PL EN


2018 | 1/2018 (73), t.2 | 229-239
Article title

Pronouncement of Embedded Agency in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship

Content
Title variants
PL
Manifestacja sprawczości zakorzenionej w obszarze przedsiębiorczości społecznej
Languages of publication
EN PL
Abstracts
EN
The paper provides insights into how social entrepreneurship and the institutional theory framework can be combined. The author situates the social entrepreneurship phenomenon here, and embarks on the traditional structure vs agency debate from social sciences, sociology of organizations in particular. The concept of embedded agency is referred to and employed to explain the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship. In this paper, the author provides key arguments concerning how the institutional theory framework can be useful in the field of social entrepreneurship research and practice. The author also discusses how the embedded agency concept is more pronounced in the social entrepreneurship context.
PL
Wykorzystując obszerną analizę kluczowych tekstów w obszarze teorii instytucjonalnej oraz obszaru badawczego przedsiębiorczości, w tym przedsiębiorczości społecznej, autorka umiejscawia zjawisko i obszar badawczy przedsiębiorczości społecznej w ramach tejże teorii. Nawiązując do debaty agencja vs struktura, znanej z nauk społecznych, przywołuje ona koncepcję sprawczości zakorzenionej i przenosi ją na grunt badań nad przedsiębiorczością społeczną. W artykule przytoczono argumenty, dlaczego ramy teorii instytucjonalnej są szczególnie użyteczne dla zjawiska i obszaru badawczego przedsiębiorczości społecznej, jak również ukazują, w jaki sposób obszar ten może być bardziej wyjaśniony dzięki perspektywie paradoksu sprawczości zakorzenionej.
Year
Pages
229-239
Physical description
Dates
published
2018-04-27
Contributors
  • Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdańsk University of Technology, mstarnaw@wp.pl
References
  • Arend, R.J. (2013). A heart-mind opportunity nexus: Distinguishing social entrepreneurship for entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 38, 313–315, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0251.
  • Batillana, J. (2004). Foundations for a theory of institutional entrepreneurship: Solving the paradox of embedded agency. INSEAD Working Paper Series, 2004/61/OB. Retrieved from: https://flora.insead.edu/fichiersti_wp/inseadwp2004/2004-61.pdf.
  • Battilana, J. and D’Aunno, T. (2003). Institutional work. Actors and agency in Institutional studies of organizations. In: T.B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby and B. Leca (eds), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Batillana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520903053598.
  • Batko, R. and Bogacz-Wojtanowska, E. (2015). Przedsiębiorstwa społeczne – poszukiwanie tożsamości pomiędzy celami ekonomicznymi a społecznymi. Problemy Zarządzania, 4(56), 195–206, http://dx.doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.56.12.
  • Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  • Berglund, K., Johannisson, B. and Schwartz, B. (eds). (2012). Societal entrepreneurship. Positioning, penetrating, promoting. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
  • Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D. and Li, H.L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where we are now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 421–440, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x.
  • Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T. and Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29764973.
  • Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2016). Fundamentals for international typology of social enterprise models. ICSEM Working Papers, 33, The ICSEM Project, Liege.
  • DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: L.G. Zucker (ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–22). Cambridge MA: Ballinger.
  • DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101.
  • DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W.W. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as professional project: US art museums 1920–1940. In: W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 267–292). Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Eisenstadt, S.N. (1980). Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs, and social change: Comparative analysis of traditional civilizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 840–869, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/227091.
  • Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/231294.
  • Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040004003.
  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780199.
  • Grimes, M.G., McMullen, J.S., Vogus, T.J. and Miller, T.L. (2013). Studying the origins of social entrepreneurship: Compassion and the role of embedded agency. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 460–463, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0429.
  • Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398–422, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393791.
  • Karatas-Ozkan, M. and Chell, E. (2010). Nascent entrepreneurship and learning. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
  • Karatas-Ozkan, M., Yavuz, C. and Howells, J. (2014). Theorising entrepreneurship: Institutional theory perspective. In: E.Chell and M. Karatas-Ozkan (eds), Handbook of research on small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 70–82). Cheltenham UK, Northampton MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
  • Kerlin, J.A. (ed.). (2009). Social enterprise. Global comparison. Hanover and London: Tufts University Press.
  • Korsgaard, S. and Anderson, A.R. (2011). Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 135–151, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026624261039193.
  • Lawrence, T. B. and Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In: S.R. Clegg,
  • C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence and W.R. Nord (eds), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). London: Sage.
  • Maguire, S., Hardy, C. and Lawrence, T.B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159610.
  • McMullen, J.S., Plummer, L.A. and Acs, Z.J. (2007). What is an entrepreneurial opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28(4), 273–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9040-z.
  • Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226550.
  • Miller, T.L., Grimes, M.G., McMullen, J.S. and Vogus, T. (2012).Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37, 616–640, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.10.0456.
  • Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic fields. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 611–633, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00397.x.
  • Oliver, Ch. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258610.
  • Pache, A.-C. and Chowdhury, I. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 494–510, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0019.
  • Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K. and Germann, K. (2006). Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and microprocesses of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 977–998, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159812.
  • Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Seo, M. and Creed, W. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247, http://dx.doi. org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6588004.
  • Starnawska, M. (2015). Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w społeczeństwie obywatelskim w Polsce. Studia BAS, 4(44), 167–203.
  • Starnawska, M. (2016a). Social entrepreneurship – Avenues for the field development through research paradigm intersection – Discussion. Humanities and Social Sciences, 23(4), 241–251, http://dx.doi.org/10.7862/rz.2016.hss.74.
  • Starnawska, M. (2016b). Social entrepreneurship research – Challenges, explanations and suggestions for the field development. Problemy Zarządzania, 3(61), 13–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.61.1.
  • Starnawska, M. (2017). Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w świetle teorii instytucjonalnej– próba przyczynku teoretycznego. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, XVIII(I), 150–161.
  • Starnawska M. and Brzozowska, A. (2018). Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise phenomenon: Antecedents, processes, impact across cultures and contexts. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(2), 3–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.7341/20181421.
  • Stephan, U. and Drencheva, A. (2017). The person in social entrepreneurship: A systematic review of research on the social entrepreneurial personality. In: G. Ahmetoglu,
  • T. Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger and T. Karcisky (eds), The Wiley handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 205–229). Hoboken USA, Chichester UK: Wiley and Sons.
  • Suddaby, R. (2011). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 14–20, https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492609347564.
  • Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Townsend, D.M. and Hart, T.A. (2008). Perceived institutional ambiguity and the choice of organizational form in social entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 685–700, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00248.x.
  • Welter, F. and W.B. Gartner (eds). (2016). A research agenda for entrepreneurship and context. Cheltenham UK, Northampton MA USA: Edward Elgar.
  • Young, D.R. and Brewer C.V. (2016). Introduction. In: D.R. Young, E.A.M. Searing and C.V. Brewer (eds), The social enterprise zoo (pp. 3–14). Cheltenham UK and Northampton MS, USA: Edward Elgar.
  • Young, D.R., Searing, E.A.M. and Brewer, C.V. (eds). (2016). The social enterprise zoo. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MS, USA: Edward Elgar.
  • Zbierowski, P. (2015). Milowy krok w rozwoju badań przedsiębiorczości? GEM i PSED – porównanie, dorobek, aspiracje i perspektywy na przyszłość. Problemy Zarządzania, 1(51) part 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
ISSN
1644-9584
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-5b7aaead-d31f-41ec-9536-303b31f6932c
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.