form networks for collective action (Browder, Seyb, et al., 2023). Although cooperative governance models give members voice at the makerspace level (Browder, 2020), we know little about voice in member-created ventures.
Method
My research journey began as a grounded theory study to understand the nature of entrepreneurship in a single makerspace without a priori theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and evolved into a multiple-case comparison of makerspace support for effectual network creation (Eisenhardt, 1989). After spending time in one site, I observed complex dynamics embedded in social interactions and equifinality between shared means and varied entrepreneurship outcomes achieved by makerspace members. Expanding to multiple cases provided a systematic way to build grounded theory from immersion in multiple types of data, examine variance in how a process phenomenon occurs in different cases, and discover emerging patterns that are more generalizable than single cases (Walsh et al., 2015). 3 This design enabled customization to the unique research context while following established practices for theoretical sampling, data triangulation, and constant comparative analysis through coding, categorizing, and identifying constructs and their relationships (Graebner et al., 2012; Pratt et al., 2020).
Research Design and Sample
I began this study in 2016, spending 10 months immersed in AlphaZone, 4 a for profit makerspace known for helping entrepreneurs invent products and launch startups. Over 21 visits (56.5 hr), I took classes, used tools to make artifacts, and interacted with members. Visiting other makerspaces, I increasingly appreciated the makerspace population’s heterogeneity. In 2019, the study expanded to multiple cases with theoretical sampling to enable comparison of makerspaces (Eisenhardt, 2021; Glaser, 1978). Theoretical sampling began with interviews with makerspace experts at M.I.T.’s Fab Foundation and Nation of Makers who informed criteria and recommended cases (Gibbert et al., 2008). Inclusion criteria consisted of: (1) independently operated makerspaces open to the public; (2) physical workspaces central to revenue models and member use of tools to create artifacts; and (3) observable entrepreneurship among members. Exclusion criteria consisted of: (1) institutionally sponsored makerspaces (i.e., university, corporation, museum, and library) in which a parent organization influenced decisions, access, and activities; and (2) spaces outside the United States to control for the institutional context.
I sampled cases via emails to 16 organizations in 12 U.S. states. Leaders in 13 makerspaces granted tours or telephone interviews. I screened for variance in legal structure and geography while looking for entrepreneurship examples among makerspace members. Iterating between sampling, data collection, and preliminary analysis, I treated for profit legal structure as a proxy for a market logic emphasizing entrepreneurship, and non-profit structure as a proxy for a community logic emphasizing social cohesion (Tracey et al., 2011). Five organizations were screened out due to closure, pre-launch status, insufficient entrepreneurship evidence, or same-city duplication, and two declined participation. This strategy yielded six case studies—three non-profits and three for profits—selected to capture contrasting patterns of influence on entrepreneurship (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2003). Table 1 describes the sample.
Sample Description.
Note. Descriptive information is generalized or approximated.
Data
To triangulate data (Gibbert et al., 2008), I collected interview, field observation, and archival data from 2016 to 2020. I conducted 54 interviews with 49 informants, averaging 62 min each. To sample informants, I asked makerspace leaders for introductions to members involved in business activities, then used snowball sampling. Interviews were primarily in person (40), with 13 conducted by telephone and one by email. Informants consisted of 26 makerspace members, 10 volunteer leaders, and 13 paid staff members. Using a semi-structured format, I asked questions about entrepreneurship activities and social interactions among collaborators. Interviews were recorded and transcribed with Rev.com. Table 2 summarizes the data.
Data Collection Summary.
Informant roles: S = Staff; M = Member; VL = Volunteer Leader (also a member).
AlphaZone field work included 9 interviews with 5 informants and 56.5 observation hours before multiple case sampling began.
Field visits included neighborhood and facility tours to observe how social interactions involved physical space, classes, equipment, and artifacts (Van Maanen, 2011). Field notes recorded spontaneous social interactions, knowledge exchanges, and “show and tell” project demonstrations. During 88 hours of field visits, I took 514 photographs of facilities, equipment configurations, social settings, studio rentals, products on display, and works in progress (Ray & Smith, 2012). Archival data consisted of 296 pages of secondary documents, including: reports, websites, social media, news articles, and an archival database of 1 month’s worth of AlphaZone visitor frequency by membership type. This data informed my understanding of the nature and extent of entrepreneurship activities among each makerspace’s members. The corpus of interview transcripts, field notes, and archival documents totaled 1,580 pages.
Analysis
Following an inductive approach, I used constant comparative analysis to triangulate data across informants, cases, and sources (Eisenhardt, 2021). Analysis alternated between multiple rounds of coding, writing case histories, and analyzing cases and emergent patterns in relation to the literature (Eisenhardt, 1989). Open coding was conducted case by case without a priori codes (Glaser, 1978), with interview transcripts, field notes, and secondary documents read line by line in ATLAS.ti, resulting in 589 unique codes. I wrote memos to reflect on emerging themes, connect them to relevant theories, and identify directions to analyze further (Lempert, 2007).
The lengthy and highly iterative selective coding process can be summarized in three stages (Grodal et al., 2021). In the first stage, I wrote six stand-alone case histories for each makerspace to support within- and cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). Case histories averaged 61 pages, combining insights from memos with raw quotes according to initial categories of open codes. The main categories were entrepreneurship (examples, outcomes, and modes of action) and social interaction (collaboration and community). I identified 146 examples of entrepreneurship across five categories: small business operations (e.g., production), contract work (e.g., freelance and artist commissions), product development (e.g., invention and prototyping), new venture launch, and corporate innovation. Table 3 summarizes these examples by case.
Entrepreneurship Activities and Examples by Case.
The second stage of selective coding was prompted by the insight that tension between market and community logics strained the social cohesion valued in independent makerspaces. Legal structure (for profit or non-profit) surfaced in leader interviews, but social dynamics across all six cases were shaped by the (in)compatibility of market and community logics. This tension led me back to the data through the lens of hybrid logic organizing. This drove cross-case analysis of the coexistence of market and community logics, the degree of logic hybridity, and how each case managed logic multiplicity. From this process, I grouped the cases in three pairs: market logic cases (AlphaZone and BetaPark), community logic cases (EpsilonHub and ZetaSphere), and hybrid logic cases that emphasized market and community logics (GammaMill and DeltaForge). Table 4 provides representative quotes. Rather than using institutional logics purely as an analytic tool, I examined how variance in logic configurations at the organizational level influenced the entrepreneurial activities of makerspace members (Lounsbury et al., 2021).
