Convening Opportunity: Social Entrepreneurship in

Two Community Development Initiatives

By

Sandra Sattler Weber

A DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Interdepartmental Area of Human Sciences (Leadership Studies)

Under the Supervision of Professors

John Allen and Susan Fritz

Lincoln, Nebraska

May, 2006

UMI Number: 3214777

32147772006

UMI MicroformCopyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

CONVENING OPPORTUNITY: SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN TWO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

Sandra Sattler Weber, Ph.D.

University of Nebraska, 2006

Advisors: John C. Allen and Susan M. Fritz

This study explored the process of social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting.

Theoretical constructs of institutional structures and social capital were integrated into an

emerging theory of social entrepreneurship in two community development Initiatives.

A grounded theory approach was used in this qualitative multiple case study. A

comparison was made of two Initiatives striving for systemic change. Each Initiative

focused on two different subsets of community (rural and urban) and shared values of

public engagement. A knowledge structure emerged from the study that related the

external pressures of the institutional environment and internal circumstances that

influenced process for each of these Initiatives.

Convening opportunity was an in vivo term applied in this study to explain the

process of social entrepreneurship. The actions sets that describe convening opportunity

are recognizing opportunity, strategizing opportunity, and structuring opportunity. Social

capital was found to be a significant facilitator in two strategies that were instrumental in

this process. These strategies are "making the case" and forging partnerships. It is

recommended that these newly discovered constructs, grounded in the data, be tested

empirically to move toward a grand theory of social entrepreneurship.

1CHAPTER I

Introduction..............................................................................................................5 Purpose Statement....................................................................................................5 Context of the Study ................................................................................................6 Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................8 Research Questions..................................................................................................9 Background to the Study........................................................................................10

Institutional Structures ...............................................................................10 Social Capital Framework..........................................................................12

Intent of the Study..................................................................................................13 Definition of Terms................................................................................................14 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study ...........................................................18 The Significance of the Study................................................................................18

CHAPTER II

Review of Literature ..............................................................................................20 Social Entrepreneurship in the Nonprofit Setting..................................................20 Theoretical Underpinnings of Institutional Structure ............................................23

Basis of Institutional Theory......................................................................23 Table 1. ..............................................................................24

Institutional Structure and Structuration Theory ...................................................24 Figure 2. .............................................................................29

Institutional Perspectives of Social Entrepreneurship ...............................29 Table 2. ..............................................................................29

Regulative .........................................................................................30 Normative .........................................................................................32 Cognitive...........................................................................................33

Social Capital as a Transforming Tool . ....................................................36 Measurement Issues in Relevant Research ................................................37

The Context of Nonprofit Organizations ...............................................................38 Table 3. ..............................................................................38

Nonprofit Institutional Structures – Traditions and Values ......................40 Institutional Practices – Capacity Issues...........................................42 Institutional Practices – Strategic Readiness ....................................44 Institutional Practices – Inter-Institutional Behaviors & Alliances. .45 Institutional Practices – Leadership ..................................................46

Summary ................................................................................................................47

CHAPTER III

Procedures..............................................................................................................48 Assumptions and Rationale for a Qualitative Design ............................................48

Knowledge Claims.....................................................................................48

2Methodological Assumptions ....................................................................49

Type of Design.......................................................................................................51 A Grounded Theory Multiple Case Study .................................................51

The Role of the Researcher....................................................................................53 Data Collection Procedures........................................................................54

Sampling Parameters .....................................................................54 Table 4. ..............................................................................55

Sampling Method...........................................................................55 Table 5. ..............................................................................56

The City Initiative ..........................................................................56 The State Initiative.........................................................................57

Data Collection ..........................................................................................58 Access ............................................................................................58

Ethical Considerations ...............................................................................58 Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................58 Grounded Theory Methods ........................................................................59 Computer Analysis.....................................................................................60

Methods of Verification.............................................................................61 Internal Validity .............................................................................61 External Validity............................................................................62

Reporting the Outcomes ............................................................................63 CHAPTER IV

