2015 Third Sector Review, 21(1), 5-30
Embracing Hybridity: A Review of Social Entrepreneurship and Enterprise in Australia and New Zealand
Heather Douglas RMIT University, Melbourne
[email protected]
ABSTRACT This review of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship scholarship in Australia and New Zealand provides a detailed overview of this hybrid field. It identifies scholars actively researching this field and illuminates the types of research being conducted. The blended concepts of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise have the capacity to be applied in disparate situations to achieve diverse social, economic or environmental goals. The hybridity embedded in this field has the potential to strengthen research capacity. Plural perspectives blended with innovative ways of investigating, analysing and interpreting data can build insights and provide robust research results across diverse contexts. Embracing interdisciplinarity, novel theories and multiple modes of inquiry will assist scholars in their examination of complex issues and achieve a richer knowledge base in this distinctive field of academic inquiry.
KEYWORDS: social entrepreneurship; social enterprise; hybridity; review; Australia; New Zealand
Introduction Examining the hybrid field of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise scholarship can help to clarify its position in the Third sector. Early Third Sector Review papers considered the concepts and a special issue in 2010 examined the field in more depth. Five years on, research in has evolved rapidly and scholarly contributions from this region and around the world have matured, however many aspects remain relatively unexplored in Australia and New Zealand.
1
This review examines publicly available scholarly social enterprise (SEprise) and social entrepreneurship (SEship) research. The question underpinning the study is: “What is the nature of the hybrid fields of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise scholarship in this region?” This paper makes three contributions. First, it provides a detailed overview of New Zealand and Australian scholars who research this field, illuminates the types of research conducted and examines terminologies used by influential scholars. Second, this paper extends existing international reviews and adds new insights of this hybrid field; and third, it identifies that the hybrid nature of SEship and SEprise has the potential to build a strong field of research in this region. The paper proceeds by examining contemporary concepts of hybridity in the SEship and SEprise context, then the methodology is explained and the findings of this study are presented and discussed. The paper concludes by considering how hybridity affects Australasian SEship and SEprise scholarship.
Hybridity in Social Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Researchers often describe the twin fields of SEship and SEprise as ‘hybrids’ having dual social and economic goals which result in multiple and conflicting logics; but what is hybridity, and what is known about hybridity in the SEship and SEprise domain? And what exactly is it about SEprise as a hybrid organisation and SEship as a hybrid activity that is distinctive and different from other kinds of organisations and practices? Several recent theoretical papers have explored SEship and SEprise hybridity. Hybridity is the offspring of two species. Hybrid organisations have divergent paradigms, logics and value systems. SEship is not a mainstream entrepreneurial activity, and a SEprise is neither a mainstream nonprofit organisation nor a commercial firm. Hybridity is evident in the dual commitment to social and business functions. SEship and SEprise operate in two fields that span institutional boundaries – but are not firmly attached to either. Jäger and
2
Schröer (2013) propose these ‘quasi-public enterprises’ create a specific kind of functional value that systematically integrates civil society and markets, calculates the market value of communal solidarity, and then exchanges communal solidarity for financial and non-financial resources. Larger organisations may operate with a paired organisational structure with both a nonprofit and a commercial entity, developing structures and practices that embrace difference (Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014); however the dual framework embedded in SEship and SEprise creates problems as well as opportunities. As semi-commercial firms and semi-public welfare organisations, SEprises operate without a clearly identified institutional space. Governance is a complex task due to the multifaceted public, and private, and nonprofit sector associations. Functionally, the hybridity of SEship and SEprise requires continual negotiations and trade-offs between conflicting goals and need for resources to remain a dynamic force for public good. Should the needs of clients, or stakeholder requirements, or the necessity to be a viable organisation be prioritised? Pache and Santos (2013) suggest hybrid organisations attempt to reconcile these competing logics and demands by enacting combinations of activities drawn from each logic and securing endorsement from multiple actors. Compromises, however, may result in mission drift or ineffective service delivery (Ebrahim, Battilana, & Mair, 2014), or stoic attachment to accepted, but unsuitable institutional norms in an attempt to gain legitimacy and acceptance (Millar, 2012). With multiple and apparently conflicting goals, SEship and SEprise is perceived as foreign, illegitimate, inappropriate and unacceptable across the public, commercial and social sectors. SEprises are not traditional charities or philanthropic activities even though they operate for the public good: they do not generate visible wealth even though they have commercial market activities. Hybridity limits opportunities to gain public or philanthropic funding because of their income generating activities, yet access to commercial loans is 3
limited by a lack of legitimacy as a ‘real’ business. Hybridity and contradictory rationalities entangle SEprises in conflicting external demands (Jay, 2013). Conflicting logics create institutional identity problems (Jäger & Schröer, 2013), reduce external appreciation and limit the capacity of SEprise to adopt a traditional sector-based identity (Evers, 2012). All of this limits the capacity of policy regimes to embrace SEship and SEprise (Barraket & Furneaux, 2012) and reduces the capacity of SEship and SEprise to secure support from mainstream institutions (Pache & Santos, 2013). Thus, SEship and SEprise may receive fewer public accolades due to misconceptions of the intended purpose and the complexity of operating systems. Concurrently, hybridity offers advantages. Hybridity improves vigour in the natural world, and dynamism, vitality, and innovative capabilities also can be seen in SEship and SEprise. This field draws knowledge from many sources to strengthen its capacity to create shared social and economic value (Florin & Schmidt, 2011). The multifaceted terrain of operation provides opportunities to access information from many sources across diverse personal and professional networks, and this information can provide access to prestige, political influence, and/or resources. SEship and SEprise are associated with mainstream activities and act as a bridge between the majority population and particular groups with complex needs. There is a potential for SEship and SEprise to become a central, connecting node with influences that bond different groups and domains of activity. SEship and SEprise can over time negotiate a public identity and gain legitimacy and acceptance even in a complex stakeholder environment.
