Virtual institutions of philanthropy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Virtual institutions of philanthropy

on

  • 510 views

An outline

An outline

Statistics

Views

Total Views
510
Views on SlideShare
510
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Good morning. And so…. Introductions My name as it shows on the slides and the report is VEH, but I’m better known simply as ‘Elric’ under these climes. This presentation outlines my directions and hopes for my doctoral research project, currently under the working title of ’Virtual Institutions of Philanthropy’ I have been lucky to gain a ESRC studentship to study here at the Business School, within the OS group and in CGAP - the centre for charitable giving and philanthropy. Pr Stephen Osborne, is my first supervisor, and my second supervisor is Dr Neil Pollock.
  • A quick overview of the presentation: First, I will cover the background of this research project, setting its context, its overall aims and then introduce my perspective on the research problem
  • ESRC Delivery Plan 2011-2015 : ‘Influencing Behaviour and Informing Interventions’ and ‘A Vibrant and Fair Society’ The first priority follows from the position that ‘government policies have assumed that people will rationally make the ‘right’ decisions when given better information […] but this approach has clear limitations’ (ESRC, 2011) and hence the need to understand behaviours beyond rational decision models to those of group and crowd behaviour. The second priority, seeks to develop news ways to enhance the role of citizens and the operational effectiveness of the voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises. Particularly relevant are the issues of devolution of powers to local and neighbourhood levels, community wellbeing and the engagement of citizens with the democratic process. CGAP’s overall aims include promoting knowledge exchange between academic and practice communities and the development and dissemination of evidence base to inform policy and practice. Spoke 3 at The University of Edinburgh’s focuses on a range of research questions relating to institutions of philanthropy (see Appendix I of the report). Themes still to be explored and addressable, within reason, in a Phd are: Why and how do 'new' forms of philanthropy emerge? What are 'new' forms, how are they different and how do they impact on both outcomes and grantmaking? What influences distribution decisions and patterns? What values are in play? Are there dangers in 'democratising' giving? Should grant-makers be accountable and if so, to whom? The aims of the studentship is to promote: Knowledge exchange between academic and practice communities of philanthropy / 3 rd sector And at a more personal level: Obtain a thesis obviously The ‘originality’ in the proposed work lies in that most research lies either in the body of philanthropy / 3 rd sector OR of ICTs but the overlaps are few
  • So, I asked What, if anything, is ‘new’? And I found it was hard to define. -Stereotypes in philanthropy, include individuals like Andrew Carnegie or Sir Tom Hunter. Or foundations such as The Rockfeller or the Bill&Melinda Gates foundations What I found was that it was possible to categorise what the former did then as being the same what’s being done now. Foundations and trusts etc were then, and still can be perceived as private institutions with their own corporate business agendas Entrepreneurs then could be seen as entrepreneurial as contemporary ones – bounded by the affordances of their era So, rather I turned to what has changed in the environment. And I argue that the major ‘new’ condition is information communication technologies, epitomised by the Internet.
  • This; is a visual representation of inter-connections on the internet, about 9 years old already though. The detail shows each node as a distinct address. The messiness of it all shows both how information flow forms pockets as well as near total reach 2 billion people have a stable internet connection; there is a digital divide BUT 5 billion people have personal mobile phone subscriptions – something that 20 or even 15 years ago was seen as unusual. So…
  • Moreover, I take the stance that there IS a profoundly changed environment with… Quasi global (and cheap) communications Decentralised / peer-to-peer information systems ‘ New’ socio-economic paradigms: The ‘Network Society’ (Castells, 1996) The ‘Information Age’ (Benkler, 2006) BUT, the net is not a utopia and old questions return “ Improved means to an unimproved end?” (Thoreau, 1854) Do ICTs favour centralised or decentralised structures and dynamics? (Leavitt and Whisler, 1958) Is adaptation is crucial to organisational performance and survival (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
  • So, I turned to the literature of the history of Philanthropic organisations to better understand Changes in structures and processes of philanthropic organisations Defining ‘traditional’ or mainstream philanthropy Identification of ‘outliers’ and distinct forms Colla
  • So, I turned to the literature of the history of Philanthropic organisations to better understand Changes in structures and processes of philanthropic organisations Defining ‘traditional’ or mainstream philanthropy Identification of ‘outliers’ and distinct forms Colla
  • So, I turned to the literature of the history of Philanthropic organisations to better understand Changes in structures and processes of philanthropic organisations Defining ‘traditional’ or mainstream philanthropy Identification of ‘outliers’ and distinct forms Colla
  • So, I turned to the literature of the history of Philanthropic organisations to better understand Changes in structures and processes of philanthropic organisations Defining ‘traditional’ or mainstream philanthropy Identification of ‘outliers’ and distinct forms Colla

