Date post: | 08-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | mela-sutera |
View: | 37 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Convening Opportunity: Social Entrepreneurship in
Two Community Development Initiatives
By
Sandra Sattler Weber
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of
The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Major: Interdepartmental Area of Human Sciences (Leadership Studies)
Under the Supervision of Professors
John Allen and Susan Fritz
Lincoln, Nebraska
May, 2006
UMI Number: 3214777
32147772006
UMI MicroformCopyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
CONVENING OPPORTUNITY: SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN TWO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Sandra Sattler Weber, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, 2006
Advisors: John C. Allen and Susan M. Fritz
This study explored the process of social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting.
Theoretical constructs of institutional structures and social capital were integrated into an
emerging theory of social entrepreneurship in two community development Initiatives.
A grounded theory approach was used in this qualitative multiple case study. A
comparison was made of two Initiatives striving for systemic change. Each Initiative
focused on two different subsets of community (rural and urban) and shared values of
public engagement. A knowledge structure emerged from the study that related the
external pressures of the institutional environment and internal circumstances that
influenced process for each of these Initiatives.
Convening opportunity was an in vivo term applied in this study to explain the
process of social entrepreneurship. The actions sets that describe convening opportunity
are recognizing opportunity, strategizing opportunity, and structuring opportunity. Social
capital was found to be a significant facilitator in two strategies that were instrumental in
this process. These strategies are "making the case" and forging partnerships. It is
recommended that these newly discovered constructs, grounded in the data, be tested
empirically to move toward a grand theory of social entrepreneurship.
1CHAPTER I
Introduction..............................................................................................................5 Purpose Statement....................................................................................................5 Context of the Study ................................................................................................6 Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................8 Research Questions..................................................................................................9 Background to the Study........................................................................................10
Institutional Structures ...............................................................................10 Social Capital Framework..........................................................................12
Intent of the Study..................................................................................................13 Definition of Terms................................................................................................14 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study ...........................................................18 The Significance of the Study................................................................................18
CHAPTER II
Review of Literature ..............................................................................................20 Social Entrepreneurship in the Nonprofit Setting..................................................20 Theoretical Underpinnings of Institutional Structure ............................................23
Basis of Institutional Theory......................................................................23 Table 1. ..............................................................................24
Institutional Structure and Structuration Theory ...................................................24 Figure 2. .............................................................................29
Institutional Perspectives of Social Entrepreneurship ...............................29 Table 2. ..............................................................................29
Regulative .........................................................................................30 Normative .........................................................................................32 Cognitive...........................................................................................33
Social Capital as a Transforming Tool . ....................................................36 Measurement Issues in Relevant Research ................................................37
The Context of Nonprofit Organizations ...............................................................38 Table 3. ..............................................................................38
Nonprofit Institutional Structures – Traditions and Values ......................40 Institutional Practices – Capacity Issues...........................................42 Institutional Practices – Strategic Readiness ....................................44 Institutional Practices – Inter-Institutional Behaviors & Alliances. .45 Institutional Practices – Leadership ..................................................46
Summary ................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER III
Procedures..............................................................................................................48 Assumptions and Rationale for a Qualitative Design ............................................48
Knowledge Claims.....................................................................................48
2Methodological Assumptions ....................................................................49
Type of Design.......................................................................................................51 A Grounded Theory Multiple Case Study .................................................51
The Role of the Researcher....................................................................................53 Data Collection Procedures........................................................................54
Sampling Parameters .....................................................................54 Table 4. ..............................................................................55
Sampling Method...........................................................................55 Table 5. ..............................................................................56
The City Initiative ..........................................................................56 The State Initiative.........................................................................57
Data Collection ..........................................................................................58 Access ............................................................................................58
Ethical Considerations ...............................................................................58 Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................58 Grounded Theory Methods ........................................................................59 Computer Analysis.....................................................................................60
Methods of Verification.............................................................................61 Internal Validity .............................................................................61 External Validity............................................................................62
Reporting the Outcomes ............................................................................63 CHAPTER IV
Descriptive Case Studies of Two Community Development Initiatives ...............64 Introduction................................................................................................64
Foundation for Rural Opportunity .........................................................................64 Institutional Features..................................................................................64
The State Initiative – Conveners of Opportunity...................................................67 Opportunity Trajectories............................................................................67
Facilitators......................................................................................67 Convening Opportunity .............................................................................68
Recognizing, Strategizing, and Structuring Opportunity...............68 Foundation for Excellence ....................................................................................70
Institutional Features..................................................................................70 The City Initiative – Conveners of Opportunity ....................................................74
Opportunity Trajectories............................................................................74 Facilitators......................................................................................74
Convening Opportunity .............................................................................75 Recognizing, Strategizing, and Structuring Opportunity...........................75
Summary ................................................................................................................79
3CHAPTER V
Developing a Grounded Theory.............................................................................80 Coding Procedures .....................................................................................80 Open Coding ..............................................................................................82
Table 6 ...............................................................................83 Axial Coding..............................................................................................84
Category 1. Opportunity trajectories..............................................85 Property 1. Thought leaders...............................................86 Property 2. The social entrepreneur. ..................................86
Category 2. Convening opportunity...............................................87 Property 1. Recognition opportunity..................................87 Property 2. Strategizing opportunity..................................87 Property 3. Structuring opportunity. ..................................88
Category 3. Strategies. ...................................................................90 Property 1. Making the case...............................................90 Property 2. Forging partnerships........................................91 Property 3. Relationships ...................................................92
Category 4. Capacities. ..................................................................92 Property 1. Institutional capacities.....................................93 Property 2. Organizational capacities. ...............................93 Property 3. Personal capacities. .........................................94
Category 5. Domain level analysis ................................................94 Property 1. Macro-Dynamics.............................................95
Category 6. Network development model .....................................95 Property 1. Great groups. ...................................................95
Selective Coding ........................................................................................96 The Emergent Knowledge Structure......................................................................97
Figure 3 ..............................................................................98 CHAPTER VI
Description of Theoretical Constructs ...................................................................99 Opportunity Trajectories........................................................................................99 Convening Opportunity .......................................................................................106
Recognizing Opportunity.........................................................................107 Strategizing Opportunity..........................................................................110 Structuring Opportunity ...........................................................................114
The Context..........................................................................................................120 Community Context.................................................................................120 Interpretations within the Domain ...........................................................121
Institutional features.....................................................................121 Intervening Conditions.........................................................................................127
Institutional Capacities.............................................................................127 Community Capacities ............................................................................131
4Personal Capacities ..................................................................................133
Strategies..............................................................................................................135 Making the Case ......................................................................................136 Forging Partnerships ................................................................................139 Outcomes .............................................................................................................143 Summary of Convening Opportunity...................................................................146
CHAPTER VII
Convening Opportunity in Social Entrepreneurship ...........................................148 Research Question One – Defining Social Entrepreneurship .............................148 Theoretical Propositions ......................................................................................150
Theoretical Proposition One ....................................................................150 Theoretical Proposition Two....................................................................151 Theoretical Proposition Three .................................................................151 Theoretical Proposition Four ...................................................................152 Theoretical Proposition Five....................................................................152
Discussion............................................................................................................153 Research Question Two – Constraining and Facilitating Factors .......................148
Theoretical Lenses ...................................................................................153 Institutional Analysis ...................................................................153 Social Capital ...............................................................................156
Constructs of Convening Opportunity .................................................................161 Table 7. ............................................................................161
A Comparison of Convening and Collaborating .....................................166 Summary ..............................................................................................................177 Conclusions..........................................................................................................179 Recommendations................................................................................................179
References........................................................................................................................182 Appendix A – Literature Map..........................................................................................203
Figure 1 ............................................................................204 Appendix B – Invitation for the Study.............................................................................205 Appendix C – Interview Protocol ....................................................................................207 Appendix D – Informed Consent Forms..........................................................................211 Appendix E – Examples from ATLAS ti.........................................................................214
5CHAPTER I
Introduction
In the new Millennium, social issues persist despite technology having reshaped
economies. These last three decades have been marked by revolutionary changes in
technology, which have connected the world and expanded markets for increased global
trade. The result is a new competitive landscape that is unpredictable and chaotic,
creating parallel and major social changes. For this reason, individuals and collectives
have organized to bring balance to an unbalanced world. This organization has resulted in
many creative and strategic social innovations being advanced by nearly 1.4 million
nonprofit organizations operating in the United States alone (Mangan, 2004).
Every year, thousands of social entrepreneurs achieve extraordinary things
in difficult circumstances…the bonds that individuals make with each other
and their communities are every bit as important as the things provided for
them by the state. So I set down a challenge: That we mark the Millennium
with an explosion in 'acts of community' that touch people's lives. – British
Prime Minister, Tony Blair, 1999.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this grounded theory study was to develop a substantive theory of
the process of social entrepreneurship. Two nonprofit foundations are used as referent
organizations for the two community development Initiatives that are the focus of this
study. The institutional features and networks of engagement described in the process
were of particular interest. Grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998)
was applied in this study of social entrepreneurship.
6Context of the Study
The nonprofit sector has a rich tradition and an important future in championing
social causes through collective means. Although governments have responsibilities to
provide public order by means of organizing and coordinating economic and social
spheres, they have depended upon support from the nonprofit sector (Thompson, et al.,
2000). Historically, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) have been essential to improving people's quality of life throughout the world. In
the U.S. the magnitude and spectrum of social missions range from neighborhood Little
Leagues, for example, to large corporations engaged in critical educational and scientific
research. Globally, the effort of nonprofit programming has enhanced or fundamentally
changed the social milieu of nations, communities, special populations, and individuals.
New-federalism of the late 1970's, early 1980's, and again in the mid-1990's gave
more policy choices and program management to the states regarding social issues (Foy,
2004; Morial, 2004). Essentially, the states were given programs that were initially
created and funded by the federal government. This devolution of government has
contributed to growth in the sector by shifting many public service roles to the private
sector. The breadth of services and products derived from nonprofit organizations are so
pervasive and significant that the sector is positioned as the third sector of economic
activity in the U.S. behind business and government (Raymond, 2004).
Growth in the nonprofit sector is significant. For example, the so-called 501(c) 3
nonprofits, which have tax exempt status in the U.S., have grown 128 percent over the
past two decades (Raymond, 2004). Consequently, more jobs and services are available
in the sector now than ever before.
7This growth is a challenge facing the nonprofit sector. Resources are a
prominent issue, which includes a need to expand physical, financial, social, and human
capital. A need for resources, coupled with government budget deficits that limit
opportunities for grants and contracts available to them, makes it difficult for many
nonprofit organizations to have the full resource capacity to carry out their social mission.
Social entrepreneurship has become one process of adjusting to limited financial
resources by developing social enterprises. The social enterprise, as framed by Dart
(2004), is "a set of strategic responses to many of the varieties of environmental
turbulences and situational challenges that nonprofit organizations face today" (p. 413).
However, these innovative approaches are problematic in terms of reconciling traditional
ways of operating in the sector. Thus, creative reallocation of resources is paramount to
effective mission support. This puts pressure upon nonprofit organizations to find
creative ways to support their missions (Chasse, 1995; Raymond, 2004). Increasingly,
these organizations are relying on fees and contracts as opposed to grants and donations
(Dart, 2004; Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003).
This tremendous growth in the sector, and its associated problems, has led to
increases in applied and basic research on nonprofits. Investigative efforts have led to
exponential growth in professional organizations, journals, academic units and research
institutions focusing on the nonprofit sector. For example, between 1990 and 2002,
university courses dealing with nonprofit organizations have tripled (Wimberley &
Rubens, 2002).
Although substantial information about the sector exists (Mangan, 2004),
sufficient research to articulate a unified theory of social entrepreneurship is lacking
8(Dart, 2004; Prabhu, 1999; Thompson, et al., 2000). Further, there is not a clear
understanding of how the nonprofit sector is changing the economic landscape or how
well social opportunities at the micro level are recognized and exploited (Mair & Marti,
2004).
A better understanding of the social entrepreneurship process is important.
Currently, social needs are being met by all three sectors: government, business, and
nonprofit. Not one sector can meet these needs based on its capacity alone. Thus, societal
needs are being shifted between all three sectors. The highly institutionalized character of
the nonprofit sector makes this shift difficult if entrepreneurial activities are
misunderstood or constrained. Society's cultural expectations and norms (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) factor in on any new organizational processes, and
this makes managing change difficult, particularly if processes alter conventionally-held
perceptions or legitimated images of the sector.
Statement of the Problem
The process of social entrepreneurship is not well defined and there is a lack of
theoretical and data-based research that evaluates the context of social entrepreneurship
in the nonprofit setting. Thus, there is limited ability to identify those institutional
practices that either constrain or facilitate the process of entrepreneurship. Although there
are considerable conceptual writings and empirical research regarding the nonprofit
sector, there has been little integration of theoretical constructs of institutional structures,
leadership, and social capital together into a process theory of social entrepreneurship.
In general, the primary cause of theoretical dissonance in the field of
entrepreneurship is the difficulty of integrating theory across disciplines (Mair & Marti,
92004; Thornton, 1999). Often the entrepreneur is seen as the essential level of analysis
to be studied, reasoning that once a business transaction occurs the entrepreneur then
becomes a business owner or founder, and is no longer an entrepreneur. In this paradigm
there is little relevance for entrepreneurship because the process ends at the onset of the
business cycle. But, competing interpretations suggest that starting a business is not the
core of entrepreneurship. Many ideations of entrepreneurship suggest that an
entrepreneur is a catalyst for innovation and market changes (Dees, 1998) and the process
of entrepreneurship is an organizational level phenomenon (Mair & Marti, 2004). In this
study, entrepreneurs were viewed as change agents and the domain or field level, which
was inclusive of multiple organizations, was where the entrepreneurial phenomenon
occurred.
Though the study of social entrepreneurship is similarly bogged down with
disagreement, Dees (2001) contended that the field should utilize the traditions and logic
of market theories of entrepreneurship while drawing distinctions regarding the
challenges of the social mission. However, the following questions remain: What is a
process theory for social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting? Does the process of
social entrepreneurship and the market theories have one-dimensionality? Or are there
distinct differences in the social entrepreneurship process that would inform theory and
practice?
Research Questions
In scientific studies, research questions establish the parameters of the study and
guide the choice of methods that are used (Creswell, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In
10this study, the main research question considered process, which led to the grounded
theory paradigm as the preferred method for research. Because of the inductive nature of
this particular research method, the researcher framed and reframed the research
questions as the study progressed. Strauss and Corbin (1998) stated: "Although the initial
question starts out broadly, it becomes progressively narrowed and more focused during
the research process as concepts and their relationships are discovered" (p. 41).
The study was guided by two major research questions: What is the theory that
explains the process of social entrepreneurship in Community Development Initiatives?
How and to what extent do institutional structures and processes of engagement facilitate
or constrain the process?
The hallmark of the grounded theory paradigm (explained extensively in Chapter
Three) is to discover an emergent theory grounded in data. Using existing theories to
frame the study was useful to amplify the theoretical connections between an emerging
theory and broader theories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Institutional theory and the concepts of the social capital framework reflect
primary influences in social action, specifically for social entrepreneurship in the
nonprofit sector. Thus, framing the research questions with existing theories provided a
basis for a more detailed literature review that follows in Chapter Two.
Background to the Study
Institutional Structure
Institutional structure represents the meaning systems within society and
organizations that produce and legitimize patterns of behavior. This structure is a process,
which will be expanded on in Chapter Two. Institutional structure supports the rules,
11roles, beliefs, and practices within organizations, which in turn influences and is
influenced by individual understandings and actions (Meyerson, 1994).
Therefore, the antecedents of social entrepreneurship, or the patterns of behavior,
will be impacted by the institutional character of the organization. Although most
nonprofits will reflect their founding missions, many will change radically in response to
the challenges of resources and changes in the sector. This is considered an
entrepreneurial response (Thornton, 1999). An entrepreneurial response is context-
dependent or has a cause-effect pattern, specifically related to institutional and economic
stimuli (Hayton et al., 2002)
Thus, to prevail in changing times, nonprofit organizations must create
organizational capacities to foster their distinct social missions by balancing the workings
of innovative enterprise with institutional effects and unstable economic environments.
Other studies have taken a supply-side view of entrepreneurship. This includes an
individual-level focus that concentrates on the traits and motives of the entrepreneur
(Gartner, 1989b; Salamon, 2003). A less extended perspective is from the demand-side.
The demand-side examines the process of entrepreneurship or the context in which
entrepreneurship emerges (Thornton, 1999; Frumkin, 2002).
This study will emanate from a demand-side perspective, fully examining the
context of social entrepreneurship and identifying its process. A theory emerges that
explains social entrepreneurship at the community-field level (Smets, 2005; Wilkins,
1991) in two community development Initiatives. The importance of the demand-side
perspective is its potential to relate social missions to process and context. Stevens (2003)
developed a typology of the social entrepreneur (as founder and leader) in nonprofit
12organizations. Her findings suggested that many of the characteristics and patterns of
the social entrepreneur mirrored the research on the business entrepreneur. Nevertheless,
in her qualitative study, Stevens encouraged a demand-side view that focuses on process.
She suggested that because a founder is there primarily to answer a 'call', it "is wiser to
build organizational structures that allow this sense of purpose to flourish" (p. 161).
The 'market call', created by the changing needs for goods and services, has
compelled many nonprofit organizations to adopt business models. This change will
likely invoke many institutional responses and adjustments in institutional structure
through this evolution. Both institutional and economic contexts are fundamental in
creating entrepreneurial-friendly environments (Hayton, et al., 2002). However, the
nonprofit setting has a unique institutional character that is steeped in non-market
traditions, that is now placed within a volatile economic environment.
Why would more study need to be done to focus upon institutional effects? Most
empirical studies are evaluating entrepreneurship in the business sector. The nonprofit
setting is a highly institutionalized sphere for economic exchange. Though Dees (1998)
considered the economic model of entrepreneurship a reliable mirror, others argue that
social entrepreneurship requires more study (Mair & Marti, 2004; Thompson, et al.,
2000), particularly from the demand-side which focuses on context (Stevens, 2003).
The Social Capital Framework
Altogether, building relationships across community fields is a critical
competency of the nonprofit sector (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004; Orr, 2001).
Engagement emerges through networks of relationships best defined under the social
capital framework. Social capital is described as both the glue that holds social structures
13together, as evidenced by trust, cooperation, and long-term relationships (Putnam,
1996), and the lubricant that moves information and processes through social networks
(Anderson & Jack, 2002). Accordingly, Temkin and Rohe (1998) identified institutional
infrastructure as being analogous to bridging social capital (the ability to extend
organizational networks to enhance public prominence and increase opportunities). This
underscores the importance of relationships and networks in the social entrepreneurship
process.
Social entrepreneurship is changing the nonprofit environment and, therefore,
highlighting the impact of leadership in these processes. There are notable advances in
research to conceptualize the social entrepreneur as leader (see Amit, Glosten, & Muller,
1993; Brant, 1995; Chell, 2000; Euske & Euske, 1991; Gupta, MacMillan, & Surie, 2004;
Prabhu, 1999; Stevens, 2003; Waddock & Post, 1991). However, traits of leadership will
not be a focus for studying process in social entrepreneurship. The assumption is that
traits influence behavior (Gartner, 1989a). Nonetheless, an individual must have an
infrastructure to mobilize in the process of social entrepreneurship, where collective
processes are essential. How authority, resource mobilization, and ideologies of
entrepreneurship are featured in the structural arrangements of nonprofit organizations
will be of interest to connect leadership process to social entrepreneurship.
Intent of the Study
This study was cross-disciplinary, using perspectives from sociology, leadership,
and organizational behavior as theoretical support. Because entrepreneurship combines
resources in new productive ways, new organizational arrangements emerge (Dart, 2004;
Gartner, Bird, & Starr, 1992). Entrepreneurship is a socially constructed phenomenon. In
14fact, Dart (2004) avowed that social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector may be "a
'faddish' response to changes in the sociopolitical environment" (p. 412). Thus, how
members of an entrepreneurial initiative perceive the environment and respond to
challenges is important.
This study uses an integrated definition of social entrepreneur and social
entrepreneurship. The social entrepreneur is one who searches for social change,
recognizes opportunities and takes action to develop these opportunities into social
enterprise by mobilizing resources (Gupta et al., 2004; Stevens, 2003; Thompson, et al.,
2000). Thus, social entrepreneurship in the context of a nonprofit organization can be
understood to mean the process of continuous realization of opportunities to pursue social
innovations and the adaptation and development of these innovations into social
enterprises.
A priori theories are generally not used in grounded theory studies (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). However, as stated earlier, the highly
institutionalized environment for social innovation calls for a unique understanding of
context. Hence, the lenses of institutional theory and the social capital framework are
useful lenses to induce discovery. The study of social entrepreneurship enhances the
understanding of leading processes that create change.
Definition of Terms Community Development
Community development is the linking of individuals and organizations to
activities that increase positive efforts toward common community goals (Humboldt Area
15Foundation, 2001). These goals are generally to strengthen the local economy and to
build and strengthen social capacities through networks and leadership development.
Community-Field
A field is the result of community members' interactions, mutual influence of one
another, and the shared meanings produced from these interactions (Smets, 2005;
Wilkinson, 1991).
Community Foundation
"A community foundation is a permanent charitable public benefit organization
supported by local donors and governed by a board of private citizens who speak for the
needs and well being of the community. The Internal Revenue Service designates
community foundations as public charities because they raise a significant portion of their
resources from a broad cross section of the public each year" (Humboldt Area
Foundation, 2001).
Initiative
An initiative is a strategic approach to address the needs or requests of a
population, institution, community, or population (Humboldt Area Foundation, 2001).
Institutions
Institutions are the "cognitive and symbolic systems that produce and legitimize
patterns of [institutional structure, which are] culture, including symbols, beliefs, roles,
and meanings within organizations, which in turn shape and are shaped by individual
actions, interpretations, and understandings" (Meyerson, 1994, p. 630). This can be
embodied in an established organization with public character such as a church,
university, or a nonprofit organization.
16Institutional Structure
Institutional structure represents the rules, roles, practices and beliefs of the
nonprofit organization and is influenced by the sociopolitical environment.
Nonprofit Organizations
Nonprofit organizations (see also: Not-for-profit and NPO) are described as
agencies, organizations, or institutions, owned and operated by one or more corporations
or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit any private
shareholder or entity (34 CFR 77). Retrieved September 28, 2004, from
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title34/part77.html
Nongovernmental Organizations
Nongovernmental organizations (see also: NGO) are described as private
organizations pursuing activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor,
protect the environment, or undertake community development, (World Bank
Operational Directive 10.70). Retrieved September 28, 2004, from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/V8350E/v8350e0f.htm
Opportunity
"Opportunity is the possibility that a member of the community-field will identify
with or create and implement promising innovations, and necessary resources will be
found and applied in order to sustain innovations over time" (Dorado, 2005).
Social Capital
Social capital is characterized as social relationships found in active connections,
with observed behaviors of trust, mutual understandings, reciprocity, and conformity to
norms and culturally shared meanings (Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
171998). Social capital is "realized through members' levels of goal orientation and
shared trust, which create value by facilitating successful collective action" (Leana &
Van Buren, 1999, p. 538).
Social Enterprise
Social enterprise is a social purpose venture that seeks self-sustainability through
generating revenues (Dart, 2004; Dees, 1993).
Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship is a continuous realization of opportunities to pursue
social innovations. Social innovations are adapted and developed to satisfy needs that
cannot be met by the government (Mair & Marti, 2004; Thompson, et al., 2000).
Social Entrepreneur
The social entrepreneur is one who searches for social opportunity, recognizes an
opportunity and takes action to develop this into a planned social change by mobilizing
resources (Gupta, et al., 2004; Stevens, 2003; Thompson, et al., 2000).
Social Innovation
Social innovation is the introduction of a new social purpose, product, or service
into the marketplace, or an improvement in social purpose organizations or processes.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2004).
Stakeholders
A stakeholder is "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of an organization's objectives"(Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997, p. 854).
18Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
The study was delimited as follows: the unit of analysis was limited to two
community development Initiatives in the Midwest. Although the sample population
interviewed represented one public, two private, and 12 nonprofit organizations; the two
principal or anchor organizations in the study were each organized under the U.S.
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as a 501(c) 3 Foundation (see definition, page 16).
A limitation of the study is the small representative sample of perceptions and
opinions about the patterns of behavior that describe social entrepreneurship in
community development Initiatives. There remains an inherent assumption that there will
be generalizable conclusions made in the study that will signify social entrepreneurship
processes in larger populations.
The Significance of the Study
This study will help satisfy the need for more in-depth knowledge of social
entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting from an institutional perspective. It explores the
interstitial areas connecting such disciplines as leadership, organizational behavior, and
sociology. Moreover, an important contribution will be the study of the relatively
unexplored area of how organizational processes sponsor new practices or transform
existing institutions (Lawrence, Hardy, & Phillips, 2002) and how these can be
institutionally legitimized (Mair & Marti, 2004).
This study regards social entrepreneurship as a transforming process of which the
antecedents are not well known (Mair & Marti, 2004). Therefore, an important study goal
is to uncover those entrepreneurial supports and capacities (Thompson, et al., 2000) from
within the institutional structure that allow leadership to prosper and social innovation to
19flourish. These goals are accomplished by providing the field a substantive theory of
convening opportunity through community development Initiatives, a process of social
entrepreneurship.
While this study focuses on social entrepreneurship, its findings will also give
insight into what constitutes an entrepreneurial-friendly environment or those
institutional features that nurture and support entrepreneurial behavior. Thus, study
findings will also inform rational economic models of entrepreneurship and support new
insights rather than detract.
This chapter reviewed the substantive goals of this study. A preview of the
context for the study, the complexity of the problem and its significance, the methods
used, and the guiding theoretical frameworks were addressed. The research focus and
questions guiding the research methods indicated in this chapter are addressed more fully
in subsequent chapters. The next chapter reviews literature which connects theoretical
progress in the field with the outcomes of this study.
20CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
This chapter will demonstrate the relevance of institutional theory, along with
concepts of social capital, to the understanding of social enterprise and social
innovations. Accordingly, the study will integrate literature from sociology,
organizational behavior, and leadership to lay the foundation for this multiple case study.
A brief review of social entrepreneurship provides general direction of the study.
Following this is a section that assesses relevant literature related the nonprofit setting. A
third section develops the contextual environment of the nonprofit for social
entrepreneurship. A literature map (Figure 1) is provided in Appendix A, which
demonstrates the relationship of the areas of study.
Social Entrepreneurship in the Nonprofit Setting
Understanding social entrepreneurship is complicated by the different types of
enterprises that occur in the nonprofit setting. Many nonprofit organizations that
previously relied solely on philanthropy, membership fees, or government funding are
becoming entrepreneurial by combining resources from multiple sources. A combined
model of social enterprise that serves both a financial (or for- profit) and a social mission
is referred to as having 'double bottom lines' (Dart, 2004). Organizational missions that
are social, financial, and environmental are 'triple bottom lines' (Johnson, 2000). These
new arrangements are reshaping many of the strategies, norms, and values to be
characteristically similar to that of the business sector (Dart, 2004).
To better understand social entrepreneurship a grasp of the terminology is needed.
Unfortunately, there is no standard. For example, terms of nonprofit commercial
21ventures, social entrepreneurship, institutional entrepreneurship, and nonprofit
entrepreneurship are often used interchangeably in studies on social entrepreneurship.
This may come from inconsistent definitions and perceptions of the term
'entrepreneurship'. This variation may explain emerging ideas on entrepreneurship,
specifically, regarding attitudes and activities in different cultures (Hyrsky, 1999).
Because social entrepreneurship combines business and social interests, its roots
are in the literature on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship has been under study since
early in the twentieth century (Low & McMillan, 1988). Others have applied
entrepreneurial concepts to the study of social movements during the institutionalization
of empires and religious orders. The evidence of "charismatic entrepreneurs" and
"political entrepreneurs" as actors in society has been persuasive in linking institutions
and change (Eisenstadt, 1995). The study of entrepreneurship is much like the thrill of the
pursuit to innovate. As a result, the reality is that definitions have faltered in explaining
the process.
The phenomenon of entrepreneurship is intertwined with a complex set of
contiguous and overlapping constructs such as management of change,
innovation, technological and environmental turbulence, new product
development, small business management, individualism and industrial evolution.
Furthermore, the phenomena can be productively investigated from disciplines as
varied as economics, sociology, finance, history, psychology, and anthropology,
each of which uses its own concepts and operates within its own terms of
reference. Indeed, it seems likely that the desire of common definitions and a
22clearly defined area of inquiry will remain unfulfilled in the foreseeable future.
(Low & Mac Millan, 1988, p.141).
The seminal work of Joseph Schumpeter (1934) has been explored and referenced
extensively in studies of entrepreneurship undertaken over the last half century.
Schumpeter (1939) viewed the entrepreneur as a super-heroic leader with a strong
volition to break with social traditions and create economic opportunities. In
Schumpeter's view, entrepreneurs support new inventions and transform them into market
innovations. Short term profits would then draw imitators into the market. As a result,
existing market structures would destabilize and a rebound of innovation would occur.
This model was perceived as a series of business cycles and considered economic
development (Schumpeter, 1934).
Many scholars since Schumpeter have offered models of entrepreneurship as new
venture creation. Six elements of the innovation process are frequently cited in the
literature. This model posits an entrepreneur would: (a) locate a business opportunity, (b)
accumulate resources, (c) market products and services, (d) produce the product, (e) build
an organization, and (f) respond to government and society (Gartner, 1985). Gartner
designated the individual, the organization, and the environment as the three domains in
his model. Entrepreneurship was distinguished as a process of the interaction among
these variables, which would produce a variety of organizational forms and experiences.
While many scholars refer to those entrepreneurial processes emerging from
within an organization as "intrapreneurship" (Frumkin, 2002; Kuratko & Montagno,
1989; Wortman, 1990), this study recognized social entrepreneurship as a collective
change process. Because global economic pressures have put economic development
23expectations upon nonprofit organizations and social needs have increased, social
entrepreneurship emerges through new social enterprises in existing organizations or
through collaborative means.
Historically, most institutions are at risk during turbulent times. Hughes (1942)
observed that during World War II American institutions were influenced to spare
nothing in order to mobilize people and resources. The result was that the taken-for-
granted activities performed by nonprofit organizations were likely the first to face
financial crises.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Institutional Structure
Basis of Institutional Theory
Institutional theory has contributed to the understanding of processes in
organizations. Particularly, the theory enlightens our understanding of social change
(Powell & DiMaggio, 1991), organizational adoptions of innovation (Jonsson, 2003), as
well as founding and failure rates in businesses (Martinez & Dacin, 1999).
Institutional theorists have demonstrated that organizations are embedded in
social structures. Social structures (institutional structures) make up society's cultural
expectations, norms, and behaviors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977;
Zucker, 1987). Because of this embeddedness thesis, the appropriate level of analysis to
explore human nature is at the organizational level (Granovetter, 1985).
