Exploring Shared Identity Constructs between Social Enterprises and Third Sector Organisations: A UK Study

Abstract

As the search for a stable definition of social enterprise/entrepreneurship continues among academics (Dacin et al., 2011), this paper explores a different angle to the debate, concerning SE identity. Previous research has shown the inherent ambiguity and complexity at play within organisational identities, and SE is unsurprisingly similar in this regard (Jones and Keogh, 2006). The play of meaning within and between the very notion of the ‘social entrepreneur’ has prompted many to acknowledge the presence of SE-activities within other types of non-profit organisation. This paper contributes to this debate by determining the presence (and absence) of an SE ‘identity construct’ across a sample of third sector organisations (TSOs). Currently, research in this part of the SE research landscape adds a very interesting angle to the popular and enduring development of SE ‘meanings’ (Jones et al., 2008, Seanor and Meaton, 2007). Indeed, a steady stream of critical studies of SE have emerged in recent years which have begun to unpick the various strands emanating from a frenzied period of activity in the global interest in SE and social enterprises (Curtis, 2008). Furthermore, academics continue to debate the effects of agency/structure on SEs, as well as the institutional influences determining either way (Battilana et al., 2009). Consequently, such work has centred on the emergence of institutional entrepreneurship (IE) in the SE conceptual space as an explanation for the variety inherent within the SE concept (Dacin et al., 2011). Therefore, there are two central research questions under investigation in this study: first, can we convincingly argue the SE refers solely to certain TSOs (i.e. social enterprises), or is SE best understood across many different TSO types? Secondly, can we locate the presence of such SE exclusivity by measuring TSO attitudes to a SE identity ‘construct’? Since such a construct does not exist, I develop one based on the recent alignments between SE and IE (Dacin, et al 2011). Based on a survey of 1200 voluntary and community sector organisations in the United Kingdom (UK), I sequentially employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) to understand whether and to what extent SE-traits are indeed present within TSOs. This technique, used comparatively for the first time in this area, allows for the confirmation of components within, and discriminant validity between, constructs. The measurement scale was developed following a review of the social and institutional entrepreneurship literatures, isolating three core identity ‘components’: shared vision; mobilisation of resources; and institutional values. The five-item scale was then articulated into scale-based attitudinal response questions, and tested for reliability and internal consistency (DeVellis, 2003, Hendrickson et al., 1993). Analysis shows that there are some enduring identity traits between SEs and TSOs in the UK, and the EFA approach offers a significant empirical insight into the location of these traits in TSOs. Elements of all three core components were found to be significant in the study sample: the need for innovative social responses, the strength of social vision, and attitudes to public sector constraints to growth and access to capital. The CFA component shows a high level of discriminant validity between the three constructs, showing that the three constructs each measured separate facets of SE identity. Thus the study identifies areas of core similarity between SEs and TSOs, which contravenes the view that social entrepreneurship is a distinct and separate domain. Furthermore, the paper provides a major empirical contribution to the SE literature through the development of a new scale for measuring SE identity. The findings add weight and specificity to the SE meaning debate, by showing with some confidence where and how SEs and TSOs align. This quantitative study was undertaken with the view that it might confirm (or indeed disconfirm) assumed links between the two broad organisational categories. Consequently, I hope that further research should necessarily lead to qualitative, in-depth investigation between SEs and TSOs, and adds insights into both fields.