Day Conference Details and Abstracts

The following papers were presented on 4 November 2002 at the University of Manchester, hosted by Peter Halfpenny and Duncan Scott:-

• Paola Grenier, Centre for Civil Society, LSE: ‘Social entrepreneurship in the UK: tensions and dilemmas’
• Simon Teasdale: University of Manchester: ‘Forms of social enterprise’
• Irene Hall, Liverpool Hope University, and David Hall, Liverpool University: ‘Community-based research and science shops – issues of comparison across six European countries: an update on the INTERACTS Project’.
• Mike Aiken, Co-operatives Research Unit, Open University, and Claire Bradshaw, Public Management and Sociology Group, Aston Business School: ‘Researching values in voluntary organisations: two research projects’
• Greg Smith, Centre for Institutional Studies, University of East London: ‘The significance of the faith sector within or alongside the voluntary sector’.

Paola Grenier, Centre for Civil Society, LSE

‘Social entrepreneurship in the UK: tensions and dilemmas’

In this paper I focus on the emergence of social entrepreneurship as an organisational field in the UK, specifically between 1995 and 2001. Social entrepreneurship in the UK emphasises the role of individual social entrepreneurs in bringing about social innovation, change and progress. Drawing on the multi-disciplinary literature found in the study of entrepreneurship, I propose five core functions of entrepreneurship. Based on those functions I consider the particular functions of social entrepreneurship in the current context of the UK, and suggest some reasons why it has emerged as a field. I then go onto discuss some of the tricky issues that might face the field of social entrepreneurship as it develops and institutionalises

The paper covers three broad areas. First I set out some of the background and context for social entrepreneurship in the UK (Thake, 1995; Pearce, 1999; Leadbeater, 1997). This includes a review some of the current definitions of social entrepreneurship with an overview of the emergence of the field (Dees, 1998; Johnson, 2001). I focus in particular on the reports and publications that have promoted the concept of social entrepreneurship, together with the development and rapid growth of organisations set up to support and advocate for social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship is also positioned within the evoloving areas of the social economy, interest in increasing social capital, the development of social enterprise, and concern for more effective social investment (Mayo and Moore, 2001; Wallace, 1999). Social entrepreneurship in the UK is also briefly contrasted with current thinking in the US, to highlight the particular form that it is taking in the UK.

Second I identify the functions of entrepreneurship, based on literature on entrepreneurship from the disciplines of economics, sociology, management, psychology, and anthropology. These functions are identified as: innovation (Schumpeter, 1998: 1949); bearing risk for society (Cantillon in Hebert & Link, 1982); spotting and acting on opportunities (Kirzner, 1982, 1989); co-ordination or bridging (Casson, 2000; Barth, 1963); and leadership (Casson, 2000; Swedberg, 2000). These theories demonstrate that profit is not a central concept to entrepreneurship, and therefore theories of entrepreneurship can apply across sectors and in very different contexts (Martinelli, 1994). The particular functions of social entrepreneurship are then considered in some detail, drawing on the theories outlined together with the particular contextual factors identified above.

In the third section of the paper I discuss some of the contentious areas, where there are specific tensions between social entrepreneurship and the values of the nonprofit sector. In particular I discuss the focus on the individual in social entrepreneurship, compared with the focus on community and collective action in the nonprofit sector (Thake, 1999; Pearce, 1999). Further to this, there is an emphasis in social entrepreneurship on business sector values and practices and their application to nonprofit organisations. A range of concerns and implications of this emphasis are also discussed. The implications for the development of the field of social entrepreneurship are discussed. Further areas of research are identified, highlighting the need for the development of a rigorous theoretical approach to social entrepreneurship.

In this paper I will draw on semi-structured and informal interviews with social entrepreneurs and organisations supporting social entrepreneurship together with documents, reports, policy papers, and promotional literature produced by organisations promoting social entrepreneurship and by organisations critical and concerned about social entrepreneurship.

Barth, F.(1963). 'Introduction' in (Ed.) The role of the entrepreneur in
social change in Northern Norway. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.

Cantillon in Hebert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (1988). The entrepreneur:
mainstream views and radical critiques. New York; London: Praeger, 2nd edition.

Casson, M. (2000). Enterprise and Leadership. Edward Elgar, UK.

Dees, J. G. (1998). The Meaning of "Social Entrepreneurship"[Online],
http://www.the-ef.org/resources-Dees103198.html

Johnson, S. (2001). Social Entrepreneurship Literature Review. [Online], <www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/whats_news/review.htm>.