Methodology A systematic review process was adopted to identify and analyse the scale and scope of SEship and SEprise in Australia and New Zealand. Eleven existing review papers were 4
examined to identify current understandings and areas in need of clarification, then a series of Scopus database searches was conducted. The Scopus database references a broad spectrum of journal titles including most that are relevant for the topic of this paper; however no database includes all journals. Some key journals are missing from Scopus, in particular Third Sector Review which is an important vehicle for Australian and New Zealand authors. Despite this important limitation, Scopus has some advantages: it includes book chapters and some scholarly conference papers, and news and magazine items can be excluded. Moreover, the ‘analyze’ function in Scopus offers an excellent way to examine and compare the references identified in searches. Thus, Scopus was used initially to identify relevant publications. To capture multiple manifestations of these concepts, Scopus was searched for social enterprise* or social entrepreneur* in the title, abstract and/or keyword. Related topics such as development, social innovation, Third sector or nonprofit organisations were excluded unless SEprise and SEship appeared in the title, keyword or abstract. Results from these searches with author affiliation and address were downloaded into an Endnote file for each topic. Each of these Scopus searches was reviewed with the ‘analyze’ function, and the data recorded in Excel. The two Endnote files (social enterprise*/social entrepreneurs*) were then searched for references to Australia or New Zealand and these placed into a new ‘Australasian’ file. The next stage deliberately sought additional publications from this region, including books, book chapters and reports via a review of issues 16-20 in Third Sector Review. Papers with Australia and New Zealand affiliated authors and social enterprise* or social entrepreneur* in titles, abstracts or keywords were entered manually into the relevant Endnote files. Further materials were located via a snowballing process by linking authors listed in highly cited journal papers and book chapters. Additional scholarly publications were discovered through a systematic search of SEship and SEprise university 5
courses offered in Australia and New Zealand and then examining the publications of academics teaching these courses listed on university websites. These were entered manually into Endnote. Each Endnote file was examined for cross topic references, that is, references that included both SEship and SEprise in the title, abstract or keyword. The results were compiled into tables and graphs that included the organisational affiliation of the author, the subject area in which authors were writing, the topics discussed, and the number and type of publications. Provided at least one of the authors was affiliated with an Australasian university at the time of publication, all types of scholarly publications were included – books, book chapters, refereed journal papers, and scholarly research reports. This body of work was examined to consider high impact and influential authors, that is, those with at least two publications and those with highly cited publications. To compare SEship and SEprise in Australia and New Zealand with international scholarship, high impact and influential Australasian publications were read and compared with existing international review papers and highly cited journal papers published by international authors. The aim of this part of the analysis was to consider the Australasian author’s conceptual understanding of the field, the author’s contribution to the field, and the meanings ascribed to definitions (if any could be discerned) and the depth of SEship and SEprise research in this region. Finally, the research methods used and the underpinning epistemologies were considered when these could be identified.
Australasian Scholarship Publications were diverse - books, book chapters, refereed journal papers, and research reports. Some scholars subsequently moved out of this region, others arrived, and two authors moved from New Zealand to Australia. The first known SEship and SEprise
6
scholarly publications by an Australian or New Zealand author appeared in Third Sector Review in 2001 (Brown, 2001; Stewart-Weeks, 2001). Since then, the rate of publications has steadily increased (Figure 1). The increasing rate of publications in this region since 2000 is consistent with worldwide trends (Douglas & Grant, 2014a; Sassmannshausen & Volkmann, 2013). Compiled from a Scopus analysis, Figure 2 shows the academic disciplines of Australian or New Zealand authors with SEprise and SEship publications. These disciplinary fields also correspond to the body of scholarly SEship and SEprise publications, indicating that Australian scholars are aware of and respond to a growing international interest in this field of research. Twenty eight authors from New Zealand and 93 from Australia have at least one SEprise and SEship publication (121 in total 1). Most publications are co-authored. The vast majority of all New Zealand and Australian authors identified in this study have just one publication. The rest of the results reported in this paper focus on significant scholars, that is, those who are more deeply engaged in this field of scholarship with at least two SEship and/or SEprise publications. INSERT FIGURES 1 AND 2 HERE Who is publishing regularly on this topic? Six of the 28 New Zealand authors are influential. Grant (10) and Woods (5) have the most publications. Tapeall published four papers while working in New Zealand. de Bruin, Humphries and Roper each have 2 publications. Six Australian scholars have five or more publications: Barraket (10), Seymour (9), Luke and Mason (6) and both Douglas and Sullivan Mort have five. Seven Australians have contributed to four SEprise and SEship publications (Chamberlain, Eversole, Farmer, Kong, Ormiston, Ratten and Weerawardena. Eight Australians have published three papers on this topic, and nine have two papers. A few of 1
Both Luke and Verreyenne published in New Zealand and then moved to an Australian university
7