Institutionalism focuses on symbolic elements and power. Whereas, neo-
institutionalism (thoughts instituted 1950 and forward, e.g. Berge, 2001) has focused on
legitimacy and cognitive insights. Lawrence (1999) suggested that bringing the two
24focuses together resulted in a better understanding of the environmental context and
strategies in the organization.
Scott (1992) provided a concise explanation of four approaches to institutional
theory that have been studied over the last half century (see Table 1).
Table 1. Synthesis of Seminal Approaches to Institutional Theory
Scholar(s) Seminal Approaches
Hertzler, 1937; Hughes, 1942
Institutions are social spheres. This approach combines a
view that persistence and stability are essential to the
structural/functional perspective that views society as
interrelated systems that are both symbolic (cognitive,
normative) and behavioral.
Selznick, 1949
Processes of institutionalization, which instill value, are
necessary for self-maintenance and perpetuating the
institution. Leaders are responsible for protecting the
distinctive characteristics of the organization (Scott,
1992).
Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Meyer & Rowan, 1977
The process of institutionalization creates "institutional myths". These are stable patterns of behavior
25 Tolbert & Zucker, 1994; Zucker, 1977, 1987
guided by a belief system that the institution provides
effective and necessary rules.
Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1992
The foundation of institutional systems rests on the role of
symbols, cognitive systems, and normative beliefs that are
valued over the task environment or organizational goals.
In summary, institutional theory is primarily concerned with how an organization
adapts to its institutional environment and the resulting behavioral effects. Thus, an
institutional framework describes organizational characteristics (Martinez & Dacin,
1999) that reflect the socio-political and economic context for entrepreneurial activity.
Perhaps what is most persuasive in the institutional approach is that institutionalists have
traditionally considered economic activity to be based on social values (Chasse, 1995).
Conceivably then, institutional theory will help explain, among other things, how motives
to generate resources and social values converge with one another in the social
entrepreneurship process.
Institutional Structures and Structuration Theory
Concepts of institutional structure illustrate the interconnectedness of the
nonprofit entities and the environment (see Figure 1). Institutional structure is the social
structure in an organization or setting that embodies society's cultural expectations and its
norms and behaviors. It guides action at the organizational level (DiMaggio & Powell,
261991; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) and then at the individual level (Berger & Luckmann,
1966).
A key element of the institution is the practical knowledge gleaned from "taken
for granted" processes that sanction the routines of social life (Giddens, 1984). This, of
course, varies according to the conditions of the institution. In a societal institution such
as marriage, there are "taken for granted" processes that prescribe roles or rules (or laws)
within the institution. For instance, the role to provide for physical, social, and emotional
needs is shared across the marital relationship more equally in some cultures than others.
An example of a "taken for granted" process affecting nonprofits is in the practice of
philanthropy. At least in western cultures, most people believe that giving charitably and
providing for social needs is altruistic (Piliavin & Hong-Wen, 1990).
Processes in institutions are termed "institutional knowledge" (Giddens, 1984).
This knowledge is a boundary for structuring the enduring set of activities that make up
the institution. To identify what or how changes occur, it is helpful to link institutional
elements with structuration theory.
"Structuration theory suggests that the ability to go on within social routines, to
enact social practice, requires knowledge in the form of rules" (Lawrence, 1999, p.164).
These rules are the "techniques or generalizable procedures applied in the
enactment/reproduction of social practices" (Gidden, 1984, p. 21). Rules and standards
then give reason (or structure) to a variety of recurring social practices, resulting in
institutionalized sets of rules or structures, including hierarchical status. The rules of
hierarchies in a social structure are identified in numerous ways. For example, the office
27of a graduate student will have fewer resources and amenities than a Professor, a
Department Chair, or a Chancellor in a University setting.
Giddens' (1984) theory of structuration is a middle ground theory between agency
and environmental determinism (Jones & Conway, 2004). In the tenants of structuration
theory, structure does not necessarily dictate over the individual (agent). Rather, human
action can also influence structure. Thus, this provides an opening for leadership or
entrepreneurship theory to have relevance and potentially a pivotal role in these structural
arrangements. Leaders act as change agents and new structures can be developed.
Following the example of the offices in the hierarchy above, this can relate to leaders
who choose to flatten hierarchical structures and distribute resources more evenly. Or in
the case of the social entrepreneur, an innovative arrangement of resources will impact
structure.
Institutional structures (i.e., those rules, roles, practices, and beliefs) are
incorporated into both the formal and informal processes of organizations through
normative behavior (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). This normative behavior is developed by
individuals who rely fundamentally upon the institutionalized social structure to achieve
approval or legitimacy in their organizations (Lawrence, 1999). Although each
organization has its own distinctive rules, norms, and standards, these structures are
subordinate to the larger socio-cultural norms and rules of their institutional environment
(Hollingsworth, 2000). For instance, an after-school program may have rules, norms, and
standards of how it operates and how rules are enforced. However, the organization
overseeing the project may be subject to external rules, standards, and norms from the
nonprofit setting. Further up this chain of influence, the nonprofit setting is obligated by
28policies and dependent upon the culture and national interests of the environment to
which it belongs. Institutional space refers to those sets of cultural values and perceptions
(the "collective mental programming") that support socio-cultural identity (Hofstede,
1984, p. 21). This institutional space is evident at all levels.
The notion of structure being a process is important. Structure occurs in and
through the institutional environment relative to its national setting (Hofstede, 1984;
Howard, 1994). This helps explain the influence that national culture has on
entrepreneurial orientations (e.g. Tan, 2002). As agents interact with the conditions in
their structural environment, behavior is either constrained or facilitated by institutional
forces. Forces within the institutional environment for nonprofit entities appear to be
societal, demographic, and economic in nature (DiMaggio & Anheier, 1990). So, an
individual or organization advancing social innovation has a complex environment in
which to create change.
29
Institutional Space
National Setting
Economic and Socio- Political Context
Culture
Beliefs
Nonprofit Initiatives
Behavior
Facilitation
Constraints
Figure 2. Flow of process in Institutional environments: A domination view of antecedent variables in a social structure
Institutional Perspectives of Social Entrepreneurship
The underlying institutional theories useful to develop a theory of social
entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting were reviewed in the previous section. This
section will use the nomenclature of Scott (1995) to organize empirical evidence proving
that an institutional perspective is appropriate for developing an explanatory theory in the
nonprofit setting. It is the tension between the rigors of institutionalism and the need for
innovative action to serve social purposes that will be addressed in this study.
Scott (1995) offered a contemporary typology for behavior in organizations based
on "three pillars" of institutional structure (see Table 2).
30Table 2.
A Typology of Institutional Theory
Pillars Regulative Normative Cognitive
(Sense-making)
Basis of Compliance Expedience Social obligation Taken for granted
Mechanisms Coercive Normative Mimetic
Logic Instrumentality Appropriateness Orthodoxy
Indicators Rules, laws,
sanctions Certification
Prevalence of
isomorphism
Basis of Legitimacy Legally sanctioned Morally governed Culture, knowledge
Note: Adapted from Berge, 2001, found October 17, 2004 at
www.sv.ntnu.no/iss/Erling.Berge
Regulative
The distribution of power (e.g. Bourdieu, 1989), is a regulative principle of
institutional theory. Power is a relational practice exercised within institutional
boundaries. This is what guides the sociological perspective that leadership is a practice.
It is also perceived as influence or pressure stemming from the institutional space. An
example of power at the organizational level was shown in Wicks' (2004) study of non-
tenured faculty. Study results indicated that administration manipulated and controlled
31situations through rules and practices in order to meet organizational goals. Therefore,
rules and practices contributed to the established hierarchy, which included both
incentives and constraints to enforce compliance.
Another example of power in institutional functioning is found in the government
having broad power over other institutions. As is the case for the nonprofit, the
structuring of the sector is largely determined by governmental regulations regarding
taxation (Euske & Euske, 1991). Clarke's (2001) essay explained this relationship, noting
that because nonprofit organizations operate in a "quasi-market" context, there are
constraints of laws and rules operating at many levels (which lead to isomorphism in the
sector).
However, the government's conferring legal status as a nonprofit also confers
legitimacy. Legitimacy facilitates how organizations are able to access resources and hold
status within society (Baum & Oliver, 1991). In turn, the expectations from the
institutional environment are translated into the structure and operations of the nonprofit
sector (Euske & Euske, 1991). Legitimacy, both legally and socially, will constrain any
deviance from standards set in the sector (Miller, 2002).
The coercive pressure from society's expectations and inter-dependencies is a
universal concept associated with institutional theory (Zucker, 1987). Essentially, the
public sector can use rules and regulations to enforce compliance (Frumkin, 2002). For
instance, nonprofit organizations are being pressured from Managed Care regulations
(Clouties-Fisher & Skinner, 2006). Furthermore, new corporate oversight legislation in
the Sarbane-Oxley Act of July 2002 has state and federal officials interested in increasing
regulations over the nonprofit sector.
32As recent as February 2006, the Internal Revenue Service issued a report to
advise the nonprofit sector after citing several tax-exempt organizations, primarily
churches, for politicking during the 2004 campaigns. Laws prohibit charities from
participating in political campaigns (IRS Report 302, 2006).
The nonprofit sector uses its goodwill with external organizations to promote its
collective goals. This clearly distinguishes the nonprofit from the public sector (Frumkin,
2002). Goodwill between organizations will facilitate social innovation. Social
movements require good working relationships. However, politics from within nonprofit
organizations can induce conformance and constrain innovation.
In a study of six United Way state associations, Rugh (1996) found political
power, internally or externally, can impede social innovation by interfering with
consensus building. Building trust and reciprocal behaviors were an integral part of
managing power relationships.
Thus, regulative dimensions of institutional structures have dictated much of the
organizational conformity in the nonprofit setting. It has also limited the institutions'
ability to be innovative. That is why policy is so critical to sustaining changes that result
from social innovation.
Normative
Institutional theory has been useful in demonstrating how organizations adopt
some policies that are primarily for symbolic value, so that they may have external
legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). As an example, since the Enron debacle of 2001,
many organizations looked carefully at the tenets of social responsibility in order to
33maximize shareholder and consumer confidences. This led to more language around
"accountability" in the nonprofit sector (Raymond, 2004).
Normative and mimetic pressures can be a consequence of professionalization.
These are explained as a need to reduce uncertainty (Martinez & Dacin, 1999) or to
stabilize behaviors (Tolbert & Zucker, 1994). Many workgroup norms would be an
example, such as found in Meyerson's (1994) study.
Meyerson's (1994) study found that interpretations of ambiguity, burnout, and
general job stress were both normal and desirable in social work ideology. Her study
illuminated the relationship between daily individual (micro) processes and the macro
institutional forces. Secondly, organizational culture reflected and reinforced institutional
characteristics.
Affirming legitimacy is a dynamic process that requires time to affect change.
Therefore, some norms can be based on a societal myth. Because of this expectations,
rather than realities, often guide legitimacy (Euske & Euske, 1991). Wicks (2004), in a
case study of two Canadian academics, examined the institutional legitimacy of tenure.
Tenure (because of its enduring character) is an institution resistant to change. The
outcomes of tenure, which were limited in this analysis to the support of academic
freedom and trade-off for higher pay, were considered an institutional myth. Tenure
purportedly protects academic freedoms; however, the study suggested that tenure is a
mechanism for constraining or controlling behaviors.
The legitimacy of an institution is not evaluated necessarily against specific
standards, but against traditions. For example, the success for new religious start-ups is
dependent upon social perceptions of how credible the founders' commitment is to the
34religious beliefs that represent a larger community of faith. If the espoused religion is
deviant from legitimized forms, the likeliness of success dwindles (Miller, 2002). In the
entrepreneurship field, it has been shown that new organizational forms will struggle with
legitimacy and external stakeholders may resist innovation (Aldrich, 1999). Thus, if any
traditions, which are held as normative behaviors, are changed by social innovation or if
new institutional forms emerge there may be resistance. For example, it is probable that if
a new social innovation, such as a large Initiative with multiple partners pooling cutting –
edge resources, was made available as a resource for communities and the Initiative
charged for services, there would be resistance if previously the government had
provided a similar (or perceived to be similar) service for no or low cost.
If legitimating is critical for innovation, then what else should be considered?
Networks and social support are related with legitimacy and important facilitators of
innovation by creating environments of trust and understanding (Deeds, Mang, &
Frandsen, 2004; Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004).
Cognitive
Cognitive processes in institutional theory have been well studied (Covin &
Slevin, 1989; Keh, Foo & Lim, 2002; Mitchell, Busenitz, & Lant, 2002). The focus has
been primarily on opportunity recognition in different environments.
The socio-cultural environments of entrepreneurship have explained cultural level
influences that impact individual-level decisions to be entrepreneurial (Begley & Tan,
2001; Hayton, George, & Zahra, 2002; Tan, 2002). Hayton, George, and Zahra's (2002)
meta-analysis of entrepreneurship in 21 empirical studies reinforced culture as a key-
determinant that influences motives, values, and beliefs of individuals. Whereas, Tan's
35(2002) study looked more specifically at culture and national effects and found
national differences were found to be more influential than ethnicity. Tan's study
suggested the importance of institution-building in promoting an entrepreneurial-friendly
environment.
Institutional theory has been a useful framework for numerous studies related to
innovation. Studies in absorptive capacity, where firms are able to recognize value in
external opportunities, assimilate the opportunity, and apply it to for profit (e.g. Cohen, &
Levinthal, 1996), or strategy and decision-making in entrepreneurship (e.g. Ireland, Hitt,
& Sirmon, 2003) have also provided a breadth of understanding to the study of
entrepreneurship. However, few empirical studies of the nonprofit sector have provided
much detail in the areas of capacities, strategies, and decision-making from an
institutional perspective.
Mohr (1969) examined the determinants of innovation. His research confirmed
that innovations are the "function of interaction among the motivation to innovate, the
strength of obstacles against innovation, and the availability of resources to overcome
such obstacles (p. 111)." Overall, Mohr's findings on innovation influenced current
definitions of innovation in an applied setting (e.g. Glor, 1997).
Institutional environments and processes that foster social entrepreneurship are of
interest in this study. Social network theory has been used to describe the links between
entrepreneurs, opportunities, and resources. Primarily the theory has described the broad
and complex social process of entrepreneurship that personality-based theory does not
explain (Amit et al., 1993). Because these personal and professional networks are
instrumental in changing institutional structures (Lawrence, 1999), the study of social
36entrepreneurship will gain by connecting to larger bodies of existing network research,
such as social capital frameworks (Johnson, 2000).
Social Capital as a Transforming Tool
A tenet of social capitalism is that recurrent patterns of interpersonal interaction
will foster ties of trust and reciprocity that result in formal and informal alliances. The
social capital framework extends beyond socialization tactics because its results become
embedded into the structure of the organization. Work in organizational behavior has
determined that formal organizations are made of informal networks of reciprocity
(Bendor & Mookherjee, 1987; Burt, 1992). Moreover, significant work by Burt (1992)
provided the field multiple empirical analyses that explain a network phenomenon of
social capital at the organizational level.
Over the past decade Burt's studies demonstrated that structural holes, which are
the absence or relative weakness of connections between people, offer opportunities for
"entrepreneurial behavior" in order to access the knowledge of others. Social capital is
built through interpersonal relationships in social networks, increasing the flow of
information for the benefit the organization (Granovetter, 1977; Burt, 1998).
Burt suggested that social capital and social structure are a parallel phenomenon.
Giddens (1979) opined that a structure that does not translate into action cannot truly be a
'social' phenomenon. Social capital may be what drives structure.
Studies on social capital have been meaningful to the nonprofit sector as
organizations must rely upon coalitions to sustain themselves (Clarke, 2002). The ability
to mobilize and use resources is being entrepreneurial (Loidl-Keil, 2002). A better
understanding of how social capital is acquired and used in institutional structures may
37answer several questions. How does social capital commit others to the organization
and its mission in the process of social entrepreneurship? How do these ties move
innovation and risk-taking in an institutional structure?
Measurement Issues in Relevant Research
The previous literature reviewed has demonstrated an abbreviated view of the
scope of research on social entrepreneurship. Other empirical measures have added to the
understanding as it relates to supporting theories. The Aston measures have been used
over the last few decades to examine organizational features of innovation (Osborne,
1998; Walker, Jeanes & Rowlands, 2002). These measures originally contained five
structural variables (centralization, formalization, standardization, specialization, and
configuration) and eight contextual variables (size, age, founding, technology,
ownership/control, dispersal of locations, charter, and external resource dependency).
The measures are useful in examining characteristics of innovative organizations;
however, the measures do not demonstrate the way organizations can manage or develop
innovations (Walker, et al., 2002).
Social capital also has been an illusive concept to measure. The most consistent
empirical approach to measuring social capital has been to align it with the definition
used in a particular study. Thus, network theory has been used extensively (e.g. Burt,
1992; 1997a; 1997b; 1998) but has not been used to fully explore the relationship factors
that mobilize individuals or bind them to the collective. No consistent scale to measure
effects at the organizational or community level has evolved, so proxies are used in most
research into social capital. For example a sense of attachment to a community (e.g.
Cordes, et al. 2003; Miller, 2001; Pooley, Cohen & Pike, 2005).
38In summary, there is no set of uniform variables that adequately explain the
process of social entrepreneurship as it relates to social capital or institutional theory. The
social entrepreneurship process may be the nexus of leadership influence, institutional
structure, and social capital in nonprofit organizations.
The Context of Nonprofit Settings
This section delves more deeply into the research that has guided the nonprofit
sector and explains its role in the context of the national setting. The first part of the
section explains theories as they relate to nonprofit organizations. Following this
discussion are sections organized by how institutional practices have guided the sector.
Social entrepreneurship research and theoretical viewpoints are integrated into this
section.
Salamon and Anheier's (1998) theoretical perspectives are helpful to gain an
overall sense of the evolution and role of the nonprofit sector. An abbreviated table is
offered in summary (see Table 3).
Table 3.
Synthesis of Theory in the Emergence of Nonprofit Organizations
Theory Explanation for emergence of an NPO
Government
Failure/Market Failure
Based on the classical economic perception that the market
is limited to supply sufficient quantities of "public goods".
39Supply-Side Under particular circumstances, people (social
entrepreneurs) have an incentive to create a nonprofit organization to meet a demand.
Trust Due to a lack of information to judge the quality of goods or services, purchasers will seek alternative bases to establish trust. The nonprofit sector may achieve trustworthiness because they are less likely to be operating solely for financial gain.
Welfare State The nonprofit sector exists as a residual to what the state cannot or does not provide.
Interdependence There is an interdependence and partnership between the state and the nonprofit sector.
Social Origins Based on an embeddedness perspective, where prevailing social and economic structures will have significant impacts on nonprofit structures.
Note. Adapted from Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-
nationally by Salamon, L.M., & Anheier, H.K. (1998). International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213-248.
The theory of social origins coincides with a demand-side perspective on social
entrepreneurship. The demand-side view, as stated earlier in Chapter I, closely examined
the context in which entrepreneurship emerges (Frumkin, 2002; Stevens, 2003; Thornton,
401999). This typology further demonstrates the potential for social theories to
understand the emergent process of social entrepreneurship and contextual impacts.
Nonprofit Institutional Structures –Traditions and Values
The four functions of the nonprofit sector noted by Frumkin (2002) are to
promote political and civic engagement, to deliver critical social services, to be a vehicle
for social entrepreneurship, and serve as an outlet for expression of faith and values. It is
his premise that "only when nonprofits achieve important successes in each of their
functions will they receive and sustain financial support and public acceptance that they
need to continue to grow" (p. vi). Social entrepreneurship appears to be explained as a
normative behavior in the nonprofit sector. Institutional theory predicts that the more an
activity becomes a state of "taken-for-grantedness", the greater the possibility that it
becomes institutionalized (Wicks, 2004).
No unified theory of social entrepreneurship exists (Bygrave, D'Heilly,
McMullen, & Taylor, 1996; Johnson, 2000). Social entrepreneurship is dominated by
practice (Johnson, 2000) and social models of entrepreneurship are not distinguished as
separate in many research agendas. The breadth of interdisciplinary research in
entrepreneurship is "mind-boggling" (Kickul, Krueger, & Maxfield, 2005). Even
premiere research conferences blend economic and social entrepreneurship under one
umbrella (e.g. the annual Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference).
There are challenges in the nonprofit sector that affect the sustainability of
programs (Pietroburgo & Wernet, 2004). Nonprofit organizations have moved more
toward fees and charges for services, which has attracted for-profit entities to compete for
providing these services (Salamon, 1999). Contracts with government and the private
41sector have required a reengineering of the nonprofit sector's ability to provide
effective and cost efficient services. Greater efforts have been made by nonprofit
organizations to build internal capacities to provide and sustain programming (Lets, Ryan
& Groomsman, 1999).
Traditionally, there has been trust in the nonprofit sectors ability to be good
stewards of philanthropic dollars. The new market-like character of the sector has
undermined some of this trust. According to Salamon (2004), "a serious fault line seems
to have opened in the foundation of public trust on which the entire edifice of the
nonprofit sector rests" (p. 29). Values are a prominent feature of the sector. Volunteerism,
pluralism, altruism and participation are the hallmarks (DiMaggio & Anheier, 1990).
These values have reflected the American political values of minimalist government,
pragmatism, and individualism (Clarke, 2001). Apparently the mainstay values conflict
ideologically with the market-like quality of the sector. Consequently, the increased
demands on leadership to follow current business trends must be balanced with
preserving public perceptions of the organizations social character. It is beneficial for the
role of nonprofit entities to be more visible (Raymond, 2004), and to have organizational
accountability foremost on their agendas (Lee, 2003).
There is growing concern by some who dispute the tax-exempt status for
nonprofit organizations engaged in commercial ventures (Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003;
Lets, Ryan, & Groomsman, 1999). There are some nonprofit-qualifying outliers, such as
the National Football League (which has saved club owners under nonprofit IRS rulings
millions of dollars by securing low interest loans for stadium projects (Peter, 2002).
However, the majority of nonprofits work hard to encourage public trust. To do so, they
42must clearly demonstrate the connection between their social mission and their money-
making ventures.
Government reaffirmed a commitment to monitor the nonprofit sector. A
"Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2" created in 1996 and refined in 1998, imposed penalties for
501(c) 3 and 501 (c) 4 organizations to control excessive compensation and benefits
given to employees (Burnstein, Boulanger & Batchis, 2001). And more permanent
guidelines have been mandated under Internal Revenue Code 4958. This highlighted
accountability and transparency as growing issues for the nonprofit sector.
Institutional Practices – Capacity Issues
To better understand social innovations, it is necessary to examine organizational
capacities. Capacities refer to operations, structures, and processes that shape and
influence action (Sowa, Selden, & Sandfort, 2004). Few detailed models of good practice
exist in the literature on nonprofit organizations (Johnson, 2000). However, there are
many books and magazines that explain how to run a nonprofit entity. What is salient to
the capacity issue is that, according to Salamon (2003), effectiveness in the sector is
actually determined by organizational capacity.
The question of whether the nonprofit organization has the capacity to be flexible
and endure the risks involved for social entrepreneurship is an important one. Scale of the
organization is significant. The flexible organization has more opportunity to forward
social innovation. An ability to have lean, flexible organizations with decentralized
knowledge and action is relevant to size and access to resources (Raymond, 2004). Small
organizations have challenges. The majority of nonprofit organizations have incomes of
less than $25,000 with limited market share. "Only three percent of nonprofits have
43expenses over $10 million; 43.2 percent have assets of under $100,000" (Raymond,
2004, p. 103). Many nonprofit organizations are limited by their budgets to acquire the
many advantages available in technology (Raymond, 2004; Salamon, 2003).
An 'effective' organization in the nonprofit setting has, (a) effective boards as
determined by stakeholder groups, (b) boards with higher social prestige, (c) use of
management techniques that have been accepted as a norm among practitioners, and (d)
change management strategies (Herman & Renz, 1998). Effectiveness is not a property of
the organization (such as an employee); it is socially constructed as a set of judgments
from stakeholders.
Establishing benchmarks for effectiveness is difficult. There are twenty-seven
types of tax exempt 501 (c) organizations alone (Raymond, 2004). Their missions range
from educational, civic, social, fraternal, health, legal, religion, to arts and culture. These
organizations target specific, needy populations to provide direct services or jobs with
competitive wages (Boschee, 1995; Raymond, 2004). Even though the variety of services
can be somewhat simplified as having "mutual benefit" or "public benefit" (Lee, 2003),
effectiveness is still determined by outsiders' perceptions of mission fulfillment (Kaplan,
2001).
Unfortunately, the rational economic model of entrepreneurship has demonstrated
that many small community-based organizations cannot compete as well as larger
organizations (Ireland, Hitt & Sirmon, 2003). As stated earlier, the size of most
organizations in the nonprofit sector may limit their success in competitive situations.
44Institutional Practices – Strategic Readiness
Under an economic model of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs are seen to create
value in a crowded market by creating new markets that move the economy forward
(Sullivan Mort, et al., 2003). Whereas, nonprofit entities differentiate themselves in a
crowded market through social entrepreneurship to add value by solving social issues
(Barman, 2002). Because social entrepreneurship serves as an important benchmark to
grow or sustain nonprofit organizations, it may be plausible that social entrepreneurship
is motivated by a need for differentiation to attract new stakeholders or retain current
ones. This may provide evidence that social entrepreneurship is a strategy for
continuation.
A better understanding of strategies for the adoption of market principles is
needed in the nonprofit sector (Salamon, 2003). According to Sullivan Mort,
Weerawardena, and Carnegie (2003), "entrepreneurship and marketing are closely related
(p. 77)." Businesses can adopt strategies to address market demands while adjusting or
expanding their missions. Conversely, nonprofit organizations must maintain their social
mission as they look for innovative strategies. How social enterprises are marketed will
greatly impact social perceptions and success at market entry (Sullivan, et al., 2003).
There is a stream of literature on corporate entrepreneurship that from a rational
economic point of view that examines strategy for gaining competitive advantages and
increased firm performance (e.g. Ireland, Kuratko, & Covin, 2003; Zahara, Jennings, &
Kuratko, 1999). Businesses are adopting innovation as part of their vision and culture.
Thus, they use entrepreneurial approaches in their strategic planning. Ireland and
colleagues contended (2003) that entrepreneurial approaches are really adaptive strategies
45reacting to ''triggers" from the external environment. This pursuit for opportunity and
growth, they stated, should define the "essence of the firm's functioning" (p. L1). Hence,
corporate entrepreneurship is strategic in nature.
Corporate entrepreneurship then is a process of committed action at the
organizational level. Given the economic crisis in the nonprofit sector, are organizations
committed to new ways of acting and responding, including corporate social
entrepreneurship throughout their stakeholder networks? Is there evidence that there are
institutional constraints attributed to the social entrepreneurship process?
Institutional Practices – Inter-Institutional Behaviors and Alliances
New small businesses spur the economy, in part, by replacing outdated
companies. The larger organizational mergers stimulate increases in market size,
reportedly due to more efficient operations. What is not clear according to Raymond
(2004) is whether these "death cycles" or the "urge to merge" scenarios are as useful in
the nonprofit sector. If it is so, Raymond suggested that perhaps mergers and alliances
may be what are needed to alleviate the current trend in declining revenues in the
nonprofit sector. At present, hospitals, educational institutions, and only a small number
of charities are able to successfully launch social enterprises (Thompson et al., 2000).
Cross-sector alliances between business and social enterprise are promising
events. These alliances have helped sustain nonprofit organizations while benefiting
communities (Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003). Clay and Bangs (2000) provided a case-study
of a public and nonprofit library system finding private funding. Fund raising and
development have become necessary in library budgets, in part due to the costs associated
with technology. In this situation the library reinvented itself as a public service
46corporation. Strategy, information symmetry, mobilization of volunteers, innovative
thinking, and strong evaluation processes helped strengthen their position in forging a
private-public partnership. This was enforced through a managerial committee that
oversaw the requirements to match goals and funding objectives that met requirements
for legitimacy, including its tax-exempt status. Among other strategies, the library
leveraged use of their foundation to attract financial support and partnered with two local
utility companies to provide additional funding for their environmental collection. The
study provided an exceptional example of a well orchestrated strategy to move processes
through institutional structures.
Institutional Practices - Leadership
Strengthening vision, leadership, and resources are fundamental to continuation of
the nonprofit sector (Thompson et al., 2000). Even though the capabilities and qualities of
leaders are important, the concept of leadership as a process was often overlooked (Bate,
Kahn, & Pye, 2000). Leadership was the identifiable pattern of behavior in the institution
(Howlett, 2003). In the nonprofit setting, leadership can be distributed across the
structure through key stakeholders. Building leadership can be an asset of the system,
rather than a single person
As mentioned earlier, leadership capacities in the nonprofit sector are challenged
from a lack of marketing and financial management skills needed for a market-based
approach to social innovation (Raymond, 2004; Zietlow, 2001). In a paper by Lasprogata
and Cotten (2003), a 'call' to be entrepreneurial in the sector also required an ability to
understand the legal implications of new enterprise and apply well-informed decision-
making skills to the process. This included how to commercialize core programming or
47adopt new programs to commercialize. Sometimes this requires establishing a separate
independent business enterprise, forming a second nonprofit corporation, or forming
subsidiaries. New organizational forms will require balancing social missions and
revenues with its nonprofit status.
Leadership is instrumental in change processes. A study by Nathanson and
Morlock (1980) demonstrated that it was not the resourcefulness of an individual that
brought forward innovation in the organization, it was the leadership capacity. Secondly,
while the nonprofit sector is characterized by its ability to work collectively, it was
determined that centralized power in a hospital setting facilitated innovation. This was
counter to Raymond's (2004) assertion that lean, flexible organizations with decentralized
knowledge and action are more able to be entrepreneurial.
More entrepreneurial talent is needed in the nonprofit sector. An emerging talent
was characterized as being more holistic in their thinking and possessing strong personal
values of social activism (Raymond, 2004; Salamon, 2003). Leaders must be more
skillful in collaborating and decision-making (Henton, Melville, & Walesh, 1997;
Johnson, 2000).
Summary
The review of literature informed and provided an historical context for social
entrepreneurship. Previous studies made apparent the institutionally charged and complex
nonprofit environment. Also, relationship-building was featured as an asset of the
organization. Moreover, studies found social entrepreneurship is an interdisciplinary area
that remains in flux.
48CHAPTER III
Procedures
This chapter outlines the procedures used in this qualitative multiple case study.
First, the assumptions and rationale for a qualitative design are explored. Following this,
the grounded theory design is briefly described, as is the role of the researcher, data
collection procedures, data analysis procedures, methods of verification, and the
procedures for reporting the outcomes of the study.