Descriptive Case Studies of Two Community Development Initiatives ...............64 Introduction................................................................................................64

Foundation for Rural Opportunity .........................................................................64 Institutional Features..................................................................................64

The State Initiative – Conveners of Opportunity...................................................67 Opportunity Trajectories............................................................................67

Facilitators......................................................................................67 Convening Opportunity .............................................................................68

Recognizing, Strategizing, and Structuring Opportunity...............68 Foundation for Excellence ....................................................................................70

Institutional Features..................................................................................70 The City Initiative – Conveners of Opportunity ....................................................74

Opportunity Trajectories............................................................................74 Facilitators......................................................................................74

Convening Opportunity .............................................................................75 Recognizing, Strategizing, and Structuring Opportunity...........................75

Summary ................................................................................................................79

3CHAPTER V

Developing a Grounded Theory.............................................................................80 Coding Procedures .....................................................................................80 Open Coding ..............................................................................................82

Table 6 ...............................................................................83 Axial Coding..............................................................................................84

Category 1. Opportunity trajectories..............................................85 Property 1. Thought leaders...............................................86 Property 2. The social entrepreneur. ..................................86

Category 2. Convening opportunity...............................................87 Property 1. Recognition opportunity..................................87 Property 2. Strategizing opportunity..................................87 Property 3. Structuring opportunity. ..................................88

Category 3. Strategies. ...................................................................90 Property 1. Making the case...............................................90 Property 2. Forging partnerships........................................91 Property 3. Relationships ...................................................92

Category 4. Capacities. ..................................................................92 Property 1. Institutional capacities.....................................93 Property 2. Organizational capacities. ...............................93 Property 3. Personal capacities. .........................................94

Category 5. Domain level analysis ................................................94 Property 1. Macro-Dynamics.............................................95

Category 6. Network development model .....................................95 Property 1. Great groups. ...................................................95

Selective Coding ........................................................................................96 The Emergent Knowledge Structure......................................................................97

Figure 3 ..............................................................................98 CHAPTER VI

Description of Theoretical Constructs ...................................................................99 Opportunity Trajectories........................................................................................99 Convening Opportunity .......................................................................................106

Recognizing Opportunity.........................................................................107 Strategizing Opportunity..........................................................................110 Structuring Opportunity ...........................................................................114

The Context..........................................................................................................120 Community Context.................................................................................120 Interpretations within the Domain ...........................................................121

Institutional features.....................................................................121 Intervening Conditions.........................................................................................127

Institutional Capacities.............................................................................127 Community Capacities ............................................................................131

4Personal Capacities ..................................................................................133

Strategies..............................................................................................................135 Making the Case ......................................................................................136 Forging Partnerships ................................................................................139 Outcomes .............................................................................................................143 Summary of Convening Opportunity...................................................................146

CHAPTER VII

Convening Opportunity in Social Entrepreneurship ...........................................148 Research Question One – Defining Social Entrepreneurship .............................148 Theoretical Propositions ......................................................................................150

Theoretical Proposition One ....................................................................150 Theoretical Proposition Two....................................................................151 Theoretical Proposition Three .................................................................151 Theoretical Proposition Four ...................................................................152 Theoretical Proposition Five....................................................................152

Discussion............................................................................................................153 Research Question Two – Constraining and Facilitating Factors .......................148

Theoretical Lenses ...................................................................................153 Institutional Analysis ...................................................................153 Social Capital ...............................................................................156

Constructs of Convening Opportunity .................................................................161 Table 7. ............................................................................161

A Comparison of Convening and Collaborating .....................................166 Summary ..............................................................................................................177 Conclusions..........................................................................................................179 Recommendations................................................................................................179

References........................................................................................................................182 Appendix A – Literature Map..........................................................................................203

Figure 1 ............................................................................204 Appendix B – Invitation for the Study.............................................................................205 Appendix C – Interview Protocol ....................................................................................207 Appendix D – Informed Consent Forms..........................................................................211 Appendix E – Examples from ATLAS ti.........................................................................214

5CHAPTER I

Introduction

In the new Millennium, social issues persist despite technology having reshaped

economies. These last three decades have been marked by revolutionary changes in

technology, which have connected the world and expanded markets for increased global

trade. The result is a new competitive landscape that is unpredictable and chaotic,

creating parallel and major social changes. For this reason, individuals and collectives

have organized to bring balance to an unbalanced world. This organization has resulted in

many creative and strategic social innovations being advanced by nearly 1.4 million

nonprofit organizations operating in the United States alone (Mangan, 2004).

