Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl


2013 | 1 | 101-117

Article title

Legitymizacja przedsiębiorczości społecznej: izomorfizm refleksyjny w stadium preparadygmatu


Title variants

The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre-Paradigmatic Field

Languages of publication





  • Said Business School


  • Abbott A. [1988], The system of professions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Aiken M. [2006], Towards market or state? Tensions and opportunities in the evolutionary path of three types of UK Social Enterprise, [w:] M. Nyssens (red.), Towards market or state? Tensions and opportunities in the evolutionary path of three UK social enterprises (s. 259–271), London: Routledge.
  • Aldrich H., Baker T. [1997], Blinded by the cities? Has there been progress in entrepreneurship research? [w:] D. Sexton, R. Smilor (red.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (s. 377–400), Chicago: Upstart Publishing.
  • Aldrich H., Fiol C. [1994], Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation, “Academy of Management Review”, 19, 645–670.
  • Alter K. [2006], A social enterprise typology, dostępne na: http://www.virtueventures.com/typology.php (4 lutego).
  • Alvord S., Brown L., Letts C. [2004], Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study, “Journal of Applied Behavioral Science”, 40 (3), 260–283.
  • Ashforth B., Gibbs B. [1990], The double edge of organizational legitimation, “Organization Science”, 1, 177–194.
  • Austin J., Gutierrez R., Ogliastri, E. [2006], Eff ective management of social enterprises: Lessons from business and civil society organizations in Ibero-America, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  • Barnes M. [1999], Users as citizens: Collective action and the local governance of welfare, “Social Policy and Administration”, 33 (1), 73–90.
  • Battle Anderson B., Dees J.G. [2006], Rhetoric, reality, and research: Building a solid foundation for the practice of social entrepreneurship,
  • [w:] A. Nicholls (red.), Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of ustainable social change (s. 144–168), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Baum J., Powell W. [1995], Cultivating an institutional ecology of organizations: Comment on Hannan, Carroll, Dundon, and Torres, “American Sociological Review”, 60, 529–538.
  • Blair T. [2006], OTS (Offi ce of the Third Sector) (2006), Social enterprise
  • action plan: Scaling new heights, London: Cabinet Offi ce.
  • Bornstein D. [2004], How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Borzaga C., Defourny J. [2001], The emergence of social enterprise, New York: Routledge.
  • Bourdieu P. [1993], The fi eld of cultural production: Essays on art and literature, Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Bovaird T. [2006], Developing new relationships with the market” in the procurement of public services, “Public Administration”, 84 (1), 81–102.
  • Busenitz L., Page West G., Shepherd D., Nelson T., Chandler G., Zacharakis A. [2003], Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions, “Journal of Management”, 29 (3), 285–308.
  • Carter S., Deephouse D. [1999], “Tough talk” or “soothing speech”: Managing reputations for being tough and being good, “Corporate Reputation Review”, 2, 308–332.
  • Clotfelter C. (red.) [1992], Who benefi ts from the nonprofi t sector?, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Corner P., Ho M. [2010], How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”,34 (4), 635–659.
  • Dart R. [2004], The legitimacy of social enterprise, “Nonprofi t Management and Leadership”, 14 (4), 411–424.
  • Davis G., McAdam D., Scott W., Zald M. [2005], Social movements and organization theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Deephouse D. [1996], Does isomorphism legitimate?, “Academy of Management Journal”, 39 (4), 1024–1039.
  • Deephouse D., Suchman M. [2008], Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism, [w:] R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, R. Suddaby (red.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (s. 49–77), London: Sage.
  • Di Domenico M., Haugh H., Tracy P. [2010], Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprise, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, 34 (4), 681–703.
  • DiMaggio P., Powell W. [1983], The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fi elds, “American Sociological Review”, 48, 147–160.
  • DiMaggio P., Powell W. [1991], Introduction, [w:] P. DiMaggio, W. Powell (red.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (s. 1–40), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Dowling J., Pfeff er J. [1975], Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior, “Pacifi c Sociological Review”, 18, 122–136.
  • Edwards M. [2008], Just another emperor? The myths and realities of philanthrocapitalism, London: The Young Foundation/Demos.
  • Edwards M. [2010], Small change: Why business won’t save the world, San Francisco, CA: Berrett–Koehler.
  • Elkington J., Hartigan P. [2008], The power of unreasonable people, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Elsbach K. [1994], Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and eff ectiveness of verbal accounts, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, 39, 57–88.
  • Elsbach K., Sutton R. [1992], Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: Amarriage of institutional and impression management theories, “Academy of Management Journal”, 35, 699–738.
  • Evers A., Laville J.-L. [2004], The third sector in Europe, London: Edward Elgar.
  • Friedland R., Alford R. [1991], Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions, [w:] P. DiMaggio, W. Powell (red.), The new institutionalism inorganizational analysis (s. 232–263), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Galaskiewicz J. [1985], Interorganizational relations, “Annual Review of Sociology”, 11, 281–304.