Assumptions and Rationale for a Qualitative Design
The core concepts associated with scientific analysis are philosophical in nature;
they are the beliefs or assumptions researchers bring to a study. These concepts help to
explain that there is lack of perfection in research because humans are involved (the
individual as a researcher). This imperfection relates to how these assumptions influence
research design and the efforts to understand the meaning of it all (Bryant, 2004). The
qualitative paradigm used in this study possessed assumptions of knowledge claims about
how the researcher will learn and what will be learned (Creswell, 2002b). These
knowledge claims were the underpinnings of this primary research and the stimulus for
selection of a grounded theory approach to the study.
Knowledge Claims
The qualitative paradigm is based on a constructivist principle: the belief that
reality is socially and subjectively constructed (Merriam, 1998; Creswell, 2002a, 2002b).
The socially-constructed institutional and social capital framework used as a backdrop to
social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector indicates a naturalistic inquiry found in
49qualitative research. The array of participants' world-views explained the social
activity within culture and context (Allan, 1991).
Interpretive research requires an understanding and analysis that is induced by the
researcher. The researcher interacts with the participants to get close to the findings.
Guba and Lincoln (1989) opined that the "inquirer and the inquired-into are interlocked
in such a way that the findings of an investigation are the literal creation of the inquiry
process" (p. 84). In this multiple case study, preconceived theory is used inductively to
integrate with the emerging theory. A priori theory has interpretive value to understand
another's reality and to explain behaviors or attitudes, particularly for an event, process,
or situation (Creswell, 2002a; Merriam, 1998).
A qualitative approach means the researcher is a participant with full awareness
that it is a values-laden process (Dixon-Woods & Fitzpatrick, 2001) factoring in personal
experiences and orientations. The researcher is an instrument in data collection (Dixon-
Woods & Fitzpatrick, 2001; Merriam, 1998). Therefore, a researcher's worldview is
relevant. While having acknowledged experience and knowledge in the areas of
community, education, entrepreneurship, and the nonprofit sector, the researcher
attempted to establish an objective stance toward the content and findings as they
emerged.
Methodological Assumptions
An objective of this study was to develop a theory of social entrepreneurship that
was grounded in context by using a qualitative case study approach. Merriam (1998)
stated that if variables are so embedded into the situation as to be impossible to identify
ahead of time, case study is likely to be the best choice. Using the case study approach,
50questions of 'how' and 'what' gained access to the thoughts, ideas and emotions of the
participants that would not be available in a quantitative approach.
A second endeavor was to explore the process of social entrepreneurship using
institutional theories and a supporting framework of social capital. This attempt to bridge
theory as a new theory emerged was evidenced in the types of questions asked and probes
used. This use of predetermined theory helped to shape the problem statement (Merriam,
1998) and was also a more purposeful application of what Glaser (1978) called "skip and
dip".
Glaser (1978) stated that the inductive, grounded theory design requires the
researcher to read widely in substantive areas prior to fieldwork somewhat different than
the actual target phenomenon. As the project enfolds, the researcher will then read and
incorporate research that is more specific to the research area studied. Glaser suggested
that the researcher can "skip and dip, thereby gaining greater coverage, since he now has
a clear purpose for covering his field, which is to integrate his generated theory with the
other literature in the field" (p. 32). It is clearly the researcher's objective to position the
emerged theory as middle ground into the macro institutional theory and discover how
the emergent theory may link to other theoretical frameworks. This, then, guides the last
objective of the study.
A third objective of the study was to integrate previous findings from multiple
academic disciplines. A grounded theory of convening opportunity will expand
interdisciplinary theories of leadership and social entrepreneurship. This emerging theory
helped to bear out recommendations or propose best practices for Community
Development Initiatives in the social entrepreneurship process. Merriam (1998)
51emphasized that qualitative research is a holistic process that relates how interrelated
parts form a whole. Entrepreneurship is considered a sequence of activity and behaviors,
including the perception of opportunity. The characteristics of this holistic process are to
create a new organization and pursue opportunities (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Hofer &
Bygrave, 1992). Therefore, it was necessary to match the right methods to the purpose of
the study.
Grounded theory has been useful in examining leadership processes (Kan &
Parry, 2005; McCaslin, 1993; Parry, 1998). Because researchers in the field of leadership
use primarily psychometric testing of variables, an "enduring and integrative theory of
leadership" (Parry, 1998, p. 85) has not evolved. Leadership is a social influence process
and is best measured when the broader social context is considered.
Given that future research agendas have called for more study on organizational
processes of entrepreneurship (Zahra et al., 1999) and specifically, social
entrepreneurship (Mair & Marti, 2003), then grounded theory, a comprehensive
qualitative method, was an optimal choice to meet the study criteria. A grounded theory
approach within this substantive area helps to resolve some of the deficiencies of
quantitative measures by exploring and integrating context.
Type of Design
A Grounded Theory Multiple Case Study
Grounded theory design is a "systematic, qualitative procedure used to generate a
theory that explains at a broad conceptual level, a process, an action, or interaction about
a substantive topic" (Creswell, 2002a, p. 439). The procedure involves the constant
comparison of data with the emerging categories and continual sampling. This procedure
52maximizes the similarities and differences in the data, grounding the theory in the
views of the relevant participants (Creswell, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Grounded theory methods were discovered by sociologists Barney Glaser and
Anselm Strauss in the late 1960's. This method of research emanated from studies of
terminally ill patients. It was Glaser and Strauss' contention that discovering theory based
on concepts derived directly from participants will better fit the situation being
researched than the more predominant sociological methods of verifying and testing
theories (Creswell, 2002a; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
The properties of a grounded sociological theory related well to the objectives of
this study, particularly, opportunities in Community Development Initiatives. The
properties of a functional grounded theory are: (a) the theory fits closely to the area of
study; (b) it is understandable by laymen concerned with this area of study; (c) it is
sufficiently general so as to apply to daily situations; and (d) a person applying this
theory can have control in everyday application of the theory to make it useful (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967).
Merriam (1998), in defining case study, concluded that the process of case study
is melded between the unit of study and the type of investigation. This study was an
instrumental case study. Primarily, the cases considered were secondary to the goal of
understanding an evolving theory of social entrepreneurship (Creswell, 2002b).
Consistent with the grounded theory methods, the significance and scope of
domain and process were determined. The unit or domain level of analysis was apparent
following a pilot test of the study protocol. The researcher was advised by an Executive
Director in one of the nonprofit organizations that to truly explore processes "you will
53want to study the initiative, which is our process of being entrepreneurial." Each
initiative was explored at the domain level. "Domains can be thought of as the set of
actors (individuals, groups, and/or organizations) that become joined by a common
problem or interest (Gray, 1985, p. 915)".
Exploring initiatives allowed the study to change the unit of analysis to the
domain rather than an organizational set. This approach gave field level results as well.
The field level focuses on the interaction between the aggregate community and its
environment. A field is the result of community members' interactions, mutual influence
of one another, and the shared meanings produced from these interactions (Smets, 2005;
Wilkinson, 1991).
The Role of the Researcher
The researcher's bias is that the researcher's worldview is centered in experience
and knowledge of the subject area. The researcher's past experience as a board member in
a nonprofit organization, several years experience as a practitioner in Community
Development, graduate education in relevant disciplines, and many years of experience in
management and leadership roles. This experience base was helpful in gaining entry into
the field portion of the study and was also useful in understanding terms or jargon used in
the field. The disadvantage was an over curiosity of the researcher, since it is an area of
interest to the researcher. The predetermined organization and techniques prescribed in
the Strauss and Corbin (1998) methods were beneficial. This technique consistently
grounds the analysis in data. The constant comparative analysis and simultaneous data
collection also gave sufficient opportunity for the researcher to remain close to the data
and not force the development of theory.
54Glaser and Strauss (1967) called this relationship between the researcher and
the data 'theoretical sensitivity'. It is an expected feature of grounded theory development.
There are two characteristics of the researcher's temperament that define theoretical
sensitivity. The first is an ability to have theoretical insight. The second is an ability to
use the insight to make connections into that particular area of research. Theory that
emerges in the study is derived from data and must be "illustrated by characteristic
examples of data"(p.5), which further keeps the researcher close to the data.
Techniques to reduce the data are essential in the application of grounded theory.
The interview in grounded theory follows the criteria of qualitative research and is
dialogic. However, it is necessary to move from broad to specific in order to reduce the
data to specific patterns of activity or behavior. Hence, it is useful to use less structured
questioning in the first phase of the study and to use very specific questions as the
substantive theory emerge. A blueprint or knowledge structure of these patterns is a
constructive guide for the researcher (Cohen, 1989). As the data are reduced the
researcher is able to integrate other types of data into the study and into the final analysis.
Data Collection Procedures
Sampling Parameters
A pilot test of the protocol began in July 2005 with seven in-depth interviews of
key decision-makers representing four nonprofit organizations. This purposeful sampling
provided information-rich details that identified the 'how' of processes as well as who,
what, and where (Sandelowski, 2000). There are 27 types of tax-exempt organizations.
So, a purposeful sampling technique was chosen (see Table 4).
55Table 4.
Sampling Parameters
Sampling Parameters Possible Choices
Settings Nonprofit organizations classified as 501(c) 3 with a mission that emphasized educational programming or advocacy for awareness.
Actors Key-decision makers as identified by the organizations.
Events A social innovation as determined by the organizations.
Processes The actions, reactions, and strategies that introduce new ideas, opportunities, and influence the process of social entrepreneurship.
Sampling Method
A qualitative design assumes the refocusing of the parameters for sampling
throughout the study (Merriam, 1998). Thus, organizations were initially selected based
on recommendations given through nonprofit networks and referrals. Data collected in
the pilot phase demonstrated that nonprofit organizations may not be entrepreneurial.
Once data had been collected that determined entrepreneurial processes could not be
examined, it was beneficial to focus on Initiatives in the nonprofit setting as
entrepreneurial processes. It also became evident to the researcher that a grounded theory
approach would provide rigor as a qualitative technique to examine structure and process.
Thus, purposive sampling changed to theoretical sampling as the study progressed, so
that participants were recruited according to the needs of the developing theory (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967, p. 45). This became a process of simultaneous data collection and data
56analysis. Strauss and Corbin (1998) stressed the importance of careful theoretical
sampling because it gives the researcher maximum opportunity to sequentially relate the
emerging theory to new concepts derived from participants.
By August 2005 the sample was refocused to participants representing public,
private, and nonprofit organizations involved in either of two Initiatives. A total of 22
people were interviewed between July 2005 and March 2006. Second and third round
interviews included six of the former respondents. Initial interviews from seven
participants not related to the two foci Initiatives were used to augment data, but only as
it related to institutional structure in the local nonprofit sector. Later, it was determined to
not use the augmented data in this study. A total of 29 interviews were conducted for the
study.
Nonprofit organizations designated as Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c) 3
Foundations were chosen as the entry point. The two foundations held primary roles in
the two Community Development Initiatives studied. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service
(2005) designates community foundations as public charities.
The field-level Initiatives studied were a city and a state initiative. Participants
were selected to be interviewed because of their engagement in the Initiatives and are
identified by their role and relationship to the Initiatives (see Table 5):
Table 5.
Sampling for Two Initiatives
City Initiative State Initiative Organization Title Organization Title
National Foundation associated with Initiative
Chief of Staff National Foundation associated with Initiative
Vice President
57Anchor Foundation Partner in Initiative Executive Director Anchor Foundation
Partner in Initiative President and CEO
Board for Foundation Chairman Board for
Foundation Past Board Chairman
Partner in Initiative Initiative Coordinator
Nonprofit Entity –and Partner in Initiative
Co-Executive Director
Nonprofit Entity –and Partner in Initiative
Executive Director Nonprofit Entity –and Partner in Initiative
Co-Executive Director
Partner in Initiative Public Partner Nonprofit Entity –and Partner in Initiative
Executive Director
Partner in Initiative Private Partner Partner in Initiative Site Leadership Partner in Initiative Site Leadership Partner in Initiative Program Organizer The City Initiative
The city initiative was funded from federal and local grants, the local school
foundation, and community-based organizations. Partners represented in the initiative
included private, public, nonprofit, business, and community members. These partners
provided leadership, resources, and programs for the initiative. The purpose of the
initiative was to provide innovative programs for youth, families, and the community to
improve learning and overall enrichment opportunities for the child and the community
as a result of strong school/community partnerships.
The State Initiative
The state initiative was funded from national, state, and local philanthropic funds,
fee-based services, public entities, and community-based organizations. Partners
represented in the initiative were private, public, nonprofit, and community members.
These partners provided leadership, resources, training, policy information, and programs
to target the goals of the initiative. The goals of the initiative were to provide a
58framework to work in partnership with rural communities to reverse current trends of
rural decline and foster new hope and strategies for a prosperous future.
Data Collection
Access
According to the research protocol, the Executive Directors of five nonprofit
organizations were first contacted by letter or email to introduce the study and invite
participation (see Appendix B). The researcher returned phone calls to individuals or
responded to emails to schedule interviews and answer questions. One organization did
not respond to the invitation, and one organization chose not to participate. Each willing
participant signed an informed consent to be (audio-tape) interviewed (see Appendix C).
With the exception of two phone interviews, all first round interviews were in person at
their work locations.
Two Community Development Initiatives were the focus of the study. The anchor
organizations of these Initiatives, two nonprofit foundations, were selected as entry points
into the study. Each foundation's Executive Director provided an overview of the network
and contact information for the partners in the Initiatives. The directors also gave
continuous support and additional materials throughout the study.
Ethical Considerations
The following general standards were adhered to in this study: (a) the primary
researcher was responsible for the ethical standards; (b) all participants were informed
about aspects of the study that could influence their participation; (c) requirements of the
University of Nebraska, Institutional Review Board were followed (see Appendix C).
Executive Directors from the two anchor organizations were considered individuals with
59authority or gatekeepers (Creswell, 2002a). Their permission was sought for access to
study participants involved in the Initiatives. To respect privacy, pseudonyms were used
for both the participants and the organizations.
Data Analysis Procedures
Grounded Theory Methods
Two key features of the systemic design (Creswell, 2002) for grounded theory
were implemented. The design provided a close reciprocal and iterative relationship
among data collection (data and participants), analysis, and theory. After a determination
was made to proceed with a grounded theory approach, the researcher chose the rigor of
the Strauss and Corbin (1998) techniques. The stages of Straus and Corbin's methodology
that followed in this study were:
1. Identify a substantive area to be examined.
2. Delimit a process in this domain.
3. Collect data to explain the phenomena that underlies this process.
4. Open-code the emerging categories in the data.
5. Identify a central category.
6. Axial code data to rearrange the categories in meaningful ways to identify
how process relates to structure so that a model of a knowledge structure
would emerge.
7. Selective coding of data to explain the key categories and present a story by
integrating and refining the theory.
These stages were both simultaneous and concurrent as the study moved forward. The
nature of the study (how it unfolded) determined the movement between coding stages.
60This was based on the quality of the interviews and the interaction between the
researcher, the data, and the evolving theory.
Computer Analysis
A choice was made to use computer-based qualitative data analysis software. The
relevance of this decision will be made more apparent in Chapters Five and Six. Software
usage provided maximum opportunity to collect a broad range of data, organize data sets,
and give instant retrieval of data consistent with grounded theory (Bong, 2002; Pandit,
1996; Weine, et al., 2004).
ATLAS ti, V. 5.0 was the qualitative data analysis software used in the study. The
researcher was self-taught. The version of software operates in a Microsoft Windows™
environment and is exceptionally user-friendly. However, there were some problems
experienced that resulted in lost or corrupted files. These problems were most likely a
result of user-error than a problem in the software.
The features of the software that proved most useful included having the files act
as containers for memos, coded transcripts, materials supplied by participants, copies of
relevant research and news articles, and the narrative support (which included transcripts
and notes after speaking with cultural informants). Instantaneous retrieval of data
enhanced the comparative analysis to elaborate relationships or develop dimensions in
the study.
Methods of Verification
Strauss and Corbin (1998) discussed the suitability of using quantitative standards
to judge qualitative. According to them, validating or verifying the accuracy or credibility
of a grounded theory study is found in strategies incorporated into the research and
61quantitative measures are not sufficient. According to Merriam (1998), the internal
validity comes from the match between what is real and the researcher's understanding of
the realities constructed by the participants (Creswell, 2002b; Merriam, 1998).
Internal Validity
The steps used to ensure internal validity in this grounded theory study were:
1. Triangulation. Multiple sources of data and methods were used. The number
and range of interviews were consistent with the grounded theory design. Sampling was
completed when saturation of categories occurred (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Additional
materials were provided by participants. They were: transcripts of a produced DVD,
newsletters, news articles, web-based data, journal articles, and additional commentary
from phone conversations. Observations of the researcher in the setting provided another
source of data.
2. Inquiry audit. A process developing through the constant comparative analysis
done in the grounded theory procedures and captured in the memos created by the
researcher.
3. Member checks. All participants reviewed verbatim transcripts of their
interviews. Participants were interviewed sequential to data analysis. This provided
feedback on the knowledge structure as it developed and helped develop the generative
theory.
4. Peer debriefing. An alternative to an external audit was a peer debriefing
accomplished through the Office of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research, University
of Nebraska-Lincoln. The researcher met with Dr. Vicki Plano-Clark at regular intervals
throughout the study from April 2005 to March 2006, to debrief on issues related to the
62research methods and techniques used in the study. In addition, Drs. Gina Matkin,
Georgianne Mastera, Dana Miller, and Kay Lynn Kalkowski were available for open
discussion on conceptual issues and methods that helped bring concepts to a manageable
level during theory building.
5. Respondents were involved in all phases of the research. Many participants in
the study enthusiastically provided general comments about the research during the
interviews. Several participants were interviewed multiple times with specific questions
related to the 'gaps' which formed as theory evolved.
6. Recognition of researcher's biases. At the onset of the study the researcher's
biases and assumptions were stated. The researcher provides an interpretation of another's
reality.
External Validity
Validity, according to Strauss and Corbin (1998), is the explanatory power of
building a substantive theory "one developed from the study of one small area of
investigation and from one small population" (p. 267). The purported merit of a grounded
theory study is the application to the population from which it originated. The more the
inquiry is systematic and intensely reaches the significance of the process through
theoretical sampling, the greater the explanatory power of the theory.
The results of this study cannot be applied to all community Initiatives, or to all
cases of social entrepreneurship. The descriptive detail from interviews with such
extraordinary social entrepreneurs (leaders) should provide the field an opportunity to
compare, contrast, and relate.
63Reporting the Outcomes
The description used in qualitative analyses can become a profound picture of
phenomena when reported in a study. However, Strauss and Corbin (1998) emphasized in
report writing that there are specific formulations that prove theoretical density and
description is secondary. Grounded theory reports an analytical story that clearly
incorporates the formulations of "problems, issues, and the use of strategies or
actions/interactions to manage these problems or issues–and explain what consequences
occur as a result of those actions/interactions" (p. 267).
This is a theoretical study. Few references to related research are interspersed
through this story of an emergent theory. The shaping of theory comes from the data.
Insights from the researcher link the emergent substantive theory of 'convening
opportunity' to broader theories in the final analysis. Hopefully, the paper provided
intellectual stimulation and has probed theoretical connections. However, true to the
qualitative paradigm, the participants' in vivo terms and natural language from extensive
interviews provide a story of social entrepreneurship. It is their view of personal beliefs,
oftentimes why they believed, and a wealth of experience that are unique to this study
alone.
64
CHAPTER IV
Descriptive Case Studies of Two Community Development Initiatives
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to develop a theory of social entrepreneurship
drawing upon two community development Initiatives. The research design is a grounded
theory multiple case study. More explicitly, it is an instrumental study, which places the
emerging theory 'convening opportunity' as the item of interest and the cases studied in a
supporting role (Stake, 1994).
What follows in this chapter are two descriptive accounts of the cases used in the
study. These accounts describe the context for an emerging theory of social
entrepreneurship. Two nonprofit foundations are featured in the study. Each organization
has a singular founding history and different missions and programs serving a targeted
constituency. Each is organized according to its own charter and bylaws.
For purposes of anonymity the description of the cases will incorporate
pseudonyms and a required vagueness to protect confidentiality of the participants.
Accuracy in portraying the Initiatives was provided by participants' interviews, additional
written and audio materials, and the researcher's observations.
Foundation for Rural Opportunity
Institutional Features
The Foundation for Rural Opportunity (FRO) was established in 1993 as a
nonprofit, charitable organization. It manages over $17 million in assets and provides
financial management, strategic development, and educational services to donors,
65
organizations, and communities in the state. The organization has established
approximately 170 affiliated funds intended for community betterment projects. Under
the FRO umbrella, community organizations are able to obtain IRC 501 (c) 3 nonprofit
status. The Foundation manages the funds for a small fee, and is able to aggregate the
funds and invest them for an enhanced rate of return. FRO also assists with fund raising
and several business management operations with the community organization.
The Foundation has 22 directors on its board and another 16 serving in honorary
capacities. These directors live and work in multiple areas across the state and represent
the diversified needs of the state. Several of the founders of the organization, including a
President Emeritus and an Immediate Past Chair, remain active influences in operations
and outreach.
The board for FRO had well developed leadership. The breadth of experience
included: entrepreneurs, policy-makers, business owners, bankers, and more. Training
provided by a national Institute benefited relationship building within the executive
group. Enhanced communication and direction setting, particularly converting general
ideas to specific application, was considered important to a board according to its past
Chair. Having philosophical agreement on the most important issues was also important.
Engaging the public and making decisions about their future was one value that led to
promoting an environment where a hometown takes care of its politics, leadership, youth
engagement and philanthropy. This follows the foundations simple mission "the
betterment of the state's communities and organizations".
Due to its administrative role over other foundations within the state, FRO has
committed to being a clearinghouse of information regarding best practices for
foundation administration, fund raising, governance, development, education, and
outreach. FRO was on a continuous pursuit to find and exploit the standards of success in
community development as it related to philanthropy.
66
Joseph, President and CEO for the Foundation, reflected that a healthy
institution is necessary in order to provide the kind of cutting-edge work needed in a state
that is facing so many economic challenges. Although increasing staff beyond the current
11 would be favorable to meet a growing demand, Joseph considered his staffs' talents
instrumental in the innovative approaches to philanthropy. FRO has received national
attention for its innovative approach to applying wealth-transfer strategies to
philanthropy.
In 2000, the foundation benchmarked a new tool in community fundraising. The
tool was challenge grants of several thousand dollars contributed by individuals,
corporations and foundations to be used in communities across the state. A community
match was required, based on a population-based sliding scale. Census figures
determined the matching requirements. Communities had up to four years to reach their
required match. This encouraged local community leaders to create and build
endowments by starting "founders clubs". This effort was consistent with FRO's goal for
the state's philanthropic funds to gain at least five percent of the wealth-transfer in the
state.
A national study published in 1999 estimated that the transfer of wealth in the
U.S. would be in the trillions over the next few decades. Leadership from FRO partnered
with the Rural Policy and Business Center (RPBC) to examine implications from the
study. Using strategies from this study, the partners instituted their own study in 2001.
They found that the peak wealth-transfer in the state would occur in 2015. Given a sense
of urgency from these findings and current conditions of rural socio-economic decline in
the state, a philosophy to "marry philanthropy and entrepreneurship" was born.
FRO drew into partnership with two other nonprofit agencies the RPBC and the
Midlands Management Institute (MMI). These partners intended to "make the case" for a
broad rural redevelopment strategy. Part of the case was to change prevailing mindsets
67
that had fatalistic attitudes about rural decline. For example, it was stated that
Midwestern values of modesty were an asset and could also be a problem if it
"manifested negative projections about the future" in rural areas. Rural areas needed
archetypes of success to demonstrate that local people in rural areas could reinvigorate
their economies and curtail outward migration. There just wasn't enough charitable
money or government to get everything done that was needed to reach these goals. FRO
believed money was a tool, not an end goal. Therefore, values, strategy, serendipity, and
expertise were translated into an initiative to "grow hope" through a social enterprise.
Joseph, stated, "The beauty of the way the State is set up, and the way the culture
works in this particular place, is there is the opportunity to collectively pursue the greater
good here. So as I think through wanting to be a social entrepreneur in an environment
like this I can’t think of a better place to do it." Joseph saw his role as a leader to connect
the dots, to walk before running and to remain in the context of "proven-up
relationships".
The State Initiative
Opportunity Trajectories
Facilitators
By 2001 three nonprofit entities, including FRO, created a strategy for a state
initiative that would essentially "marry philanthropy and entrepreneurship". A short time
into this process a fourth core partner was identified. All four partnering organizations
had statewide and national recognition regarding their work on rural issues.
Over the previous four or five years there had been continuing sets of
conversations regarding the critical resources necessary to commit to an Initiative for
rural redevelopment. In 2002, a small grant was given by a national rural development
consortium to pilot a comprehensive Initiative in one county in the state. This pilot,
which would become Sustaining Rural Prosperity (SRP), was a new social enterprise
68
formed by three of the core partners. The scope and impact of this Initiative had never
been realized before in the state.
There had been prolific conversations over the years between the core partners of
this Initiative and a leader from a national foundation. According to the national
foundation leader, the earlier work of FRO, which had signified wealth-transfer as having
considerable impact on rural revitalization, had caught the attention of the national
foundation. Based on the fertile relationships between the national foundation's
leadership and the core partners, the new focus on wealth-transfer, and the achievements
of the pilot project, SRP was awarded two million dollars over a three-year period to
expand SRP into the rest of the state. The framework created by SRP was recognized for
its reachable goals and strategies that focused on building the capacities of leadership,
wealth-transfer, entrepreneurs, and youth in rural areas.
Convening Opportunity
Recognizing, Strategizing, and Structuring Opportunity
The SRP Initiative grew organically around existing relationships of colleagues
working on rural issues. They were not considered as partnerships of peers alone. The
Initiative sought partners wherever mutual interests brought people together so that
working together brought everyone farther than if done independently. Over 20
collaborative partners have been acknowledged, which included groups or organizations
that were public, private, and nonprofit. The four core partners had portfolios of
programs and training, in which they were already engaged statewide and some
nationally. These programs represented leadership development, entrepreneurship
research and training, consulting, policy, grant making, and philanthropy.
SRP would receive much of its initial support from the funding of the national
foundation. However, the Initiative would be a consulting business model. Partners have
a performance contract whereby they are compensated for hours or completed objectives.
69
This compensation would come from the communities that engaged the SRP Initiative.
The partners considered this social enterprising essential for sustaining the Initiative and
to honor the values of collective goals.
The Initiative established new sets of systems "that would take a series of burdens
off the backs of small communities." The focus for the Initiative would be communities
with a population of less than 5000, which was over 90 percent of the state's
communities. Balancing the basic values that underlie SRP and its mode for service
delivery helped determine the scale and scope of the Initiative. Primarily, the leadership
of the partners in the Initiative believed that communities do a better job of controlling
their destiny as opposed to somebody else. Therefore, in their view it was important that
the redevelopment processes be owned by that community. Leadership in SRP believed
that charging fees for their services in communities was aligned with those values.
The SRP Initiative grew "organically around existing relationships". The Initiative
was new and sought to create viable networks to apply learning from the three
dimensions featured in forming the strategies of the Initiative. These were to align the
benefits of research, practice, and community voices. In the words of the SRP members,
this collaboration was not considered as "partnerships of peers"; partners were sought
wherever "mutual interests brought people together so that working together brought
everyone farther than they could independently". The framework was operating in seven
communities in the state. They had plans to expand over the next three years.
How SRP was structured is difficult to describe. The structure resembled the
reported outcome, which is a flexible community that is open to emergent change. Each
of the partnering organizations provided some type of programming based on assessment
of the community's needs. These processes were undergoing development and had the
potential to be in a constant dynamic state. Essentially, the outreach from many resource
providers is gathered under the umbrella of the Initiative and focused toward one of the
70
four core targets of philanthropy, youth, entrepreneurship, or leadership development.
This focus and umbrella approach helped to avoid duplication of services and had
provided a network that did not exist prior to the Initiative. Activities were intended to be
"value-added" into the community's own processes and not interventions imposed from
the outside. The key to focusing community engagement into one or more of the target
activities was a person in the community or county who served as coordinator. This
coordinator may be a service provider or, potentially, a community volunteer. A
characteristic of the model was the "fuzzy boundaries" concept that is consistent with an
entrepreneurial model.
The hallmark of the SRP Initiative was to build capacities not only for the
communities but for those doing rural development. SRP had received national attention
as a transportable model that could provide systemic change in rural areas. Many of the
partners were asked to present the concept to national audiences. The Initiative has hired
external evaluators to look at these processes. As an archetype for rural redevelopment,
the evaluation will help to determine among things whether the model is sustainability
over time and can demonstrate measurable impacts. The latter has already been
identified. Stories were published in syndicated newspapers that demonstrated "hope
grew" in several communities in the state through new strategies for redevelopment. The
stories captured the communities' voices, and the SRP was merely a backdrop to their
stories. SRP, according to one of the partners, was right where they wanted to be.
Foundation for Excellence
Institutional Features
The Foundation for Excellence (FE) was established in 1989 by a school board to
support public education in a large urban area in the Midwest. From an initial gift of
$150,000 to becoming a pass-through organization of over 13.5 million dollars, the
71foundation has provided a significant "margin of excellence" to public education in the
community (Newsletter, 2005).
There was proven leadership at FE. Kathy, the Executive Director, credited the
competencies of the foundation's staff and governing board. Kathy had led the
organization for 15 years. She was recognized on local and national levels and served as a
consultant for other educational funds nationally. She remained active in community
groups and sat on the board of directors for other local nonprofits and a national
educational network.
An ample number of volunteers served on the board of directors (21 to 29 at any
one time). The board met six times a year and each director served on one standing
committee and one fund raising committee. Committee chairs were also required to
attend an Executive Committee that met once a month. Directors were chosen from
leadership in many professions, including public education.
Fundraising requires an agile board. Kathy's past experience led her to conclude
that having more members was better and keeping them longer best. Bylaws of the
organization limited each member to two terms of three years. According to Kathy, this is
not long enough for fundraising. Kathy innovated by creating a non-governing group of
around 60 volunteers called a Board of Trustees. This board consisted primarily of
couples, with perhaps one of the couple having had previous experience with the
foundation. This enhanced networking is vital in philanthropy.
Maintaining institutional histories and knowledge are considered important to
nonprofit boards and the wellbeing of nonprofits in the community. Thus, the
requirement to rotate-off boards isn't optimally efficient for organizations. According to a
72board member of FE, "there are a handful of people" willing to volunteer for nonprofit
boards in the city. It was related that although there is a desire to bring new "blood and
new experience" into the governing roles, there were benefits to having this handful of
people serve on boards around the city. In his estimation, there was value in the "cross-
fertilization" provided from those few volunteers that remained faithful to serve on
nonprofit boards. The shared institutional histories from other organizations opened
communications and allowed for more unified support.
Understanding mission risks or opportunities are aspects of careful and strategic
decision-making. The Board Chair stated it was "absolutely true" that board members
must understand the culture of the nonprofit environment. It takes time to adjust to the
language in the nonprofit sector, especially the excessive use of acronyms. It was related
that, "You probably get the highest value from your board member after they’ve been
there for awhile."
