PL EN


2013 | 1 | 101-117
Article title

Legitymizacja przedsiębiorczości społecznej: izomorfizm refleksyjny w stadium preparadygmatu

Content
Title variants
EN
The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre-Paradigmatic Field
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
Keywords
Contributors
author
  • Said Business School
References
  • 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
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-028b1c4e-f0ba-49d6-932c-cda68a919889
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.