Case Pairs and Representative Quotations of Logics.
The third stage of selective coding was guided by the insight that an effectual mode of action was most compatible with entrepreneurship in makerspaces because it was emergent, creativity-oriented, and social. This led me back to the data to examine how the 146 examples of entrepreneurship involved the creation of effectual networks and what role voice played. Following calls for case studies to assess behavioral manifestations of effectuation (Grégoire & Cherchem, 2020), I coded for the five effectuation principles. Table 5 lists representative quotes. This led me to (1) refine my research question to ask how makerspaces shaped the creation of effectual networks among their members, (2) take emergent networks as the unit of analysis, and (3) realize how voice emerged in the effectual network formation process.
Quotations Representative of Effectuation Principles.
Theoretical coding identified relationships between concepts that emerged from selective coding. Figure 1 shows the data structure. Several concepts aligned with effectual network research: network cohesion and diversity, value and instrumental rationality, and purchased voice. An unexpected insight revealed how voice first emerged and was collectivized as part of the effectual network formation process. Relating these concepts to the literature on logic hybridity led me to identify three social interaction mechanisms—project socializing, market logic embedding, and community logic extending—by which makerspace hybridity influenced collectivized voice and effectual network creation by makerspace members. Drawing theoretical models refined an emergent understanding of this process and how cases varied in supporting it.
Data structure.
Throughout the analysis, several procedures helped ensure interpretive rigor (Harley & Cornelissen, 2022). First, I addressed assumptions about measuring effectuation (McKelvie et al., 2020). 5 Second, to confirm theoretical saturation, I calculated the percentage of open codes by interviews conducted (Guest et al., 2006): 95% of codes appeared after 37 interviews, 99% after 44 interviews, and no new codes after 51 interviews. Third, a research assistant independently read the data during selective coding to discuss relevant literatures. Fourth, I member-checked interim findings with four key informants (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Fifth, I discussed emergent insights with experts outside the sample through 13 additional field hours with a Nation of Makers committee (Reischauer & Mair, 2018). Finally, continual iteration between data categorization and literature related insights to theory (Grodal et al., 2021).
Findings
People’s outcomes are’nt always linked to the tools. That’s the animating reason most people walk in that door. But a lot of what happens in terms of economic activity comes from relationships people build here as opposed to, “I got access to a CNC router and now I’m running a cabinet business,” It’s not so direct input output. (DeltaForge #1)
6
To understand how intermediaries can shape the creation of effectual networks among their members, this multiple case study examined six makerspace organizations according to their market and community logics. The findings tell a story of how effectual networks form as voice emerges from social dynamics and how hybrid logics facilitate the collectivizing of voice among potential co-creators. Figure 2 depicts the findings in a model of effectual network formation moderated by the logic hybridity of a makerspace as an intermediary. The sections below explain the empirical insights behind the model by reporting: (1) how effectual networks formed when voice emerged, (2) how logic hybridity influenced voice emergence, and (3) the social interaction mechanisms that supported voice emergence and effectual network formation.
Model of effectual network formation via voice emergence moderated by logic hybridity.
Effectual Networks Formed When Voice Emerged
Analyzing social dynamics in the 146 entrepreneurship examples revealed how some makerspace members formed effectual networks, as co-creation emerged from general collaboration when members committed to join commercially oriented projects. Social interactions progressed from affiliative behaviors grounded in value rationality to committed co-creation that purchased stakeholders voice based on instrumental rationality. Studying this shift uncovered a collectivized voice stage, in which collaboration on projects shaped the boundaries of members’ emergent effectual space. Collectivized voice marked the transition from social interaction to co-creation in effectual networks.
An example from GammaMill illustrates this progression. After 6 years of working alone in his own workshop, a sculptor began working daily in the makerspace. He described the initial difference in terms of affiliative behaviors and advice seeking from makerspace members: I don’t work in a silo. Working over here gives me a huge reference of community. There are really a lot of experts here that have one or two disciplines that they just own and they’re the best at, and I’m able to walk over and ask them. (GammaMill #8)
Over time, broad advice seeking evolved into project-based collaboration with one specific member, a local economic development professional. Through these projects, each collaborator gained influence and shared responsibility for identifying and enacting opportunities. The economic development professional described their means-driven co-creation as a shared entity: [We] work on projects together now. Recently did a sculpture down the street. I knew the people. I worked out the business side of it and [he] built an awesome sculpture [for] a local nonprofit dog training facility for blind people … We built it here. That’s what [we] do. Our new plight is: find opportunities and make them happen. (GammaMill #7)
Their language signaled a shift from individual to collective work while also emphasizing the emergence of a commitment to co-create opportunities beyond the makerspace: “[We] got together in the hopes to get some [public art opportunities], then also reaching out to parks and rec and around the outside of city” (GammaMill #8). This shared commitment marked the formation of an effectual network oriented toward producing work for external stakeholders.
Taking emergent networks as the unit of analysis, the upper section of Figure 2 depicts how makerspace members formed effectual networks to co-create ventures when interactions progressed through collectivized voice and into purchased voice. This progression aligns with an evolution from value to instrumental rationality and from a cohesive to a diverse network.
Pre-Voice
The label “pre-voice” on the left side of Figure 2 refers to social interactions that did not qualify as voice and occurred before it emerged. These prosocial and proactive exchanges consisted of advice seeking, helping, and knowledge sharing within open, interaction-rich settings where input was oriented toward improving individual work. Such interactions were abundant in the cases, confirming makerspaces as socially ambient environments marked by a cacophony of input. At this early stage, numerous actors interacted without formally joining projects. A furniture maker described the sharing of knowledge and advice that took place: At an informal level, there’s an awful lot of [sharing]. You see someone doing something that you haven’t done and that starts a conversation … I’m always on the lookout for who’s doing interesting work, and then I too … get to share tips and experiences with others. (DeltaForge #7)
As people offered spontaneous feedback or casual help, they built internal relationships with a “focus on members” that cultivated social network cohesion (ZetaSphere #1).