Every year, thousands of social entrepreneurs achieve extraordinary things

in difficult circumstances…the bonds that individuals make with each other

and their communities are every bit as important as the things provided for

them by the state. So I set down a challenge: That we mark the Millennium

with an explosion in 'acts of community' that touch people's lives. – British

Prime Minister, Tony Blair, 1999.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this grounded theory study was to develop a substantive theory of

the process of social entrepreneurship. Two nonprofit foundations are used as referent

organizations for the two community development Initiatives that are the focus of this

study. The institutional features and networks of engagement described in the process

were of particular interest. Grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998)

was applied in this study of social entrepreneurship.

6Context of the Study

The nonprofit sector has a rich tradition and an important future in championing

social causes through collective means. Although governments have responsibilities to

provide public order by means of organizing and coordinating economic and social

spheres, they have depended upon support from the nonprofit sector (Thompson, et al.,

2000). Historically, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) have been essential to improving people's quality of life throughout the world. In

the U.S. the magnitude and spectrum of social missions range from neighborhood Little

Leagues, for example, to large corporations engaged in critical educational and scientific

research. Globally, the effort of nonprofit programming has enhanced or fundamentally

changed the social milieu of nations, communities, special populations, and individuals.

New-federalism of the late 1970's, early 1980's, and again in the mid-1990's gave

more policy choices and program management to the states regarding social issues (Foy,

2004; Morial, 2004). Essentially, the states were given programs that were initially

created and funded by the federal government. This devolution of government has

contributed to growth in the sector by shifting many public service roles to the private

sector. The breadth of services and products derived from nonprofit organizations are so

pervasive and significant that the sector is positioned as the third sector of economic

activity in the U.S. behind business and government (Raymond, 2004).

Growth in the nonprofit sector is significant. For example, the so-called 501(c) 3

nonprofits, which have tax exempt status in the U.S., have grown 128 percent over the

past two decades (Raymond, 2004). Consequently, more jobs and services are available

in the sector now than ever before.

7This growth is a challenge facing the nonprofit sector. Resources are a

prominent issue, which includes a need to expand physical, financial, social, and human

capital. A need for resources, coupled with government budget deficits that limit

opportunities for grants and contracts available to them, makes it difficult for many

nonprofit organizations to have the full resource capacity to carry out their social mission.

Social entrepreneurship has become one process of adjusting to limited financial

resources by developing social enterprises. The social enterprise, as framed by Dart

(2004), is "a set of strategic responses to many of the varieties of environmental

turbulences and situational challenges that nonprofit organizations face today" (p. 413).

However, these innovative approaches are problematic in terms of reconciling traditional

ways of operating in the sector. Thus, creative reallocation of resources is paramount to

effective mission support. This puts pressure upon nonprofit organizations to find

creative ways to support their missions (Chasse, 1995; Raymond, 2004). Increasingly,

these organizations are relying on fees and contracts as opposed to grants and donations

(Dart, 2004; Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003).

This tremendous growth in the sector, and its associated problems, has led to

increases in applied and basic research on nonprofits. Investigative efforts have led to

exponential growth in professional organizations, journals, academic units and research

institutions focusing on the nonprofit sector. For example, between 1990 and 2002,

university courses dealing with nonprofit organizations have tripled (Wimberley &

Rubens, 2002).

Although substantial information about the sector exists (Mangan, 2004),

sufficient research to articulate a unified theory of social entrepreneurship is lacking

8(Dart, 2004; Prabhu, 1999; Thompson, et al., 2000). Further, there is not a clear

understanding of how the nonprofit sector is changing the economic landscape or how

well social opportunities at the micro level are recognized and exploited (Mair & Marti,

2004).

