Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
4th INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL INNOVATION  RESEARCH CONFERENCE (ISIRC 2012)  ‘Social enterprise’ anddis/identification in the UK...
Content1    Social enterprise and the UK third sector: Power,    government, resistance2   Empricial analysis of processes...
Social enterprise and government  UK is the most developed government-led support  structure for SE (Nicholls, 2010)  The ...
Power: Condign, compensatory andconditioned (Galbraith, 1983)   Condign power produces submission on the part of the   ind...
Power: Condign, compensatory andconditioned (Galbraith, 1983)   Condign power produces submission on the part of the   ind...
Government) power and social enterprise     Condign power: ???     Compensatory power: Government grants, contracts,     r...
Social enterprise and conditioned power    Mason (2012): government uses social enterprise    policies (SEASS, SEAP) as a ...
The limits of social enterprise discourse     Seanor & Baines (forthcoming): “taking place at the level     of national go...
Social enterprise and local resistance    Parkinson & Howorth (2008): Social enterprise: “’it’s    amusing!’, ‘it’s ridicu...
The Project ‚Real Times‘ Longitudinal project aimed at understanding the day-to- day reality of SE (e.g. practices, patter...
Michel Pêcheux’s Model    Dis/identification forms the process through which    individuals either submit to discursive in...
Preliminary Results                 Enthusiastic    Practitioners embrace SE without mentioning any                 engage...
Social enterprise as a failing operation?                                   Social enterprise   Social entrepreneur   Soci...
The missing links Economic resources: “the dull compulsion of economic relations completes the subjugation of the laborer ...
Dialectic approach Dialectics implies that power and resistance belong together → circular pattern Practitioners are never...
Dialectic of power / resistance Teasdale (2010): practitioners present themselves and their organizations in different way...
Thank you for your attention
Appendix
The Project (Cont.)  Analysis→ Step 1: keyword search to identify cases and interview  passages where practitioners talked...
Isirc 2012   dey and teasdale
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Isirc 2012 dey and teasdale

427 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Isirc 2012 dey and teasdale