Pre-voice contributions between members reflected a value rationality of assisting others without obligation because the makerspace culture valued working openly with like-minded people. One entrepreneur described how openness invited both solicited and unsolicited help, “Nobody’s super tight-lipped about things … You’re working in the open … Hey, how do you do this? … Everybody helps each other that way” (GammaMill #5). Contributions to individual work involved neither stakeholder status nor affordable loss commitments. A volunteer leader explained how colocation of like-minded people encouraged contributions: Building your stuff in a public area, people will walk by, they ask what you’re doing, or they’ll have suggestions of how to do something … because the community that sees what you’re doing might have a better idea. (EpsilonHub #2)
Pre-voice exchanges were based on proximity, “by being next to each other” (DeltaForge #4).
Pre-voice interactions strengthened a means focus—“whom do I know?”—for novices whose entrepreneurial intentions may still be forming. A scientist without entrepreneurship experience shared, “Putting yourself around creative people … is essential as an entrepreneur … The people are … a resource” (DeltaForge #5). Select ties moved toward project-based collaboration as members conversed about each other’s projects, such as: “What are you making? … I was thinking about you … Do you want to collaborate?” (GammaMill #10). Thus, a means-driven network began to form, setting the stage for affordable loss considerations. Table 6 provides more quotes illustrating pre-voice, network cohesion, and value rationality.
Quotations Representative of Pre-Voice.
Collectivized Voice
Collectivized voice marked the shift from pre-voice to purchased voice at the center of Figure 2. Collectivized voice refers to the transitional stage when improvement-oriented content becomes directed toward a focal project treated as a tentative shared entity, and contributors gain provisional influence over immediate project decisions without enduring stake or formal commitment. It is the stage when voice first appeared in an emergent effectual space because there was now a collective, a temporary and fluid unit with a target actor to direct content to.
An EpsilonHub example provided perspectives from the shared experiences of three collaborators. The project centered around an entrepreneur prototyping a new product that integrated digital sensors in welding equipment. The entrepreneur needed help, but was still filtering out relevant contributors, “I have a bunch of informal advisors and mentors, but nobody I would really call an official mentor … There’s just kind of a loose network” (EpsilonHub #10). A more experienced entrepreneur described how his efforts to help with the welding project reflected affordable loss commitments of time and attention that were tentative and informal: I sit down with [the welding entrepreneur] on a regular basis and do updates and see where he is. I don’t know that I will be investing in his thing, but he doesn’t know that he wants me to invest in his thing. It’s a check. (EpsilonHub #4)
The entrepreneur reflected on how much another member’s electrical engineering expertise helped the project, “(I)t amounts to millions of dollars, I suspect. [He’s] not the only one [who has contributed]” (EpsilonHub #10). This second member distinguished the nature of interaction in this project from his typical contract work for paying clients outside the makerspace: With [the welding entrepreneur] there’ll be some [work] for a few hours here and there. For a real client, there’d be a whole commitment for the number of weeks … I don’t want to complicate things here in that kind of a way. (EpsilonHub #3)
The two collaborating makerspace members had earned the trust of the welding entrepreneur but were not yet stakeholders with ongoing influence over the direction of the project. They made early-stage contributions of time and expertise that were valued compared to the myriad ideas that may emerge from pre-voice, yet they had not made formal resource commitments yet.
Beyond the social interactions of pre-voice, collectivized voice involved “creative collisions” (GammaMill #7) with potential to form a tentative shared unit, reshaping both network composition and the types of projects collaborators pursued. As network diversity increased, it altered the nature of ties available to influence projects. An inventor commented, “The overall community here, it’s so diverse and almost anything you ask, somebody who knows it” (EpsilonHub #7). A scientist prototyping aquaculture technology described how her network expanded, “People at DeltaForge that got into [our] network are now the people we’re 3D printing with … [We] frequently engage [other members]” (DeltaForge #5). Increases in collaborator diversity reshaped the way people worked and resulted in “referrals” between members as “a proxy for trust” based on successful collaborations (GammaMill #4). In this way, members conducted numerous commitment tests to screen whether ad hoc collaborators were worthy of ongoing commitment as co-creators.
As network composition diversified, collective sensemaking distributed agency across multiple actors with differing motivations. A story told by an artist entrepreneur working with instrumental rationality captured the shift from “I” to “we” at the heart of collectivized voice: I was making fairy wings [on commission]. I went to the metal shop … and someone cut [aluminum] for me … Then the automotive people … direct(ed) me [to a tinting material]. Then I took it to creative arts, and I hand painted the whole thing. When we had it done, we had an amalgamation of three different committees with one artist working on it and everybody went ape. It was fantastic. “Oh, look what we made, all of us.”… It was not just me. It was fantastic to be able to work with all these different people and just have this great feel of we’ve all done something cool together. (ZetaSphere #3)
Although these diverse collaborators were not committed stakeholders in the artist’s product sales or production, their collective sensemaking maintained value rationality while distributing agency across numerous makerspace members. Collective sensemaking also extended interaction beyond the proximal encounters of pre-voice. A volunteer leader noted how members were “discussing project ideas … on our communication platforms” (ZetaSphere #1).
As members’ networks diversified within the makerspace, collective sensemaking also reshaped the content of ties toward greater external stakeholder orientation beyond the makerspace. A photography equipment entrepreneur explained how sensemaking with others was a generative mechanism to change what they worked on and for which stakeholders: I can see things from the outside. I come from both an arts background and an engineering background and … I can help bridge the language gap … They have a million great ideas but … can’t think of the bigger picture and how they might market that. Who would their audience be if they just changed something a little bit? (EpsilonHub #4)
Collective sensemaking linked network diversity to an external stakeholder orientation. As agency became distributed across actors, it reoriented collaborations toward external, not just internal, meaning and value. Collaborators who completed this shift over multiple projects not only spoke in collective terms (e.g., “we”), but they also spoke about working for stakeholders outside the makerspace walls. Thus, collectivized voice moved collaborators beyond asking “what can we do together?” to “what can we do for others?” The shift from inward-facing collaborations to an external stakeholder orientation prepared collaborators to commit to an ongoing effectual process involving instrumental rationality. Table 7 provides more quotes representing collectivized voice, network diversity, and external stakeholder orientation.
Quotations Representative of Collectivized Voice.