A better understanding of the social entrepreneurship process is important.

Currently, social needs are being met by all three sectors: government, business, and

nonprofit. Not one sector can meet these needs based on its capacity alone. Thus, societal

needs are being shifted between all three sectors. The highly institutionalized character of

the nonprofit sector makes this shift difficult if entrepreneurial activities are

misunderstood or constrained. Society's cultural expectations and norms (DiMaggio &

Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) factor in on any new organizational processes, and

this makes managing change difficult, particularly if processes alter conventionally-held

perceptions or legitimated images of the sector.

Statement of the Problem

The process of social entrepreneurship is not well defined and there is a lack of

theoretical and data-based research that evaluates the context of social entrepreneurship

in the nonprofit setting. Thus, there is limited ability to identify those institutional

practices that either constrain or facilitate the process of entrepreneurship. Although there

are considerable conceptual writings and empirical research regarding the nonprofit

sector, there has been little integration of theoretical constructs of institutional structures,

leadership, and social capital together into a process theory of social entrepreneurship.

In general, the primary cause of theoretical dissonance in the field of

entrepreneurship is the difficulty of integrating theory across disciplines (Mair & Marti,

92004; Thornton, 1999). Often the entrepreneur is seen as the essential level of analysis

to be studied, reasoning that once a business transaction occurs the entrepreneur then

becomes a business owner or founder, and is no longer an entrepreneur. In this paradigm

there is little relevance for entrepreneurship because the process ends at the onset of the

business cycle. But, competing interpretations suggest that starting a business is not the

core of entrepreneurship. Many ideations of entrepreneurship suggest that an

entrepreneur is a catalyst for innovation and market changes (Dees, 1998) and the process

of entrepreneurship is an organizational level phenomenon (Mair & Marti, 2004). In this

study, entrepreneurs were viewed as change agents and the domain or field level, which

was inclusive of multiple organizations, was where the entrepreneurial phenomenon

occurred.

Though the study of social entrepreneurship is similarly bogged down with

disagreement, Dees (2001) contended that the field should utilize the traditions and logic

of market theories of entrepreneurship while drawing distinctions regarding the

challenges of the social mission. However, the following questions remain: What is a

process theory for social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting? Does the process of

social entrepreneurship and the market theories have one-dimensionality? Or are there

distinct differences in the social entrepreneurship process that would inform theory and

practice?

Research Questions

In scientific studies, research questions establish the parameters of the study and

guide the choice of methods that are used (Creswell, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In

10this study, the main research question considered process, which led to the grounded

theory paradigm as the preferred method for research. Because of the inductive nature of

this particular research method, the researcher framed and reframed the research

questions as the study progressed. Strauss and Corbin (1998) stated: "Although the initial

question starts out broadly, it becomes progressively narrowed and more focused during

the research process as concepts and their relationships are discovered" (p. 41).

The study was guided by two major research questions: What is the theory that

explains the process of social entrepreneurship in Community Development Initiatives?

How and to what extent do institutional structures and processes of engagement facilitate

or constrain the process?

The hallmark of the grounded theory paradigm (explained extensively in Chapter

Three) is to discover an emergent theory grounded in data. Using existing theories to

frame the study was useful to amplify the theoretical connections between an emerging

theory and broader theories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Institutional theory and the concepts of the social capital framework reflect

primary influences in social action, specifically for social entrepreneurship in the

nonprofit sector. Thus, framing the research questions with existing theories provided a

basis for a more detailed literature review that follows in Chapter Two.

Background to the Study

Institutional Structure

Institutional structure represents the meaning systems within society and

organizations that produce and legitimize patterns of behavior. This structure is a process,

which will be expanded on in Chapter Two. Institutional structure supports the rules,

11roles, beliefs, and practices within organizations, which in turn influences and is

influenced by individual understandings and actions (Meyerson, 1994).