Virtual institutions of philanthropy Virtual institutions of philanthropy Presentation Transcript

  • Virtual Institutions of Philanthropy Reconstructing the ‘Business of Giving’ in the Information Age (working title) First Year Report PhD Candidate: Vivian Elric Honoré 1st Supervisor: Pr Stephen Osborne 2nd Supervisor: Dr Neil Pollock ESRC 1+3 Studentship / Centre of Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (C-GAP) University of Edinburgh Business School Email: [email_address]
    • Background:
      • Context and Aims
      • Rationale
    • Literature Review:
      • Typology of Philanthropy Institutions
      • Synthesis and research question
    • Research Design
      • Data Collection
      • Analysis
      • Schedule
    • Questions & Feedback
      • Close
    Overview
  • Background
    • Context
      • ESRC Studentship / Research Priorities
        • Influencing Behaviour and Informing Interventions
      • CGAP Spoke 3 - Institutions of Philanthropy
        • New forms, decision models, values, and their pitfalls
    • Aims
      • Knowledge exchange between academic and practice communities of philanthropy / 3 rd sector
      • A thesis!
        • ‘ an original work making a significant contribution to knowledge in understanding of the field of study
  • Rationale – What, if anything, is ‘new’? ‘ Stereotypical’ Philanthropists, Andrew Carnegie and Tom Hunter ‘ Stereotypical’ Institutions (i.e. Foundations, Trusts, Institutes etc)
      • Entrepreneurs then; Entrepreneurs now?
      • Corporations then; Corporations now?
  •  
  • Rationale – What, if anything, is ‘new’?
    • Understanding consequences of a c hanged environment, e.g.:
      • Quasi global (and cheap) communications
      • Decentralised information systems
      • ‘ New’ socio-economic paradigms:
        • The ‘Network Society’ (Castells, 1996)
        • The ‘Information Age’ (Benkler, 2006)
    • But, old questions:
      • Improved means to an unimproved end? (Thoreau, 1854)
      • Do ICTs favour centralised or decentralised structures and dynamics? (Leavitt and Whisler, 1958)
      • Is adaptation is crucial to organisational performance and survival (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
  • Literature Review
    • Historiography of Philanthropy:
      • Changes in structures and processes of philanthropic organisations
      • Defining ‘traditional’ or mainstream philanthropy
      • Identification of ‘outliers’ and distinct forms
    • Basic typology:
      • Traditional/Mainstream Philanthropy (e.g. Trusts):
        • • Transactional / Didactic
        • • Donor-receiver model
        • • Involves formalised grants / trusts giving structures; large differentials
      • Collaborative/ Philanthropy (e.g. mutual aid, visiting societies etc – Prochaska, 1998):
        • Conversational / Dialectical
        • Collective / mutual model
        • Involves social lending / microfinance structures; small differentials
  • Synthesis
    • 21 st Century Philanthropy and ICTs:
    • Some recurring themes:
        • Low uptake of ICTs in voluntary / philanthropic organisations (e.g. Burt & Taylor, 1999)
        • Adopting ICTs as positive but disruptive (e.g. Bernholtz, 2009)
    • Research Question:
      • Does adopting networked ICTs improve the processes of philanthropic organisations or are they reformulating their practice?
  • Research Design - Data Collection
    • Two lines of enquiry are prompted by the research question:
    • Mapping the current organisations’ mode of philanthropy in relation to their degree of adoption of ICTs
    • Enquiring on the process of adoption to determine what are the effects, if any, on the processes of the philanthropic organisation
    • Suggested data collection strategy:
      • Mixed-method, survey questionnaire (quantitative) and case study (qualitative)
      • Survey questionnaire based on Venkatraman’s (1990) model of conventional or transformational ICT usage and Gartner’s (2010) inventory of current ICTs
      • Case studies selected in order to provide comparison across modes of philanthropy and level of ICT usage
      • Additional case study of philanthropic organisation with no ICT usage to act as control
  • Research Design Analysis
    • Comparison across 2 x 2 Matrix:
    • Building Theory:
      • Grounded Theory Method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967)
      • Situational Analysis (Clarke, 200)
      • Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 1999)
  • Questions & Feedback? Thank You