Purchased Voice
At the end of the progression in Figure 2, purchased voice occurred when repeat collaborators in a collective made trust-based commitments to form an effectual network. Purchased voice was observed when stakeholders committed to co-create by investing resources in an ongoing effectual network, thereby gaining influence over collective decisions about an emergent venture. It resulted from a commitment of resources (e.g., time, trading skills, and purchase of materials) to co-create on commercial endeavors. A metal fabricator and machinist described co-creating several custom wood furniture pieces with another member: I helped [him] do the CAD … for that [wooden desk] and then the next one after that. He made this fancy turntable desk for this customer where I did all the [complex metal work]. He sends me all his files, and I work my metal stuff into the wood stuff … We do that a lot. (AlphaZone #7)
In a different example, an artist entrepreneur explained how she exercised her purchased voice to influence a new product line with a member who rented the makerspace studio next to hers: My [architect] neighbor … developed [a] lantern … We were talking about what it would take to transform it into ceramics … I tested out making a mold with it, and we’ve created a line of bowls with the slip casting method. We have a couple of samples … if folks are interested in commissioning that to be created. [If they] say, “We would like this tile with this glaze on it,” we would be able to do that … [Getting a new piece of manufacturing equipment is] the path forward. (DeltaForge #4)
Purchased voice marked that the shift from collaborating on projects to co-creation in effectual networks had occurred because people had previously learned to “trust somebody’s abilities to help” during the collectivized voice stage (EpsilonHub #1).
In addition to commitment of resources, the shift to purchased voice was evident because instrumental rationality had emerged compatibly from shared values and social interactions to guide ongoing problem selection and project execution. As an example of instrumental rationality, the product developer at GammaMill described using the material resources of the makerspace to co-create a protype with stakeholders (clients and his partner): I can … talk to a client, go make a thing, come back to a meeting and present something I just cut on a bandsaw. Someone’s like, “Why don’t we do it this way?” Took a prototype, cut off a section … glued it … came back and presented it in real time. (GammaMill #9)
Purchased voice was evident when select makerspace members earned an influence in the ongoing effectual process. The photography equipment inventor described bringing together different engineers to help him navigate the unknown aspects of his invention: I have the team I needed to develop the project further and really do it the right way without having to relearn everything myself. There’s some people here who love that process … I have an electronics engineer here; trust him. (EpsilonHub #4)
This team was committed to a process, and each team member had a measure of influence in deciding which direction it would take. At times, exercising purchased voice prompted a collective to grow beyond the makerspace as members reorganized and coordinated their work. DeltaForge’s membership manager told how members jointly secured new production space: Four members got their own warehouse space together. They maintain their membership [at DeltaForge] but moved out of their [rented studio] space here so they could … work later than we’re open and have more space. (DeltaForge #2)
Table 8 provides more quotes illustrating purchased voice and instrumental rationality. Instances of makerspace interactions progressing to purchased voice were observed in all six cases but were most prominent in the cases with a greater degree of hybrid logics.
Quotations Representative of Purchased Voice.
Logic Hybridity Influenced Voice Emergence
Cross-case analysis at the organizational level revealed effectual networks formed to varying degrees based on makerspaces’ hybrid logics. The greater the hybridity, the better multiple logics were managed, the greater voice was collectivized, and the more members formed effectual networks. The two cases that stood apart with a high degree of logic hybridity both had leaders who spoke in terms of hybridity. GammaMill’s founder described it as: [A] social enterprise … a business whose mission is more than just to make money, and that mission has some positive community benefit [via] access to tools for artists, entrepreneurs, and creatives. (GammaMill #1).
DeltaForge’s manager expressed a similar view while also distinguishing hybrid logic makerspaces from the other two case categories: Our category [is] makerspace 3.0 … The [1.0] wave [was] the DIY hackerspace where everybody pitches in $30 a month … Then 2.0 is trying to make a scalable for profit business out of it, which was AlphaZone … Then 3.0 is more of a hybrid social enterprise model like we’re trying to pursue … providing a broader set of economic, educational, and social benefits than a return for shareholders or servicing a club. (DeltaForge #1)
These three categories in the makerspace population aligned closely with the three case pairings.
Table 9 summarizes the cross-case comparisons of the three case pairs and how they supported the creation of effectual networks to different extents. Grouping the six cases this way allowed closer examination of how logic configurations influenced the emergence of voice, leading to the unexpected insight that hybridity fostered effectual network formation. Key areas of variance that emerged from cross-case analysis included: institutional logic hybridity and multiplicity, modes of entrepreneurial action, the prevalence of effectual networks within the membership, and the presence of mechanisms by which hybridity influenced voice progression.
Cross-Case Analysis of Logics and Effectual Networks in Makerspaces.
Note. The + ratings in this table represent a 5-point scale for cross-case comparisons. Relative ratings were determined during the selective coding process (e.g., by comparing prevalence of code categories and the intensity of themes in the data).
Hybrid Logic Cases
GammaMill’s founder described the range of member entrepreneurship from “people who are happy just making a few bucks making their jewelry to folks who have spun out companies and now employ ten people” (GammaMill #1). Its leaders reported that 40% of members hired other members and 30% received referrals for paid projects (GammaMill #4). The operations manager explained how effectual networks organically formed: “People are starting [businesses] … on their own … We didn’t say, ‘You should start a business’ or ‘You should hire other members’. They naturally do that” (GammaMill #3). To support the networks, members informally engaged in “trading stuff” or “bartering” services (GammaMill #5, #10).
The general manager at DeltaForge described the creation of effectual networks in terms of social exchange between members: “People have built business relationships by being in here … [Two members] trade childcare so the other can come in and work … An exchange of value but no exchange of money” (DeltaForge #1). Project-based collaboration helped “creative people” form collectives to “build a proof of concept” for new ventures (DeltaForge #5).
The hybrid logic cases stood apart in (1) their high logic compatibility and centrality, and (2) the extent they fostered the emergence of voice. First, logic compatibility manifested in consistent actions among diverse actors who used shared means to solve problems together. GammaMill’s founder characterized the compatibility of multiple elements, “Access to tools … the collaboration … the knowledge sharing … the creative solutions that happen when people of different backgrounds look at the same problem” (GammaMill #1). DeltaForge’s membership manager explained how hybrid logic centrality required makerspace leaders to maintain social and economic objectives core to the organization by building “intentional relationships with three neighborhoods around us” (DeltaForge #2). The hybrid cases were rated highly for logic compatibility and centrality (Table 9) for engaging both market and community logics.