Therefore, the antecedents of social entrepreneurship, or the patterns of behavior,

will be impacted by the institutional character of the organization. Although most

nonprofits will reflect their founding missions, many will change radically in response to

the challenges of resources and changes in the sector. This is considered an

entrepreneurial response (Thornton, 1999). An entrepreneurial response is context-

dependent or has a cause-effect pattern, specifically related to institutional and economic

stimuli (Hayton et al., 2002)

Thus, to prevail in changing times, nonprofit organizations must create

organizational capacities to foster their distinct social missions by balancing the workings

of innovative enterprise with institutional effects and unstable economic environments.

Other studies have taken a supply-side view of entrepreneurship. This includes an

individual-level focus that concentrates on the traits and motives of the entrepreneur

(Gartner, 1989b; Salamon, 2003). A less extended perspective is from the demand-side.

The demand-side examines the process of entrepreneurship or the context in which

entrepreneurship emerges (Thornton, 1999; Frumkin, 2002).

This study will emanate from a demand-side perspective, fully examining the

context of social entrepreneurship and identifying its process. A theory emerges that

explains social entrepreneurship at the community-field level (Smets, 2005; Wilkins,

1991) in two community development Initiatives. The importance of the demand-side

perspective is its potential to relate social missions to process and context. Stevens (2003)

developed a typology of the social entrepreneur (as founder and leader) in nonprofit

12organizations. Her findings suggested that many of the characteristics and patterns of

the social entrepreneur mirrored the research on the business entrepreneur. Nevertheless,

in her qualitative study, Stevens encouraged a demand-side view that focuses on process.

She suggested that because a founder is there primarily to answer a 'call', it "is wiser to

build organizational structures that allow this sense of purpose to flourish" (p. 161).

The 'market call', created by the changing needs for goods and services, has

compelled many nonprofit organizations to adopt business models. This change will

likely invoke many institutional responses and adjustments in institutional structure

through this evolution. Both institutional and economic contexts are fundamental in

creating entrepreneurial-friendly environments (Hayton, et al., 2002). However, the

nonprofit setting has a unique institutional character that is steeped in non-market

traditions, that is now placed within a volatile economic environment.

Why would more study need to be done to focus upon institutional effects? Most

empirical studies are evaluating entrepreneurship in the business sector. The nonprofit

setting is a highly institutionalized sphere for economic exchange. Though Dees (1998)

considered the economic model of entrepreneurship a reliable mirror, others argue that

social entrepreneurship requires more study (Mair & Marti, 2004; Thompson, et al.,

2000), particularly from the demand-side which focuses on context (Stevens, 2003).

The Social Capital Framework

Altogether, building relationships across community fields is a critical

competency of the nonprofit sector (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004; Orr, 2001).

Engagement emerges through networks of relationships best defined under the social

capital framework. Social capital is described as both the glue that holds social structures

13together, as evidenced by trust, cooperation, and long-term relationships (Putnam,

1996), and the lubricant that moves information and processes through social networks

(Anderson & Jack, 2002). Accordingly, Temkin and Rohe (1998) identified institutional

infrastructure as being analogous to bridging social capital (the ability to extend

organizational networks to enhance public prominence and increase opportunities). This

underscores the importance of relationships and networks in the social entrepreneurship

process.

Social entrepreneurship is changing the nonprofit environment and, therefore,

highlighting the impact of leadership in these processes. There are notable advances in

research to conceptualize the social entrepreneur as leader (see Amit, Glosten, & Muller,

1993; Brant, 1995; Chell, 2000; Euske & Euske, 1991; Gupta, MacMillan, & Surie, 2004;

Prabhu, 1999; Stevens, 2003; Waddock & Post, 1991). However, traits of leadership will

not be a focus for studying process in social entrepreneurship. The assumption is that

traits influence behavior (Gartner, 1989a). Nonetheless, an individual must have an

infrastructure to mobilize in the process of social entrepreneurship, where collective

processes are essential. How authority, resource mobilization, and ideologies of

entrepreneurship are featured in the structural arrangements of nonprofit organizations

will be of interest to connect leadership process to social entrepreneurship.