About ten years ago, a local study showed that 75 to 80% of the city's residents no
longer had children in school. As a result of these findings, and a trend nationally to
encourage social responsibility, the directors of the Foundation created a Public
Engagement Committee. Its purpose was to inspire more community involvement that
would promote the reciprocal benefits of a healthy educational system. There was
resistance by core collaborators to the concept ''public engagement". Some had the notion
this term meant something was broken and required fixing. However, the committee
understood public engagement as positive, meaning "democracy in action". The school
district had been recognized as one of the best in the nation. Reassurance by the
Foundation and broader use of the term elsewhere in society relieved misunderstandings.
73This view of public education's link to public engagement and democracy was
also promoted by the National Network of Foundations for Education (NNFE). An
executive for NNFE emphasized this by stating, "We believe in the role citizens and the
public play in improving our systems of public education". The role of local education
funds, such as FE, was to be "effective intermediaries in their community". These were
core institutional values for public education as stated from an NNFE representative:
We believe that public education is fundamental to a democratic and civil society.
The American public needs to see public education as a kind of institution that
really helps move forward the agenda of a democratic and civil society.
To shape new creative social movements that engage a broader constituency
requires convening processes that move with and against forces of change. The
Foundation for Excellence's mission was to raise funds, recognize excellence, and
reinforce positive relations between the community and the school. The first two "R's" in
the mission support the last "R". Reinforcing positive relations requires balancing
leadership among the foundation, the school district, and the community, and also
balancing available resources.
Julia, a former foundation employee and member of the city initiative, identified
the highly bureaucratic nature of the public educational system as "predictably planned,
annual activities that happen over and over". Usually these large structures support only
incremental changes. The change agents (leadership) within and without of the system
have unique challenges. "You have to be able both to be willing to challenge people on
the strength of their conventional thinking and challenge them to think in new ways and
… just do it."
74The City Initiative
Opportunity Trajectories
Facilitators
The apothegm of "just do it" in the minds of the foundation was a community
Initiative. There were several trajectories that created the Initiative. A national foundation
would commit both knowledge and financial capital to grow the social enterprise.
Momentum through many varied activities at the local level carried the Initiative.
The local community foundation had granted $100,000 to FE for youth
development programming. Simultaneously, the school district had applied
unsuccessfully for a grant (called 21st Century) directed toward low performing schools,
under the No Child Left Behind Act. The focus of the grant was primarily for school
districts to provide students with academic enrichment during after-school hours. All
activities were geared toward meeting local and state academic standards in subjects such
as reading and math. Programs were to also include character building and contemporary
issues facing youth and families.
A previous Director for Public Engagement at FE had worked closely with the
district as they prepared its grant application. The language in the grant application
connected to the underpinning ideals in another collaborative that included FE. The scope
of the federal grant was to create after-school programs called City Educational Centers
(CEC). FE's knowledge and experience in the community helped to determine a broader
focus was needed than the federal CEC model. Hence, FE applied for funding from the
local community foundation to launch a feasibility study around CEC issues.
75Convening Opportunity
Recognizing, Strategizing, and Structuring Opportunity
Parallel to these events, the foundation was working with two other community
Initiatives that brought multiple stakeholders together. Experiences demonstrated that
there was more public engagement with broader Initiatives. The Foundation compared
findings from the feasibility study, assessments of community needs, and weighed these
with prospects for funding. After examining the alternatives proposed by the federal
grant, they chose to create an Initiative that would be more collaborative and systemic
than the features of the CEC model proposed by the federal grant (and what currently
represents the models known nationally also as CEC).
FE recognized an opportunity to convene other community partners around the
issue. Through sets of conversations with stakeholders, a strategy was proposed. Kathy
visualized the values embedded in the Initiative as:
If you imagine a child coming to school with all these bags… [physical, social,
and economic needs]… they cannot concentrate and be a good student if they’re
dealing with all of this. So it was a really clear place for us to be. …people were
concerned about, “Oh should tax dollars be paying this or not?” This is clearly
community development at work. Our outcome is better achievement and better
success for this student in this school. So it was a perfect opportunity for us.
Kathy acknowledged the interdependencies between problems, solutions, and
stakeholders. The Initiative set a course to make the case for better education through
community development. In keeping with the FE mission, this meant that they would
have to share financial responsibility among stakeholders able to provide resources. As
76Kathy stated, "We had to be very careful… we didn’t want this to become something
that we alone had to fund." Over 80 meetings in the first two months were conducted
with community-based organizations to get their input and to discover how this new
social innovation would be structured.
A founder in the Initiative explained:" [The] key innovation with the CEC model
was identifying strong community partners that would be the lead organizations in
making CEC work". Lead partners in CEC represented another four nonprofit
organizations and public education. Other partners included several private businesses
and many community members. These partners had to commit and be able to support and
promote mutual goals of CEC. Leadership at FE made the case that to be a doable and
sustainable Initiative, it was necessary to infuse CEC concepts and planning into the
community through these partnerships. This meant bringing the CEC framework through
the schools directly to the families.
The structuring of the Initiative was values based and focused on the
interdependencies around multiple stakeholders that included the community. Public
education was seen as the "heart of democracy". Leadership envisioned: collaboration as
a basis for positive systems change; life-long learning as a shared responsibility within
the community; and that the schools were not solely responsible for education. The CEC
model applied these values to four goals: improved student learning and youth
development, strengthen and support families, strengthen and engage neighborhoods, and
create a systems change that would sustain the first three goals.
77Committees were not limited to youth development activities or after-school
care. Other issues related to health, housing, social services, and neighborhood
organizing were under the CEC umbrella. An example of a community betterment project
related the purpose of making neighborhoods more appealing for property valuation and
pride. Public organizations representing housing and social services were working
through committees with CEC, to help with housing. High mobility was seen as having
"a tremendous impact on the child’s education" when going from school to school.
Another strategy would be to use school buildings as pivotal assets. The earlier
study by FE had found that 86% or so of the community wanted to have CEC in their
school. "The "tipping factor" as Kathy called it, was when sufficient branding of the
Initiative occurred so that there was "buy in" from the community. Hence, the tipping
factor was favorable. An enterprising feature was that most of CEC sites would initiate
some type of fee-for-services in the after-school programming to subsidize costs.
This was a major structural shift from the original concepts of the 21st Century
grant. The CEC Initiative eventually became a structural umbrella for youth and
community development programming in 19 schools provided by five local agencies.
These programs were not limited to after-school activities like the scope of the national
CEC.
Sustainable and systemic change required building current capacities in the
community. The first capacity built was five leadership groups to organize the activities
of CEC. The structure for the CEC Initiative was, as one member said, "difficult to get
your head around." There needed to be enough framework to legitimize the Initiative and
avoid turf issues and yet enough flexibility to allow it to be creative. Communication
78among partners was largely done through formal meetings and informal networks. Lee,
a coordinator for CEC said, "Informal meetings … with partners, that’s a lot of the times
where the rubber meets the road." This related to maintaining relationships of trust and
obtaining the buy-in of each stakeholder to their ascribed roles.
Applying previous experiences and knowledge from multiple collaborations was
important. Limited success in two Initiatives showed that it was difficult to sustain
public engagement if there was not a "balance" of leadership. Metaphorically, Kathy's
view of an Initiative is a sandwich, where an Initiative rests between the two layers of
grassroots leadership and formal leadership. In the case of one Initiative, the grassroots
side was too heavy and not enough leadership. Whereas, in the other Initiative, formal
leadership was held too tightly by one person and subsequently there became a lack of
energy around the process.
By 2001, FE had received a $536,000 grant obtained through the NNFE for its
initiative. The NNFE obtained grants from various private and public sources, including
governmental agencies, which they were able to pass through to local education funds.
The Network had influence nationally and internationally and functioned as an
information clearinghouse for interests in public education. The Network worked closely
with policy makers, funders, and foundations to ensure quality and accountability in
education. They were able to promote the city's Initiative as a transposable model for
other communities to emulate.
The city's Initiative was a direct result of leadership at FE and the resources
provided through NNFE. Community-based partners, private partners, and public support
convened opportunity through the CEC framework. Opportunity was convened around
79the values and interdependencies of community stakeholders to address systemic
change. Hence, the goal of education and public engagement were addressed in a new
and creative way. The schools provided the built infrastructure and CEC developed a
talented and trained staff with community partners. Through the Initiative new and
contemporary services were began for youth and families.
There were many conditions that facilitated and constrained the process. The
cultural milieu of public engagement rising to the forefront was helpful to make the case
in this institutional environment. Finally, local capacities were developed and used to
leverage resources and create community partnerships for CEC.
Summary
The descriptive cases provide a backdrop for the evolving theory of 'convening
opportunity' in the two initiatives. Leadership, from the two nonprofit foundations
featured in this chapter, was instrumental in championing these new institutional forms –
the Initiatives. The two nonprofit organizations were the entry point for the researcher in
the study and served as referent organizations. This allowed the researcher to address the
institutional character of the nonprofit setting. Nonetheless, the data will show that the
story of 'convening opportunity' unfolds the result of the Initiatives are to catalyze
opportunities during the emergence of the community-field. The field is the pattern of
community members' interactions, where these interactions result in mutual influences
and shared meanings (Wilkinson, 1991).
80CHAPTER V
Developing a Grounded Theory
Coding Procedures
The strategies formulated by Strauss and Corbin (1998), and how they applied in
this study, are set forth in this chapter. The categories described in Chapter III are
developed, the context of the cases in Chapter IV is expanded upon, and a knowledge
structure is related to an emergent theory of convening opportunity, which is more fully
developed in Chapter VI.
The two basic techniques for developing grounded theory are: constantly making
comparisons and the asking of questions (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). These operations are
interwoven throughout the study.
Strauss and Corbin (1998) stated that "A good question is one that leads the
researcher to answers that serve the developing theoretical formulation" (p. 76). These
may be sensitizing questions that explain the data, e.g., "what is this?", or "what is
happening?" or," what actors are involved." Or the questions may be theoretical, e.g.,
"what would happen if…", or "how does what is explained here affect the structural
issues I am seeing?" A third type of questioning is more practical or structural, e.g.,
"which concepts have developed well?", and "is the developing theory logical", etc. The
final type of questioning, according to Strauss and Corbin, are guiding questions that
open up the research as a theory evolves, e.g., "how does X (the evolved theory) affect Y
and influence J?"
Grounded theory includes three phases of coding data, while recognizing the
artificial boundaries between each such coding phase. This may seem confounding.
81However, there is automatic and subconscious movement between phases of coding,
notwithstanding that very deliberate attention is being given to precision during each
phase. Thus, Strauss and Corbin's (1998) analytic techniques are rigorous and very
demanding of a qualitative researcher. A required diligence to record thoughts and ask
questions of the data during coding alternated moods between tedium and creative
fluidity. However, there was always a sense of forward momentum because of the
guidance and prescriptive nature of the process.
In a personal interview with Dr. Kathy Charmaz (November 2, 2005), (writer and
co-editor of Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time), she stated that
the prescriptive nature of the Strauss and Corbin method is limiting. Charmaz claimed
that creating procedures as you work with the data is a better approach to grounded
theory. In her opinion, systematic grounded theory such as the Strauss and Corbin
method is prescriptive rather than theoretical. She feels her approach allows researchers
to "innovate, rather than impose upon the data".
While this is the researcher's first experience with grounded theory, it appears that
the earliest prescripts of Glaser and Strauss (1967) were entrepreneurial and went against
conventional standards. The grounded theory method assembles resources in new ways
via the ability to systematize data around multiple sources and methods for obtaining
data. The researcher concluded that Strauss and Corbin's techniques to use pre-assigned
categories (causal conditions, phenomenon, context, intervening conditions,
action/interactions, and outcomes) are a pattern to induce process in new theory
generation, rather than a template to impose a boilerplate theory or knowledge structure.
82Open Coding
Open coding is a data analysis technique to "open" the data to the emergent
phenomenon. "Broadly speaking, during open coding, data are broken down into discrete
parts, closely examined, and compared for similarities and differences" (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998, p.102). During this phase of coding labels were applied to give meaning to
the ideas, events, and incidents participants described.
The first twelve interview transcripts were coded sentence by sentence, assisted
by the use of ATLAS ti software. This allowed the researcher to become "immersed" in
the data. During this process there was constant comparison of the data. Comparable data
sets were grouped under like terms. The length of the transcripts, coupled with the small
segments of data coded, yielded 213 codes in this first phase. Although these small
segments of data provided more codes than manageable, there became an immediate
sense that certain groupings or categories were emerging (see Figure 2 in Appendix C).
In these mid-to-early phases of analysis, categories and subcategories began to
emerge from the data. As many 'in vivo ' codes as possible (terms used by the participant)
were used to relate to broader concepts. The technique of adding properties
(characteristics) and dimensions (possible range) to the codes evolved into sets of data.
This technique conceptualizes what data belong to a category and its sub-category (see
Table 6). The categories and sub-categories are data driven, names for properties and
dimensions are interpreted by the researcher to characterize the categories. How the data
was used to develop these terms is demonstrated in the Axial coding section of this
chapter.
83Table 6.
Categories generated during open coding.
Category Sub-Category Properties Dimensions Trajectories External
Facilitator
Thought Leaders Champions Resource Provider Leader Legitimacy
Disengaged <=> Highly Engaged Dissuades <=> Inspires
Minimal <=> Much Unrecognized <=> Recognized
Internal Facilitator
Social Entrepreneurs Champions Resource Provider Leader Legitimacy
Disengaged <=> Highly Engaged Dissuades <=> Inspires
Little <=> Extensive Unrecognized <=> Recognized
Convening Process Recognize Opportunity Stakeholder Interdependence Values
Low Prospects <=> High Prospects No stake <=> Fully vested
Low <=> High Similar<=> Different
Strategizing Mission Driven Dispersion of Leadership
Ambiguous <=> Well defined Low <=> High
Individualized <=> Shared
Structuring Institutionalize Process Applied Learning Learning Network Reallocating Resources
Rigid <=> Fluid No <=> Yes
Problem focus <=> Appreciative Dysfunctional <=> Functional
Minimal <=> Great
Strategies Interactions Making the Case Putting problem in context Find agreement/organization Find agreement/partners Obtain community buy-in
Inside <=> Outside Unclearly <=> Clearly No level <=> All levels No level <=> All levels No level <=> All levels
Forging Partnerships Organizational assets Community assets Public assets
Unleveraged <=> Leveraged Poorly distributed <=> Fairly distributed Poorly distributed <=> Fairly distributed Poorly distributed <=> Fairly distributed
Relationships Influence in the Initiative Influence in the Community Influence in the Sector
Low trust/low value <=> High trust/high value Unbalanced <=> Balanced Unbalanced <=> Balanced Unbalanced <=> Balanced
Conditions Capacities Personal Capacities
Recognize strengths Legitimating Expertise Institutional Knowledge (in Domain)
Low<=> High Weak <=> Strong
Unknown <=> Respected /Trusted Low<=> High
Organizational Capacities Institutional features Legitimating Expertise Institutional Knowledge (in Domain)
Low<=> High Low <=> High
Unknown <=> Respected /Trusted Low<=> High
Community Capacities Institutional features
Low<=> High Low <=> High
84
Legitimating Expertise Institutional Knowledge (in Domain)
Unknown <=> Respected /Trusted Low<=> High
Axial Coding
The purpose of axial coding is to reassemble the data that were "fractured" during
the open coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this phase, which also overlaps
open coding, data are related to categories and subcategories. This overlapping started
following a second round of open coding. At this point, I was able to modify my
interview protocol and be more direct in questioning. Subsequent interviews helped to
refine the categories. Additionally at this time in the process, supplemental data
(newspaper articles, website publications, and journal sources) were also added into the
ATLAS ti database and were coded.
Labels from the codes were placed on two by two inch cards and categories were
placed on several eight by eleven inch paper signs. The cards and signs were placed on
the wall in my office. This allowed for a tactile and visual analysis, which became a
storyboard for the unfolding theory. It allowed me to move data and visualize where a
"fit" between concept and process occurred.
However, the ATLAS ti software was most useful in moving and retrieving data.
Families were created, i.e., that data were separated into retrievable sets. The researcher
was able to create families for codes, narratives, and external data. These families could
be recombined in any order and searched. For example, the narrative accounts of one
Initiative could be searched by a code family that represented one category. The output of
that search would be a report of quotations from participants that represented one
category of codes. A subsequent search using the same parameters, but using a different
85set of participants, would provide a report that was used to compare against the first
set. The search function in the software allowed any combination of families to be
queried. In addition, relationships between codes were created graphically within the
software (see Figure 4, in Appendix D). This gave order and meaning to the emerging
categories and related subcategories.
As mentioned earlier, there are not clear distinctions between moving from open
coding to axial coding. In fact, it is a process that seemed like 'spiraling and weaving'.
The process of coding was reciprocal and reiterative. The data were woven from a range
of sources, primarily participant views.
The following are examples of how major categories emerged with sample data.
Properties (characteristics) and dimensionality (possible range) created during the open
and axial coding processes are helpful to the third step of coding where the story of the
theory emerges.
Category 1. Opportunity Trajectories Norms within the nonprofit sector dictate that organizations will align with larger,
national organizations for resources in terms of funding, networks, and learning
opportunities. Each of the Foundations in the study was concomitantly linked to outside
facilitators in the process of social entrepreneurship. These facilitators were represented
in this study by a national figure nominated by each of the Executive Directors.
These external facilitators provided recognized leadership across networks of
highly engaged people around domain-specific issues. In this study the issue is
community development.
86Property 1. Thought leaders.
This was dimensionalized as: Disengaged << ==================================>> Highly Engaged
Credentials and scope of network for "thought leadership" (an in vivo code) was
identified in the following statement by an external facilitator:
I'm a Vice-President for programming … in leadership development, technology,
diversity, and community development, all of which cut across the traditional
programming areas… We have the ability to convene high-quality people, who
are thought leaders on the cutting edge of issues and who enjoy a national
reputation.
Property 2. Social entrepreneurs. The institutional rules of the sector traditionally require some type of board of
governance over the nonprofit entity. These are voluntary positions, held in esteem by the
institutions and the community at large. The board carries the fiduciary responsibility and
is the governing body to which the Executive Director is accountable. The influence of a
board and its level of engagement within the organization and community will vary.
This was dimensionalized as:
Disengaged << ==================================>> Highly Engaged As explained to the interviewer during the pilot phase of the study, some Boards
take roles associated with management. Participants from the Initiatives revealed that the
board would have significant influence in the direction set by the organizations.
… we cannot be successful in our mission unless we have a healthy institution
here, unless we have an active and vibrant board, unless we have organizational
87structure and capacity and leadership within this organization and not just
leadership from me… So my board has come along with me and pushed me. I
mean I've had incredible mentors off my board.
Category 2. Convening opportunity. The reallocation of resources (e.g., money, manpower, physical infrastructure,
social capital) to create a new enterprise was accomplished through convening
opportunities. As stated by one participant:
… It really fits neatly and well into what we do well as a foundation, which is to
bring people to the table. And that buzz word or term that I had used before,
which was this convener of opportunity, I really think that accurately describes
what we do best.
Property 1. Recognizing opportunity. Interdependencies of stakeholders, values, and timing in the process were critical
to how opportunities were recognized and convened. This was dimensionalized as:
Low Prospects << =================================>>High Prospects The following is from a participant in the State Initiative:
"So the immediate sense is well you've got to reach that opportunity when it
comes. That is to say, "Yea but you know one step at a time. Let's make sure we
do this right, not just grab an opportunity whether we think it's the right or wrong
opportunity."
88Property 2. Strategizing opportunity.
As noted above, strategizing the opportunity coincides with recognition. In
strategizing the opportunity, mission and applied learning were significant to how the
opportunity could be cast. This was dimensionalized as:
Ambiguous << ===================================>>Well defined
Regarding strategy:
"We were very careful that we didn't want this to become something that we alone
had to fund."
There were strategic and insightful plans to convene opportunity around
interrelated needs. As stated in regard to systemic change:
And again we already know from the analysis that it doesn't take everybody, it
takes significant thought leaders making the changes and then seeing the result. In
this whole area of innovation, it is about systemic change. We go at it in a very
deliberate and strategic way to find the right people, in the right places, and at the
right levels.
Property 3: Structuring opportunity.
The structuring of the opportunity formed a new institutional form called an
Initiative. Details of organizational frameworks and funding sources varied between the
Initiatives. However, each Initiative had created networks and learning loops. Thus, the
structuring was dimensionalized as:
Rigid << ==============================================>>Fluid
89The following from an Initiative's website gives a first-look into the structuring
effects in the Initiative (this text is edited and the website not featured so that anonymity
can be preserved). The statement weaves the values, interdependencies, stakeholders, and
networks that describe the convening opportunity. As stated,
… Grounded in the belief that relationships and collaborations are the
cornerstones that create positive systems change. [Our] partners also believe that
life-long learning is a shared responsibility of our community's residents. The
schools cannot do it alone. [Our] initiative is an innovative approach designed to
link the community, neighborhoods, schools, and people of all ages, backgrounds
and walks of life to achieve our stated goals and outcomes. What makes the …
initiative different is the core value that education is a community-wide
responsibility and the emphasis on building capacity within neighborhoods,
community based organizations, and other systems to produce sustained
improvements and results. The … initiative utilizes five leadership groups to
mobilize and support the day-to-day activities at the neighborhood based
community learning centers.
Institutional features were also identified. Structure provided the strategies
necessary to meet mission requirements. This was stated as:
I mean you've got to have enough structure where it feels like you have a
framework and you've got some guidelines and some procedures that legitimize
the initiative. But we also know and understand and respect that the informal
networks, the informal relationships, and the informal meetings we have with
partners. That's a lot of the times where the rubber meets the road.
90Category 3. Strategies
This category symbolized the actions and interactions that commingle with the
emergent phenomenon of convening opportunity. Within this category, "making the case"
and forging the partnerships became robust features to convene opportunity in the social
entrepreneurship process.
Property 1. Making the case. Making the case was an in vivo code that became a recurrent theme. There were
continuous conversations happening at different levels of the convening process. The
property was dimensionalized as:
Inside<< ================================================>>Outside
The following quote identifies the relevance of making a case that could
encourage unrestricted funds:
… We were looking in the future to sustainability and talking to potential
contributors. How do you sell that? They were saying, "Who am I giving this
money to? What am I giving this money to? How do I know how it's going to be
spent?"... So part of what we were able to do was provide a structure through
which funds for sustainability [of the Initiative] could go through.
There was also the need to make the case for the internal partners to combine
entities and resources. Thus making the case was explicitly stated:
I actually saw a file folder that says "making the case." The point was—what
would we do to make a case for a more viable approach to rural community
development?
91Property 2. Forging partnerships.
The Initiatives were made of partners with different portfolios of expertise,
leadership, networks, and resources. Thus the key was to convene the opportunity by
leveraging these assets. The property was dimensionalized as:
Unleveraged << ==========================================>>Leveraged
As stated:
… We just don't approach partnerships here between peers. It's partnerships
wherever you can build a partnership. Because, you may have a bright
collaborative partner out there that's mutually interested in experimenting with
you and mutually interested in saying how we can together get farther than we
could independently?
An external facilitator added to this property by discussing how funders look at
strategic partners wanting to create opportunity around systemic change. There is a sense
of leveraging the essentials of learning networks and collaboration:
..If it's a strategic initiative, in other words multiple grants being made in a similar
area, and very purposefully selected to obtain some kind of a systemic change.
Then we make networking and co-learning an essential component of the work.
So that forces them to be engaged in a more collaborative, mutual learning
environment which usually changes the way that they do their own work. Once
they start rubbing shoulders with others with similar issues, new ways of doing
almost always comes out. We might put an evaluator on that to glean what they're
learning etc., but that kind of convening is what really starts stimulating kind of a
cross location thinking and innovation.
92Property 3. Relationships.
The two strategies of making the case and forging partnerships were dependent
upon relationships. This may be seen as an intervening condition; however, aspects of
bridging and bonding social capital provided support for these relationships to be a
strategic measure within convening opportunity. (This will be elaborated in Chapter Six).
Low trust /low value << ===========================>>High trust /high value
The following example easily details this. As stated:
And then we just begin to educate people on the nature of the constituency and
the fact that you have to build coalitions just like the rings on a tree, one heart and
one mind at a time through the relationships that people have.
Additionally, there were turf-related issues within the institutional boundaries of
community and partners. As stated:
And you know [the Initiative] is a great example. As we got into this, you know
when I referenced the potential for turf-related issues, a lot of those barriers came
down relatively quickly just based on personal relationships.
Category 4. Capacities.
Codes representing this fourth category reached saturation in the early phases.
(Data saturation is the point where no new meaning for data occurs). Social innovation is
related directly to conditioning, strengthening, or building capacities of people, places
and things. These conditions will be more evident in the Chapter Six, which will explain
the emergent substantive theory found in this study. The intervening conditions were
found to facilitate or constrain the actions and interactions of convening opportunity.
93Property 1. Institutional capacities.
The strategic readiness, community norms, and level of engagement affected how
the strategies could be structured. This was dimensionlized as:
Low << =============================================>>High There were generalizations and specifics that participants brought forward as
conditions that were intervened in convening opportunity. The statement below
demonstrated this phenomenon by comparing the community's current state with a
desired future state to show strategic readiness in the community.
Whereas, here you know we have a school district that has a reputation for being
one of the best in the country. We have a new school superintendent coming in
whose saying, "I want to take you from good to great". And so the role we're
playing is not really remedial, but we're saying we can do better.
During interviews questions regarding institutional barriers and facilitations were
asked. These rendered several examples of intervening conditions like below:
In terms of other institutional barriers, I think policy is certainly one. You know
often times one of the key factors is to what extent you have quality leadership
and rural social capital within the community.
Property 2. Organizational capacities.
The sampling described in Chapter III demonstrated that there were a variety of
institutional partners in each initiative. The partnering organizations represented all three
sectors –private, public, and nonprofit. Thus, organizational capacities ranged
considerably.
Low << ===============================================>>High
94 Example text included:
… [This] collaboration with these agencies … in [the City Initiative] is like a
perfect fit...it's a perfect fit because we have great schools… And we have great
social and public human services.
Property 3. Personal capacities.
Institutional theorists will suggest that leadership is an element of structure –that
it is a practice. According to Maxwell, (2005) leadership is a disposition, not a position.
Therefore, the category of personal capacities as it emerged in this study would
vigorously challenge leadership as a practice paradigm of habitual performance. There
was every indication of an entrepreneurial leader as defined by the participants.
Low << ===============================================>>High Leadership's relationship to institutional features was better reflected in the following:
…most of the central players in this are pretty entrepreneurial themselves and
fairly creative people themselves. So they're bringing those orientations and those
personalities to the table. I think the second thing, is we over the last 3 or 4 years,
built a culture where we've said that's important. I mean it's important that we get
paid, and it's important we do good work; but part of this is, at this point in all of
our professional careers, being creative and trying to be on the cutting edge of
what's going to work is personally pretty important to us.
Category 5. Domain Level Analysis
The Strauss and Corbin (1998) method calls for featuring context as a component
of an emerging conceptual model. As stated in Chapter Three, this study was focused at
95the field level of analysis that became the context for the study. Therefore, the chaotic
nature of current political and socio-economic conditions is a backdrop of the study.
Property 1. Macro-dynamics.
Institutional indicators, such as the regulative, normative and cognitive
dimensions (See Chapter II, p. 28) were the backdrop to social action. These are
dimensionalized as:
Lesser institutionalized<< =========================>>Highly institutionalized The following explained what the participant believed will influence the
regulative, normative, and cognitive elements of institutional structure to have systemic
change.
But people have to be able to act differently and that can include a mental model
shift, etc. We also think that people have to see a shift of resource flows; and that
ties to the third thing, which says that policy has to change. Our premise is that if
you look at any issue out there it, the current condition, is the result of some type
of a policy that's already enacted. So building capacities, looking at resource
flows and then shifting policy… that sustains what you're trying to achieve.
Category 6. Network Development Model
The final element was to consider the consequence of the core category. This
became apparent once the core category, convening opportunity, emerged.
Property 1. Great groups.
One of the intended outcomes from convening opportunities were several distinct
leadership structures based on networks, both internally to the Initiatives and externally
96to the constituencies served. Thus, capacities were strengthened and there are new
institutional features within these groups.
Lesser capacity<< ================================>> Greater capacity
An example cited from the text of the transcripts follows:
So we had been gathering people at the table, first housing people and the
foundation chaired the meetings. [Among these were the] Housing Authority and
we had a few construction folks. Anyway, we started with that kind of a group.
Well then we quickly learned from the Principal that you can't deal with these
issues until you talk about mental health and wages and all these social service
needs. So we plugged in a few more folks … So you know it took 2 or 3 meetings
to get this concept brought over to this table and bring these tables together so
people could see we're not talking about separate issues, these are the same issues.
The paradigm established by Strauss and Corbin (1998) provided the structure to
integrate these categories and subcategories into a set of relationships that, in summary,
provide the causal conditions, phenomenon, context, intervening conditions,
action/interactions, and outcomes that developed the emerging theory of convening
opportunity as a social entrepreneurship process in community initiatives.
Selective Coding
Strauss and Corbin (1998) forward this as a three-step process of creating a story
line, relating subcategories and their properties around a core category, and then relate
this at the dimensional level. The last step in this process is to find additional data to fill
any gaps that are apparent in the proposed model. Accordingly, additional sampling was
necessary.
97 For a few of the participants there were third round interviews to obtain the
"gap" data, followed by a third round of coding for verification. Also, new participants
were invited into the study at this phase. These processes fortified the study.
The Emergent Knowledge Structure
The core category of convening opportunity became the pivotal process to be
explained. Meshing categories and subcategories gave a general sense of what the data
were all about (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The story follows:
Opportunity was convened through Community Development Initiatives.
Convening opportunity was a process of recognizing, strategizing, and structuring
opportunity around shared values and partnerships. Leadership from two nonprofit
foundations and from national networks kick-started the process by providing resources,
such as a shared knowledge-base, networks, and funding. There were multiple conditions
that facilitated and constrained this process in the complex environment where it
enfolded.
A knowledge structure useful to guide the emergent theory is provided in Figure
3. This model diagrams (Creswell, 2002) the process of convening opportunity in
community initiatives. Chapter VI explains the paradigm model by exploring each of the
categories in the diagram.