  • Giddens A. [1984], The constitution of society, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Giddens A. [1998], The third way, Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Giddens A. [2000], The third way and its critics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Grenier P. [2006], Social entrepreneurship: Agency in a globalizing world, [w:] A. Nicholls (red.), Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change (s. 119–143),Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Grimes M. [2010], Strategic sense making within funding relationships: The eff ects of performance measurement on organizational identity in the social sector, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, 34 (4), 763–783.
  • Hargens L. [1988], Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates, “American Sociological Review”, 53, 139–151.
  • Hargrave T., Van der Ven A. [2006], A collective action model of institutional innovation, “Academy of Management Review”, 31 (4), 864–888.
  • Harrison R., Leitch C. [1996], Discipline emergence in entrepreneurship: Accumulative fragmentalism or paradigmatic science, “Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change”,5 (2), 65–83.
  • Hybels R. [1995], On legitimacy, legitimation, and organizations:A critical review and integrative theoretical model, Best Paper Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 241–245.
  • Kaplan S. [2008], Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty, “Organization Science”, 19, 729–752.
  • Kistruck G., Beamish P. [2010], The interplay of form, structure, and embeddedness in social intrapreneurship,“Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, 34 (4), 735–761.
  • Kuhn T. [1962], The structure of scientifi c revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Leadbeater C. [1997], The rise of the social entrepreneur, London: Demos.
  • LeGrand J. [2003], Motivation, agency, and public policy.Of knights and knaves, pawns and ąueens, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • LeGrand J., Bartlett W. (red.). [1993], Quasi-markets and social policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Light P. [2006], Reshaping social entrepreneurship, “Stanford Social Innovation Review” (Autumn) 47–51.
  • Light P. [2008], The search for social entrepreneurship, Washington, DC: Brookings.
  • Lodahl J., Gordon G. [1972], The structure of scientifi c fi elds and the functioning of university graduate departments,“American Sociological Review”, 37, 57–72.
  • Lodahl J., Gordon G. [1973], Diff erences between physical and social sciences in university graduate departments,“Research in Higher Education”, 1, 191–213.
  • Lounsbury M. [2007], A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds “Academy of Management Journal”, 50, 289–330.
  • Lounsbury M., Glynn M. A. [2001], Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources, “Strategic Management Journal”, 22, 545–564.
  • Lounsbury M., Strang D. [2009], Social entrepreneurship. Success stories and logic construction, [w:] D. Hammack, S. Heydemann (red.), Globalization, philanthropy, and civil society (s. 71–94), Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  • Lukes S. [1974], Power: A radical view, London: Macmillan.
  • Maturana H., Varela F. [1973], Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Meyer J., Rowan B. [1977], Institutionalised organisations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, “American Journal of Sociology”, 83, 340–363.
  • Meyer J., Scott W. [1983], Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government, [w:] J.W. Meyer, W.R. Scott (red.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (s. 199–215), London: Sage.
  • Meyer J., Scott R., Cole S., Intili J. [1978], Instructional dissensus and institutional consensus in schools, [w:] M. Meyer (red.), Environments and organizations (s. 290–305), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Meyer J., Scott R., Deal T. [1981], Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of organizations, [w:] H. Stein (red.), Organization and the human services (s. 151–178),Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  • Meyskens M., Robb-Post C., Stamp J., Carsrud A., Reynolds P. [2010], Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka fellows, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, 34 (4), 661–680.
  • Miller T., Wesley C. [2010], Assessing mission and resources for social change: An organizational identity perspective on social venture capitalists’ decision criteria, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, 34 (4), 705–733.
  • Morgan G. [2006], Images of organization. London: Sage.
  • Mulgan G. [2007], Social innovation. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, dostępne na: www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/skoll/research/Short+papers/Short+papers.htm (4 lutego).
  • NCVO [2008], UK voluntary sector almanac 2007, London: National Council of Voluntary Organizations.
  • Nicholls A. [2006a], Playing the fi eld: A new approach to the meaning of social entrepreneurship, “Social Enterprise Journal”, 2 (1), 1–5.
  • Nicholls A. [2006b], Introduction: The meanings of social entrepreneurship, [w:] A. Nicholls (red.), Social entre preneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change (s. 1–36), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nicholls A. [2008], Capturing the performance of the Socially Entrepreneurial Organisation (SEO): An organisational
  • legitimacy approach, [w:] J. Robinson, J. Mair, K. Hockerts (red.),International perspectives on social entrepreneurship research, London: Palgrave Macmillan. (forthcoming).
  • Nicholls A. [2009], Learning to walk: Social entrepreneurship, Innovations: Special Edition Skoll WorldForum, s. 209–222.
  • Nicholls A. [2010a], What gives fair trade its right to operate? Organisational legitimacy and the strategic management of social entrepreneurship, [w:] K. Macdonald, S. Marshall (red.), Fair trade corporate accountability and beyond: Experiments in global justice governance mechanisms (s. 95–121), London: Ashgate.