these scholars have advanced the field beyond this region with highly cited papers. All of the remaining authors in this region have just one SEprise and SEship publication. Books, sole authoring, clusters and industry New Zealand and Australian scholars have edited five books on SEship and/or SEprise thus demonstrating considerable commitment to this field of research. Encompassing both SEship and SEprise, Douglas and Grant’s (2014b) book adds new theory to these twin fields in eighteen chapters written by Australasian and international scholars. Another book was also published in 2014 (Chamberlain, Foxwell-Norton, & Anderson, 2014). In fourteen chapters and ten case studies, this book examines SEprise and issues of social justice and inclusion within a humanities framework. Seymour’s (2012b) book focusses on SEship research processes. Framing the book in four sections of curiosity, posture, gathering and voice, the ten chapters are written by local and international scholars. Kernot and McNeill (2011) provide a valuable SEprise resource by documenting the stories of 32 Australian social enterprises. Previously in Scotland but published after moving to La Trobe, Farmer and colleagues examine rural European neighbourhood life, community and SEprise policy (Farmer, Hill, & Muñoz, 2012). Demonstrating an in depth understanding of a topic, four New Zealand scholars and 20 in Australia have sole authored at least one SEship or SEprise publication. Grant is the only New Zealand sole authored scholar who is highly published in this field. 2 Eight Australian scholars have sole authored four or more publications, thus indicating a continued focus on this field (Barraket, Chamberlain, Douglas, Eversole, Kong, Mason, Ratten and Seymour). Surprisingly few papers are co-authored with international scholars. A small number of papers are co-authored with industry such as Jigsaw in New Zealand and the
2
Woods has five publications but none are sole authored
8
Australian Human Rights Commission, Adelaide Central Mission, the Wise Foundation, and Gumatj Corporation. A few authors regularly publish together: Barraket, Eversole and Luke; Sullivan Mort and Weerawardena; Woods and Tapsell; Verreynne and Miles; and Grant and Dart, and Grant and Douglas have authored several chapters. Authors who regularly publish on this topic are clustered in a small number of universities. In New Zealand, three work at The University of Waikato (Grant, Humphries and Roper) and two at The University of Auckland (Woods and Tapsell3). The situation is more diverse in Australia where several influential authors have moved among universities, notably Barraket, Douglas, Kong and Sullivan Mort. Two influential scholars are at Swinburne (Barraket and Mason), three are at The University of Sydney (Seymour, Ormiston and Fawcett) and three also at La Trobe (Farmer, Ratten and Sullivan Mort). Consistent with international scholarship, the majority of highly published Australian authors (56%) work in business schools; 32% of are from social science disciplines, 6.5% work in health fields, and one works in humanities. All influential New Zealand scholars work in business schools. Although SEship and SEprise has received considerable attention in Australia and New Zealand, focused research is concentrated among a small number of scholars who demonstrate a deep conceptual understanding of the field and an appreciation of contemporary international research (Table 1). INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Concepts in Australasian scholarship Consistent with the lack of conceptual clarity in the international literature, Australian and New Zealand scholars adopt a range of terminology, often with much conceptual 3
Tapsell is now at Cambridge
9
blurring. Most Australian scholars have adopted Barraket et al.(2009) definition of SEprise as organisations that have a social, economic, cultural or environmental mission with a public benefit, derive a substantial proportion of operating income from trade, and reinvest most of the profit or surplus to fulfil the mission. In contrast, there is no universal acceptance of commercial activities as an essential aspect of SEprise in New Zealand where this concept is shaped by Grant, the primary author publishing in this field. Grant adopts a very broad perspective of SEprise as an organisation, an activity and also a sector (undefined). De Bruin, Barraket and Mason also use SEprise to indicate an (undefined) sector. Compared with SEprise, the concept of SEship is less agreed and four prominent viewpoints are evident in this region. First, SEship is a development action associated with innovation and an intention to create social and/or economic change. This perspective is widely accepted, for example by Azmat (2013), Douglas (2014), Tedmanson (2014b), and McCarthy (2012). In the second perspective, authors such as Corner and Ho (2010), Seymour (2012a), Tapsell and Woods (2008) and Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006), embrace SEship as a particular form of proactive business entrepreneurship to improve society. This view, which anticipates either new venture creation or income generation to support an existing nonprofit organisation, is prominent in North America (for example Germak & Robinson, 2014). The third perspective concentrates on the social intention with little attention to business activities. For example, Bhowmick (2011) proposes SEship is better considered as ‘social cause venturing’ rather than an entrepreneurial practice. He maintains the ‘sponsor motive’ the commitment to a social cause is central and drives the organisation and its activities. The fourth perspective adopted by some authors, especially in Australia, is quite different. SEship may describe any activity or organisation with a social, educational, or cultural intention such as arranging local festivals, providing health services or philanthropic
10