98 Context
Figure 3. Knowledge Structure for the Process of Convening Opportunity
Capacities Institutional Capacities Community Capacities
Personal Capacities
Phenomenon
Outcomes
Change = the Emerging Field
Network Community Development
Capacity Building
Internal and External to the Initiative
Strategies
Making the Case Sets of Conversations
Over time With Partners
With Constituencies
Forging Partnerships
Balancing Leadership
Leveraging Pooled Resources
Relationships
Opportunity Trajectory
External:
"Thought Leaders"
Allocate Resources Legitimacy
Internal: Social
Entrepreneurs
Champion Allocate Resources
Legitimacy
Community Context Interpretation of context
(opportunities are defined within domain)
Institutional features Convening
Opportunity
Recognize Opportunity Stakeholders
Interdependencies Values
Strategizing Opportunity
Mission Aligning leadership
Structuring Opportunity
Applied Learning Institution building
Reallocating Resources
Intervening Conditions
Actions/InteractionsCausal Conditions
KEY: Words in Italics are in vivo terms used by participants the study. Bolded terms are categories that emerged in the study that identify the phenomenon of convening opportunity.
99
CHAPTER VI
Description of Theoretical Constructs
This chapter describes the emerging theoretical constructs for ‘convening
opportunity’ using participant views, observations, and news sources. A narrative of
social entrepreneurship in two community development Initiatives is given using
grounded theory techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The narrative is mostly iterative,
moving back and forth, so that emerging theory is featured above the cases. Structure and
process are inextricably linked in the progression and are identified with the following
categories: causal conditions, phenomenon, intervening conditions, context, strategies,
and outcomes.
Opportunity Trajectories
Causal conditions are conditions that kick-start the process being investigated. In
this study, the macro-dynamics of the political, social, and economic environment in the
U.S. had substantial impact on social needs. Given that a goal of systemic change and
values underpinned the Initiatives, challenges were frequently articulated. Participants in
both Initiatives’ emphasized education as a "silver bullet," a way to a "prosperous society
…is exposure for people and higher education" or "fundamental to a democratic and civil
society". Viable economies, health, and a critical need for a "leadership base" in
communities were other large issues. As a result, social cause based on need was
considered as a universal causal condition for convening opportunity.
100Current conditions were felt to be "always the result of some type of a policy
that’s already enacted". Consequently, policy was also inextricably linked to conditions
that call for social action. A participant's response was:
"[Policy] comes in when opportunities are recognized and identified, which
results in strategies being created. Strategies require partners to carry it out –
whether it is a congressional representative, community of people, or another
organization."
According to the participants in this study, external factors that contributed as
causal or kick-started the ‘convening of opportunity' were two national foundations that
had greater resource availability, mutual strategies, and a growing knowledge-base.
These foundations had missions and program opportunities aligned with the overall goals
of each of the Initiatives featured in the study.
The National Foundation of Innovation (NFI) is one of the largest private
foundations in the country. It is a comprehensive foundation made up of multiple
program areas that focus on what is "important for communities to thrive and be
successful" in the future. NFI consistently applied learning from its comprehensive
efforts to its newest endeavors. According to a leader at NFI, "[The foundation had the
ability to] convene high-quality people, who are thought leaders on the cutting edge of
issues and who enjoy a national reputation." This capacity gave them an ability to build
intellectual and conceptual capacities that facilitated their work with grantees. Their goal
was to work with grantees in a "partnering way and link them to others" doing similar
work. This allowed for diverse thinking and "allowing for multiple perspectives looking
at the same issues." This network model perpetuated more innovation than singular
101relationships or parochial networks. Organizations were given a competitive
advantage from the knowledge-base and networks provided by NFI. Having a grant with
NFI or "knowing one of the program directors" was considered an advantage for future
funding.
NFI was interested in creating a "new entrepreneurship development model to
create systemic change in rural areas". A $2 million award was approved by NFI to
provide funds for the SRP Initiative. NFI chose to fund six from 180 proposals submitted
from around the country. This instilled a sense of "thrill" and commitment in SRP.
Funding by NFI provided the resources to expand an earlier pilot of SRP.
This was viewed by both entities as a reciprocal opportunity. The NFI saw SRP's
proposal as an innovative way to make systemic change needed in rural America. A
leader from NFI said, "Building capacities, looking at resource flows and then shifting
policy… that sustains what you’re trying to achieve". There was a match of mission and
strategy in the SRP proposal to NFI's conceptual models. The NFI would be able to
showcase SRP as an innovative model in rural development. The knowledge gained from
applying the new concepts offered in the SRP proposal could be applied elsewhere in the
country. The new proposal was placing rural philanthropy 'front and center' in the
national spotlight. A participant from NFI said,
…what would be the way that we could expedite an efficient way of community
foundations to be aggressive advocates for change in their communities? And
what will come out of it in the next few months actually is an effort to look at
community foundations changing role developing rural philanthropy…we will
102likely use the experience here and through other networks to create a new and
innovative approach to upgrade community foundations.
Funding from another source had given SRP partners experience with using the new
framework. This opportunity would expand SRP from its initial seven communities to a
few others over the next three years. It also gave SRP national visibility, which expanded
their network partners with other grantees around the country.
The city Initiative gained its major momentum (and later resources) from FE 's
relationship with the NNFE. In 1999, leadership from FE and a group of stakeholders
drew interest in a community model of education centers operating in the Midwest. The
intent of FE and NNFE was to promote the type of model that was not purely after-school
care. NNFE's role was a network of organizations that work together to mobilize people
and resources for "quality public education for all children." Network members embraced
the concept of systemic reform in public schools. They believed the mechanism to do this
is to "believe in the role of citizens" as instrumental in public education. This was
articulated as the local educational funds were instrumental leadership to "effectively
engage their communities to align resources, policies, and public will".
FE committed to the vision of NNFE. The underlying value of NNFE was the
increasing need for community responsibility to support public education. It called for
educational reform that stated "quality public education for all children." The movement
was not intended to "denigrate the hard work or successes" in public education. The
network of local educational foundations wanted public education more visible as a kind
of institution that moves forward an agenda of a democratic and civil society.
103FFE was able to obtain grant funding of $536,000 to be used for the City's
Education Center Initiative. The national network served as a pass-through for these
funds, managed resources and provided technical assistance for a small management fee.
(Note: by 2001, the local public school district received 21st Century federal grant dollars,
and when combined with other community foundations' and public partners' resources
CEC were expanded.)
NNFE provided a platform for local educational foundations to showcase best
practices. This gave FE an opportunity to feature the city's CEC. The network was a
venue for local educational funds like FE to relay news about their communities. This
network of peers discussed results and outcomes from specific projects or strategies. The
Executive Director from FE was an essential member of the network serving on the board
and connecting the knowledge-base and resources available in the network to serve local
needs.
Both NFI and NNFE infused their well-articulated national goals into these state
initiatives. FE and FRO (and partners) had very "proven-up" (respected and trusted)
relationships with the leadership in these national foundations. These relationships
provided a conduit for input into the design and goals. The agendas included working
toward systemic change in communities using social innovation. The Initiatives were new
frameworks (a recombination of resources) to build the capacity of communities so that
an engaged citizenry (community) could improve its own economic and social conditions
that neither current policy nor government could do.
A foundation leader at NFI stated,
104"Our belief is that nothing really creative happens out of sameness; it only
happens out of diversity… nothing ever creative comes out of the middle of
anything. It only comes out of the edges, where people and issues are left that
interrelate the different perspectives and generate new ideas."
Leaders at NFI believed their "role is to catch the next wave of innovation and expedite it
- but not necessarily to create it". Innovation must be created by the community.
The innovations proposed by the two initiatives were well developed and
incorporated new ideas and proven practices. FRO had proposed an innovative and
stimulating approach to philanthropy, which caught the attention of the leadership at NFI.
The concept of wealth-transfer was a viable option to rural revitalization. It was not a
solution that could stand on its own. The complexity of the economic and social needs in
rural areas was well known. There was a need for more leadership, something to
"stabilize populations", and help for floundering rural economies. Training, particularly
in leadership and entrepreneurship, was already a viable solution. Nonetheless, wealth-
transfer not only benefited the steps to engage people in their communities, but it had the
potential to "make-up for what government could no longer do".
According to NFI's leader, "What you’re talking about is creating something the
size of the [major foundation] for [your state]. What would happen if that became the
economic engine of the future?" NFI leaders were convinced the SRP framework had
potential as a national model. The featured wealth-transfer was a viable option to sustain
rural communities' futures with an additional benefit of public ownership of the process
through the affiliated funds.
105 Leadership at the NFI considered the benefits of the collaborative model
proposed by the SRP Initiative. This model included wealth-transfer strategies along with
capacity building in the areas of policy, entrepreneurship, and leadership. Easily this was
viewed as a positive step toward 'convening opportunity' in communities under one
umbrella. The philanthropic concept of wealth-transfer offered new potential. In addition,
there was potential revenue to sustain the Initiative past SRP's initial funding. Action
research from the SRP model would be applied to other projects.
Innovative and strategic thinking at NNFE occurred through applied learning and
conversations. Like NFI, there were many collective and cumulative results of many "sets
of conversations". NNFE was conversing with mainly local education funds, like FE.
Also there were discussions with national leaders in education and policy.
The major result of these conversations were considered by National Network For
Education's leader as discovering, "one approach, one trend, one kind of activity that
local education funds are doing in their communities and how is that affecting school
districts and the functions of the community." These discussions were broadened within
NNFE into discussions of trends in the larger context, particularly within the landscape of
education and grassroots approaches. These broader discussions were through the
leadership at the director's level. However, a leader from NNFE stressed that these
conversations were rooted in the observations and experiences found at the local level.
A significant influence was the combined values and beliefs held by the
leadership internally and externally to the Initiatives. These collective values and the
institutional features of having nonprofit status kick-started the social entrepreneurship
process to convene opportunity for the city and state Initiatives.
106Comparing across each case, it was found that the trajectory for opportunity
was similar. Even though the philosophies of each Initiative were focused on two
different subsets of community (rural and urban), the principles remained consistent with
deliberative democracy and public engagement. This wasn't a new public agenda. Civic
engagement has been a perplexing issue for decades.
To heal our broken heartland will take something a thousand times harder to come
by and infinitely more precious than economic growth. For in the final analysis
what rural America needs most is not more money or more jobs, but democracy –
the form of citizenry willing and able to participate fully in the development and
sustenance of their communities. (Davidson, 1990, p.170).
Secondly, the anticipated need was systemic change. In each case, the role of the
social entrepreneurs (or institutional entrepreneurs) at the national level was found to be
an opportunity trajectory. This trajectory was through the organization of "thought
leadership" in response to the institutions and the effect of continual sets of conversations
with diverse audiences, which reported experiences and observations, research, and
values clarification. These collective wisdoms were combined with the marshalling of
financial resources, so that funds were awarded to proposed models for systemic change.
Convening Opportunity
Strauss and Corbin (1998) used the term phenomenon to describe "what is going
on here?" (p.130). Understanding that question is the crux of building new substantive
constructs of social entrepreneurship in two community development initiatives. The
phenomenon, in the participants' views, was convening opportunity. The opportunity
107identified was to create systemic change in communities by building the communities'
capacities to engage in the process.
The data did not refer to a process of ordered steps, but there were logistical
qualifications that place one action or condition ahead of another. The qualities of
convening opportunity were found to be dynamic and continuous. The conditions of
convening opportunity are: recognizing opportunity, strategizing the opportunity, and
structuring the opportunity.
Recognizing Opportunity
Recognizing the opportunity was referred to in the data as the interdependencies
related to articulating an opportunity to be convened, recognizing the stakeholders that
could convene opportunity, and identifying what values influenced the 'convening of
opportunity'.
The concept for the SRP Initiative was conveyed during multiple years of
conversations between colleagues. The colleagues represented four separate nonprofit
entities. Together they articulated an opportunity to be convened by envisioning "new
possibilities" for rural communities through new or improved small businesses,
philanthropy, networks of concerned and committed citizenry, and engagement of local
leadership to work as change agents against the progression of rural decline. A participant
said the purpose of SRP was for rural communities "to have the opportunity and to make
it happen, if they choose to take advantage of that opportunity." One participant said,
This is intended to be a place where people can convene and build partnerships
and through those partnerships we can develop greater capacity to fulfill whatever
108objectives we individually want to accomplish and collectively want to
accomplish that ultimately make [the State] a better place to live.
Each colleague had claimed a stake in the future of rural areas and was providing
a portfolio of expertise and resources to address community needs, thus becoming the
first stakeholders themselves. They "were always looking for ways to work together".
Further, the partners of SRP infused their value sets for an "entrepreneurial culture" into
the Initiative. SRP promoted entrepreneurship as a way to create economic vitality in
rural areas, which was mission fulfillment for SRP.
There was a balanced distribution of authority among the collaborative partners to
become what they termed the "core" leadership of the Initiative. The partners would be
the governing body for the Initiative, which would provide its "framework" for
opportunity to communities. The work of the Initiative hinged partially upon the four
core partners' portfolios of expertise, which was necessary to obtain grant funding.
However, there were multiple stakeholders in SRP that came from public, private,
nonprofit groups and the community-at-large. A critical piece was community as
stakeholders.
The SRP Initiative recognized their framework as an opportunity to add value to
the strategies that people in rural communities had to build their futures. In other states,
the state foundations distributed funds. However, the structure of FRO was unique. Local
communities were empowered with their own funds through their affiliated status. This
empowerment strategy was developed into the full framework of SRP. Stakeholders in
SRP were embedded at the community level. As a participant said,"… communities can
109customize for themselves to do this sort of work and then [the expertise held within
SRP] can come in from the outside and add value."
Discussions around the CEC model began with various leaders in public,
nonprofit, and private industry over a period of several years. The focus was an
opportunity to launch a city-wide community initiative centered on the schools. These
discussions both helped articulate the value of the opportunity to be convened and aided
identification of stakeholders. These were broad discussions focusing on community
issues, such as housing, migration, safety, health needs, and education. Early discussions
weren't quantified. According to one participant over 80 conversations were held among
stakeholders in the community after funding was made available. These conversations led
to what participants in the Initiative called a "three-legged stool". The CEC concept was
considered stable when it found solid support from leaders in the school, city, and
business community.
There was notable attention given the existing relationships in the community.
The new concept was to build on the strengths of a network of community-based
organizations and the school district (particularly, the Principals at the schools). Finding
the most salient stakeholders to work with the Initiative meant working through the turf
issues and finding consensus regarding which stakeholders would help provide services
within the framework of CEC. The formalized structure of CEC, such as the Leadership
Council and paid staff, would be responsible for the maintenance and continuation of the
framework.
110As stated, "getting your head around the structure" is no easy task. However,
each of these stakeholders had a vested interest in the outcome of this Initiative and a
claim to influence the process.
The mission of the CEC Initiative was conceptualized around contemporary
issues facing youth, families, and community. As was mentioned earlier, there was
awareness that to amass a kind of systemic change that could improve the socio-
economic conditions in communities it would take an engaged public to productively
create their futures. By valuing the need for public engagement, the Initiative would
include the client (the community) in its membership. The structure of the Initiative
would serve to orchestrate activities.
How salient stakeholders were identified to organize the activities happened over
a period of time. The original concept for a "wrap-around school initiative…percolated
out from a number of sources." FE was able to find funding for the pilots and a
feasibility study which led to an award of a larger grant through the NNFE. This
connection to resources and FE's vision for the Initiative made the foundation a pivotal
stakeholder. The foundation offered proven leadership via a strong supportive governing
board of local, recognized leadership and a talented and paid staff, which included a
nationally recognized Executive Director.
After identifying salient stakeholders, it was also important to frame core values
of the initiative. The articulated values of the Initiative mirrored those of the larger
network of educational foundations. Recognizing or identifying opportunity was
dependent upon the perceptions of the stakeholders and their values.
111Strategizing Opportunity
The next condition (subcategory of convening opportunity) found in the data was
strategizing the opportunity. The data referred to the importance of aligned leadership
and mission fulfillment as integral conditions for convening opportunity.
Participants from the core partnership for SRP made reference to the Initiative
being a "transparent model". The SRP model dispersed authority among stakeholders and
held core partners accountable in the management of each group's portfolio within the
framework. SRP’s portfolios included programming or activities in wealth-creation
through philanthropy, policy, small-business planning, agriculture interests,
entrepreneurship, leadership development, and youth development. Because the model
included a research and development component, which matched lessons learned and
new information with strategies, it was a model that continually developed.
Through the developing framework, the Initiative planned to assist local
leadership to "create strategies and reach goals" or to help communities "do a better job
of connecting young people to place and helping them to feel like they really have an
ownership stake and engagement" in their communities both socially and economically.
To do this it was important that they were able to connect with "leaders at the community
level, who are authentic representatives of the people who live there" and were aligned
with the goals of SRP.
Each person in SRP was there "to add value". Based on the value sets and
strategic direction of SRP, each of the organizations that contributed programming or
resources to the Initiative have mission fulfillment if they stimulate social and economic
entrepreneurship in a rural area or bring self-sufficiency to a community that would help
112to stabilize the population. The practical side of this was stated by one participant as
he discussed the growing scale of the Initiative.
How do we keep our entrepreneurial culture, our ability for creating new ideas?
…We’re going to go execute it in this place and learn from it and then use it.
Maybe adapt it and [it will] evolve in the next place.
It was a strategic choice to create a framework for SRP to build community
capacities that would in turn create systemic change. SRP had a public venue to state its
mission and report successes. Because rural communities needed archetypes of success,
national and local newspapers carried stories on community successes. These stories
minimized the role that SRP played in a community’s success. Leadership at SRP
internalized this as a good thing since the process is owned by the community, not SRP.
In its pilot phase, FE played a pivotal role in organizing leaders from local, state,
and national government to convene around the opportunities that CEC provided the
community. The leaders were brought out to the school sites. These contacts were
beneficial in providing access to partners within the local government and to assist with
moving the model statewide. The national leader was sponsoring legislation in Congress
related to this concept. Overall, the concept was considered intuitively "right" and studies
had shown it was something the community supported.
It was a strategic decision for FE to remain overseer for the Initiative. FE was
closely tied to public education and had a mission to interrelate with the community. Its
visibility in local, state, and national networks also made them an optimal choice for a
central role. As a participant from FE said, "[CEC] fit well into what we do well as a
foundation, which is to bring people to the table." Each partner (organizations that
113represented public, nonprofit and private and the community-at-large) in CEC had
differentiated roles around the same mission. All levels of community were invited to
become engaged in the activities of CEC.
Nonprofit organizations in the city had a history of partnering around grants.
However, the partnering didn't usually produce a collective mission. It was generally
multiple missions driven by multiple agencies blanketed under a grant. Once
collaborators obtained the awards, often they would retreat from the collective and work
independently with their share of the allocated funds. CEC was innovative in that it
"pushed the envelope" toward a collective mission.
The mission for CEC is intertwined throughout its structure. The various
stakeholders in the project are considered partners, which gives a diversity of input and
output. The input was given through both informal and formal channels and brought back
up through the Leadership Council of CEC. This gave the system flexibility and allowed
for the Initiative to consider each school's needs rather than a boilerplate approach in
programming. However, there were institutionalized features made public that served to
legitimatize the Initiative. These were a series of statements or protocols that included
mission and vision statements, operating principles, practice guidelines, and formal
evaluation. News releases and formal publications also highlighted the work and carried
the ideals of the mission further into the community.
The data showed that after recognizing the opportunity, the Initiatives aligned
leadership around the functions and goals (mission) of the Initiatives. The locus of
decision-making for maintenance of the Initiatives was a core leadership group, which
included the two local foundations. Strategizing the opportunity also identified
114mechanisms to build capacities, evaluate resource flows, and influence policy. This
was accomplished through aligned leadership and a combined mission.
Structuring Opportunity
Structuring opportunity was defined in the data as the creation of permeable
boundaries around the activities that will generate ideas and opportunity. The data
pointed to how opportunity was convened through frameworks of activity. These
activities included institutionalizing features so that rules, roles, practices and beliefs
were supported. Learning from outcomes and impacts were applied back into the
frameworks.
The structure for the SRP Initiative was not a simple structure at the community
level. A group of volunteers at the community level were responsible to organize the
local activities of SRP. A site leader was responsible for several communities as the
framework was implemented. The site leader was generally a paid staff from one of the
core partner's organization. This person had the potential to be a specialist in an area of
community development, rather than a generalist. This meant access to others in the
network of leadership was essential for immediate feedback when issues developed
outside the scope of expertise for the person leading activities in a community.
The SRP Initiative is considered a flexible framework tailored to each
community's needs (this is similar to the CEC framework, which provides for each school
and neighborhood). The features offered depended on which portfolio or what
combination of portfolios was offered. For example, sometimes the leadership base in a
community was very small. Finding the "special people" needed to lead the projects
115around the SRP framework was difficult. The community may feature one portfolio at
a time and over a longer period than a community that has another level of readiness.
Several institutional partners were attached to the SRP programming, including
colleges and universities, public and private entities. An executive committee acted as the
governing body, which was made up of the four core partners and various other selected
parties within the field of rural development. The committee's role was to strategize
opportunities for communities, provide maintenance to the overall structure of SRP, share
learned outcomes, advice on issues (including rural policy) and also provide intervention
into the process as needed.
It was shared that there is an inherent challenge in this "kind of structure versus a
corporate structure". Anyone of the stakeholders violating the trust or accountability had
the potential to damage "social contact and relationship" with one another, the
communities, or the Initiative. Adding structure that would manage issues, such as
reporting functions or formal meetings was instituted as a strategy to overcome any
unexpected problems.
The SRP Initiative operated under a consulting business model. All partners had
a performance contract. Each could be compensated for hours and/or completed
objectives. Consulting fees were managed by the organization providing the service(s)
and also helped to sustain other programming. Sometimes communities engaged in the
SRP framework were asked to supply seed money to match the NFI grant. However, the
money from NFI was seen by SRP as "a next stage venture investment" to support
research and development of the framework. In order for SRP to have sustaining power,
and the community to own the SRP framework, it was felt appropriate for communities to
116pay for assistance. This was considered related to the value of ownership. The
partners will continue to pursue outside funding, which they would like to keep in the
research and development coffers. This money may be used to apply the framework for
those communities that are under resourced.
The Initiative was developing what they called a "learning network". It would
expand their communication, help to organize activities and primarily serve as a way to
develop the Initiatives capacity by continual learning. The core partners were intentional
about creating an inclusive network and being on the cutting-edge of research and policy.
SRP was willing to partner with any entity that was amenable to the cause and integrity
that moved the SRP Initiative forward.
SRP had hired an outside evaluation service for the Initiative. The senior member
of this team was an accomplished academic and had been a great resource for the SRP
core partners over the last several decades. The participants in the study were looking
forward to the learning generated from a high level activity such as the design of this
evaluation.
According to participants, there was enough of a framework to support CEC to be
legitimate. Yet the framework had flexible informal networks to promote innovative
changes. The flexibility was a little awkward initially. One participant related it as "a
little bit of fumbling around feeling" from "not really understanding who was on first".
This was alleviated when two manager positions were created that gave a "better feel that
there was somebody in charge."
The structure was planned to create an organization that was task efficient and
could maintain itself. The Leadership Council's role was to maximize CEC influence and
117staying power. Participants related responsibilities "to guide the long term financing"
and mobilize and leverage resources from the community. Committees represented the
neighborhood around each school. These were educators, community-based
organizations, businesses, and service providers. Their role was to provide assistance in
planning and communication that was consistent with the diversity of its neighborhood.
A third body of leadership was called Action Teams, made up of people from various
community organizations. These teams leveraged institutional histories and knowledge.
Specifically, the teams provided professional development, established best practices, and
combined research and evaluation. A network of service providers were able to use these
resources to better the activities of the Initiative and to keep the Executive leadership
council informed. The role of staff at the school was to implement and integrate programs
from all the representative partnerships at the school location. Staff supporting CEC may
not have had prior experience with community development. Participants interviewed
related that most of the people working in programming at the schools came from
specialized backgrounds in youth development, education, or similar areas.
The CEC Initiative did not have 501 (c) 3 status as a nonprofit entity. One
participant viewed the evolved structure as beneficial for the Initiative. Moreover, money
was coming from several funding streams, so the type of structure created was to show a
structure that "alleviated some of this pressure to legalize an entity".
According to a participant, earlier research from the Foundation had shown
"every school it didn’t matter where you were, what socio-economics, there’s needs that
could be accomplished by having it right in the building". The original CEC pilot
included four elementary schools and had expanded operations into 19 of the city's
118elementary and middle schools. Each school was paired with organizations from
public and nonprofit entities that had partnered with CEC. There were also two
coordinators for CEC. Their offices were located within one of the partnering
organizations. In addition, CEC had relationships with local neighborhood organizations
and affiliated community-based initiatives that included local businesses. These groups
worked together usually in the form of committees. An outreach coordinator from CEC
would generally work at the location of the school and would meet with local
neighborhood groups to strategize goals and projects that were relevant to that school's
location and the surrounding community.
The structure of the Initiative also facilitated a feedback loop. Each time an
opportunity was convened a lesson was learned and applied to the next opportunity. At
the local middle school a student came up to the site CEC leader with an idea to have a
'rock' school with a scheduled performance as part of the after-school activities sponsored
by CEC and the local agency sponsor. Not only was this innovative, innovation like it
snowballed. Once CEC was able to put resources behind the student's concept, success
followed.
Academic achievement and character responsibilities were placed on the students
as conditions for participation. Eventually, more contemporary and relevant
programming started popping up in middle schools there and around the city. Following a
media blitz on the rock show, CEC leaders said they received numerous phone calls from
young adult musicians in the community who were asking to volunteer in these activities.
Citizenry were engaging in an opportunity that had been convened by CEC.
119An example of community and staff interaction occurred when CEC started at
one location five years ago. Staff of CEC was invited to monthly meetings with the
neighborhood families and the school. These meetings served as focus groups where
trends and issues in the neighborhoods would emerge through discussion. A local
swimming pool was getting closed down and that was a concern. Another concern was a
safety issue with a street that ran next to the school. The parents and CEC banned
together and worked with Urban Development and the city to resolve the two issues. A
participant said, "We had a couple that were really strong advocates and they'd call and
work really hard to make that happen and they made the case." A participant said that
CEC learned quickly that activating the families got more attention with the city (and the
city was a great partner). At the same time, the coordinated activities developed through
CEC were instrumental in moving the change process.
Funding for the Initiative comes from multiple sources, not just the NNFE
monies. Many of the activities sponsored under the CEC umbrella were from resources
held by partnering organizations. Some of the organizations charged fees for services and
resources (social enterprise) that typically support youth development and after-school
programming. Many businesses will support efforts through donations of money, time
served on committees and buying resources for a particular need. One example was a
garbage disposal for the school. According to a staff person with CEC, the greatest
example of an engaged citizenry was when neighborhood folks recognized a need and
went after funding in a way that matched their abilities. For instance, one mother was a
great baker so she held a bake sale to help supply a resource for CEC. The amount of
120money wasn't significant in the scope of the agency's budget, but the effort and
commitment demonstrated the cause.
Context
Context is the circumstances in which the participants in the study interact or
create actions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). There were four notable conditions of context in
'convening opportunity' that will be described here. They were: macro dynamics of the
environment, domain where the activity occurs, opportunity as defined within the
respective domains, and institutional features.
Community Context
Participants spoke of large global issues and state and city issues that contributed
to the context. However, according to the participants there were a few conditions of the
macro dynamics that formed specific actions.
Participants from each Initiative reported conditions of migration that contributed
to creating strategies. For the state Initiative, out-migration of young people from rural
areas was considered as "by far the most profound and the most detrimental" situation
impacting the economic future of rural towns. For the city Initiative, there were concerns
of "high mobility" and moving from "school to school". According to a participant, this
mobility impacted home-life, school performance, and neighborhoods.
Diverse populations stem from macro-situations. Many students and families
involved in the CEC framework came from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
Programs and resource flows were adjusted to address ethnic and cultural diversity. In
SRP Initiative resource flows and strategies were implemented to adjust to the
121circumstances found in communities. A partner spoke of the issues surrounding
ability to pay. The participant said:
I mean to raise that kind of money [for the framework] you need a population of
about 5,000 at least. So for smaller communities, it means they might have to
collaborate together to raise that for that level of engagement (working together is
not necessarily a norm in rural areas). The downside is that there’s a whole set of
limited resource communities. Of course that’s where we’ll use some of our grant
money. It gives us an ability to partner with the tribes, with the new Americans,
with the historic Hispanic communities. This is where the capacity right now isn't
there to pay full freight. So you know that’s where we’re going to provide
leveraged opportunities to work with those communities.
Interpretations within the Domain
The domain is the "specific goals [the organization or group] wishes to pursue and
the functions it undertakes to implement its goals" (Levine & White, 1961, p. 597). Each
of the Initiatives described their functions related to development activities. However, the
CEC Initiative's central focus was public education and development activities other than
education were described more as a means to that end. SRP's goals were specific to
development. The domain influenced what actions or interactions occurred.
SRP's domain was building capacities through an initiative. The variety of names
identified by participants included: "economic development", "rural development",
"community development", "leadership development", and "entrepreneurship
development". There were also internal goals related to capacity in their Initiative. The
SRP framework was an "opportunity to innovate and so in this way it's very much a
122laboratory." SRP intended to "push the envelope and try ideas, learn from that, revise
and over time have the set of approaches that really do have traction".
The participants of the CEC Initiative, referred to the functions of the Initiative as
"programming", "after-school programming", "community-based programming"," youth
development", "community schooling", "community building", and "community
development", with tangential impacts of "economic development". There were internal
goals identified as "staff development", so internal capacities could be increased.
However, the goals of CEC were to address "the needs of poor children and youth, to
close the achievement gap between minority and non-minority students, and to foster
community involvement in school improvement efforts".
A constant-comparison of the data revealed two sets of language in the Initiatives.
Opportunities, context, and strategies were defined within the domain of the respective
Initiatives and their organizational culture using the language and philosophies
characteristic of their constituency (e.g. rural economic development versus urban
educational contexts). Each of the Initiatives, however, viewed convening opportunity
was through stakeholder networks. They applied frameworks to convene opportunity by
managing resource flows, provide learning networks, and legitimated structure with well-
articulated, value-driven collective goals.
Opportunity defined by participants from SRP revealed a framework to "grow
hope" by "building capacities" in leadership, small business owners, entrepreneurs,
communities, and in the SRP framework. The greatest advantage of having the
opportunity was to increase rural communities' capacities to solve their own problems.
123CEC defined opportunity along the line of a framework to "build learner-
centered communities through public engagement". This was also a capacity building
framework. However, the goal had the student and education explicitly "in the center".
While each Initiative's participants used the words "community development" to
describe "goals" or "mission" objectives, each domain had a somewhat different meaning
to describe context. For instance, in SRP Initiative, community development was stated
with terms to increase leadership capacities or economic or social conditions in
community. Whereas, CEC, since their primary goal (and organizational culture) was
public education and youth development, "community development" was stated in terms
like an "holistic approach" or "family outreach activity" or combating the overall affects
of a child coming to school with "all this baggage" so that health and social conditions
were addressed.