Kirzner, I. M.(1982). 'Entrepreneurs and the Entrepreneurial Function: A Commentary' in Ronen, J. (Ed.) Entrepreneur - Addresses, essays and lectures.

Kirzner, I. M.(1989). 'The market as discovery process' in (Ed.) Discovery, Capitalism and Distributive Justice.

Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. Demos.

Martinelli, A.(1994). 'Entrepreneurship and Management' in Smelser,
Swedberg (Eds.) The Handbook of Economic Sociology.

Mayo, E., & Moore, H. (2001). The Mutual State: How local communitie can run public services. UK: New Economics Foundation.

Pearce, J. (1999). Individual and Collective Models of Social
Entrepreneurship. [Online], paper presented at School for Social
Entrepreneurs Conference <www.sse.org.uk/conference/speakers/pearce_paper1.html>.

Schumpeter, J.(1998: 1949). 'Economic theory and entrepreneurial history (Reprinted from Change and the Entrepreneur, 63-84)' in Birley, S. (Ed.) Entrepreneurship. Ashgate.

Swedberg, R.(2000). 'Introduction and Practical Applications' in Swedberg, R. (Ed.) Entrepreneurship : The Social Science View.

Thake, S. (1995). Staying the Course: The role and structure of community regeneration organisations. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York Publishing Services.

Thake, S. (1999). The training and education needs of social entrepreneurs. [Online], paper presented at School for Social Entrepreneurs Conference <www.sse.org.uk/conference/speakers/thake_paper1.html - check>.

Wallace, S. L. (1999). 'Social Entrepreneurship : The role of social
purpose enterprises in facilitating community economic development'.
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol 4 Issue 2, pp153-174.

Simon Teasdale: University of Manchester

‘Forms of social enterprise’

This paper begins by looking at existing attempts to classify different forms of social enterprise. After rejecting the various approaches I set out the reasoning behind my own moves towards a preliminary typology. Following on from a comprehensive literature review and my own previous research, I have identified two principal tensions that social enterprises must negotiate. The first is that produced by the need to balance the needs of “people” against those of “profit”. The second sees a tension between the “individual” and the “collective.” Setting out these two tensions in a grid form, it is possible to identify four loose types of social enterprise. First those that tend towards the pursuit of profit and target the individual, such as The Big Issue, can be placed in one segment and tentatively labelled social businesses. These are distinguished from a segment containing some worker co-operatives that are also profit centred but, by nature of their ownership structures, tend towards a more collective focus. Moving towards people centred social enterprises, in another segment we find organisations such as LETS projects whose primary focus is to develop social capital within communities by taking a people centred approach with a collective focus. In the final segment we find, for example, Intermediate Labour Market Organisations which, in aiming to develop the human capital of the individual, can be seen as adopting a people centred approach aimed at the individual. The four examples are seen as marking out the boundaries of social enterprise where the term is used to refer to organisations operating in or around the Third Sector and trading for a social purpose.

Irene Hall, Liverpool Hope University, and David Hall, Liverpool University

‘Community-based research and science shops – issues of comparison across six European countries: an update on the INTERACTS Project’.

Background: The science shop concept emerged in Dutch universities in the 1970s, as part of the movement to democratise the universities. The aim was to make knowledge (“science” in its widest sense) available to surrounding communities and the concept spread across Europe. In the UK intermediary organisations have emerged which provide research exchange services which are similar to those of the science shops – i.e. they link academia (students and staff) with local voluntary and community groups which have research/ knowledge needs.

The SCIPAS Project (‘Study and Conference on Improving Public Access to Science through science shops’) was funded by the E.C. in order to map the experiences, needs and impact of science shop activity and to provide the groundwork for a further application for E.C. support for a science shop network. SCIPAS reported in 2001, and applications were made for a network (ISSNET) and an Accompanying Measure to this, INTERACTS. While the ISSNET proposal has not yet been accepted, the INTERACTS Project began in January 2002.

INTERACTS comprises partners from 6 countries – Denmark, Germany, Spain, Austria (2 science shops), England and Romania and is a research project, funded under the STRATA programme. Its objectives are to consider policy needs at European, national, regional and local levels as they relate to collaboration between NGOs, universities/ researchers via intermediary organisations. The project is concerned with the impact of science shop research both on NGOs and on the curricula of universities, and with the policy implications of this activity. Of particular interest, are the lessons which can be derived for European policy through a cross-national study.