donations to charities (for example Huq & Gilbert, 2013; Scaife, 2008). How SEship differs from the nonprofit, philanthropic, or charitable activities is not explained. Two attempts have been made to clarify the blurred conceptual boundaries between SEprise and SEship. Reflecting Dees’ (2001) oft quoted assertions, Luke and Chua (2013) propose SEprises differ from traditional nonprofit organisations due to their businesslike approach and focus on innovation, social change and broad community benefits. Douglas and Grant (2014a) examine SEship and SEprise as two connected, but distinct concepts. Their chapter presents an interesting narrative by two authors who attempt to advance understanding of these concepts while negotiating a new perspective from their divergent individual viewpoints. Grant embraces SEprise as a broad concept of an organisation, a sector and action. In contrast, Douglas assumes SEprise is an organisation and SEship describes activities or processes that create beneficial societal change – which could be interpreted as social innovation. Douglas and Grant (2014a) reach a compromise position and note that some scholars use a single term to refer to activities in the entire social economy domain, for example Pearce (2003), whereas others such as Nicholls (2006), adopt SEship as an umbrella term for various innovative economic and social development practices that create social change and deliver sustainable social value. Almost universally, SEship and SEprise are considered as ‘good things’. In contrast, Gray, Healy and Crofts’ (2003) a critical view contests the supposed benefits, asserting that government in Australia has the traditional role of providing services and supports for citizens. This regularly cited paper reminds us to remain impartial while we investigate exciting new topics. While a commitment to negotiate a common understanding of the nature of SEship and SEprise is evident among influential Australian scholars, authors with few publications in
11
this field use the terms interchangeably without definition. ‘Social enterprise’ is used loosely by activists, government officials and even nonprofit organisations to denote any form of social purpose activity4, and the media describes any individual who is engaged in any kind of philanthropic or charitable activity as a social entrepreneur 5. This conceptual amalgamation is disruptive for scholars new to the field and it limits the potential for SEship and SEprise to be influential in policy domains. Topics in Australasian scholarship Consistent with international scholarship, influential Australasian authors examine organisations and complexity in four main fields: 1) research methods and theory building; 2) organisational functioning; 3) societal issues, structures and exclusion; and 4) policy and development. Major contributions in each of these fields will be summarised. 1. Research methods and theory building Douglas’ (2008) early paper compared research methods adopted by three societal change approaches – SEship, social marketing and social movements. She observes that the academic discipline of a researcher tends to shape stance, expectations, ontology and epistemology, and the investigative approaches researchers tend to adopt. To advance SEprise research capacity, Seymour’s (2012b) book offers a linked model for SEship research involving curiosity, posture, gathering and voice. Although widely practiced in industry, action research is often neglected by business academics in part due to poor prospects for publishing results in high ranked journals. Seymour, Cameron and Gibson (2005), Tedmanson (2014a) promote action research as a highly appropriate methodology for SEship and SEprise. Adopting Habermas’ lifeworld and system framework, Grant’s (2014) chapter on critical appreciative inquiry likewise strengthens research capacity and develops an appreciation of the complex nature of SEprise.
4
5
For example ProBono Australia, 2011 For example Simon McKeon, 2011 Australian of the Year
12
While all scholarship adds to existing theory, two Australian scholars are notable for early and substantial contributions to SEship. The first paper proposes SEship as purposeful entrepreneurially virtuous behaviour in the face of moral complexity (Sullivan Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2003). Although other international scholars at that time had examined SEship, none had specially identified its ethical or social value creating nature. Later, Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) add entrepreneurial characteristics (innovation, proactive and risk-taking) and constraints of the environment, a need to achieve the social mission and to maintain organisational sustainability. Both papers are widely cited. Two New Zealand publications also make substantial theoretical contributions. Tapsell and Woods (2008) add valuable insights on complex adaptive systems and selforganisation in Maori communities,. Tapsell and Woods insist researchers must consider the historical and cultural contexts so as to understand the nature of phenomena being investigated. This observation is extensively supported by other scholarship in this region, for example Cameron’s (2010) study of community enterprise and Lewis’ (2013) paper on the Student Volunteer Army. De Bruin and Stangl (2014b) advance SEship theory with a novel scaling framework which overlays economic theory on Zahra et al.’s (2009) typology, proposing scaling can be applied at different levels from local to international. 2. Organisational functioning A large body of Australian scholarship examines SEprises as organisations – their operational characteristics (Cameron, 2010; Grant & Kinley, 2010), market engagement (Miles, Verreynne, Luke, Eversole, & Barraket, 2014), sustainability (Sullivan Mort & Hume, 2009), intellectual capital (Kong, 2010), performance measurement (Luke, Barraket, & Eversole, 2013), and impact (Barraket & Yousefpour, 2013). Most examine this region; however some studies investigate developing contexts (Azmat, 2013; Ratten, 2014). SEprise
13
governance is examined in numerous domains including New Zealand (Grant, 2006), the UK (Larner & Mason, 2014), and international contexts (Gero, Carrard, Murta, & Willetts, 2014). 3. Societal issues, structures, exclusion and development Much research in this region attends broadly to developing, altering, changing or improving a situation for an individual, locality or society. Studies have examined ways to improve rural health (Farmer et al., 2012), reduce waste (Azmat, 2013) or human trafficking (Hunter & Humphries, 2011), provide clean water (Gero et al., 2014), employment for a disadvantaged population (Kong, 2011). Beyond this functional approach, more complex societal issues or processes may be examined such as engaging local communities in change processes (Cameron, 2010; Eversole, 2013; Fawcett & Hanlon, 2009). Three chapters in a recently published book specifically examine SEprise and SEship arrangements that might facilitate societal change (Chamberlain et al., 2014). Barraket’s extensive work examining, mapping, modelling innovation and critiquing issues provides a sound foundation on which to consider Australian SEprise. Likewise, Grant establishes a reference point for scholarly appreciation of SEprise in New Zealand. Studies such as these are starting to distinguish SEprise and SEship from Third sector traditions in Australia and New Zealand. A series of cultural and Indigenous studies in this region are contributing significant new knowledge. Tedmanson examines SEship as a resistance practice in remote Aboriginal communities, proposing cultural entrepreneurship as an important way to address neocolonial exclusionary structures (Tedmanson, 2014a, 2014b). Similarly, Woods examines Maori resistance and stresses the importance of examining context and acknowledging cultural heritage (Newth & Woods, 2014; Tapsell & Woods, 2010). Australasian scholars contribute to development issues and processes in the international context. Taking a worldwide perspective, a significant recent study of SEship in Pacific Island communities threatened by climate change concludes that even in remote 14