The data also supported that the participants were well read and well versed in
topics related to their domain. Several were published authors. Participants used
patterned language and jargon associated with their domain. Much of the language used
by SRP was script-like. This was most evident when participants discussed
entrepreneurship. Perhaps this was a result of "multiple sets of conversations" over the
years or shared experiences in writing grants and proposals. One participant volunteered
a history of entrepreneurship and traits of entrepreneurs from his vast reading and
experience. Participants had also professed an entrepreneurial culture.
Institutional Features
Several institutional features provided a context for interaction. The data revealed
several partners in the Initiatives having 501 (c) 3 statuses and governing structures that
124gave input for the Initiatives. This broadened the influences, relationships and
boundaries for the Initiatives.
Both structures of the Initiatives had features resembling their organizational
structures. Terms that identified units were: "executive", "leadership", "management",
"program," "community," or "neighborhood." These units were organized on: "boards",
"councils", "committees" or "groups". Roles were labeled "partner"," president", "vice
president," "chairman", "chief executive officer", "Co-Director", "Executive Director",
"boss", "supervisor", "staff", "coach", "member", "lead person," "lead representative" or
"volunteer." Most relationships were described in terms of "collaborating" or
"partnerships."
An interesting feature between the two Initiatives was that participants from CEC
reserved the term "leadership" for those at the apex of the Initiative. An exception was a
participant who worked directly with neighborhood groups used the term of "mantle" to
describe actions of leadership taken on by community members. A focus for SRP's
Initiative was to create youth and adult "community leaders".
Each Initiative had a hierarchy of task assignments that were managed within a
partner's organization or at the community or school. Some members in CEC had "dotted
lines" between organizations.
Because the Initiatives' frameworks were applied differently within the
communities, there were considerable differences in how task assignments were carried
out. Operating guidelines were formalized and explicitly stated by the CEC framework.
Each community-based partner also had its own structure and rules. This according to
one participant could be confusing for a site supervisor working "on the ground" with an
125agency. In the SRP Initiative, operating rules were generated and managed by the
organization providing services. In both Initiatives some services were free to the
community and others required fees.
Managing resource flows was a function of the institutional structure and a
significant contextual condition that impacted action. Managing resource flows in the
nonprofit setting meant being careful of "turf issues" or "competing with your own
partners" for resources. The partners at CEC were already putting in more than the typical
40 hour work week. Chasing grants wasn't good. According to a participant, you can't "let
the tail wag the dog". However, some schools "were already out of funding to do family
outreach or community development" so grants were a viable option. One participant
from CEC agreed that revenues generated by nonprofit organizations are likely to become
subject to more scrutiny, especially if the money didn't go back into the mission. Partners
with CEC who charged for before-or-after school programs were doing so to help sustain
missions. Fee-based programs were in areas of the city where socio-economic conditions
were good.
The Initiatives' generated revenues were used to support their frameworks or were
recovered by the partnering organization. In SRP additional revenues could help "pay the
freight" for under resourced communities, which was a norm in the nonprofit setting.
SRP was also able to provide assistance and mentoring, training, and consulting. This
was "to facilitate those groups of volunteers or employees to build action plans and
strategy". So in-turn they take their resources and expand the SRP framework in their
community.
126SRP emphasized an often overlooked resource flow. Capital could be tapped
under the wealth-transfer paradigm that FRO had championed. Communities could create
affiliated funds under the FRO umbrella and provide funding to utilize the SRP
framework. According to a participant it was "always assumed within broad economics,
but especially within rural economics" that "capital was our limiting resource".
Communities paying "the freight" for their own futures looked promising. Leadership
from FE also recognized the potential of wealth-transfer between generations to bring
resources to K-12 education.
The two foundations in the Initiatives knew the tension that comes with
philanthropy. "That’s always the trick …getting the unrestricted dollars, because most
people like to leave restricted dollars." Funds are needed for the "back office" work in
philanthropy. Besides sustaining the foundations, a concern for SRP was how to establish
endowments to sustain communities forever. Unrestricted endowments were needed
"because we know that what they [community] need today, and what they need twenty
years ago. We can’t possibly determine what they’re going to need in twenty years."
"Selling an unrestricted endowment isn’t "sexy" because "it’s not bricks and mortar."
CEC were able to get additional resources from the community-at-large by
networking and "bringing partners to the table". The consistency of volunteer resources
had an ebb and flow, which made it difficult to predict impact. These resources were
based on voluntary donations or grants. By placing the framework for the CEC Initiative
in the schools, they were utilizing a "best public resource" and a fixed infrastructure.
Macro dynamics such as diversity and socio-economic conditions were
considered as context. The domain each Initiative was located in influenced
127interpretations of opportunity and shared meanings. Several other institutional
features, including culture and norms were found as context.
Intervening Conditions
Intervening conditions "mitigate or otherwise alter the impact of causal conditions
on phenomena"(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 131). The opportunity trajectory (causal
condition) was the national foundations providing the capacities to convene opportunity
as city and state Initiatives. The national foundations provided financial, knowledge and
social capital. This included a well-articulated, values-driven social cause with strategies
identified (were conditional to funding) and the resources to permit the Initiatives to
convene "opportunity".
The conditions identified that could mitigate or alter the resource flow or
strategies identified were capacity issues. These were institutional, community, and
personal capacities.
Institutional Capacities
The participants expressed conditions regarding the scale and the scope (including
diversity issues) of the Initiatives' institutional capacities. Maintaining a viable
framework remained a challenge to institutional capacity. SRP participants expressed
concerns with the Initiative adapting to increased scale. This meant protecting the
entrepreneurial culture. A participant projected that, "if you move to scale and as you
achieve growth, if you don’t build mechanisms for [an enterprising culture] to
happen…there’s a whole set of organizational constraints that begin to ratchet that
down". There were also opportunities considered. A participant stated:
128I’ve tended to be pretty conservative about our growth…wanting us to make
sure we kind of incrementally grow. But of course with [the NFI grant] that raised
the profile. There were a whole lot of folks now that said boy we want to partner.
So the immediate sense is well you’ve got to reach that opportunity when it
comes.
The CEC Initiative also had mixed concerns for growth and many concerns for
sustainability. Resources were a predominant issue. A participant stated, "Creativity, it
far outpaces the resources we have and the [staff] time we have to develop those".
Another participant said,
As we grow bigger, as we expand the base within the communities or the
neighborhoods in terms of program offerings and more agencies get involved, I
don’t know. It may come to the point where we’ve got to draw a line, but I don’t
think we’re there yet.
Addressing issues in diversity, (gender, culture, race or national origin), was a
condition that mitigated process. A participant from CEC related that local leadership is
primarily "white middle class, upper class people, who don't reflect the communities they
serve". However, communities that are diverse in culture or race or national origin
primarily had the same handful of community activists or leaders. It was a well known
challenge in the city that it was difficult to get good representation of the diverse
community on committees or councils. Partners in CEC could have missions aligned with
faith-based principles not necessarily in alignment with beliefs held in all of the
communities. This was a tension, although well-articulated goals of CEC overcame most
issues.
129 A facilitating feature of the Initiatives' structure was that community
representatives were convened to decide what their neighborhood or communities needed
in terms of service or programs. For instance, in the CEC model, there were different
programs at each center due to the local leaders' input. In the SRP model, the
communities' leadership could choose any one of the four portfolios the framework
offered. And this service could be provided by a number of service providers.
The decentralized features of embedding leadership at the community level and
convening multiple partners at the location of the community were a unique to the SRP
Initiative. Continuous training of new leadership at the local level could have the effect
regenerating the framework with new capacities that could influence the intended
outcomes of change. There were discussions within SRP about "exit strategies".
However, the framework, particularly under an affiliated fund model for local
philanthropy, made SRP "forever" partners in communities. Because communities
provided the "bulk of the resources" for the framework, "quality control" and oversight
were a function of the local "site coaches". These coaches (usually a person affiliated
with a partnering entity) were described by a participant as, "lead representatives in that
community to ensure quality control. We want to know that we’re being creative in
helping solve problems [and] taking advantage of opportunities." This "architecture" was
designed to create a "learning community" by establishing a network to gather the input
and output information through the site coaches.
For CEC the benefit of a loose structure with many partners was "people did not
feel the pressure against their turf". Each partnering organization worked within
guidelines of their organization. Member partners also had representation on the
130governing structure of the Initiative. Regarding working with these community-based
partners a participant said,
[Community-based partners] have the wherewithal to raise some of their own
funding. But [CEC] are giving enough funding that community-based partners
want to stay part of this larger initiative. So you know you extend your ability by
tapping into the strengths of other organizations that have a proven track record in
the community.
The governing group tried to establish a system so staff "on the ground" did not have to
"serve two masters". With the arrangement as it was with multiple organizations,
participants acknowledged that "open communication" was essential. Communications
were made "easy" by "inter-school mail" and "web-based e-mail". Nonetheless, the
framework's permeable boundaries made "plugging-in" the various partners difficult to
conceptualize. The feeling was that if you "kind of herd these cats in one direction" the
framework was working.
Proximity to others was an organizational characteristic that kept coming up in the
data. This impacted engagement in the process and expanded learning opportunities. FE
and FRO were each advantaged by their propinquity with the national foundations.
Having access to these networks and the leadership at the national level was instrumental
in gaining access to information and resources.
CEC centralized their activities in "outreach" facilities. CEC ability to place staff
near the Principals and hold activities in the school was important for public engagement.
Secondly, placement of the office for CEC coordinators provided a "closer working
relationship with our partner because we’re housed in their building". Several of the core
131partners in SRP were co-locating into shared office space to facilitate easier access to
one another and foster "a creative environment".
Community Capacities
The communities' capacities was said to have varied across space and time. The
communities in the city didn't yet have the level of readiness to take full advantage of
public engagement through CEC framework. It had taken seven years to see the
successful results of a community betterment project that stemmed from a joint Initiative
around housing. Growth in the Initiative's partners suggested engagement was still
emerging. Most of the successful programming featured in local media was youth
development. Adult development was still lagging. A participant said (regarding the
school buildings and adult programming),
You know people don’t consume public goods very much anymore. Parks tend
not to appeal to affluent suburban populations, as much as they appeal to new
Americans or refugees. Our society tends to look down on public goods and
maybe the fact that there isn't a lot of adult programming in schools is not a
failure of CEC. It’s just a reflection of the consumer demand.
There were several examples of community readiness that impacted public
engagement (or "psychological engagement") with Initiatives’ activities. Due to the
newness of the concept of frameworks, there was a generalized lack of understanding in
the community that CEC provided an "infrastructure that anybody can plug into as long
as there’s the need".
The CEC Initiative required a cross-section of community leadership's "buy-in" in
order to mobilize partnering agencies. It was felt that the city had an effect of being a
132"small community" that had advantages and disadvantages. It was stated that like
within many communities, the formalized leadership will have some people "committed
to and living by the status quo", which acted as a constraint to other development
activities. However, within the CEC Initiative the "small community effect" was an
advantage. Good relationships with the community were viewed as instrumental in
enrolling partners. Also, there was a kind of checks and balance that came with diverse
thinking around the "child at the center". A participant said,
You need some kind of institutional behavior. You need people who are worried
about pennies and you need people who are worried about formalities and
structures. And then you need these soft, mushy hearted people who are thinking
let’s get through this crap and make sure that these kids are getting what they
deserve.
SRP experienced problems with community readiness related to community size,
or a lack of local leadership available to coordinate activities. In other communities,
support from elected officials was necessary to get "complete buy in." Sometimes the
necessary "advocates" were not available. There was always a sense of optimism in
approaching any community. According to one participant,
What we know about systems change, and what we know about movements is
you don’t need a majority. In fact, you can get by with 30% of highly passionate
people to actually change an entire system.
There were many communities very strategically ready to apply the framework of
SRP and had. The annual report of the NFI had showcased one community that had an
increase of ten young couples moving to the rural town of Pandora. The report included a
133short video, which used a lot of symbolism to frame the work of SRP in the state. The
message was that a rural community could "basically control your own destiny".
According to the video, "a hallmark of this initiative is…creative cooperation…based on
homegrown assets". The video went on to show that the focal community was replicating
the Initiatives' creative cooperation and had built a new capacity to continue to do so.
Personal Capacities
The personal capacity of leadership was a strong mitigating factor. The relational
networks of trust and reciprocal behavior, social capital, held by the leadership in both
Initiatives influenced the availability of resources. "Relationships" and "trust "were
threaded throughout the data. The relationship that partnering organizations had with
each other was found to develop respect and trust. A participant said,
You know you have to have that ability to kind of weigh things and make
decisions kind of on the fly that are both practical and reasonable. But also serve
the interests of your students or chances are you miss getting any opportunities.
And that depends upon you having good relationships. If you don’t have good
relationships you’re unwilling to take those kinds of risks. So the relationship that
[two partners in CEC] have allows him to take those kinds of chances. To do
things a little bit on the edge that you know you have to do to be a successful
entrepreneur.
Particularly, it was felt that the principal's support and understanding of "what
[CEC] is and what it isn't" was critical. It was also important for executive leadership to
understand that for those "on the ground…the world looks very different than sitting in
an administrative chair", so communication and understanding were underscored.
134The capacities of leadership within the Initiatives were significant influences
on process. Because the study featured FE and FRO as entry points into the study, there
were many supportive comments by participants regarding the top leadership of those
two organizations and their directors. The national foundations' leadership was also
highly praised. Observation and interaction with all of the participants interviewed (who
were recognized officially by one another as "leaders") illustrated personal capacities of
great intellect, passionate persuasive abilities, and strategic orientations. The comments
that demonstrated the strengths of leadership were plentiful. The participants were
humorous, and thoughtful. Participants revealed insights into their character and abilities
to influence. For example, as one participant said,
"But it's fun because we take the community's cares and concerns, all the families,
you know neighborhood people, we'll interact with them or the business people
and say, "Gosh we're having a lot of problems with tagging, what can you guys do
about that?"
Examples are given for several comments that demonstrated knowledge or
experience of colleagues. "He is the perfect example of the social entrepreneur." "He is
very savvy." "I had been picked out of a pool of people from the state's industry to help
decide how to advance entrepreneurship in the state." It was stated that for an
entrepreneur is was important to "leverage your experiential past and add to it with the
educational past."
Additionally, there were insights into the depth of understanding that some of the
participants had about self in entrepreneurship or as an entrepreneur. A participant
described a philosophy that each person has a filter of "what’s rightful and appropriate"
135as determined by "culture". Each person has orientations that are "political, economic,
social, altruistic, individual, and theoretical", according to the participant. An aware
person can be self-regulating and find strategies to balance these dimensions of self. It
was considered important to uncover "operating models" of entrepreneurship.
The personal capacity to be innovative as a leader was a critical condition that
would facilitate or constrain process. Leadership asked hard questions and moved
through bureaucratic trappings. As a participant said,
…people that are willing to kind of say, “Well I understand that but is that really
enough? It may be sufficient but is it really adequate?” So they are always
thinking about new ways to bring in new resources in creative ways. I think [it]
tends to make people who are used to a very comfortable bureaucracy,
uncomfortable.
The intervening conditions for 'convening opportunity' were those capacities that
were dynamic and could always be in flux. These conditions and capacities could
facilitate or constrain the strategies or outcomes of the causal condition of the Initiatives.
Each Initiative had similar categories of conditions, but each case had some degrees of
difference.
Strategies
"There are actions/interactions, which are strategic or routine responses made by
individuals or groups to issues, problems, happenings, or events that arise under those
conditions" (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 128). Answering the process questions of how
opportunity was convened and who convened it formed an understanding of the strategies
136used. Making the case and forging partnerships were the two primary strategies in the
process of ‘convening opportunity’.
Making the Case "Buy in" or "psychological engagement" or "sell" or "making the case" were
terms used to describe the interactions to persuade others to support a social cause or to
move others to action in the Initiatives. Audiences for making the case ranged from
policy makers, supporters, or partners who provide services to the consumers of the
service.
Persuasive language was used to explore collective goals and to leverage
resources. Sometimes it was democratic principles and utilitarian concepts projected in
the language used. For example one participant said, "That they [the community] could
be the next one to do some greater good on behalf of society." Creating rhetoric to cast
meaning that was "conceivable and believable" was considered a strategic necessity.
Especially, since the leaders believed that the "ownership stake" communities must
address was a pivotal piece. As one participant stated, "The problem with community is
nobody owns it and everybody owns it". So how the case was made to community was
critical. This was considered to be "psychologically engaging" people.
Both Initiatives were using techniques of appreciative inquiry to draw upon the
communities' voices in determining community needs and desires. When asked how you
would advise someone doing the work, a participant with the CEC Initiative said,
I would say, get out and talk with people. Meet with people and find out what
drives them. Find out what's important to them and what they want to see in the
community that is centered on the school. Talk with parents, talk with kids, find
137out, talk to the neighborhood people, talk to the business and just listen.
The issues involved with making a case were critical to the mission of the
Initiatives. Consequently, framing was important to narrow meanings down to something
understandable. The issues framed by SRP were to show economic "relevancy" of rural
areas and convince others "there’s not enough either of government or charitable money
to get this stuff done", it would take entrepreneurship or leveraging resources. For the
CEC Initiative making the case required framing the Initiative as natural partners in
creating a healthier, more participative community.
The way to "make the case" was the same in each Initiative. The best
communication was "telling the stories". Sometimes these were stories of the needs, but
mostly the "success stories" encouraged "buy-in". Sometimes it was multiple "sets of
conversations" over time that built relationships.
And then we just begin to educate people on the nature of the constituency and
the fact that you have to build coalitions just like the rings on a tree, one heart and
one mind at a time through the relationships that core of people have.
In each Initiative public engagement was a "cornerstone" to the movement for
systemic change. The earliest problems that the CEC Initiative had with the buzzword
"public engagement" had made it clear that not only a "case" was to be made for
engagement, but a clear understanding of the "case" was critical. Accordingly, a
participant explained how important it was to be "introducing language with the idea that
that helps you build culture and a shared understanding of what it is we’re trying to do".
138The words used to name SRP sometimes were not understood by people
outside the immediate culture of SRP. To make the case in communities and with
collaborators there was a commitment "to creating some new language’. A participant
from SRP said,
Our work is based on pretty rigorous research. But when we go out into the field
and work with people those translations are made so that folks can understand it. I
mean it’s like this idea of entrepreneurial talent …it’s awkward for people at first
but we think it’s important that we have a shared understanding of this concept
Branding was helpful to leverage or mobilize resources. The CEC model received
national branding under the 21st Century grant. The city Initiative’s network model was
unlike most other CEC initiatives. It was felt by one participant that other centers with
"less of an ability to raise their own funds is probably more dependent on the brand and
the materials". Local news carried many stories about CEC. However, the reality was that
on the ground CEC were known by parents and students as "before-and-after school
programs".
Collaborators in the SRP Initiative often used their own program name-brands as
they provided services in communities. The local coordinator was responsible for fitting
these pieces together under the SRP umbrella.
The name "Sustaining Rural Prosperity" was thought to "evoke an emotional
response from people beyond just saying your community." A participant said, "We are
very intentional about using the word [sic] because we’re pretty sure it has an amazing
emotional connection to their hometowns". Another participant said, "Words are
important and we spend a lot of time with it and probably should spend more."
139The message was articulated multiple times by each participant in SRP Initiative.
They said (in same or similar version),
[SRP] says… it says, keep in touch. You may go outside to learn, but don’t
dismiss the fact that you can have an environment in your hometown, if the
hometown takes care of its politics, leadership and youth engagement and
philanthropy. It’s possible for you to come back to this small town and do it.
Participants from CEC used words like "working together and get organized" as
something the partners were doing. Subsequently, creating and organizing activities for
adult and families that utilized the school buildings was something that they found
challenging. One participant told of the problem with engaging parents at CEC "in any
kind of meaningful way in terms of direct services provision". The participant said,
"So in order for communities to truly utilize schools’ resources, [schools] just
can’t be glorified, extended day learning opportunities. If you really want to take
ownership over your schools, you have to be able to use [the schools] more for
everybody.
Forging Partnerships
SRP’s core partners envisioned "a very long term endeavor" under a basic
collaborative model. As a partner said, "That’s how we do business and have done
business for quite some time. So that part is not unique to us." Historically, the partners
had witnessed as a rural development strategy "based upon deficiency". Government
grants were based on who could plead the best case. A participant said, "We’ve said you
need to give us money because we’re poorer than you are and that’s the system we’ve set
up". The new strategies were a major shift. As a partner said,
140You know I think we’ve a real commitment on all of our parts to use this as an
opportunity to kind of rationalize our relationship. I mean really integrate the
services we offer to communities… Actually instead of seeing all these different
players out there they see a cohesive mold that’s really been thought out and that
fits together.
The partners of SRP were individually committed to having an entrepreneurial
culture in the partnership. A participant said,
Most of the central players in this [partnership] are pretty entrepreneurial
themselves and fairly creative people themselves. They’re bringing those
orientations and those personalities to the table. I think the second thing is over
the last three or four years we have built a culture where we’ve said
[entrepreneurial approaches are] important. I mean it’s important that we get paid.
It’s important we do good work. But part of this is, at this point in all of our
professional careers, being creative and trying to be on the cutting edge of what’s
going to work is personally pretty important to us.
The partners believed that communication in the culture was "wide open". Being
colleagues had brought them through "difficult times" and worked it through so that they
have maintained friendships and professional relationships. The next challenge to the
partnership was how to bring new partners into an existing culture.
The leadership for SRP was thoughtful about how to balance strategic and
creative processes. To convene opportunity they were "intentional", "deliberate", and
"strategic" in locating the "right people", "right places" and at the "right levels". And
creative processes were beneficial in convening opportunity. A participant said,
141The other thing that we’re currently working on is through our learning
community... set aside bigger blocks of time …pull into that creative mold…
when you do that is the opportunity to bring other people in so that you expand
the kinds of people around the table, which enriches the creative process. So
we’re trying to be fairly intentional about ensuring that we maintain a creative
element in this and I think that’s particularly important that as we are growing the
demands to simply run this thing are getting bigger. And it’s very easy then to let
the creative time get pushed out.
The SRP Initiative participants had to balance their time with being creative and
learning from their "experiment". This work was a learning process to balance the
"tension between short term and long term gain". The short term was to have funds to pay
the bills and the long term was to create mechanisms that could sustain the Initiative. The
partners also had to learn the balance of immediate value and long term effects in the
communities. A participant said,
I mean communities they like this stuff. But … when they go back to the County
Commissioners, they’re going to look at those bottom line metrics and [ask] has
progress been made. Whether we feel more enlightened or not isn’t going to get
them to write a check.
The community-based partners in the CEC framework were considered strong
partners by participants. The network provided resources for partners, which included
some funding and materials. However, there remained a tension for community-based
partners to keep their branding and their relationship in the community solid because
142each partner was responsible for his/her primary source of funding. The success of
the network was the relationships being built. A participant said,
Working in partnership of all these collaborative organizations and the school and
that's, that was really tricky. And it did, it took a long time and cause we had to
build relationships and that's, I guess essentially that's what it's about is building
relationships between people between organizations, building trust and it takes a
long time and it doesn't take much to wreck that.
Partnering meant that there was a value-added resource of the CEC framework
available in the community. An example of a partner's work "on the ground" in this new
area of community development was that of facilitating community's engagement. A
participant said,
We’re just more as an advisor and kind of help facilitate the use of the building
and connections. Sometimes there's value added resources, like we're members of
the food bank. So if like they [the local neighborhood committee] need food
brought, we'll check the food bank list. If we can provide that we'll let you know.
Or we've got a babysitting club [at another site] and there's a parenting class going
to be put on by the school psychologist and school counselor. We'll match that
resource to provide childcare for the parenting class. So we kind of help facilitate
these things. About three times a year we really start talking about goals and what
do we want to try to accomplish and things. But in between those meetings, it's
really about getting those things done and checking that list off and jump through
all the hoops we got to get these things done.
143Each Initiative used making the case and forging partnerships to convene
opportunity. The behaviors that participants identified were both strategic and routine
actions. Making the case was through multiple sets of conversations with different
audiences. These conversations and dialogues were both appreciative inquiries from the
communities and making a "sell" to the community for them to engage. There was
considerable attention given to framing language or developing shared meanings within
the culture of each Initiative. Partnering was strategically locating and identifying the
most salient stakeholders. Balancing the power in the Initiatives, as well as pooling
resources, was a process of acknowledging partners strengths and leveraging those
strengths.
Outcomes
Strategies (actions/interactions) have outcomes. These outcomes may be a failure
to respond to or a result of the strategies (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). An outcome of
systemic change was not a verifiable condition of 'convening opportunity' in this study.
The primary outcomes in both Initiatives were creating frameworks that continued to
convene opportunity. The frameworks had both intended and unintended outcomes.
The model of SRP was considered "innovative" by the initiators and the
facilitator. The scope of this community development effort pushed into unexploited
areas by placing multiple resources into one Initiative. According to a participant, "It
becomes very robust in terms of the number of communities, the scale, the budget, and
the number of people involved. So that makes it unique because of the duration and the
scale of the Initiative." Additionally, the feature of SRP being a "network" embedded into
144the community was intentional. A participant said, "They don’t have to be doing
[development of rural areas] in a vacuum or in a silo, but now are part of the community
doing this". The partners had also developed a framework that was meant to appeal to the
sense-making abilities of people in community.
The SRP Initiative's approach to philanthropic grant-making gave communities a
framework to "break away from the restrictions that are placed on us when we get a grant
from the government". Through the affiliated fund approach power was given to the
community through greater "autonomy than that of a government relationship".
SRP's framework was also an opportunity for the partners to innovate within their
own domain of community development activity. They could, as a participant said,
"Go out and push the envelope and try ideas, learn from that and revise and over
time. Learn all the sets of approaches that really do have traction. So that’s part of
this too –the learning community. It is really the foundational tool of what we’re
trying to do with [the model].
Money and materials, and the social connections, "benefited the partners" in CEC.
Although, the core work of each partner is focused on schools that they have
relationships with to provide service. Since each community-based partner in the
Initiative must raise funds or their own organizations, those with "less of an ability to
raise their own funds are probably more dependent on the CEC brand and the materials
that they provide".
An innovation of the network was to enter into the domain for community
development in programs other than before-and-after school programs. These community
development activities were undergirded by the philosophy of public engagement.
145Serendipitously or strategically, the before-and-after school programs provided a
bridge to bring the community-at-large into the framework. A participant said,
…relationships …they get to know staff, … through positive interactions that they
learn to trust us and see us as partners helping their kids and their families provide
a service for free for them… from this…The Neighborhood Committee has really
taken the mantle on strengthening families and doing family events and things
like that.
Sometimes community development was happening in more incremental steps
than the youth development work (e.g. the neighborhood betterment project that had been
in committee for several years before fully engaging the neighborhood in a community
betterment project). However, the partners at the schools were also instrumental in
making community development happen. As a result, they were building their capacities
to learn and grow from the community processes.
So I think that's what, you know working together, everybody playing their role
and coordinating with everybody else we actually produce something far greater
than if you just kind of thrown little 'stone soup' out here.
The ability of the CEC Initiative to overcome "turf issues" was considered a
positive outcome by participants. Each partnering organization had autonomy with its
partnered schools and neighborhoods. CEC was a supporting framework that community-
based partners could attach to, so "turf" was less and less an issue after initial roll-out.
Both Initiatives received local, state, and national attention for their innovation in
community development and public engagement. The outcome of this recognition was
"humbling" and gratifying for the Initiatives' leaders.
146Summary of Convening Opportunity
The logic of Strauss and Corbin's (1998) technique is to organize findings within
categories to discover the process being studied. The logic applied to the study found
when a causal condition(s) exist (well-articulated values-driven cause and resources
availed) and these conditions contribute to a phenomenon (convening opportunity
through an Initiative), the context (macro and domain influences and institutional
features) and intervening conditions (institutional, community, and personal capacities)
influence the strategies that are employed (making the case and forging partnerships) to
bring about certain outcomes (frameworks that are network models of community
development that continue to convene).
For both cases the opportunity identified was to create systemic change in
communities by building the communities' capacities to engage in the process of
convening opportunity. These changes were articulated differently. However, the overall
effects were intended to be healthier more vibrant communities with greater social and
knowledge capacities. Opportunity was the possibility that a member of the community-
field identified with or created and implemented promising innovations, and necessary
resources were found and applied in order to sustain the innovation over time (Dorado,
2005).
Initiatives were created to provide a framework that was intended to build
capacities in individuals, community, and also within the frameworks. These
strengthened capacities were framed by stakeholders as a pattern of actions-reactions that
would lead to systems change. An engaged public could improve social conditions,
147because of the underpinning values of democracy and public engagement (community
ownership).
Convening opportunity in social entrepreneurship at was an action-reaction
process of recognizing opportunity, strategizing the opportunity, and structuring the
opportunity. Recognizing the opportunity provided a clear, well-articulated value-driven
cause to create strategies and structures that could mobilize resources and stimulate
collective action. The identified opportunity was to create systemic change by building
the communities' capacities to do so. The overarching value was identified as a
democratic principle of public engagement and the "community had to own the process"
in order for real change to occur.
Strategizing the opportunity identified mechanisms to build capacities, evaluate
resource flows, and influence policy. This was accomplished through aligned leadership
and a combined mission among all partners, including the constituencies plugged into the
network or framework.
Structuring the opportunity provided a framework for how opportunities were
convened within the social and community fields. These varied by context for each
Initiative.
148CHAPTER VII
Convening Opportunity in Social Entrepreneurship
This study integrated categories of causal condition, phenomenon, context,
intervening conditions, strategies, and outcomes using grounded theory methods (Strauss
& Corbin 1998) (see Figure 3).
The study was guided by two research questions. Research question one asked:
What is the theory that explains the process of social entrepreneurship in Community
Development Initiatives? This study found action sets of convening opportunity as a
process definition of social entrepreneurship was discovered. Research question two
asked: How and to what extent do institutional structures and processes of engagement
facilitate or constrain the process of social entrepreneurship? Institutional structures were
found to be significant contextual and intervening variables in the phenomenon of
convening opportunity. New institutional building was a consequence of convening
opportunity. Social capital was found to be a necessary element to facilitate process.
Evidence from the study provided new constructs, grounded in the data. This
evidence has generated theoretical propositions and sub-propositions related to the two
research questions that guided the study. Recommendations are made to test the
propositions so that the constructs can add to a grand theory of social entrepreneurship.
Research Question One – Defining Social Entrepreneurship
"Good science has to begin with good definitions"(Bygrave & Hofer, 1991, p.13).
This study supports the following definition of social entrepreneurship in two community
development Initiatives. Social entrepreneurship is a process of convening opportunity,
149where opportunities are recognized, strategized, and structured so that communities
may exploit and reconvene them.