Intent of the Study

This study was cross-disciplinary, using perspectives from sociology, leadership,

and organizational behavior as theoretical support. Because entrepreneurship combines

resources in new productive ways, new organizational arrangements emerge (Dart, 2004;

Gartner, Bird, & Starr, 1992). Entrepreneurship is a socially constructed phenomenon. In

14fact, Dart (2004) avowed that social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector may be "a

'faddish' response to changes in the sociopolitical environment" (p. 412). Thus, how

members of an entrepreneurial initiative perceive the environment and respond to

challenges is important.

This study uses an integrated definition of social entrepreneur and social

entrepreneurship. The social entrepreneur is one who searches for social change,

recognizes opportunities and takes action to develop these opportunities into social

enterprise by mobilizing resources (Gupta et al., 2004; Stevens, 2003; Thompson, et al.,

2000). Thus, social entrepreneurship in the context of a nonprofit organization can be

understood to mean the process of continuous realization of opportunities to pursue social

innovations and the adaptation and development of these innovations into social

enterprises.

A priori theories are generally not used in grounded theory studies (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). However, as stated earlier, the highly

institutionalized environment for social innovation calls for a unique understanding of

context. Hence, the lenses of institutional theory and the social capital framework are

useful lenses to induce discovery. The study of social entrepreneurship enhances the

understanding of leading processes that create change.

Definition of Terms Community Development

Community development is the linking of individuals and organizations to

activities that increase positive efforts toward common community goals (Humboldt Area

15Foundation, 2001). These goals are generally to strengthen the local economy and to

build and strengthen social capacities through networks and leadership development.

Community-Field

A field is the result of community members' interactions, mutual influence of one

another, and the shared meanings produced from these interactions (Smets, 2005;

Wilkinson, 1991).

Community Foundation

"A community foundation is a permanent charitable public benefit organization

supported by local donors and governed by a board of private citizens who speak for the

needs and well being of the community. The Internal Revenue Service designates

community foundations as public charities because they raise a significant portion of their

resources from a broad cross section of the public each year" (Humboldt Area

Foundation, 2001).

Initiative

An initiative is a strategic approach to address the needs or requests of a

population, institution, community, or population (Humboldt Area Foundation, 2001).

Institutions

Institutions are the "cognitive and symbolic systems that produce and legitimize

patterns of [institutional structure, which are] culture, including symbols, beliefs, roles,

and meanings within organizations, which in turn shape and are shaped by individual

actions, interpretations, and understandings" (Meyerson, 1994, p. 630). This can be

embodied in an established organization with public character such as a church,

university, or a nonprofit organization.

16Institutional Structure

Institutional structure represents the rules, roles, practices and beliefs of the

nonprofit organization and is influenced by the sociopolitical environment.

Nonprofit Organizations

Nonprofit organizations (see also: Not-for-profit and NPO) are described as

agencies, organizations, or institutions, owned and operated by one or more corporations

or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit any private

shareholder or entity (34 CFR 77). Retrieved September 28, 2004, from

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title34/part77.html

Nongovernmental Organizations

Nongovernmental organizations (see also: NGO) are described as private

organizations pursuing activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor,

protect the environment, or undertake community development, (World Bank

Operational Directive 10.70). Retrieved September 28, 2004, from

http://www.fao.org/docrep/V8350E/v8350e0f.htm

Opportunity

"Opportunity is the possibility that a member of the community-field will identify

with or create and implement promising innovations, and necessary resources will be

found and applied in order to sustain innovations over time" (Dorado, 2005).

Social Capital

Social capital is characterized as social relationships found in active connections,

with observed behaviors of trust, mutual understandings, reciprocity, and conformity to

norms and culturally shared meanings (Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Nahapiet & Ghoshal,

171998). Social capital is "realized through members' levels of goal orientation and

shared trust, which create value by facilitating successful collective action" (Leana &

Van Buren, 1999, p. 538).

Social Enterprise

Social enterprise is a social purpose venture that seeks self-sustainability through

generating revenues (Dart, 2004; Dees, 1993).