  1. 1. 4th INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE (ISIRC 2012) ‘Social enterprise’ anddis/identification in the UK third sector:Toward a dialectic view of power / resistancePascal Dey & Simon Teasdale
  2. 2. Content1 Social enterprise and the UK third sector: Power, government, resistance2 Empricial analysis of processes of dis/identification in the UK third sector3 Social enterprise and the dialectic of power / resistance
  3. 3. Social enterprise and government UK is the most developed government-led support structure for SE (Nicholls, 2010) The ideological role of social enterprise in UK post- welfarism: “‘Social enterprised’ as opposed to ‘privatised’ public services becomes ideologically more appealing for many and politically less controversial and/or confrontational” (Sepulveda, 2009, p. 3).
  4. 4. Power: Condign, compensatory andconditioned (Galbraith, 1983) Condign power produces submission on the part of the individual by “inflicting or threatening appropriately adverse consequences” (p. 5). Compensatory power tries to win submission by offering people rewards Conditioned power works in a more subtle manner; i.e. by changing the belief (and identity) of the individual
  5. 5. Power: Condign, compensatory andconditioned (Galbraith, 1983) Condign power produces submission on the part of the individual by “inflicting or threatening appropriately adverse consequences” (p. 5). Compensatory power tries to win submission by offering people rewards Conditioned power works in a more subtle manner; i.e. by changing the belief (and identity) of the individual
  6. 6. Government) power and social enterprise Condign power: ??? Compensatory power: Government grants, contracts, recognition/prestige, social capital Conditioned power: Discourse, ideology
  7. 7. Social enterprise and conditioned power Mason (2012): government uses social enterprise policies (SEASS, SEAP) as a means to reconstruct “contested ideas to conform with its own interests” Grenier (2009): government policies use social enterprise “to influence how practitioners [...] think, to imply possible futures and to constrain what is done in practice” (Grenier, 2009, p. 177) Carmel & Harlock (2008): discourse of social enterprise prescribes that „all VCO (voluntary and community sector) public service providers are to be social enterprises, behaving like business enterprises in a level playing field with the private and public sectors.” (p. 163)
  8. 8. The limits of social enterprise discourse Seanor & Baines (forthcoming): “taking place at the level of national government and business discourse, it does not reflect the ethos and resistance amongst practitioners” (p. 17). Parkinson & Howorth (2008): “discursive shifts [towards dominant entrepreneurship discourse], driven by policy- makers, funders, the sector and academics alike, do not necessarily infiltrate ideology at the level where the action is located” (p. 305).
  9. 9. Social enterprise and local resistance Parkinson & Howorth (2008): Social enterprise: “’it’s amusing!’, ‘it’s ridiculous!’, ‘too posh … I’m working class’” (p. 301). Seanor & Meaton (2007): social enterprise practitioners reject the prevailing image of the heroic leader and even deny wanting to become social entrepreneurs.
  10. 10. The Project ‚Real Times‘ Longitudinal project aimed at understanding the day-to- day reality of SE (e.g. practices, patterns of change, challenges) 15 core case studies Interviews (N > 200)
  11. 11. Michel Pêcheux’s Model Dis/identification forms the process through which individuals either submit to discursive invocations or else resist them Three-part model:→ Identification: individuals ‘freely consent’ to the ideological discourse→ Counter-identification: individuals reject or oppose the ideological discourse→ Disidentification: individuals properly displace ideological discourse, for instance by tactically misrecognising and hence demystifying the dominant rhetoric
  12. 12. Preliminary Results Enthusiastic Practitioners embrace SE without mentioning any engagement form of concern or reservation: „we‘re a socialIdentification enterprise and we‘re something different“ Reflective Practitioners embrace SE while conceding that their endorsement identification was ambivalent: „the CIC status ... wasn‘t going to help entirely with a sense of identity“ Private irony Practitioners express their sense of discomfort vis-a- vis SE privately while publicly endorsing itCounter-identification Public Practitioners publicly reject SE opposition Displacement Practitioners eschew SE by adopting an alternativeDisidentifica- discourse: „we’re a co-op first, we are part of thetion third sector and we are a [sports] club”
  13. 13. Social enterprise as a failing operation? Social enterprise Social entrepreneur Social innovation N. Transcripts / References References References Observation notes ASH 16 37 3 11 BEECH 9 86 5 - BIRCH 19 21 - 1 CEDAR 19 34 - - CHERRY 19 10 - - FIG 16 2 - - FIR 12 38 - - HAWTHORN 13 7 - - INDIGO 8 0 - - LARCH 14 27 2 - MIMOSA 17 1 - - MULBERRY 12 4 - - PINE 6 1 - - SYCAMORE 22 3 - - TEAK 15 195 - - TOTAL 217 466 10 12
  14. 14. The missing links Economic resources: “the dull compulsion of economic relations completes the subjugation of the laborer to the capitalist” (Marx, 1954, p. 689) Synchronic inquiries ignore the dynamic nature of identity work and the ever-changing nature of social enterprise discourse
  15. 15. Dialectic approach Dialectics implies that power and resistance belong together → circular pattern Practitioners are never able to fully step outside of the influence of social enterprise discourse nor fully determined by it Dialectics would explore the possibilities and impossibilities that exist precisely in keeping the opposites between power and resistance in tension and play
  16. 16. Dialectic of power / resistance Teasdale (2010): practitioners present themselves and their organizations in different ways to different observers → gain economic resources from a wide range of sources and helps them resist pressures to conform to a singular way of thinking and acting Own study: ‚tactical mimicry‘ → practitioners “pretended” to be social entrepreneurs in order to create particular opportunities
  17. 17. Thank you for your attention
  18. 18. Appendix
  19. 19. The Project (Cont.) Analysis→ Step 1: keyword search to identify cases and interview passages where practitioners talked about SE (‚social enterprise‘ (n = 466), ‚social entrepreneur‘ (n = 10), ‚social innovation‘ (n = 12))→ Step 2: analyzing the identified interviews from the five selected cases in terms of dis/identification→ Step 3: iterative negotiation of results to further refine/develop Pêcheux’s three-part model

×