Dorado's (2005) definition of convener in the context of institutional
entrepreneurship varies from what is found in this study. Dorado stated, "In contrast to
entrepreneurs who define a project, conveners identify a problem and convene other
actors to define a solution"(p. 409). According to Dorado, the conveners are organized to
be problem solvers and are not necessarily entrepreneurs. Trist (1983) would agree. This
study uses the term convener for two reasons. This was an in vivo term used by
participants in each Initiative. Secondly, there are no cognitive, social, or political reasons
a convener may not be someone who searches for social opportunity, recognizes an
opportunity and takes action to develop this into a planned social change by mobilizing
resources (Gupta et al., 2004; Stevens, 2003; Thompson et al., 2000).
In this study the conveners were able to convene others into the process of
entrepreneurship. This doesn't move too far from Dorado' model though, as she places the
convener as one who mobilizes resources.
Based on findings in this study it is reasonable to make opportunity the subject of
convening. Especially, given the following definition of opportunity that Dorado
provided, "opportunity is the possibility that a member of the community-field will
identify with or create and implement promising innovations, and necessary resources
will be found and applied to sustain innovations over time (p. 391)." Opportunity is
described in the organizational literature as creating organizational advantage or
competitive advantage (Anderson & Jack, 2002: Davis & Aldrich, 2000; Day, 2001;
Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Opportunity defined in the study was to create a framework
150that built the communities' and the frameworks' capacities to engage in the process of
creating systemic change.
Theoretical Propositions and Subpropositions
Theoretical Proposition One
1.0 Social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting is a process of convening
opportunity. The process is identified by actions of recognizing opportunity,
strategizing opportunity, and structuring opportunity.
1.1 Convening opportunity is a trigger-response that sets into motion active-
reactive patterns of change.
1.1.1 Any element of the process will overlap and be
interdependent with the action, interaction, and strategies of
the actors (leadership).
1.2 Recognizing opportunity is an action set to develop a clear, well-articulated
value-driven social cause to create strategies and structures that will
mobilize resources and stimulate collective action.
1.3 Strategizing the opportunity is an action set to identify salient stakeholders
(aligned leadership), and frame a mission that identifies the values in the
social cause.
1.3.1 Strategizing the opportunity establishes mechanisms to
build capacities, evaluate resource flows, and influence
policy.
1.4 Structuring opportunity is an action set to create a basis for managing the
strategies, which has potential for new institutional building.
1511.4.1 The structure is dependent upon a solid knowledge-base
of the context of the opportunity and useful strategies.
1.4.2 The structure is able to manage and allocate resources.
1.4.3 The structure has permeable boundaries around the
activities so that it will generate ideas and opportunity.
1.4.4 The structure is legitimated through the successful
institutionalization of convening opportunity processes,
which includes making the case and forging partnerships.
Theoretical Proposition Two
2.0 Making the case is a strategy used to engage people in the process of convening or
exploiting opportunity that has been convened.
2.1 Making the case occurs through relationships.
2.2 Making the case occurs through multiple sets of conversations or dialectical
means.
2.3 Making the case will engage people having the capacity to engage or will
motivate people to build the capacity to engage.
Theoretical Proposition Three
3.0 Forging partnerships is a strategy used to build the capacity to convene opportunity.
3.1 Forging partnerships intends to disperse and balance power across the
framework structured to convene opportunity.
3.2 Forging partnerships leverages pooled resources of talent, expertise, and
revenue.
1523.3 Forging partnerships is predicated on relationships built in strategizing
the opportunity.
Theoretical Proposition Four
4.0 The process is recursive. It is a process that is characterized by indefinitely
repeating itself and reapplying itself to its output.
4.1 During recursion, the process will change as context and capacities change.
4.2 An outside facilitator is any entity that has already recognized, strategized,
and structured opportunity.
Theoretical Proposition Five
5.0 Facilitating and constraining events in convening opportunity are defined by the
actors' social reality and the institutions' response to new institutional building.
5.1 When entrepreneurial mechanisms in the framework pressure the status quo
change emerges in the community-field.
5.2 Social capital is both a facilitator and constrainer for convening opportunity.
5.2.1 Social capital constrains 'convening opportunity' when actors are not
able to use the social capital of another actor or actors possess low
levels of trust and relationships in the social field.
5.2.2 Social capital facilitates 'convening opportunity' when actors are able
to use the social capital of another actor or actors possess high levels
of trust and relationships in the social field.
153Discussion
A process of social entrepreneurship was studied in two community development
Initiatives. This study extended research in the field of institutional entrepreneurship and
also offered new insights on social capital, which were two theoretical lenses that support
findings in the study. This discussion first integrates findings with theories used in the
study as constraining and facilitating factors. Finally, the emerging constructs are
discussed and linkages are made to other theories.
Research Question Two – Constraining and Facilitating Factors
Theoretical Lenses
Institutional Analysis
Primarily, the study has extended an understanding of how institutionalized
structures affect the use of entrepreneurial mechanisms to pressure the status quo. The
studied Initiatives were developed as social organizations building new institutional
forms. The purposes of these Initiatives were related to a need for systemic change.
Institutional theory has been influential in explaining processes for organizational actions
and the development of new organizational forms (Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002;
Greenwood & Suddaby, 2005; Maguire et al. 2004).
Studies that use an institutional approach focus attention on the relationships
among organizations and the fields in which they operate. In this study the domain
activity was similar in each of the two cases. Participants and their organizations were
attached to the nonprofit setting. The two local foundations, FRO and FE, had legitimated
status with the respective national foundations. Legitimacy was based on the shared
culture and knowledge between the two organizations. In addition, leadership in each
154organization had status with the leadership in the national foundations, which
facilitated resource sharing.
There were mimetic pressures through the national networks to address agendas
for systemic change. These mimetic pressures were affects from affiliation to the larger
nonprofit setting. Mimetic pressures reduce uncertainty (Martinez & Dacin, 1999) or
stabilize behaviors (Tolbert & Zucker, 1994). It's normative behavior for state
foundations to assimilate the goals and strategies of a national network of foundations
(Hollingsworth, 2000).
The scope and scale of the national foundation gave its leadership more power
through resource flows. The foundations had greater positional and legitimated power
from their national statuses, which also facilitated more political influence. Greater
knowledge of the macro-environment and the social, political, and economic issues
facing their constituencies were organized in data sets and clearly articulated as value and
knowledge statements from the national leaders.
Cognitive processes in institutional theory relate to recognizing features within a
domain that are potential opportunities (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Keh, Hoo, & Lim, 2002;
Mitchell, Busenitz, & Lant, 2002). A national leader at the Foundation for Innovation
regarded social entrepreneurship as changing a system. Consequently, the recognized
opportunity appeared to be related to "change". Strategies were outlined as "three major
things that have to happen to change a system, they were: "building capacities, looking at
resource flows and then shifting policy".
Building capacities was evidenced by providing training and opportunity for
change. One example was giving the role of leadership to community members so that
155the role would as one participant said, to empower or enable people "to act differently
than they have before". This change occurred when new events emerged in the social or
community field. For instance, a dialogue in a community on wealth-transfer provided a
young woman an opportunity to publicly address a community issue. Norms in the
community were such that attempts were made by some to have her not be heard.
However, the local leader from SRP managed the situation by stressing acceptance and
the young woman's rights to having a voice in community issues. This represents the
cognitive and symbolic elements of institutional structures that create patterns of
behavior (Meyerson, 1994). Changing behavioral patterns meant sometimes managing
conflict or providing a new rule or resource to give a community member the opportunity
to act differently.
In both cases the opportunities to connect to resources with the national
foundations demonstrated how Initiatives were extending the institutional goals of the
national social sphere. The sense-making of "public engagement" and new economic
strategies were translated to the work of the local Initiatives. The CEC Initiative
addressed "public engagement" for systemic change and SRP addressed hope for rural
revitalization with new strategies that mirrored the larger foundations.
However, field influences and contextual environments were not as similar
between the Initiatives. The CEC Initiative was from an urban setting, which produced a
set of constraining and facilitating factors to influence this new structure. Whereas, the
SRP Initiative had a different set of institutional features that affected its system.
To analyze change in the nonprofit setting, a structural analysis is essential. A
structural analysis will identify equilibrium, common values, and boundary maintenance
156in the social structure. Critics of this type of analysis assert that this view gives little
account for change in a system. Eisenstadt (1995) observed no such limitation. "Our
major point is that the institutionalization of any social system…be it political, economic,
or a system of social stratification or of any collectivity or role…creates in its wake the
possibilities for change"(p. 87). The process of institutional building is not random.
Institutional analysis demonstrates institutionalization will organize a prescribed system
as a solution to problems in social life (Eisenstadt, 1995).
Social Capital
Public engagement was central to the values and mission of the two Initiatives.
An emphasis was continuously placed on relationships and interests in the "hearts and
minds" of the community. Social capital has been an area of focus in public engagement
(Putnam, 1995; 1996; 2000) and is central to many debates. Social capital begins through
people's social connections and networks based on values of trust, mutual reciprocity, and
norms of action. "Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular,
honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other
members of that community" (Fukuyama, 1995, p.26).
Community is an arrangement of social forms (Bender, 1978). Social processes to
interact within the community have been viewed as networks. The study participants
from each Initiative viewed their organized structures as networks of partners
(Initiatives). Of particular interest is how these networks facilitated public engagement.
Engagement (commitment to social action) is an emergence in the network. This
can be a personal (social) network or a community-field network (Allen, Personal
communication, November 3, 2004). The community-field is the pattern of community
157members' interactions, where these interactions result in mutual influences and shared
meanings (Wilkinson, 1991). To engage people in the social network may or may not
create norms of trust and reciprocal behavior in those relationships. Interaction in the
social-field may create shared understandings and or normative behaviors, but it will not
connect to public engagement in terms of the inspiration (influence) to act.
When engagement (or social capital) emerges from the community-field these
patterns of activity will result in influence and shared meaning, which is a higher level of
engagement than engagement in the social network. To engage community as it relates
with the field concept, "attention is directed more to the dynamic processes that create
and alter community structure than to the effects of structure on social processes"
(Wilkinson, 1991, p. 32). By engaging the community-field, new institutional forms can
emerge. Social innovation is the result of new networks of norms, trust, and reciprocal
behavior pushed beyond the social field.
There were indications that SRP had their framework adapted to the community-
field. The outcomes from communities had provided evidence that the communities were
taking ownership of the process. The framework did several things that facilitated the
community-field emerging. First, it provided a stimulus for ownership by the community
because it created pooled resource flows using the wealth-transfer model. This in turn
inspired "hope" and a sense of continuance.
Secondly, SRP's framework didn't give the community merely task assignments to
organize. The framework gave meaning by ascribing the role of leadership at the
community level. Symbolic interactionism and role theory are likely two theories that
could be used to explore the structural influences of community members leading in the
158Initiative. What these theories presume is that there are sets of cultural and normative
influences that will facilitate or constrain the leader's actions in the community field.
Further, the role of the local leadership and the training provided by the Initiative was
intended to create an "entrepreneurial culture" with language and ascribed meanings that
were meant for the community to imbibe.
Social capital facilitates 'convening opportunity' when actors are able to use the
social capital of another actor or possesses high levels of trust and relationships in the
social field. To show the significance, it is helpful to look at the differences between a
community and social field. "The primary distinction between the two fields is that in the
social field individuals pursue their own self-interest while a community field cuts across
these fields and is more generalized, it is within the community field that we see
collective action focusing on public good" (Allen, 2001, p. 119). An example of engaging
at the level of the social-field is the scenarios described when grantees may
collaboratively apply for grants, but fail to move to a level engagement that would
facilitate innovation or change in a system.
Interactional perspectives and social capital concepts have been of interest to
community development research. These concepts demonstrate the relationship between
communities' capacities for engagement and the community structure (Allen, 2001;
Sharp, 2001). Community fields are studied under each of these constructs. However,
both constructs have theoretical ambiguity and proxies for measurement that remain too
varied (Sharp, 2001).
The results of this study indicated that when emergence happens in a community-
field an entrepreneurial event occurs. News sources provide accounts of events that each
159Initiative sponsored. These field level examples of engagement occurred as
entrepreneurial events of change. For the SRP Initiative, this was a community's
successful economic revival. And for CEC, the community events that had a high level of
public engagement was an entrepreneurial event that pushed the status quo.
Structures of the Initiatives facilitated or constrained the emerging of community
field. The SRP Initiative had a greater propensity for engagement in the community field
because how the organizational framework was arranged. SRP was more decentralized
and communities were embedded into the framework. Consequently, communities were
responsible for process, including managing resource generation and leadership.
Studies of social entrepreneurship (institutional entrepreneurship) have
demonstrated the ability of technical leaders to have influence on new organizational
forms within the fields they operate (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2005; Maguire et al., 2004).
It is probable that emergence in the community-field (engagement) and local leaders
having absorbed a capacity to have technical skills will have greater effects on systems
change.
In the case of CEC there was evidence that there was more activity at the social
field because of its structure. The management level of the organization was more
centralized (board, leadership council, school principals, community-based partners, etc.)
and these entities were predominantly responsible for resource flows. This distance of
leadership from the community-field meant that engagement happened more frequently at
the social field, where meetings and programs were a venue for organizational
maintenance and task assignments between partners and community members.
160A high level of appreciative inquiry at the community level and the work of
the service providers at the schools can provide direction and engagement for community
field level action. Indications for the emergence of the social field and the community
field did occur when innovation emerged from the community. Such as, the rock show,
bake sale, and community betterment projects. (It is probable that there were more
examples). However, public interest in some of these activities may have be motivated by
self-interest (e.g. a community member volunteers because they love rock music). New
behaviors of public engagement may occur at the social field and have good results.
However, a more deep and durable change happens at the community field level.
In each of the models of community development commonly described in the
literature, change is enforced by actors who act as facilitator, advisor, or
advocate/organizer. The change mechanisms in a self-help model presuppose that people
in the community will identify and solve problems themselves. A technical assistance
model has experts (science), who can provide the necessary means and solutions to
community problems. Whereas, a conflict model of community development presumes
power as the basic resource (Flora, et al., 1992; Green & Haines, 2002).
SRP and CEC developed networks of partners or agents (drawing upon Agency,
e.g. Giddens, 1984) in an entrepreneurial model. The Initiatives avail themselves as
experts (technical capacities). And the networks also built capacities in the community,
believing the community could best determine their own needs (self-help). These
networks would also act as frameworks (containers) to draw resource capacities into the
framework and build consensus around social issues. The open nature of these systems
161makes it a viable opportunity to bridge policy makers and community members
together through modern technology and the network the Initiatives provide.
Constructs of Convening Opportunity
To understand how social entrepreneurship is a process of convening opportunity,
it is helpful to show how the constructs emerged in relationship to conceptual
understandings of entrepreneurship. (See Table 7).
Table 7.
Comparison of Entrepreneurship Models
Entrepreneurship
Gartner (1985)
Convening Opportunity
(Social Entrepreneurship)
Sattler Weber (2006)
Collaborative Problem-
Solving
McCann, 1983; Gray, 1985)
(Institutional
Entrepreneurship)
(Dorado, 2005)
Locate Opportunity Recognizing Opportunity Problem Setting
Accumulate Resources Strategizing Opportunity
(Making the Case) Direction Setting
Market Products and
Services
Structuring Opportunity
(Forging Partnerships) Structuring
Produce Product Networked Model of
162Community Development
Build an Organization
Respond to Government
and Society
Gartner's (1985) maintained that the process of innovation was the interaction of
the elements (described in Table 7) and the "domains" of the individual, the organization,
and the environment. In the present study, referred to here as Sattler Weber (2006), the
researcher's findings replicated Gartner's "domain" interactions. However, the elements
or phases of innovation differed. McCann's phases of problem-solving, which according
to Dorado (2005) is a feature of institutional entrepreneurship, were most applicable.
This study explicitly relates to only the first phases of new venture creation
Gartner's (1985). Each Initiative had social enterprises (generated revenues) operating
within their models of social entrepreneurship. The study of convening opportunity
focused on the patterns of activity and institutional responses that occurred through the
convening opportunity phase. The study did not address an economic model of
entrepreneurship nor a focus on outcomes, which are the final phases in Gartner's model.
Convening opportunity addresses a social movement process of entrepreneurship, with
field level changes as social innovation.
Social systems are those patterns of relationships in a society that once established
tend to perpetuate themselves (Giddens, 1984). Change in the institutional context
(structure of rules, roles, practices, and beliefs) occur depending on agency, resource
mobilization, and opportunity (Dorado, 2005). Dorado stated that studies help to
163enlighten the field on the "paradox of how institutional change is possible if actors'
intentions, actions, and rationality are conditioned by the institutions they wish to change
(p. 385)." In this study, each Initiative was engaged in institutional building to develop
and expand value-sets. This was to establish new networks that could change existing
norms and patterns of behavior. The complexity and myriad of social and economic
issues was too large for any single organization to make significant impacts so Initiatives
were created.
According to Dorado (2005), actors define a project, gain support from backers,
and in tandem with backers will bargain for acceptance from external stakeholders. The
bargaining is to frame issues so as to convince others in the field a need for change. This
calls for politically skilled actors. Change agents are skilled at environmental scanning;
understand the mutual benefits of collaborating; and are attentive to evaluating and using
lessons learned. Largely, the skill is needed because a complex problem will call for
convincing others of the need for collaborative solution making (Dorado, 2005; Gray,
1985; Weick, 1998). In collaboration, agents are catalysts to explore the possibilities of
cooperation. These agents, according to Dorado, must be credible, knowledgeable, and
positioned as an unbiased entities.
Coalitions increase in times of crisis and may be field-level attempts to create
change (Gray, 1985; Trist, 1983). In this study the Initiatives were created by nonprofit
organizations that had prior experience with other Initiatives addressing social issues.
However, in each of the cases addressed in this study, the new Initiative had a much
larger scope and scale than previous experiences.
164Weick (1998) stated that when complexities are large it is important for
organizations to develop a "coherent story of what is going on as much as to decide what
should be done given the unfolding story (p. 40)." In convening opportunity this was
considered as strategic sensemaking or making the case. There were successful strategies
to bring partners to the table and to engage community members into active participation
in economic and social issues.
Gray (1985) asserted that collaborations are "the set of actors (individuals, groups,
and /or organizations) that become joined by a common problem or interest (p. 912)."
Problem domains require the resources of several stakeholders to achieve optimal
outcomes. However, to effectively problem-solve, there must be attention given to
process and not how to control another organization in the collaboration (Gray 1985;
Trist, 1983).
The organizational arrangements of the Initiatives in this study were not similar,
although each Initiative claimed of having "networks" of stakeholders or partners. SRP
had a more decentralized structure. Focus was placed on moving the client into the
structure. Leaders in the community or partnering organizations provided task
assignments (training or community organizing) as services at the location of the
community.
CEC had formal rules and guidelines organizing its overall structure.
Programming by CEC partners was facilitated using local infrastructure (the school
building), and task assignments were the responsibility of each partnering organization.
Local coordinators acted as quality control and capacity builders for the framework. This
structure was necessary in order to have legitimacy in its organizational field of education
165in an urban environment. CEC had "pushed the envelope" in terms of the scale and
scope of the Initiative, as compared to previous collaborations.
The reason the Initiatives in this study came into being was the identified need for
social change was bigger than any one entity could solve alone (Trist (1983) called these
metaproblems). Gray (1985) defined this as "pooling of appreciations and/or tangible
resources, e.g. information money, labor, etc. by two or more stakeholders to solve a set
of problems which neither can solve individually (p. 912)." For several years FE had
worked in smaller, local initiatives and saw that bringing the "tables together" would help
to overcome limitations in resource flows. They also recognized that a simple network of
community-based organizations would not have the capacity to create change without
collective action. Partners from SRP echoed similar reasons for wanting the power to do
things in a collective manner.
According to Gray (1985), bureaucratic organizations are not likely to adapt to
complex environments. The complexity of the social issue involved partnering across
public, private, and nonprofit entities in the Initiatives. This was likely to influence
institutional processes in each of the sectors represented. Action by one organization will
have an influence on the remaining partners. This Gray believed, enhanced a "pooling" to
achieve greater understanding of the context. To Gray, the "pooling" effect is a negotiated
order of events that are managed collectively and incorporate the different perspectives.
Institutions preserve their boundaries (Selznick, 1949). This would indicate that in
this study, each of the Initiatives were likely to have functional changes as a result of the
multiple organizations in the Initiatives and constant negotiation in institutional
boundaries. A minor occurrence of this in the study was the example of hashing through
166to negotiate the term "public engagement". Once the school district understood the
rationale or definition, it was accepted as a viable means to promote educational
outcomes.
SRP purposely used "learning networks" to pool information flow. By having
community members as part of the network understandings of process and shared
meanings were distributed through Initiative. In CEC, this was accomplished through
meetings and events held at the school. Both Initiatives had public venues for
communicating outcomes and presence in the area.
A Comparison of Convening and Collaborating
To illustrate by comparing and contrasting, the findings in this study will be
related to Gray's (1985) model of inter-organizational collaboration. Her model uses
constructs from McCann's (1983) collaborative problem solving model. McCann's model
has been used to illustrate mechanisms of institutional change (Dorado, 2005; Gray,
1985).
Gray's (1985) model is set in the context of collaborations between business, labor
and government. How that context applies in this study is the Initiatives had multiple
stakeholders from business, government and other private organizations; however they
were predominantly nonprofit organizations. Thus, the institutional features of the
Initiatives were like that of the organizations in the nonprofit setting and within their
domain of activities (i.e. education and community development).
Three sequential phases, i.e., problem setting, direction-setting, and structuring
(McCann, 1983), will be used to illustrate the similarities and differences this study found
in regard to convening opportunity. It must be emphasized that social entrepreneurship is
167a process to solve social issues in innovative ways. The strategies of the problem
solving model are useful concepts to illustrate and discuss findings.
The major differences between the McCann's (1983) categories used by Gray
(1985) and the categories found in this study is the "glass half-full" affect. Social
entrepreneurship was a process to incorporate innovative (catalytic) changes for an
overall systemic change. This was to be done by building upon the capacities of the
communities and the Initiatives. Each Initiative is attempting to evoke agency or a
collective response to change the environment. Agency suggests that resources may be
used creatively to bring about institutional change (Giddens, 1984). Gray's use of
McCann's model is not intended to bring about catalytic results or necessarily promote
creativity.
A second important difference between Gray's propositions and findings in the
study relate to the sequential phases of collaboration in problem solving. The process of
convening opportunity was not a sequential or a simple iterative process that applied
action sets over and over again. This study demonstrated the dynamic, recursive nature of
convening opportunity as a strategy that interacted with the institutional environment
(Aldrich & Martinez, 2001). The process of convening opportunity was to learn and
apply. Engagement in the social or community field is connected to the framework of the
Initiatives. Over time, the acquired capital (social, human, and sometimes financial)
provided a means to affect the Initiatives' stocks of capital, which served to provide more
opportunity (new stories and knowledge to make the case for engagement). A recursive
action will apply it back to the actions output (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; van der
Wusten, & Knippenberg, 1998).
168The following section begins with a definition by Gray (1985) using
McCann's typography. Following each of Gray's conclusions is a similarly defined event
from the model developed in this study. A brief explanation with findings is given.
Problem setting in collaborations
The objective of problem setting, according to Gray (1985) is to give "explicit
form or identity" to the issues that allows stakeholders to communicate about the issue
and eventually to act. This identification includes who has a legitimate stake in the
situation and how the situation is defined.
Recognizing opportunity in social entrepreneurship
In this study, recognizing opportunity is found to be actions that develop a clear,
well-articulated, value-driven social cause to create strategies and structures that would
mobilize resources and stimulate collective action.
In the present study values and goals undergirded the Initiatives, so that all
stakeholders (public, private, or business) were aligned to one mission in each respective
Initiative. As stakeholders convened, the governing boards for each of the nonprofit
groups also actively engaged in forming the Initiatives. Each partnering organization had
their internal controls and values.
Lawrence, Hardy, & Phillips (2002) suggest that the local effects of collaboration
can generate what they call "proto-institutions" or institutions in-the-making. When new
"practices, rules, and technologies transcend a particular collaborative relationship" there
was potential for new institutions (p. 281). Lawrence and colleagues suggested that there
is potential for interorganizational collaborations to be catalysts of change in the
institutional fields and potentially to shape them. Given the views of Lawrence and
169colleagues, there is evidence that the Initiatives in the study were building new
institutional responses (via the frameworks) to the issue of public engagement in
community development.
This work by Lawrence and colleagues (2002) has implications for this study.
These Initiatives catalyze change when engagement occurs in the community-field. This
also suggests that there may be a "second order" effect, a recursive affect that if
institutional change occurs at the community field, institutional changes may occur in the
network (Lawrence et al., 2002; Warren, 1967).
According to Gray (1985) those who initiate collaborations critically impact their
success or failure. This person or entity is considered the convener in Gray's model. In
the studied Initiatives the local foundations had natural authority and were legitimated
partners. They reflected the local histories and had built on existing relationships (Padgett
et al., 2005). These arrangements facilitated resource distributions and knowledge-
sharing.
Stakeholder theory implies that an actor must have a stake and an ability to
influence. There is risk in having a stake (Mitchell, Agle, &Wood, 1997). FE met some
resistance initially because the community viewed the Foundation as an extension of the
public school system. The community was concerned with having an "800 pound gorilla"
leading the initiative, assuming that the foundation was a bureaucratic function of the
local school district. This is a natural response given that stakeholders are dependent
upon the group to minimize harms and achieve interests (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Stakeholders were more amenable to the Initiative once they recognized the Foundation
was a separate entity.
170Participants in study acknowledged that the strengths of the Initiatives were
based on the strengths of its partners, including community members. This coincides with
Gray's (1985) conclusion that stakeholders must represent the complexity of the problem
and have the requisite expertise to address it. Expertise requires a capacity of knowledge
and reputation to address issues. In this study capacity was both an outcome of convening
opportunity (building capacities in the constituency) and the current capacities were
facilitating and constraining conditions for convening opportunity.
Direction setting for collaborating
The objective of direction setting according to Gray (1985) is to have the values
articulate and direct a common purpose. This legitimates the mission. Stakeholders
benefit from an expanded view of the situation and knowledge of the mission. This also
establishes a clear direction for policy.
Strategizing the opportunity
Strategizing the opportunity is identifying salient stakeholders (aligned
leadership), and framing a mission that identifies the collective values and goals in the
social cause.
The strategy to create Initiatives was a strategy common to the field, which is to
leverage access to resources (Pietroburgo & Wernet, 2004; Raymond, 2004; Salamon,
2003). Shared leadership, rather than fusing leadership into one group, was featured in
the study. Core partners at SRP and the Executive Leadership group in CEC worked as
the primary group to collaboratively strategize and provide maintenance of the Initiatives.
Each of the partnering organizations had their respective leaderships' input into the
processes of their Initiatives.
171In this study, shared leadership had advantages. By working together there
was collective sense-making. The partners were able to "construct, filter, frame, and
create facticity" (Dorado, 2005, p. 389) in order to make sense of the situation. Making
sense of what is going on in complex situations is as important as knowing what to do
(Weick, 1998). Studies on institutional change have shown that there is a dialectical
process that goes on between actors, meanings, and actions (Dacin et al., 2002). This
suggests that the many sets of conversations that the core partners had were foundational
to change. In both cases, these conversations progressed over several years before the
Initiatives were developed.
The result of these sets of conversations was to acknowledge the
interdependencies between stakeholders and values, which corresponds to Gray's (1985)
conclusion on collaboration. These conversations served to legitimate generalized values
that were held by the collective. This was pronounced in how the underlying values were
repeatedly articulated by participants.
Values motivate leadership in grassroots activism, whereas practices of leadership
are not different from business (Brant, 1995). A question of values versus business
leadership was not answered in this study. However, each Initiative partner having 501
(c) 3 status acknowledged their governing boards as giving it needed support. There were
planned sessions for the boards to have creative and strategic input.
The study revealed what was articulated as "aligned leadership" or the "right
person at the right place at the right time" or general comments of how critical the
leadership was "on the ground ". The site leaders (located directly with the community,
either in the rural area or at the schools) were also managers. They had task assignments
172to manage innovation. Could they be innovative? Institutional theory would say that
routine behaviors, like managing tasks, most likely produce incremental and transient
change (Dorado, 2005; Giddens, 1984). However, according to Giddens (1984), agency
occurs when a person is creative and motivated to move away from scripted patterns of
behavior. Thus, the social entrepreneur "on the ground" for the Initiatives had a critical
role to engage community members and a motivation to be creative.
Structuring for collaboration
The objective of structuring, according to Gray (1985), is to have systematic
interactions among stakeholders provide ongoing and essential appreciative processes.
This was seen as a self-regulating process, whereby stakeholders view themselves as
convening opportunity or producers of change. In Gray's view, this structuring sets the
stage for strategic negotiations and the redistribution of power. A collaborative structure
also reinforces interdependence within the collaboration.
Structuring opportunity
Structuring opportunity is creating a basis for managing the strategies, which has
the potential to create new institutional networks with new sets of values and norms.
An orientation toward local interests is the "hallmark of community action"
(Wilkinson, 1991, p. 83). Community action occurs in the social field. A community field
change will have new sets of values, norms and networks that serve to link and
coordinate action to reinforce the special interests in the field (Wilkinson, 1991). The
community field is considered an abstraction of the social field. The "frameworks" that
are applied in communities are strategic in both Initiatives. They are meant to create
planned change.
173Nonprofits have been seen as policy-shapers. Nationally, nonprofits have roles
in mobilizing popular support and being able to identify concerns of citizens (Orr, 2001).
There had to be awareness at the local level but it was also critical to keep checking the
policy environment. A participant said, "You raise your head up. That you’re able to
articulate to the people at the top, what’s happening at the local level".
In Gray's (1985) meta-analysis, the proposed collaborative model is dependent
upon a solid knowledge-base of the context of the problem and useful strategies. This
was also the case in this study. Knowledge was consumed and produced by the process of
convening opportunity.
Structuring the opportunity provided a means to determine how opportunities
were convened within communities. According to Quinn (1988), organizations will seek
flexibility and adaptive capacities and yet they desire stability and control. FE responded
to external pressures to change the foundation's name, so as to give it branding. They also
framed "public engagement" in a way that eased constituency concerns and provided for
an organizational structure that legitimated the Initiative. Whereas, SRP partners created
a management structure that was based on a business model (contractors). Strategies for
organizational structures for SRP were based on collegial experiences that brought
multiple perspectives on issues.
SRP appeared to have an agenda for a "new economic institution" in rural areas
(Dacin et al., 2002). The result of this agenda could not be determined in this study,
except for stories of successes in communities that were individually recognized for new
economic impacts. In each case, the Initiatives provided a framework so that community
members were essential in the process of creating change. The broader these networks
174become, the more backgrounds and experiences are apt to bring new social
interpretations and behavior that acts to diminish consensus around the taken-for-granted
practices. Zilber (2002) considered this the "micropolitics" of institutional change.
From an institutional perspective, leaders in nonprofit entities are tasked with
producing a ‘rational image’ to meet the external environment’s expectations (Euske &
Euske, 1991). At the same time there is a need to create frames (such as public
engagement) that condense contextual realities into words that make meaning. (Several
examples were provided in Chapter VI). Collective action frames are meant to inspire and
motivate others toward collective action (Benford & Snow, 2000). Therefore, strategic
planning and development of practices such as framing were a way to provide a rational
image.