locations, enterprises can develop capabilities to sustain the organisation (Gray, Duncan, Kirkwood, & Walton, 2014). In contrast to heroic SEship leadership which is frequently anticipated by North American authors, two studies in developing countries note multiple forms of leadership operate (Lan, Zhu, Ness, Xing & Schneider, 2014; Tofinga, Douglas & Singh, 2014). Ratten (2014) considers how developing countries might reduce poverty by fostering collaborative entrepreneurship, a perspective Mandinyenya and Douglas (2014) also endorse. 4. Public policy and policy processes Third sector scholars frequently examine policy (for example Aimers & Walker, 2008; Phillips, 2007). Australasian SEship and SEprise studies regularly identify public policy implications and some examine social innovation (Brackertz & Moran, 2010), but surprisingly few have investigated policy per se. A notable exception is Ormiston and Seymour’s (2014) report of developments in social finance policy practice in NSW which highlights the benefits of collaboration across the traditionally bounded capital investors and government and for-profit sectors. In addition, Mason (2012) has examined policy in the UK.
Discussion This systematic review is the first to examine SEship and SEprise in New Zealand and Australia. It details the extent of scholarship in this region and provides clarity on its nature. This review examines journal publications, and it also reports influential scholarship in scholarly books, chapters, industry reports and working papers. Although less easily accessed than journals (provided the journal is indexed in a leading database), books and reports offer deeper insights of issues. In the main, influential authors in this region work in business and social science fields with some engagement from the humanities, administrative and political sciences. Clusters of authors in a few universities might indicate some are more supportive of
15
this particular form of applied, interdisciplinary research. The number of highly cited papers authored by Australasian scholars indicates this region is providing new and influential ideas. The terms ‘social enterprise’ and ‘social entrepreneurship’ are used interchangeably in academe and in the public domain with either term often denoting any kind of nonprofit organisation or charity activity. This conceptual ambiguity and overlap is confusing and authors are encouraged to clarify terminologies. If SEprise is a sector, how does it differ from the Third, nonprofit, community, philanthropic or charity sectors? Does SEprise involve business activities? The boundaries of SEship are even more opaque. Is SEship a form of business entrepreneurship with innovation and risk-taking as core elements? Does SEship imply the formation of a new enterprise? Is it an endeavour of entrepreneurial individuals or any type of proactive action including group social activism? In what way would this activism be distinguished from social movements? Is SEship an action for change, and if so, how is it different from social innovation, if at all? Clarifying these issues will assist to develop a coherent and robust research agenda in this region.
An emerging critical scholarship in this region Australia and New Zealand share a common British heritage, similar legal and educational and Westminster parliamentary systems. Each country has an indigenous population, we play similar sports and we fight wars together; however there are differences. New Zealand has a unitary parliamentary system governing four million citizens in a small land mass and one major city. 6 Australia has three tiers of government, a large, sparsely populated desert and 22 million citizens who mainly live in coastal cities7. We are similar but not the same; cousins rather than siblings. These differences are reflected to some degree in our scholarship. 6 7
Statistics New Zealand www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for.../population/.../urban-rural-migration.aspx Australian Bureau of Statistics http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/
[email protected]/mf/3105.0.65.001
16
There is the potential for a unique form of SEship and SEprise scholarship to emerge in this region. SEprise is distinct in its inclination to critique institutional arrangements and not take anything for granted. Hunter and Humphries (2011) question the basic premise of SEprise self-sufficiency and query if it is possible for market activities to sustain an organisation when its mission challenges societal traditions. Others find SEprises preferred servicing customers with more capacity to pay for services, thus contesting assumption that SEprise and SEship provide benefits for poor people (Gero et al., 2014). Other studies find SEprise is not focused on commercial activities, but acts as altruistic community enterprises for community benefit (Eversole, 2013; Mandinyenya & Douglas, 2014). SEprise in this viewpoint is not a charitable business but rather a cooperative practice that commits to a common good. SEship and SEprise engage with others to enact change, and relational dynamics become a critical element in the process. This is profit for purpose with passion. This somewhat critical and certainly community biased view of SEship and SEprise may change as new scholars are drawn into this field, but for the moment scholars in this region are able to swim with the mainstream while shaping a particular perspective that attends to distinctive aspects of our society.