Second, the hybrid logic cases stood apart in the extent they fostered the emergence of voice, and they were rated highly on pre-voice, collectivized voice, and purchased voice (Table 9). For example, DeltaForge supported the highest degree of network diversity, which helped members collectivize voice. The manager explained this as a priority: We’re a diverse space … [Many members] never would [encounter] that diversity if not for walking through our doors … It’s breaking down barriers and familiarizing people with “the other.” (DeltaForge #1)
DeltaForge also encouraged a high degree of external stakeholder orientation because member projects often addressed local problems (DeltaForge #2). The manager characterized it as a “public good” that generated “a lot of economic value for the communities” (DeltaForge #1).
Novice entrepreneurs in the hybrid cases shared how the makerspaces supported their effectual process. A canine equipment maker progressed from working “in my living room” to working with a strong sense of “the community aspect” in the makerspace. She found new collaborators helped turn her attention to external stakeholders: I’m transitioning from being intensely involved in the creation of the product … finding good people who are skilled … to start marketing so it could grow … go after the ultra-light hikers … niche audience. (DeltaForge #6)
Examples like this in the hybrid cases showed non-experts advancing the effectual process.
Community Logic Cases
In EpsilonHub and ZetaSphere, members formed effectual networks to a moderate degree. The community logic cases “celebrated” ad hoc entrepreneurship (EpsilonHub #1), but only tolerated a market logic to a limited extent. One member explained how they emphasized the social over the economic, “We don’t want to cater to companies coming in and using our machines all the time, but we do want to publicize that” (ZetaSphere #2).
Interviewees emphasized the network cohesion and value rationality of pre-voice, but not the progression toward collectivized and purchased voice. An EpsilonHub leader stated: The value of having a personal relationship and seeing … people succeed while everybody’s busy doing their own thing … try to maintain and improve that social cohesion … We’re here for each other. (EpsilonHub #4)
However, a long-time member related how EpsilonHub had a “diversity problem” and was “a very inward-looking institution” that struggled to engage beyond its walls (EpsilonHub #1).
Members expressed frustration when others’ entrepreneurial behaviors lacked value rationality. One volunteer leader said, “[There] is the cultural struggle [of] folks who go, ‘I just want access to the damn tools’” (EpsilonHub #3). A volunteer leader at ZetaSphere characterized this tension, “Some people say, ‘We don’t want [business activity]. We just want to hang out. We want to service the old members and we want to have a clubhouse’” (ZetaSphere #2). These cases trended toward homophily with a “clubhouse” mentality. As a result of lower logic centrality and compatibility (Table 9), entrepreneurship remained peripheral to core makerspace activities.
Market Logic Cases
AlphaZone and BetaPark members formed the fewest effectual networks. The dominant market logic emphasized instrumental rationality and a causal mode of action as makerspace members exhibited goal-driven behavior. One entrepreneur explained, “I had a very specific goal going in … I made three plastic injection molds and 2,500 plastic objects and shipped them off to my Kickstarter funders” (AlphaZone #6). In addition to following defined business plans, members exhibiting a causal mode of action protected knowledge for competitive advantage despite working in an open space. A corporate member said, “I have secure spaces where I keep things under lock and key” (BetaPark #4). The market logic was evident in a greater number of corporate memberships and corporate innovation outcomes (Table 3). These cases emphasized an economic rationale for reducing barriers to access resources for entrepreneurs who “spent the whole month planning their project and booking the tools they’re going to use” (AlphaZone #7).
Leaders in market logic cases viewed the value rationality of the maker ethos as incompatible with their objective of reducing barriers for entrepreneurs. In fact, BetaPark’s higher priced membership helped ensure that “the workshop isn’t full of hobbyists and tinkerers” (BetaPark #2). Analysis of AlphaZone’s visitor frequency data revealed that most memberships were short-term (67% were for 1 month or less), rather than embedding members in ongoing social interactions. Indeed, the general manager favored supporting causal actors, “Are we a makerspace that occasionally spawns entrepreneurship, or are we a prototyping and fabrication studio for entrepreneurs that is conveniently open to makers?” (AlphaZone #2). The market logic cases made fewer attempts to increase logic compatibility and centrality, instead focusing on “profitability across member profiles” to prioritize “the most profitable users” (AlphaZone #2).
Social Interaction Mechanisms Supported Voice Emergence
Analyzing how logic hybridity varied across cases identified three mechanisms by which logic configurations moderated the emergence of voice among makerspace members: project socializing, market logic embedding, and community logic extending. When all mechanisms were highly active, as they were in the hybrid logic cases (Table 9), makerspace members demonstrated greater ability to collectivize voice and form effectual networks. The lower section of Figure 2 shows the social interaction mechanisms makerspaces generated as intermediary organizations according to their logic hybridity. Table 10 provides quotes for each mechanism.
Quotations Representative of Social Interaction Mechanisms.
Project Socializing
Project socializing refers to how makerspaces facilitated connections and knowledge exchange by circulating member projects. EpsilonHub’s manager encouraged collaborations: Building something with somebody is the fastest way to make a friend … Getting [members] to work on a group project; if you can do [that], either they’ll feel welcomed, challenged, and creatively driven or it’s just not going to be a social fit. (EpsilonHub #6)
Makerspaces proactively encouraged project socializing by designing interaction spaces and by hiring membership coordinators. Photographs taken in cases that rated highly on project socializing (Table 9) showed group projects underway and designated open social spaces (GammaMill 12/9/19, DeltaForge 8/31/19, EpsilonHub 8/7/19). A small-business owner explained how spatial design facilitated project socializing, “Stuff on display that other people have made [gives] a sense of what you could do … That whole open area was for people to meet and … work together” (AlphaZone #9). The membership coordinator role introduced members, organized social programs, and communicated collaboration stories (GammaMill #2, DeltaForge #2). The small-business owner continued, “[The membership coordinator] gets excited [to share] what she sees other people doing” (AlphaZone #9).