Entrepreneurship is said to flourish more readily in less formalized and adaptive
structures, such as an open systems model with boundary spanning (Buxton, Carlone, &
Carlone, 2005). There are rational systems (formal system) and open systems (Scott,
1992). An open system (interdependent with its environment) will have an organizational
structure that eliminates or reduces formalization and is adaptive to its environment
(Scott, 1992, Starnes, 2000). It is important for the structure to have permeable
boundaries around the activities, so that it will generate ideas and opportunity. Plugging
in new partners was seen as an ongoing function of the system. Studies have shown that
each stakeholder must believe benefits exceed costs. This underscores the importance of
the combined mission, pooling of resources, and a capacity that together can solve a
complex problem. The capacity of communities to work together must be perceived as a
benefit.
175According to Gray (1985) when stakeholders are dispersed transaction costs
increase. These transaction costs to partners are often time and money (Ostrower, 2005).
Nonetheless, decision-making (Jelinek & Litterer, 1995) and social capital (Burt, 1992,
1997a, 1997b, 2000; Purdue, 2001) depends upon whether or not there are good
communication flows in a network.
Networking addressed the distance between partners (for both Initiatives) and was
a means to have high-involvement and shared learning. A participant from SRP spoke of
the transaction costs associated with networking. He stated that these cost issues had to
be addressed but that cost analysis should not deter networking. High-involvement in
networks may also stimulate social capital, which may increase the flow of information
and knowledge and reduce transaction costs in networks (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood,
2002; Burt, 1992, 1997a; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). (See Chapter II, i.e. network theory
and social capital).
The constructs developed in this study indicate that there were two essential
strategies in the process of convening opportunity. They were making the case and
forging partnerships.
Making the Case
Social entrepreneurs are able to mobilize resources based on framing values that
are found to be legitimate in society (Beford & Snow, 2000). Burns (1978) regarded these
values as monitors of leadership. Examples were liberty, justice, and equality, which
were values articulated in both Initiatives.
Values attributed to social entrepreneurs are usually expressed as end-values.
They are collaborative values expressed in models of transformational leadership theory
176and framed by social entrepreneurs as the principles for collective action. Such values
inspire as well as place institutional constraints on those who would refrain from
supporting them or on those apathetic to such values (Waddock & Post, 1991).
Clarke (2001) stated that organizations will frame their political identity, social
authority and agendas based on funding sources. Making the case was the same in each
Initiative and telling the stories when it related to community. However, for the SRP
Initiative the community was a paying client. It was important to make the case by
speaking to the community in their language and not in the language of research. Social
interaction (mutual minding) is the major substance of community. "The interaction is not
contrived… rather [it is] ubiquitous and genuine" (Wilkinson, 1991, p. 14). This places
extraordinary pressures to be both natural and strategic in making a case for change.
Forging Partnerships
Forging partnerships is a strategy used to build the capacity to convene. Each of
the Initiatives had public partners in their networks, which is considered a normative
behavior. Along with the interdependence between the state and the nonprofit sector
(Salamon & Anheier, 1998), cross sector alliances with business has been successful in
the past (Clay & Bangs, 2000). Businesses were represented as partners in each Initiative,
which is particularly useful to gain resource capacity (Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003). Some
businesses were connected at the neighborhood and community-level as support.
It was told that "on the ground" there was some tension from "wearing the hats"
of partner organizations. For CEC the site supervisor was given requirements from
several directions. In the SRP model it is difficult for site leadership to have full
knowledge of each partner's portfolio. This made the network important so that peers
177could exchange information and better coordinate activities across sites. This
coincides with how networks have been related to both legitimacy and innovation in the
studies of institutional processes (Deeds et al., 2004; Maguire et al., 2004).
Although forging partnerships will leverage pooled resources of talent, expertise,
and revenue to magnify outputs, it is not easily facilitated. Traditionally, leadership in the
nonprofit sector comes from many layers in the organization and represents a variety of
personalities, thresholds for change, and values (Salamon, 2003). Institutional norms
drawn from a variety of partners will influence process (Dacin et al., 2002). Given the
breadth of members in these networks, there is a variety of institutional features, more so
with CEC because of its direct connection to public domain activity. However, well
articulated missions help to "herd the cats in the same direction".
Summary
The findings of this study suggest that social entrepreneurship is a process of
convening opportunity, where opportunities are recognized, strategized, and structured so
that communities may exploit and reconvene them. Making the case and forging
partnerships were explicit strategies to convene opportunity.
This study found structures that were dynamic and evolving. The two community
development Initiatives that were the focus of the study are continuing to contribute to
changes in the social fields. These changes are represented in the new patterns of
interactions that community members and partners of the Initiatives have as a result of
the interventions in community. An emergent outcome was public engagement in the
community-field. Although, the boundaries between a community field and social field
178are largely artificial, the engagement at the community-field is more reflective of
enduring and collective change.
Comparative differences between the two cases demonstrated two sets of
concerns. CEC was more concerned about sustainability because of its dependency to
outside grants or donations. Whereas, the SRP model had some concerns about getting
the scale right so that the partners could balance the consultant model with fees charged
to the community and outside funds that could defray costs for under resourced
communities and allow for more research and development.
This study focused more on process than outcomes, so less attention was given in
the interview phase. Findings indicated that the institutional structure of these Initiatives
was formed by the enduring patterns of behavior for the intangible functions of the
organization. The findings included the communications, leadership, planning, policies,
idea generation, and decision-making that support the Initiatives. It was found in this
study that the entrepreneurial event was the intentional convening of opportunity when
frameworks (in vivo term) were applied in communities. When entrepreneurial
mechanisms were applied to pressure the status quo, then changes occurred in the
community field. The frameworks approach was carried out to build capacities in people,
to engage them into the process of creating better futures collectively, to instill as sense
of hope, and also to build capacities in the Initiatives.
An outcome from convening opportunity was a "networked" model for
community development. This model differed from the typical self-help, technical
assistance, and conflict model predominantly found in the literature on community
development.
179Conclusions
Although the in-depth analysis of these two community development Initiatives
may not be generalized across institutions, the analysis does provide propositions that can
be tested empirically. The literature supported the concept of convening opportunity,
which was a model of social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting. The institutional
and social capital perspectives were helpful in keeping the study focused on what was
process.
Recommendations
In addition to finding propositions related to the phenomenon, it was found that
the process revealed multiple phenomenon that warrant additional study. Particularly,
gaining a better understanding related to structure and interaction in the community-field.
Additional studies from interactional field theory would be a natural fit to the study of the
outcomes of convening opportunity.
Testing other theories would be useful in broadening the concepts of convening
opportunity in community development and leadership. For instance, an experimental
design would be able to show if there are true effects from role-theory or expectancy
theory. It would likely demonstrate whether or not engagement in the community-field
and entrepreneurial events are greater if community members are given the role as leader
in the Initiatives or other community development activities.
There are practical considerations of the study, which is to address relevant
findings and establish best practices for social entrepreneurship. The applied learning
gained from these learning networks and the formal evaluations of outcomes (when
combined with the findings from this study) would benefit the field.
180Of interest to social entrepreneurship research would be an understanding of
what conditions set the stage for more intense and widespread instances of public
engagement in sponsoring innovation. Can "one success" story that sparks an interest,
which triggers someone to volunteer or become a leader or leave a bequest trigger a
systems change? Or can one trigger of innovation set up an action-reaction pattern that
potentially alters the local environment of a community? If one experience is a proto-type
for change, then what institutional arrangements and distribution of resources are needed
to react to create systemic change? This study contributed to this understanding.
However, longitudinal research would be able to bring a greater depth of understanding
on outcomes of convening opportunity.
More study from an institutional approach would give a better understanding of
how each of the constructs in convening opportunity if applied, will influence structures
in communities that are attempting to become more entrepreneurial. It is possible that the
lack of specificity that was given by the Initiatives in how they made the case for change
facilitated pushing the social fields to change. Further study on how making the case can
be used as a mechanism to promote change has potential in explaining change in a
community field.
Studies in leadership will gain from using an institutional perspective to better
understand how leaders contribute in an entrepreneurial process. This study makes a
contribution in that regard by demonstrating that leadership is central to the process of
convening opportunity.
To move the constructs to a grand theory will require a closer look at the
constructs and testing them empirically across wider populations. More exact
181measurement using the propositions found in this study would help determine if these
constructs of convening opportunity found accurately describe a process of social
entrepreneurship.
182References
Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage. Aldrich, H.E., & Martinez, M.A. (2001). Many are called but few are chosen: An
evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship: Theory
& Practice, 25(4), 41-56.
Allan, G. (1991). Qualitative research. In G. Allan, & C. Skinner, Handbook for
Research Students in the Social Sciences. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
Allen, J. C. (2001). Community conflict resolution: The development of social capital
within an interactional field. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 119-121.
Alvord, S.H., Brown, D., & Letts, C.W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
40 (3), 260-282.
Ambergey, T.L., & Dacin, T. (1994). As the left foot follows the right? The dynamics of
strategic and structural change. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1427-
1452.
Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in
entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 815-134.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2004). Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Anderson, A.R., & Jack, S.L. (2002). The articulation of social capital in entrepreneurial
networks: A glue or a lubricant? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 14,
193-210.
183Barman, E.A. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of nonprofit
organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80(4), 1191-1222.
Bate, P., Kahn, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to
organizational structuring. Organizational Science, 11(2), 197-211.
Baum, J.A.C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187-218.
Bender, T. (1978). Social theory and the problem of community. In T.Bender (Ed.),
Community and social changes in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press (pp. 3-43).
Bendor, J., & Mookherjee, D. (1987). Insitutional structure and the logic of ongoing
collective action. American Political Science Review, 81, 129-154.
Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An
overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
Berge, E. (2001). Institutions and institutional design (SOS3508). Retrieved October 17,
2004, from http://www.sv.ntnu.no/iss/Erling.Berge/ Verified April 14, 2006.
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the
creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
27(4), 505-522.
Bong, S. A. (2002, May). Debunking myths in qualitative data analysis. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line
184Journal], 3(2). Retrieved September 23, 2005 from http://www.qualitative-
research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02bong-e.htm Verified April 14, 2006.
Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. Across the board, 32, 20-25.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Acts of resistance: Against the new myths of our time. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Brant, K.E. (1995). Grassroots leadership: A qualitative study of social activism at the
very source (leadership). (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los
Angeles, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3846.
Bryant, M.T. (2004). The portable dissertation advisor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row.
Burnstein, M., Boulanger, C.S., & Batchis, W. (2001, February). Treasury regulations
implement "intermediate sanctions". Retrieved May, 20, 2005, from
http://www.pmstax.com/ftp/exempt/bull0102.pdf Verified April 14, 2006.
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Burt, R.S. (1997a). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19(4),
355-373.
Burt, R.S. (1997b). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Quarterly, 42,
339-365.
Burt, R.S. (1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality & Society, 10(1), 5-47.
Retrieved January 5, 2003, from Academic Search Elite database. Verified April
14, 2006.
185Burt, R.S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In R.I. Sutton & B.M.
Straw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Retrieved April 14, 2006 from
http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/ronald.burt/research/NSSC.pdf Verified April
14, 2006.
Buxton, C. A., Carlone, H. B., & Carlone, D. (2005). Boundary spanners as bridges of
student and school discourses in an urban science and mathematics high school.
School Science & Mathematics, 105(6), 302-312.
Bygrave, W.D., & Hofer, C.W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16(1), 13-22.
Bygrave, W.D., D'Heilly, D., McMullen, M., & Taylor, N.T. (1996, March). Toward a
not-for-profit analytical framework. Proceedings from the 19th Entrepreneurship
Research Conference (pp 30-39). Babson Park, MA: Babson College.
Chasse, J.D. (1995). Nonprofit organizations and the institutionalist approach. Journal of
Economic Issues, 2, 525-533.
Chell, E. (2000). Towards researching the "opportunistic entrepreneur": A social
constructionist approach and research agenda. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 9(1), 63-80.
Clarke, S.E. (2001). The prospects for local democratic governance: The governance
roles of nonprofit organizations. Policy Studies Review 18(4), 130-145.
Clay, E.S., & Bangs, P.C. (2000). Entrepreneurs in the Public Library: Reinventing an
institution. Library Trends, 48(3), 606-618.
186Cloutier-Fisher, D., & Skinner, M.W. (2006). Leveling the playing field? Exploring
the implications of managed competition for voluntary sector providers of long-
term care in small town Ontario. Health Place, 12(1), 97-109.
Cohen, B. (1989). Developing sociological knowledge: Theory and method. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company. How social capital makes
organizations work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-153.
Cordes, S., Allen, J., Bishop, R.C., Lynne, G. D., Robison, L. J., Ryan, V. D., & Shaffer,
R. (2003). Social capital, attachment value, and rural development: A conceptual
framework and application of contingent valuation. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1201-1208.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and
benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.
Creswell, J.W. (2002a). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J.W. (2002b). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dacin, M.T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W.R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional
change: Introduction to the special research forum. American Academy of
Management, 45(1), 45-57.
187Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 14(4), 411-424.
Davidson, O.G. (1990). Broken heartland: the rise of America's rural ghetto. New York:
The Free Press.
Deeds, L.D., Mang, P.Y., & Frandsen, M.L. (2004). The influence of firm and industry
legitimacy on the flow of capital into high technology ventures. Strategic
Organization, 2, 9-34.
Dees, J.G., & Anderson. B.B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit
and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16-29.
Dees, J.G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Working paper, Stanford
University –Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.
DiMaggio, P.J., & Anheir, H.K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and
sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137-159.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review 48, 147-160.
Dixon-Woods, M., & Fitzpatrick R. (2001). Including qualitative research in systematic
reviews: Opportunities and problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice,
7(2), 125-133.
Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization
Studies, 26(3), 385-414.
Drucker, P.F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
188Eisenstadt, S.N. (1995). Power, trust, and meaning: Essays in sociological theory and
analysis. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Euske, N.A., & Euske, K.J. (1991). Institutional theory: Employing the other side of
rationality in non-profit organizations. British Journal of Management, 2, 81-88.
Finding strategic corporate citizenship: A new game theoretical view. (2004). Harvard
Law Review, 117(6), 1957-1981.
Flora, C.B., Flora, J., Spears, J.D., Swanson, L.E., Lapping, M.B., & Weinberg, M.L.
(1992). Rural communities: Legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Foy, J.J. (2004, April). Applying the new federalism of 1996: Governors and welfare
reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting Midwestern Political Science
Association, Chicago, IL.
Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York:
Free Press.
Gartner, W.B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new
venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.
Gartner, W.B. (1989a). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and
characteristics. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 27-37.
Gartner, W.B. (1989b). "Who is an entrepreneur?" Is the wrong question.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 47-68.
189Gartner, W.B., Bird, B.J., & Starr, J.A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating
entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 16(3), 13-31.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action structure and
contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:Aldine
Press.
Glor, E. ( 1997). Policy innovation in the Saskatchewan. Public sector, 1971–82.
Toronto: Captus Press.
Granovetter, M. (1977). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360-1380.
Gravovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and the social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human
Relations, 38(10), 911-936.
Green, G.P., & Haines, A. (2002). Asset building and community development. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2005). Institutional Entrepreneurship in mature fields:
The big five accounting firms. Retrieved November, 12, 2005 from:
www.bus.ualberta.ca/rsuddaby/ Publications/greenwoodsuddaby.pdf Verified
April, 14, 2006.
190Gupta, W., MacMillan, I.C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership:
Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business
Venturing, 19, 241-260.
Hayton, J.C., George, G., & Zahra, S.A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A
review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 26 (4), 33-
53.
Henton, D., Melville, J., & Walesh, K. (1997). The age of the civic entrepreneur:
Restoring civil society and building economic community. National Civic Review,
86(2), 149-158.
Herman, R.D., & Renz, D.O. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: contrasts
between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 9(1), 23-38.
Hertzler, J.O. (1937). The natural history of social institutions, the Y.W.C.A. American
Sociological Review, 2(2), 295-298.
Hofer, C.W., & Bygrave, W.D. (1992). Researching Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 16(3), 91-100.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hollingsworth, J.R. (2000). Doing institutional analysis: Implications for the study of
innovations. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4), 595-644.
Howard, J.A. (1994). A social cognitive conception of social structure. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 57(3), 210-227.
191Howell, J.M., & Shea C.M. (2001). Individual differences, environmental scanning,
innovation framing, and champion behavior: Key predictors of project
performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 15–27.
Howlett, M. (2003). Administrative styles and the limits of administrative reform: A neo-
institutional analysis of administrative culture. Canadian Public Administration ,
46(4), 471-495.
Hughes, E. C. (1942). The impact of war on American Institutions. The American
Journal of Sociology, 48(3), 398-403.
Humboldt Area Foundation (2001). Glossary. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from
http://hafoundation.org/about/glossary/index.html Verified April 14, 2006.
Hyrsky, K. (1999). Entrepreneurial metaphors and concepts: An exploratory study.
International Small Business Journal, 18(1), 13-34.
Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F., & Covin, J.G. (2003). Antecedents, elements, and
consequences of corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of Management
Best Conference Paper, Entrepreneurship Division, L1-L6.
Ireland,R.D., Hilt, M.A., & Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship:
The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963-989.
Johnson, S. (2000). Literature review on social entrepreneurship. Canadian Center for
Social Entrepreneurship: Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta at Edmonton.
Retrieved April 14, 2006 from
http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/Publications/Publications/Lit.%20Review%20SE
%20November%202000.rtf
192Jones, O., & Conway, S. (2004 in press). The social embeddedness, diversity, and
geographical reach of the entrepreneur's network: The case of James Dyson. In E.
Elgar (Ed.), International Entrepreneurship: The Globalization of Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises Orientation, Environment and Strategy, (p. 3).
Montreal, Quebec: McGill International Entrepreneurship Series.
Jonsson, S. (2003). Trickle-up and trickle-down institutionalized norms and the spread of
new ideas. Academy of Management Proceedings, H1, 6.
Kan, M.M., & Parry, K.W. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership
in overcoming resistance to change. Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 467-491.
Kaplan, R.S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), 353-371.
Keh, H.T., Hoo, M.D., & Lim, B.C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky
conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, 27(2), 125-148.
Kickul, J., Krueger, N., & Maxfield, S. (2005). Measurement issues in entrepreneurship
studies. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 5-7.
Kuratko, D.F., & Montagno, R.V. (1989). The intrepreneurial spirit. Training and
Development Journal, 83-85.
Lasprogata, G.A., & Cotten, M.N. (2003). Contemplating enterprise: The business and
legal challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal
41(1), 67-111.
Lawrence, T.B. (1999). Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25(2), 161-188.
193Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of
interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy
of Management Journal 45(1), 281-290.
Leana, C. R., & Van Buren III, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and
employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538-555.
Lee, D.P. (2003). The business judgment rule: Should it protect nonprofit directors?
Columbia Law Review, 103(4), 925-969.
Lets, C.W., Ryan,W.P., & Groomsman, A. (1999). High performance nonprofit
organizations: Managing upstream for greater impact. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Levine, S., & White, P.E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of
interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(4) 583-601.
Lin, N. (2001). Building a network theory of social capital: Theory and research. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Loidl-Keil, R. (2002). Juggling with the paradoxes in social enterprises? Paper presented
at EURAM conference in Stockholm, May 8-11, 2002. Retrieved November 12,
2005 from:
http://www.sses.com/public/events/euram/complete_tracks/nonprofit_managemen
t/loidl-keil.pdf Verified April 14, 2006.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M.A. (2001).Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and
the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal 22(6-7), 545 – 564.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future
challenges. Journal of Management, 14, 139-162.
194Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T.B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in
emerging fields: HIV/Aids treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(5), 657-679.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship: What are we talking about? A
framework for future research. IESE Business School. Barcelona,
Spain:University of Navarra. Retrieved October, 21, 2005 from:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=673446 Verified April 14,
2006.
Mangan, K.S. (2004). Teaching business skills to people with a social mission. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 51(10), A10-A12. Retrieved October 23, 2005 from
Academic Search Premier database. Verified April 14, 2006.
Martinez, R.J., & Dacin, M.T. (1999). Efficiency motives and normative forces:
Combining transactions costs and institutional logic. Journal of Management,
25(1), 75-96.
Maxwell, J. (2005). The 360º leader. Nashville,TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
McCann, J.E. (1983). Design guidelines for social problem-solving interventions. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(2), 177-192.
McCaslin, M.L. (1993). The nature of leadership within rural communities: A grounded
theory. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2003).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 4773.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
195Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure
as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Meyerson, D.E. (1994). Interpretations of stress in institutions: The cultural production of
ambiguity and burnout. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 628-653.
Miller, K.D. (2002). Competitive strategies of religious organizations. Strategic
Management Journal, 23(5), 435-456.
Miller, N.J. (2001). Contributions of social capital theory predicting rural community
inshopping behavior. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 475-493.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, R. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., & Lant, T. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial
cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(2), 93-104.
Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. The American Political
Review 63, 111–126.
Morial, M.H. (2004). Redefining devolution. Harvard Journal of African American
Public Policy, 10, 131-134.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-266.
Nathanson, C.A., & Morlock, L. L. (1980). Control structure, values, and innovation: A
comparative study of hospitals. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 21(4), 315-
333.
196Orr, M. (2001). Build: Governing nonprofits and relational power. Review of Policy
Research, 18(4), 71-90.
Osborne, S.P. (1998). Organizational structure and innovation in U.K. Voluntary social
welfare organizations: Applying the Aston Measures. Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 9(4), 345-362.
Padgett, S., Kinabrew, C., Kimbrell, J., & Nicola, R.M. (2005). Turning Point and Public
Health Institutes: Vehicles for systems change. Journal of Public Health
Management Practice 11(2), 116-122.
Pandit, N.R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory
method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4). Retrieved October 13, 2005 at
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html Verified April 14, 2006.
Parry, K.W. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership
research. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 85-105.
Perry, G.J., Roderer, N.K., & Assar, S. (2005). A current perspective on medical
informatics and health sciences librarianship. Journal of Medical Library
Association, 93(2), 199-205.
Peter, J. (2002). Building NFL fortunes. The Dallas Morning News: Sports Day.
Retrieved November 18, 2005 from
http://apse.dallasnews.com/contest/2002/writing/over250/over250.enterprise.fourt
h1.html Verified April 14, 2006.
Pietroburgo, J., & Wernet, S. P. (2004). Joining forces, fortunes, and futures:
Restructuring and adaptation in nonprofit hospice organizations. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 15(1), 117-139.
197Piliavin, J. A., & Hong-Wen, C. (1990). Alturism: A review of recent theory and
research Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 27-65.
Pooley, J., Cohen, J., & Pike, L. (2005). Can sense of community inform social capital?
Social Science Journal, 42(1), 71-79.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P.J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational
analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prabhu, G.N. (1999). Social entrepreneurship leadership. Career Development
International, 4(3), 140-145.
Purdue, D. (2001). Neighbourhood governance: Leadership, trust and social capital.
Urban Studies, 38(12), 2211-2224.
Putnam, R. D. (1995) Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. The Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (1996). The strange disappearance of Civic America. The American
Prospect, 7(24), 34-48.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and
competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Raymond, S.U. (2004). The future of philanthopy: Economics, ethics, and management.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Rugh, T.E. (1996). Innovate of die: Six lessons about fostering inventiveness from the
United Way state associations. Association Management, 48, 48-54.
198Salamon, L.M., & Anheier, H.K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining
the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213-248.
Salamon, L.M. (1999). The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The Case of America.
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(1),
5-23.
Salamon, L.M. (2003). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit America. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Salamon, L.M. (2004). The nonprofit world faces many dangers. Chronicle of
Philanthropy, 16(6), 49-51.
Sandelowski, M. (2005). Interactive qualitative analysis: A systems method for
qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 15(5), 719-720.
Sattler Weber, S.K. (2002). Saving St. James: A case study of rural female entrepreneurs.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Sattler Weber, S.K. (in press). Saving St. James: A case study of five farm women
entrepreneurs. Agriculture and Human Values.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical
analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scott, W.R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Scott, W.R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
199Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Sharp, J. (2001). Locating the community field: a study of interorganizational network
structure and capacity for community action. Rural Sociology, 66(3), 403-424.
Smets, M. (2005). Micro-processes of field construction: Evidence from a global law
firm. Paper presented at the 21st EGOS Colloquium "Unlocking Organizations",
June 30-July 2, 2005, Berlin, Germany. Sub-Theme 40: “Professional Service
Organization at Work. SWG: Professional Service Organizations and Knowledge-
Intensive Work” Retrieved January 20, 2006, from:
www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/ccc/Working+Papers/
Sowa, J. E., Selden, S.C., & Sandfort, J.R. (2004). No longer ‘unmeasurable’?: A multi-
dimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(4), 711-728.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Starnes, Becky J. (2000). Achieving competitive advantage through the application of
open systems theory and the development of strategic alliances. A guide for
managers of nonprofit organizations. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector
Marketing, 8(2), 15-27.
Stevens, S.K. (2003). In their own words: The entrepreneurial behavior of nonprofit
founders. (Doctoral dissertation, The Graduate School of the Union Institute and
University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 303.
200Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sullivan Mort, G.S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship:
Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88.
Tan, J. (2002). Culture, nation, and entrepreneurial strategic orientations: Implications for
an emerging economy. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4), 95-111.
Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship – a new look at the
people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5), 328-338.
Thornton, P.H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology,
25, 19-46.
Tempkin, K., & Rohe, W. (1998). Social capital and neighborhood stability: An empirical
investigation. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 61-88.
Tolbert, P.S., & Zucker , L.G. (1994). Institutional analyses of organizations: Legitimate
but not institutionalized, ISSR Working Papers in the Social Sciences 1994–95,
6(5), 1- 45. Los Angeles: Institute for Social Science Research, University of
California.
Trist, E.L. (1983). Collaboration in work settings: A personal perspective. Human
Relations, 36(3), 246-268.
van der Wusten, H., & Knippenberg, H. (1998, August). The ethnic dimension in 20th
century politics: A recursive model. Paper presented at the 1998 International
201Geographical Union Conference, Amsterdam:Vossiuspers. Retrieved
December 12, 2005 from http://www.nuim.ie/staff/dpringle/igu/wusten.pdf
Verified April 14, 2006.
Waddock, S.A., & Post, J.E. (1991). Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change. Public
Administration Review, 51(5), 393-401.
Walker, R.M., Jeanes, E., & Rowlands, R. (2002). Notes and surveys: Measuring
innovation – applying the literature-based innovation output indicator to public
services. Public Administration, 80(1), 201-212.
Warren, R.L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus of investigation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(3), 396-417.
Weick, K.E. (1998). Sensemaking as an organizational dimension of global change. In
D.L. Cooperrider & J.E. Dutton (Eds.), Organizational Dimensions of Global
Change (pp.39-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weine, S., Muzurovic, N., Yasmina K., Besic, S., Lezic, A., Mujagic, A., Muzurovic, J.,
Spahovic, D., Feetham, S., Ware, N., Knafl, K., & Pavkovic, I. (2004). Family
Consequences of Refugee Trauma. Family Process, 43(2), 147-160.
Wicks, D. (1998). Organizational structures as recursively constructed systems of agency
and constraint: Compliance and resistance in the context of structural conditions.
Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 35(3), 369-390.
Wicks, D. (2004). The institution of tenure: Freedom or discipline? Management
Decision, 42I(5), 619-627.
Wilkinson, K.P. (1991). The community in rural America. Middleton, WI: Social
Ecology Press.
202Wimberley, T., & Rubens, A. (2002). Management support organizations and
university partnership in nonprofit education, training and consultation. The
Social Science Journal 39, 129-36.
Wortman, M.S., Jr. (1990). Rural entrepreneurship research: Integration into the
entrepreneurship field. Agribusiness, 6(4), 329-344.
Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D.F., & Kuratko, D.F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences
of firm-level entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, 24(2), 45-63.
Zietlow, J. T. (2001). Social entrepreneurship: Managerial, finance, and marketing
aspects. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 9(1), 19–44.
Zilber, T. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meaning, and
actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 234-254.
Zucker, L.G. (1987). Institutional theories of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology,
13, 443-464.
203Appendix A
Literature Map
204
Figure 1. Literature contributing to study of convening opportunity
205Appendix B
Invitation to the Study
206
207Appendix C
Interview Protocol
208
Interview Protocol #1
Name: ________________________________ Date & Time: __________________
Title or position: ________________________ Location: _____________________
Pseudonym: ____________________________ Interviewer: ___________________ Introduction I want to thank you for taking the time to be interviewed today. What we discuss will be recorded and later transcribed. I will be asking you to review the transcription with notes I make regarding my understanding of what you say. It is important that I am representing your views. In this study I am interested in the process of entrepreneurship. I want to know your perspective, so please feel free to discuss your views. I may ask you some additional questions that you have not reviewed as we go along in order to clarify what you mean. Are you ready to begin? Questions:
I will be doing outside research to find how your organization was created and the mission of the organization. Origins and Development
Briefly describe your organization, including
the governance structure and current programming. In what ways has your organization changed from its original structure and purpose? As the organization developed what kind of help has it received from the outside?
Entrepreneurial Opportunities
Describe the process of how ideas are brought forward in the organization including any barriers to new ideas. How are decisions made that affect new programs or services?
Formal opportunities? Informal opportunities?
209How is information disseminated prior to a decision? Once decisions are made how is the information disseminated? How are you able to have broad, honest debate, including opposing positions? Describe recognition for innovation. (employees or organizational unit)
Describe your organizations ability to generate revenue that is independent of donor dollars. Some people would say that making money in a nonprofit is undermining the reputation of the nonprofit sector, what would you say?
Institutional Capacity
What draws a person to work in the nonprofit sector?
Describe the leadership in your organization.
What successes or pitfalls are there to implement change or to create new products or services?
What issues of power are parts of your job? What is the relationship of leaders to others outside the organization and within? (Staff…. others in the community)
Institutional Linkages
Describe the relationship between the leadership in this organization and others in the organization. Describe your internal communications.
Are relationships inside or outside the organization important or required to find or create innovative ideas? How so?
Describe the relationship between the
210leadership in this organization and the community. How would you characterize the relationship of your organization with other organizations in the community?
When has there been a need to establish collaborative links? Is this a common strategy among organizations in this area? (Probe as to reasons why or why not.)
What are your sources of information about other community projects or activities?
Clearinghouse
If you were to offer advice to another
nonprofit organization that chooses to start an entrepreneurial venture, what might that advice be?
211Appendix D
Institutional Review Board Forms
212
213
214Appendix E
Examples from ATLAS ti
215
Figure 3. Second stage of coding by smaller chunks of data
216
Figure 4. Example of modeling relationships in coding