Hybridity in New Zealand and Australian scholarship This study extends concepts of SEprise and SEship hybridity beyond organisational forms, legal structures, and performance, legitimacy and identity. Hybridity in SEship and SEprise research in this region is evident in the mix of authors (practitioners, policymakers and academics), topics (health, sport, rural poverty, indigenous disadvantage, and international development) and level of analysis (populations, organisations, institutions). Typically, scholars publish across business disciplines (economics, management, marketing, accounting, finance, organisation theory) and social science (sociology, political science, international and community development, psychology and geography). In this region,
17
humanities scholars, historians, artists and designers, climatologists and environmental scientists along with sports specialists, health and human service disciplines all contribute to SEship and SEprise. We appear to be a more diverse group than researchers elsewhere. Hybridity among researchers offers advantages and strength. A diversity of scholarly background enriches the field and opens the way to utilising varied research approaches (Douglas, 2008). A diverse group increases access to networks to gain information, ideas, opportunities and resources. Having scholars from diverse backgrounds has the potential to enrich research not only with new ideas and topics, but also different ontologies, novel methodologies and innovative analysis techniques. Hybridity and interdisciplinarity can enhance and deepen comprehension when contributions from different fields of knowledge are blended harmoniously into a holistic understanding. Researching from diverse perspectives challenges entrenched assumptions, improves creativity, and stimulates flexible thinking. Interdisciplinarity and collaboration across academic fields offers the potential to produce exciting new knowledge. Hybridity and interdisciplinarity have some less positive effects, however. They reduce coherent dialogue and common understandings which may lead to disagreement on core notions such as definitions or boundaries, aspects which SEship and SEprise scholars often note. Working across disciplines is challenging: it contests our practice and questions our beliefs. Influenced by disciplines, scholars tend to adopt particular ideological orientations, theoretical perspectives, and research methodologies (Douglas, 2008). Scholars from different disciplines think in distinct ways; research is motivated by different expectations and is implemented with different approaches. Variations in (usually unstated) epistemological assumptions hinder the integration of ontologies into systems to produce knowledge that may be considered ‘acceptable’ across the scholarly field. Implicit belief systems embedded in disciplines inherently influence which research questions are 18
considered important, and the relative merits of different methods that may be adopted to achieve answers. Interdisciplinary research and collaboration is an imprecise practice that involves multiple embedded perspectives. Due to the diversity in its disciplinary base and geographies of practice, there is a need for thoughtful reassessment of appropriate theoretical frameworks lest the above factors lead to SEship and SEprise disintegrating into divergent schools of thought. Alternatively, we can accept SEship and SEprise as a blended concept and embrace interdisciplinarity as a merit of hybridity. As a practice, SEship and SEprise is actioned in multiple contexts in diverse environments. It has different goals, operates with a variety of approaches and organisational forms and achieves diverse outcomes. Complex human problems may be embraced with hybridity and interdisciplinarity to build insights across diverse contexts. Part of SEship and SEprise’s appeal to researchers is its adaptability and capacity to be applied to disparate situations. Accepting the pliability of practice, we as researchers can welcome the plurality of perspectives, accept novel ideas, contemplate issues in fresh ways, support different thinking styles, and endorse diverse ways of investigating, analysing and interpreting. We can work together and move forward as SEship and SEprise researchers to develop a culture that respects new ideas and focuses on achieving a common goal of ‘integration and synthesis of knowledge towards a more complete understanding of the whole’ (Stember, 1991, p.2). We will achieve a richer knowledge base for this exciting field of academic inquiry if we embrace novel perspectives and trial diverse theoretical frameworks to examine entrepreneurial responses to the pervasive lack of empowerment, structural disadvantage, or excluding events that affect people in many places. To build on existing strengths hybridity offers, regular robust conversations among researchers in dynamic networks will help to create collaborative associations and potentially valuable research projects. The lack of international co-authoring is a worrying trend which 19
might result from remoteness reducing the capacity of Australasian researchers to form robust connections with European and North American scholars. Speciality research centres in this region have the potential to shape the future of this particular field of scholarship by attracting leading international scholars to this region. Equally important are focused regional conferences and small colloquia which are more affordable than international events. Conversations at these and similar events benefit the field of research and provide a dynamic climate for the continued development of SEship and SEprise.
Concluding Thoughts SEprise and SEship scholarship in this region is a maturing field of research which shows great promise for future robust and theoretically informed development. This review provides a grounded, systematic analysis of contemporary social entrepreneurship and social enterprise scholarship in Australia and New Zealand. The study identifies 121 authors with publications this field, illuminates the types of research being conducted, and provides details of influential authors who regularly publish on this topic. Significant scholarly research in this field is conducted by a small number of researchers who are clustered in a few universities. Conceptual convergence is growing among social enterprise researchers in this region, but there is less agreement on the nature of social entrepreneurship. Researchers, public officials and the media do not distinguish between social entrepreneurship and social enterprise and use these terms interchangeably. These blurred boundaries are a problem in policy environments and also for researchers attempting to investigate this complex field. Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise studies in this region address four main topic areas: theory building and research methods; organisation functioning; societal issues, structures and exclusion; and policy and development practices. These research topics do not differ markedly from international scholarship; however an undercurrent of critical analysis is evident in this region. 20
Hybridity among researchers has the potential to strengthen research capacity. Social entrepreneurship and enterprise is more than organising an ethically motivated service supported by business actions: we must also consider the relational and collective nature of this hybrid activity. Without public endorsement of the concept for social change, great ideas, new structures or transforming processes will fail to be embraced. The twin fields of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise are adaptable and scholars have the capacity to examine diverse topics with varied research approaches. Plural perspectives blended with innovative ways of investigating, analysing and interpreting data has the potential to build insights and provide robust research results across diverse contexts. Embracing interdisciplinarity, novel theories, and multiple modes of inquiry assists scholarly examination of complex issues to generate rich knowledge in this distinctive field. Opportunities for researchers to connect through small regional conferences and focused research colloquia will strengthen this field of academic inquiry. Policy development may then proceed with renewed rigour and clarity armed with an improved understanding of the relationships between the Third sector, and social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. As a complex, creative, hybrid field of co-creation, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise are dynamic phenomena situated in social settings that are still theoretically undeveloped. We risk adopting a complacent attitude of conceptualising and theorising this ambiguous field. Scholars could benefit by engaging in collective reflection and analysing the genre in which we operate, and its relationship to the Third sector. It may be time for new theories to addresses the complex nature of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. In the meantime, the field is open to broaden our research topics and the questions we examine, and explore the value of new approaches and perspectives. Embracing interdisciplinarity, novel theories, and multiple modes of inquiry will assist scholars in their examination of complex issues and achieve a richer knowledge base in this distinctive field of academic 21
inquiry. Boldly exploring new domains beyond the usual suite of theories could provide new understandings. Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise would benefit by researchers adopting new perspectives to examine communication, collaborative action, and collective entrepreneurship. Investigating the relatively unexplored domains of power, persuasion, influence, and relational processes would bring forth new dimensions of understanding to illuminate the structuration of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise change processes. Theorising social entrepreneurship and social enterprise is underway, but it has yet to reach the boundary of logic.