Project socializing encouraged members to begin collaborations by sharing material and knowledge resources. A volunteer leader explained, “Member-to-member interactions are the biggest boost to idea exchanges and propagating projects” (ZetaSphere #1). Project socializing strengthened network cohesion based on value rationality. DeltaForge’s general manager described it as, “Cross-pollination … bringing people together … [a way] for a whole bunch of different types of folks to congregate and make common cause” (DeltaForge #1). Project socializing encouraged pre-voice, thereby establishing the conditions for project-based collaboration. It stemmed from logic hybridity because a community logic motivated positive social relations, and a market logic sought recurring revenue from a growing membership base.
Market Logic Embedding
The market logic embedding mechanism integrated commercially oriented members as a visible presence in community social life and normalized entrepreneurial use of shared means. It worked outside-in, bringing in new actors and increasing tie diversity while maintaining network cohesion. For example, at EpsilonHub I observed a product demonstration to a potential investor on the couches of the central social space (EpsilonHub 8/7/19). Market logic embedding fostered collectivized voice by enabling members to form a shared entity around a focal project. When members interacted with other members who modeled entrepreneurship, it harmonized—not just balanced—multiple logic representations. Market logic embedding was observed in cases offering studio rentals (BetaPark 8/30/19, GammaMill 12/9/19, DeltaForge 9/1/19, EpsilonHub 8/7/19) and promoting production services allowing non-members to hire makerspace staff or members to complete a project (GammaMill #1, DeltaForge 2019, EpsilonHub #6).
Makerspaces borrowed the studio rental model from coworking spaces as a market logic element. DeltaForge’s membership manager described members who rented studios, “A little more than half of our resident members are small business creative entrepreneurs. This is their space that they’re working for their main thing” (DeltaForge #2). The general manager explained how market logic embedding not only impacted the type of actors present in the makerspace, but it also drove social interactions conducive to entrepreneurship: We have 115 [studios] … That makes a huge difference to just having tools, because now we have a 7 day-a-week, 9 to 5 audience … running businesses out of here. They’re in the building enough to build real relationships with one another. Whereas when you’re a hobbyist space open just in the evenings and people are dropping in and out, it’s harder to build that type of social capital … I don’t think we would be generating the economic development numbers that we are without that. (DeltaForge #1)
A market logic drove makerspaces to offer studio rentals because it provided “another revenue stream” from small businesses, contract workers, and working artists (GammaMill #1).
A product development expert at GammaMill gave an entrepreneur’s perspective on the appeal of embedding his business in a makerspace: I was looking for a home … My business [was] freelancers and my business partner … The remarkable thing about this place and why we wanted to be here, we understood this was going to be an entrepreneurial center … I’m not going to have to hire people out because it’s all here … There’s going to be a lot of smart people. (GammaMill #9)
The ability to build an effectual network was part of the appeal in basing this company inside a makerspace. Thus, the market logic embedding mechanism brought externally oriented, market-minded entrepreneurs into the inner world of the makerspace community.
Community Logic Extending
The community logic extending mechanism refers to how makerspaces extended social interaction to external groups as potential stakeholders, pushing projects toward outward-facing problem domains, and thereby deepening collectivized voice with expanded scope and audience of voice. Community logic extending worked inside-out to broaden members’ external relationships, access to outside knowledge, and exposure to stakeholders like the economic development association (GammaMill #3, #7). It was observed most in cases offering virtual knowledge sharing platforms or coordinating public encounters for members.
Makerspaces adopted virtual knowledge sharing platforms (i.e., wiki, Discord, discussion forums, and private social media groups) which are common in online user communities. This element expanded interactions beyond the physical facility and beyond the membership to allow non-members to share knowledge and ideas (ZetaSphere #1). The EpsilonHub operations manager described how virtual platforms extended social interactions to non-members: We have an [external] mailing list, which is super active. You can ask people what they think about things, and you’ll get a million responses … This is open to the public. There are thousands and thousands of subscribers across the world. (EpsilonHub #6)
Thus, community logic extending helped member collaborations become externally oriented.
Coordination of public encounters occurred when a makerspace intentionally gave members public visibility, such as showing their projects to the public, elected officials, or the media (GammaMill #3). An entrepreneur at DeltaForge received this type of support: [DeltaForge staff bring] people in to show them the area. [Our] studio [is] part of the tour. There’s this cool opportunity from just existing in public. It’s like being represented by a gallery. You’re celebrated for the things that you’re doing … That is exactly the way that DeltaForge can offer support … Someone came by your studio and liked what you were doing … (I)n a week or two, [my partner] and I have been invited to speak on [local public radio], and that is a really cool way to support [us]. (DeltaForge #4)
As this quote indicates, community logic extending opened new perspectives and possibilities for nascent entrepreneurs by orienting them to stakeholders and feedback outside the makerspace.
Summary of Case Studies
Compared to community and market logic makerspaces, hybrid logic makerspaces helped more members collectivize voice so that collaboration on projects could become co-creation on ventures. DeltaForge’s general manager emphasized that doing this as a hybrid intermediary was especially valuable for non-expert entrepreneurs, “We’re helping support these businesses when they’re at a nanoscale; get them off the ground and then get them participating in the [city’s] economy in a broader way” (DeltaForge #1). Three social interaction mechanisms—project socializing, market logic embedding, and community logic extending—supported the progression from pre-voice to collectivized voice to purchased voice in effectual networks.
Discussion
This study examined entrepreneurs who fabricate in makerspaces to understand how they can fabricate an effectual network to co-create with self-selecting stakeholders. The findings reveal how intermediaries can shape the creation of effectual networks when they maintain a hybrid logic to help non-experts collectivize voice. A high degree of logic hybridity generates social interaction mechanisms that support voice emergence among makerspace members. Entrepreneurship that emerges in this way aligns with makerspace social dynamics and is celebrated by both leaders and members.
Table 11 summarizes this study’s insights about the emergence of voice across three stages: pre-voice, collectivized voice, and purchased voice. Collectivized voice is the central, pivotal stage in the emergence of voice. Unlike pre-voice where input remains task-focused and oriented toward individual work, collectivized voice directs improvement-oriented content toward a focal actor’s project treated as a tentative shared entity (a collective). Contributors gain provisional influence over project decisions, and the network shifts from fluid, proximity-based interaction to a formative, project-based structure where potential stakeholders and affordable loss considerations are explored. Purchased voice, by contrast, reflects a later stage of committed co-creation in which resource investment confers enduring influence within a formed effectual network. These distinctions clarify why voice does not exist without a collective to improve, why collectivized voice represents the point at which voice first emerges in nascent organizations, and why purchased voice coincides with the formation of an effectual network.