  • Nicholls A. [2010b], Institutionalizing social entrepreneurship in regulatory space: Reporting and disclosure by community interest companies, “Accounting, Organizations and Society”, 35, 394–415.
  • Nicholls A. [2010c], The institutionalization of social investment: The interplay of investment logics and kwestor rationalities, “Journal of Social Entrepreneurship”, 1 (1), 70–100.
  • Nicholls A., Cho A. [2006], Social entrepreneurship: The structuration of a fi eld, [w:] A. Nicholls (red.), Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change (s. 99–118), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nicholls A., Pharoah C. [2007], The landscape of social fi nance. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, dostępne na:http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/skoll/research/Pages/socialfi nance.aspx (4 lutego).
  • Nicholls A., Young R. [2008], Introduction: The changing landscape of social entrepreneurship, [w:] A. Nicholls (red.), Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change (Paperback ed., s. vii–xxiii),Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nyssens M. (red.). [2006], Social enterprise, London: Routledge.
  • Oliver C. [1997], Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views, “Strategic Management Journal”, 18, 697–713.
  • Osberg S., Martin R. [2007], Social entrepreneurship: The case for defi nition, “Stanford Social Innovation Review”, Spring, 28–39.
  • Osbourne D., Gaebler T. [1992], Reinventing government, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • OTS [2006], OTS (Offi ce of the Third Sector), Cabinet Offi ce, Social enterprise action plan: Scaling new heights, London: Offi ce of The Third Sector.
  • Peredo A., McLean M. [2006], Social entrepreneurship: A ritical review of the concept, “Journal of World Business”, 41, 56–65.
  • Perrini F. (red.) [2006], The new social entrepreneurship: What awaits social entrepreneurship ventures?, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
  • Pfeff er J. [1993], Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable, “Academy of Management Review”, 18 (4), 599–620.
  • Pfeff er J., Moore, W. [1980], Power in university budgeting: A replication and extension, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, 25, 637–653.
  • Pfeff er J., Salancik G. [1978], The external control of organizations: A resource dependency perspective, New York: Harper Row.
  • Phillips N., Lawrence T., Hardy C. [2004], Discourse and institutions,Academy of Management Review”, 29, 635–652.
  • Prahalad C. K. [2005], The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profi t, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School Publishing.
  • Rao H. [1994], The social construction of reputation: Certifi cation contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry 1895–1912, “Strategic Management Journal”, 15, 29–44.
  • Roth G., Wittich C. (red.) [1978], Economy and society, San Francisco: University of California Press.
  • Ruef M., Scott W. [1998], A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments, “Administrative Science Quarterly”,43, 877–904.
  • Salamon L., Anheier H. [1999], The emerging sector revisited. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
  • Salamon L., Anheier H., List R., Toepler S., Sokolowski S. (red.) [2003], Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofi t sector, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
  • Scott W.R. [1995], Institutions and organizations, San Francisco, CA: Sage.
  • Shaw E., Carter S. [2007], Social entrepreneurship; theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes, “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, 14 (3), 418–429.
  • Short J., Moss T., Lumpkin G. [2009], Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities, “Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal”, 3, 161–194.
  • Singh, J., Tucker, D., House R. [1986], Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, 31, 171–193.
  • Social Enterprise Unit [2002], Social enterprise: A strategy for success, London: Department for Trade and Industry.
  • Stryker R. [2000], Legitimacy processes as institutional politics: Implications for theory and research in the sociology of organizations, “Research in the Sociology of Organizations”, 17, 179–223.
  • Suchman M. [1995], Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches, “Academy of Management Review” 20, 517–610.
  • Suddaby, R., Greenwood, R. [2005], Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, 50, 35–67.
  • Sullivan Mort G., Weerawardena J., Carnegie K. [2003], Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation, “International Journal of Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Marketing”, 8 (1), 76–88.
  • Vaara E.,Tienari J., Laurila J. [2006], Pulp and paper fi ction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring, “Organization Studies”, 27, 789–810.
  • Walsh K. [1995], Public services and market mechanisms. Competition, contracting, and the new public management, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Weerawardena J., Sullivan Mort G. [2006], Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model, “Journal of World Business”, 41, 21–35.
  • Yoels W. [1974], The structure of scientifi c fi elds and the allocation of editorships on scientifi c journals: Some observations on the politics of knowledge, “Sociological Quarterly”, 15, 264–276.
  • Yunus M. [2008], Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism, New York: Public Aff airs.
  • Zimmerman M., Zeitz G. [2002], Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy, “Academy of Management Review”, 27 (3), 414–431.
  • Zucker L. [1977], The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence, “American Journal of Sociology”, 42, 726–743.

Document Type

Publication order reference


YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.