References Aimers, J., & Walker, P. (2008). Developing a pluralist approach to organisational practice and accountability for social service and community organisations. Third Sector Review, 14(1), 35-49. Azmat, F. (2013). Sustainable development in developing countries: The role of social entrepreneurs. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(5), 293-304. Barraket, J., Collyer, N., O’Connor, M., & Anderson, H. (2009). Finding Australia’s social enterprise sector. Brisbane: Social Traders and Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, QUT. Barraket, J., & Furneaux, C. W. (2012). Social innovation and social enterprise: Evidence from Australia. In H.-W. Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge Social Innovation: Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society (pp. 215-237). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Barraket, J., & Yousefpour, N. (2013). Evaluation and social impact measurement amongst small to medium social enterprises: Process, purpose and value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4), 447-458. Bhowmick, S. (2011). Social cause venturing as a distinct domain. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 99-111. Brackertz, N., & Moran, M. (2010). Barriers to innovation and investment in the social economy: Retrofitting for environmental sustainability in Australian community housing. Third Sector Review: Special issue: Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, 16(2), 49-72 Brown, K. M. (2001). New voice, same story? Social entrepreneurship and active social capital formation. Third Sector Review, 7(2), 7-22 Cameron, J. (2010). Business as usual or economic innovation? Work, markets and growth in community and social enterprises. Third Sector Review: Special issue: Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, 16(2), 93-108. Cameron, J., & Gibson, K. (2005). Participatory action research in a poststructuralist vein. Geoforum, 36(3), 315-331. Chamberlain, S., Foxwell-Norton, K., & Anderson, H. (Eds.). (2014). Generation next: Becoming socially enterprising: Oxford University Press. Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635-659. 22
Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of 'social entrepreneurship'. Retrieved 30 April, 2004, from http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews. Douglas, H. (2008). Creating knowledge: A review of research methods in three societal change approaches. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20(2), 141-163. Douglas, H. (2014). Looking beyond the light? Seeking theories to illuminate social entrepreneuring. In H. Douglas & S. Grant (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: Concepts in context. Melbourne: Tilde University Press. Douglas, H., & Grant, S. (2014a). Social entrepreneurship and enteprise: Domain, dimensions, and future directions. In H. Douglas & S. Grant (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: Concepts in context (pp. 3-32). Melbourne: Tilde University Press. Douglas, H., & Grant, S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: Concepts in context. Melbourne: Tilde University Press. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior. Evers, A. (2012). Hybridisation in German public services—A contested field of innovation. In A. Zimmer (Ed.), Civil Societies Compared: Germany and The Netherlands. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Eversole, R. (2013). Social enterprises as local development actors: Insights from Tasmania. Local Economy, 28(6), 567-579. Farmer, J., Hill, C., & Muñoz, S.-A. (Eds.). (2012). Community co-production: Social enterprise in remote and rural communities. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Fawcett, B., & Hanlon, M. (2009). The 'return to community' Challenges to human service professionals. Journal of Sociology, 45(4), 433-444. Florin, J., & Schmidt, E. (2011). Creating shared value in the hybrid venture arena: A business model innovation perspective. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 165-197. Germak, A. J., & Robinson, J. A. (2014). Exploring the motivation of nascent social entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 5-21. Gero, A., Carrard, N., Murta, J., & Willetts, J. (2014). Private and social enterprise roles in water, sanitation and hygiene for the poor: A systematic review. Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 4(3), 331-345. Grant, S. (2006). Community (not-for-profit) governance - what are some of the issues? Third Sector Review, 12(1), 39-56. Grant, S. (2014). Social enterprise through a critical appreciative lens. In S. Denny & F. Seddon (Eds.), Social enterprise: Accountability and evaluation around the world. London: Routledge. Grant, S., & Kinley, L. (2010). Walking towards the light? The transformation of Jigsaw from not-for-profit organisation to social enterprise. Third Sector Review: Special issue: Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, 16(2), 29-47 Gray, M., Healy, K., & Crofts, P. (2003). Social enterprise: is it the business of social work? Australian Social Work, 56(2), 141-254. Hunter, R. L., & Humphries, M. (2011). Social enterprise: The rescue and rehabilitation of prostitutes - embryonic or false emancipation. Third Sector Review, 17(2), 87-106 Huq, A., & Gilbert, D. H. (2013). Enhancing graduate employability through work-based learning in social entrepreneurship: A case study. Education and Training, 55(6), 550572. 23