Stages of Voice Emergence in the Effectual Network Formation Process.
Table 12 summarizes the three mechanisms through which hybrid logic intermediaries shape voice emergence and effectual network formation. Although project socializing supports pre-voice interactions, the mechanisms central to voice emergence are market logic embedding and community logic extending. Market logic embedding fosters collectivized voice by normalizing commercial perspectives in makerspace life, reducing perceived distance between creative and market-oriented work. As entrepreneurship becomes an acceptable type of making, members are more likely to form ties and join projects with market-facing collaborators. Community logic extending deepens collectivized voice by expanding its scope beyond proximal peers to external stakeholders. By increasing exposure to external needs and framing entrepreneurship as an extension of community engagement, it shifts collaborative ties from peer-centered exchange toward broader, outward-facing problem domains. These mechanisms support how collectivized voice emerges and becomes stakeholder oriented.
Mechanisms That Shape Voice Emergence and Effectual Network Formation.
Together, these insights contribute to the literatures on effectual networks and hybrid logic organizing as well as to makerspace practitioners.
Contributions to Research on Effectual Networks
This study strengthens effectuation’s social underpinnings, advancing understanding of the social action underlying the collective nature of effectuation (Agogué et al., 2015; Kerr & Coviello, 2019; Sarasvathy et al., 2009). It reveals how, independent of their entrepreneurial expertise, novices can form effectual networks when they engage in entrepreneurship as work that is collective, creative, and value creating. The study’s insights contribute to entrepreneurship research in three ways: (1) sharpening the parameters of effectual networks pertaining to voice and co-creation, (2) explaining how hybrid logic intermediaries can support effectual network creation, and (3) expanding the entrepreneurial networking literature.
First, this study contributes to effectuation research by sharpening the parameters of effectual networks pertaining to voice and co-creation. The findings show how the emergence of voice relates to the formation of effectual networks. Effectuation research has treated the voice concept inconsistently, as seen in references to the “cacophony of voices” (Dew & Sarasvathy, 2007, p. 279) that represents social ties (actors) who may offer entrepreneurs help, share knowledge, or engage in affiliative behaviors. Although these elements were observed in this study, they conflate influence with pre-voice and network ties. I argue for precision in effectuation’s voice concept aligned with the definition of voice as the provision of improvement-oriented content that benefits a collective (Detert et al., 2013). Defined in this way, purchased voice occurs when stakeholders commit resources to obtain “a genuine voice in shaping the new ventures and markets that come to be” (Sarasvathy, 2022, p. 93; Van Mumford & Zettinig, 2022). Effectual networks form when voice is purchased via commitment.
This study identifies collectivized voice as a precursor to purchased voice, and therefore an antecedent to effectual network formation. Collectivized voice refers to when improvement-oriented content becomes directed toward a tentative shared entity that organizes project-based action jointly but does not involve formal commitment. It is how “loose agreements to collaborate” among social ties evolve into co-creation with a network of committed stakeholders with purchased voice (Kerr & Coviello, 2019, p. 382). It is how individual input becomes influence in a collective, characterized by joint sensemaking and grounded in value rather than instrumental rationality (Van Mumford and Zettinig, 2022). This intersubjectivity arises before formal commitment, when tentative and exploratory affordable loss considerations are social in nature (e.g., time and expertise are more relevant than financial means). Thus, collectivized voice explains how means-driven networks can be built on diverse motivations and rationalities.
These insights on voice early in the organizing process bridge entrepreneurship and organizational behavior research, which examines voice as employees’ discretionary input to change established organizations in lieu of exit (Detert et al., 2013; Hirschman, 1970). While voice research studies hierarchical, structured settings, scholars call for attention to informal, fluid environments with emergent organizing (Wilkinson et al., 2020). This study explains how voice emerges during initial entrepreneurial organizing under an effectual mode of action. Although a source still provides improvement-oriented content to a target, interactions are more peer-based, and the collective to be improved is emergent. Extending research on collective voice beyond established organizations invites examination of different voice intentions among early employees in ventures at a formative stage when voice acts as a vital source of innovation (Black et al., 2025; Li et al., 2017; Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014).
In addition to voice, this study sharpens the co-creation parameter of effectual networks. Although co-creation is considered central to effectual action, it has remained undertheorized and difficult to operationalize (Arend et al., 2015; Chandler et al., 2011; Grégoire & Cherchem, 2020). Read et al.’s (2009) review of research on partnerships and social ties noted that they were treated as resource providers for founders rather than as co-creating stakeholders. Importantly, Sarasvathy (2022, pp. 16, 88) shifted the “pilot in the plane” principle to a collective orientation by emphasizing co-creators, reprioritizing joint action over individual control. I affirm that shift and argue that “co-creation” is a more precise label for effectuation’s fifth principle. Treating effectuation as a mode of entrepreneurial action rather than a cognitive logic or orientation (Grégoire & Cherchem, 2020) helps clarify this move. Consistent with Karami and Read (2021), co-creation refers to stakeholders committing resources to advance a collective enterprise through ongoing entrepreneurial action, distinguishing it from the crazy quilt principle’s emphasis on self-selection into a network. Co-creation is therefore reserved for the stage in effectuation’s dynamic model at which purchased voice is exercised in the network. Thus, commitment to a collective and voice in a collective distinguish co-creation from collaboration. Labeling the fifth principle “co-creation” does not diminish the role of non-predictive control (Wiltbank et al., 2006). Rather, it clarifies that all five effectuation principles are behavioral “techniques of non-predictive control” (Sarasvathy, 2022, p. 16).
Second, this study shows how hybrid logic intermediaries can support the creation of effectual networks. Comparing how makerspaces varied illuminated an evolution from value rationality to instrumental rationality and from a cohesive network to a diverse network (Kerr & Coviello, 2020). Figure 2 illustrates this movement, showing how logic hybridity moderates the progression. Together, the outside-in work of market logic embedding and the inside-out work of community logic extending explain how movement in the “dialectic between effectual network and outer environment” can be generated (Sarasvathy, 2022, p. 107). Thus, hybrid logics can positively moderate social dynamics not only to create a cohesive effectual network with expanded proximal ties but also to channel that cohesion to a more diverse set of externally and instrumentally oriented collaborators and objectives (Kerr & Coviello, 2019).