Delivery of this project is through four main milestones:
1. A ‘state of the art’ report on national policies in the partner
countries on science and society, which have particular relevance to the development of research and knowledge production for NGO use.
2. A ’case study’ report by all 7 partners which documents and
analyses three research projects conducted by each of the science shops (i.e. 21 cases in all).
3. A report of the findings of scenario workshops conducted with
policy makers at regional or national level in the partner countries, which will focus on science/ society issues and the future possibilities for developing research links between NGOs and universities.
4. A final report which provides analysis linking the findings of the
project with policy recommendations and considerations for the E.C.

To date, the ‘state of the art’ report has been produced, and the case studies are being completed. The update will comment on the complexity, challenge – and excitement – of what is an ambitious and interesting research project.

Mike Aiken, Co-operatives Research Unit, Open University, and Claire Bradshaw, Public Management and Sociology Group, Aston Business School

‘Researching values in voluntary organisations: two research projects’

The relationship between voluntary organisations and values has been well-documented in the voluntary sector literature and in particular the literature outlines the many issues managers face when managing a values-based organisation (for example Batsleer 1995, CFVS 1996, Paton 1996).

However, frameworks for examining values in voluntary organisations have so far been little developed. This paper draws from two current research projects which have been examining values in voluntary organisations but from contrasting approaches. The paper will outline these contrasting approaches and the emerging findings from these two differing studies.

Firstly, Mike Aiken’s research considers how far the market or quasi-market pressures of the environment threatens organisational values. He examines how voluntary organisations and co-operatives working for social progress reproduced their values. The study arose from debates on the extent of co-option by co-operative and voluntary organisations by either state or commercial agendas. Rosenman (2000) described how such organisations were ‘morphing’ into commercial markets and Dahrendorf (2001) warned that many larger voluntary organisations were becoming indistinguishable from the state. He examines the affects of informal processes, organisational structures and social movements in not-for-profits and concludes that environment pressures were not complete determinants of value maintenance. Mike will outline his approach to researching values and outline his findings.

The research by Claire Bradshaw critically examines the assumption that voluntary organisations are and should be values led. Her research aims to understand what values underpin the day-to-day activities in voluntary organisations. Drawing from the PhD literature review a conceptual framework for researching and thinking about values in voluntary organisations is outlined. The conceptual framework outlines where researchers and practitioners could start to look for values and makes three analytical distinctions from the literature: the values of individuals, values and organisations, and values and the environment external to the organisation. The conceptual framework suggests that in order to start thinking about and researching values a wider ‘lens’ is required. The validity of this framework is then tested through a pilot study and her emerging findings show how far those frameworks enabled the research as well as their shortcomings.

After presenting two approaches to researching values in voluntary organisations the presenters will then draw conclusions from their contrasting studies outlining the strengths and weaknesses of each framework and what they add to our understanding of the relationship between values and voluntary organisations.

Batsleer, J (1995) Management and Organisation in Davis-Smith, J.
Rochester, C. Hedley, R (ed) An Introduction to the Voluntary Sector
London: Routledge

CFVS (1996)Meeting the Challenge of Change: Voluntary Action into the 21stCentury The Report on the Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector London: NCVO

Dahrendorf, P (17th July 2001) Challenges to the Voluntary Sector London: CAF Arnold Goodman Lecture

Paton, R (1996) How are values handled in Voluntary Agencies? in Billis, D & Harris, M (ed) Voluntary Agencies: Challenges of Organisation and Management London: MacMillan

Rosenman, M (2000) Morphing into the market: the danger of Missing Mission NCVO Researching the Voluntary Sector Conference Birmingham

Greg Smith, Centre for Institutional Studies, University of East London

‘The significance of the faith sector within or alongside the voluntary sector’.

Current UK government policy, mirroring developments in the USA increasingly looks to faith communities as potential partners for consultation, local governance and service delivery. Lack of clarity of definitions, unjoined-up policy, and the huge diversity of religious organisations in English inner cities make it almost difficult to assess what is happening, and whether specific changes in policy and practice are appropriate. In this paper I shall attempt to draw a conceptual map of the faith sector in England using three different “projections”, models or ideal types by which we might show the relationship between faith sector, the voluntary/community sector and the state. The first projection treats the faith sector fundamentally as a subset of the voluntary/community sector and therefore appropriately under the same policies, regulations and funding regimes as secular charities. The second projection treats the faith sector and the organisations within it as qualitatively distinct from the voluntary/community sector and therefore requiring a separate policy framework. The third project sees faith as more diffuse, and fundamentally as a property of individuals and networks contributing to civil society through increasing social capital, a model described in the New Testament as the “leaven in the lump”. A brief survey of the territory will allow us to determine which of these projections is most useful for policy makers and religious leaders wishing to plan a route through this little known land.