Jäger, U. P., & Schröer, A. (2013). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda. Voluntas, 25(5), 1281-1306. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 137–159. Kernot, C., & McNeill, J. (2011). Australian stories of social enterprise. Sydney: University of New South Wales. Kong, E. (2010). Harnessing knowledge for innovation in social enterprises: An intellectual capital perspective. In L. Al-Hakim & C. Jin (Eds.), Innovation in Business and Enterprise: Technologies and Frameworks (pp. 162-184). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference. Kong, E. (2011). Building social and community cohesion: The role of social enterprises in facilitating settlement experiences for immigrants from non-English speaking backgrounds. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(3), 115128. Larner, J., & Mason, C. (2014). Beyond box-ticking: A study of stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance. Corporate Governance, 14(2), 181-196. Lewis, K. V. (2013). The power of interaction rituals: The Student Volunteer Army and the Christchurch earthquakes. International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 811-831. Luke, B., Barraket, J., & Eversole, R. (2013). Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures: Performance evaluation of social enterprise. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 10(3-4), 234-258. Luke, B., & Chua, V. (2013). Social enterprise versus social entrepreneurship: An examination of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in pursuing social change. International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 764–784. Mandinyenya, I. E., & Douglas, H. (2014). Pragmatic altruism: A gentle process of cocreating social enterprise in a developing country. In H. Douglas & S. Grant (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: Concepts in context (pp. 219-240). Melbourne: Tilde University Press. Mason, C. (2012). Isomorphism, social enterprise and the pressure to maximise social benefit. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 74-95. McCarthy, B. (2012). From fishing and factories to cultural tourism: The role of social entrepreneurs in the construction of a new institutional field. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(3-4), 259-282. Miles, M. P., Verreynne, M.-L., Luke, B., Eversole, R., & Barraket, J. (2014). Social enterprises and the performance advantages of a vincentian marketing orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(4), 549-556. Millar, R. (2012). Social enterprise in health organisation and management: Hybridity or homogeneity? Journal of Health, Organisation and Management, 26(2), 143-148. Newth, J., & Woods, C. (2014). Resistance to social entrepreneurship: How context shapes innovation. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 192-213. Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ormiston, J., & Seymour, R. G. (2014). The emergence of social investment as a moral system of exchange: The Australian experience. In H. Douglas & S. Grant (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: Concepts in context. Melbourne: Tilde University Press. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. M. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001. Pearce, J. (2003). Social enterprise in anytown: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. 24
Phillips, R. (2007). Tamed or trained? The co-option and capture of 'favoured' NGOs. Third Sector Review, 13(2), 27-48. Ratten, V. (2014). Future research directions for collective entrepreneurship in developing countries: A small and medium-sized enterprise perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 22(2), 266-274. Sassmannshausen, S. P., & Volkmann, C. (2013). A bibliometric based review on social entrepreneurship and its establishment as a field of research. Germany: Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, Wuppertal University. Scaife, W. (2008). Venturing into venture philanthropy: Is more sustainable health and medical research funding possible through venture philanthropy and social entrepreneurship? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20(2), 245 - 260. Seymour, R. G. (2012a). Researching social entrepreneurship Handbook of Research Methods on Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 26-47). Seymour, R. G. (Ed.). (2012b). Handbook of research methods on social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28(1), 1-14. Stewart-Weeks, M. (2001). Voice and the third sector: Why social entrepreneurs matter. Third Sector Review, 7(2), 23-39. Sullivan Mort, G. M., & Hume, M. (2009). Special Issue: Sustainability, social entrepreneurship and social change. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(4), 189-191. Sullivan Mort, G. M., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88. Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. (2008). A spiral of innovation framework for social entrepreneurship: Social innovation at the generational divide in an Indigenous context. E:CO Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 10(3), 25-35. Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. (2010). Social entrepreneurship and innovation: Self-organization in an Indigenous context. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(6), 535556. Tedmanson, D. (2014a). Enterprising social work: Social enterprise action research with remote indigenous communities in Australia Environmental Change and Sustainable Social Development: Social Work-Social Development (Vol. 2, pp. 119-124). Tedmanson, D. (2014b). Indigenous social entrepreneurship: Resistance and renewal. In H. Douglas & S. Grant (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and enteprise: Concepts in context. Melbourne: Tilde Unviersity Press. Weerawardena, J., & Sullivan Mort, G. M. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21-35.
25
80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10 0
2000-2005
2006-2010
2011 - 2014
Figure 1: New Zealand and Australian SEship and SEprise publications 2000-2014 (source: Scopus)
26
70 60
50 40 30 20 10 0
Figure 2: Academic fields of Australian and New Zealand SEship and SEprise publications
27
Table 1: Number of authors contributing to publications by country Publications per author Australian New Zealand authors authors 5+ publications 6 2 3-4 publications 15 1 2 publications 9 3 1 publication 63 22 Total contributing authors 93* 28* *Two authors were in both Australia and New Zealand
28