By incorporating institutional logics, this study advances our understanding of the important role nonmarket logics can play in the formation of effectual networks (Galkina & Atkova, 2020; Murphy et al., 2020). Working together, community and market logics shaped the goals pursued with available means, how low-stakes commitments were explored interactively, and which stakeholders joined projects (Fisher, 2012; Read & Sarasvathy, 2005; Sarasvathy et al., 2009). In doing so, hybrid logic intermediaries provided support to effectuators without offering direct entrepreneurship support programming. Future research can explore effectual entrepreneurship support organizations in hybrid domains such as social enterprise incubators, and how intermediaries may compress effectual network formation through rapid stakeholder sorting. It can also look beyond network creation to examine effectual network maintenance.
Third, this study contributes to the broader entrepreneurial networking literature by examining how people shape networks collectively rather than individual-driven tie selection to meet the goals of causal entrepreneurship. Although prior research has framed entrepreneurial agency as selecting ties based on resource needs (Vissa, 2011), this study explains how ties evolve through a social dynamic that links changes in network structure with changes in the content of ties. Specifically, collectivized voice transitions unstructured, homophilous inputs (pre-voice) into committed, resource-backed stakeholders (purchased voice) by introducing distant, heterophilous ties and shifting the emergent network’s orientation toward shared value creation for external others. In contrast to models of efficient tie formation (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012), the social processes underlying tie development in effectual networking emphasize distributed agency and sensemaking. This offers a deeper view of a community orientation in entrepreneurial networking (Fischer & Reuber, 2011) to complement cognitive-behavioral mechanisms such as signaling, framing, or using heuristics (Hallen et al., 2020).
Contributions to Research on Hybrid Logic Organizing
This study introduces logic embedding and logic extending as mechanisms by which hybrid organizations influence constituents (e.g., makerspace members) beyond board members, managers, or employees. The findings show how selective coupling of different logic elements requires contextualization. Rather than adopting intact elements of multiple logics (Pache & Santos, 2013), hybrid organizations may adapt elements by facilitating situated social interactions (Furnari, 2019). In this study, market and community logic elements (e.g., studio rentals and virtual knowledge sharing platforms) were adapted in the independent makerspace context. Market logic embedding generated situated interactions that differed from coworking spaces or the networking and mentoring of incubators. Community logic extending generated social interactions that differed from purely online networks by anchoring knowledge flows locally to members of a social community. Logic embedding and extending not only combined select elements but also encouraged interaction around those elements, influencing how members formed effectual networks. Thus, this study shows how “attending to the practices and lived experiences of actors” (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 179) can extend institutional logics research and deepen understanding of how logics interact in a social context.
Although scholars have examined responses to competing logics among board members of a hybrid organization (Pache & Santos, 2021; Pache et al., 2024), this study examined how hybridity shapes member interactions at the organizational boundary. Logic embedding functioned as a mechanism of enculturation (reducing cognitive and emotional gaps) that made differing logics available and accessible among voluntary members and customers in a commons governance environment. Logic extending functioned as a mechanism of bridging (facilitating communication and alignment) to connect community members to external parties.
The comparative case studies showed how different market and community logic combinations contributed to variation in logic centrality and compatibility (Besharov & Smith, 2014). Logic embedding and logic extending altered how multiple logics coexisted and interacted, influencing the consequences of logic configurations beyond the hybrid organization itself. By using degree of hybridity as an analytical lens (Battilana et al., 2017; Besharov & Smith, 2014), this study uncovered how intermediaries’ hybridity influenced early-stage ventures. Examining consequences on external constituents is critical for research on hybrid organizations such as social enterprises. This study provides an embedded agency approach to show how nonmarket logics influence entrepreneurial action in the absence of formal support structures (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009; Ocasio et al., 2017; Pache & Santos, 2013).
Contributions to Practice in Makerspaces
Two practical implications for makerspaces interested in supporting entrepreneurship are: (1) pursue hybridity, and (2) teach effectuation. First, pursuing hybridity enhances value compatibility with entrepreneurship and mitigates friction between users with conflicting values and goals. Makerspace leaders play a key role in guiding norms and processes to support entrepreneurship in ways that affirm community values. Hybridity is not determined by an organization’s legal structure. It can be consistent with business model choices (e.g., studio rentals and make for hire) and community-building practices (e.g., virtual knowledge sharing platforms and public engagement) familiar to makerspace leaders. Second, makerspaces are intriguing alternative educational settings for teaching effectuation. Many individual makers observed in the field were nascent entrepreneurs with a natural propensity for effectuating. However, makers often lack support to develop effectual instincts into expertise through deliberate practice. Intentional teaching of effectuation in makerspaces can help novices gain expertise. Since individual makers often use serial projects for experimentation and learning, teaching effectuation in makerspaces can help them approach entrepreneurship similarly.
Conclusion
This study’s contributions should be considered in light of its limitations. First, the case studies examined variance but did not longitudinally observe effectuation or logic configurations. To address this, I sampled makerspaces of different ages and informants with projects at varying stages. Second, in sampling exemplar independent makerspaces, this study included for-profit makerspaces with dominant market logics alongside those favoring community logics, which represent the largest share of the U.S. makerspace population (Browder, 2020). Further insights can come from global samples, including university-affiliated makerspaces.
In conclusion, makerspace members created effectual networks when a high degree of logic hybridity supported the emergence of voice. This inductive study identified mechanisms for how maker collaboration becomes effectual co-creation. When hybrid logics collectivize voice for co-creation, people who fabricate in makerspaces can also fabricate effectual networks.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Trent Williams for expert editorial guidance; two anonymous reviewers for constructive and insightful comments; Saras Sarasvathy, Howard Aldrich, Matt Wood, Todd Moss, Stella Seyb, Peter Klein, Dorothy Leidner, and Eduardo Melendez for feedback on early versions of this research; and participants who provided feedback at the Effectuation Conference, the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, the Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, and the Interdisciplinary European Conference on Entrepreneurship Research.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support was provided by the University of Oklahoma Libraries’ Open Access Fund, the Institute for Humane Studies, and Baylor University.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.