Social Entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship is a continuous realization of opportunities to pursue

social innovations. Social innovations are adapted and developed to satisfy needs that

cannot be met by the government (Mair & Marti, 2004; Thompson, et al., 2000).

Social Entrepreneur

The social entrepreneur is one who searches for social opportunity, recognizes an

opportunity and takes action to develop this into a planned social change by mobilizing

resources (Gupta, et al., 2004; Stevens, 2003; Thompson, et al., 2000).

Social Innovation

Social innovation is the introduction of a new social purpose, product, or service

into the marketplace, or an improvement in social purpose organizations or processes.

(American Heritage Dictionary, 2004).

Stakeholders

A stakeholder is "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

achievement of an organization's objectives"(Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997, p. 854).

18Delimitations and Limitations of the Study

The study was delimited as follows: the unit of analysis was limited to two

community development Initiatives in the Midwest. Although the sample population

interviewed represented one public, two private, and 12 nonprofit organizations; the two

principal or anchor organizations in the study were each organized under the U.S.

Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as a 501(c) 3 Foundation (see definition, page 16).

A limitation of the study is the small representative sample of perceptions and

opinions about the patterns of behavior that describe social entrepreneurship in

community development Initiatives. There remains an inherent assumption that there will

be generalizable conclusions made in the study that will signify social entrepreneurship

processes in larger populations.

The Significance of the Study

This study will help satisfy the need for more in-depth knowledge of social

entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting from an institutional perspective. It explores the

interstitial areas connecting such disciplines as leadership, organizational behavior, and

sociology. Moreover, an important contribution will be the study of the relatively

unexplored area of how organizational processes sponsor new practices or transform

existing institutions (Lawrence, Hardy, & Phillips, 2002) and how these can be

institutionally legitimized (Mair & Marti, 2004).

This study regards social entrepreneurship as a transforming process of which the

antecedents are not well known (Mair & Marti, 2004). Therefore, an important study goal

is to uncover those entrepreneurial supports and capacities (Thompson, et al., 2000) from

within the institutional structure that allow leadership to prosper and social innovation to

19flourish. These goals are accomplished by providing the field a substantive theory of

convening opportunity through community development Initiatives, a process of social

entrepreneurship.

While this study focuses on social entrepreneurship, its findings will also give

insight into what constitutes an entrepreneurial-friendly environment or those

institutional features that nurture and support entrepreneurial behavior. Thus, study

findings will also inform rational economic models of entrepreneurship and support new

insights rather than detract.

This chapter reviewed the substantive goals of this study. A preview of the

context for the study, the complexity of the problem and its significance, the methods

used, and the guiding theoretical frameworks were addressed. The research focus and

questions guiding the research methods indicated in this chapter are addressed more fully

in subsequent chapters. The next chapter reviews literature which connects theoretical

progress in the field with the outcomes of this study.

20CHAPTER II

Review of Literature

This chapter will demonstrate the relevance of institutional theory, along with

concepts of social capital, to the understanding of social enterprise and social

innovations. Accordingly, the study will integrate literature from sociology,

organizational behavior, and leadership to lay the foundation for this multiple case study.

A brief review of social entrepreneurship provides general direction of the study.

Following this is a section that assesses relevant literature related the nonprofit setting. A

third section develops the contextual environment of the nonprofit for social

entrepreneurship. A literature map (Figure 1) is provided in Appendix A, which

demonstrates the relationship of the areas of study.

Social Entrepreneurship in the Nonprofit Setting

Understanding social entrepreneurship is complicated by the different types of

enterprises that occur in the nonprofit setting. Many nonprofit organizations that

previously relied solely on philanthropy, membership fees, or government funding are

becoming entrepreneurial by combining resources from multiple sources. A combined

model of social enterprise that serves both a financial (or for- profit) and a social mission

is referred to as having 'double bottom lines' (Dart, 2004). Organizational missions that

are social, financial, and environmental are 'triple bottom lines' (Johnson, 2000). These

new arrangements are reshaping many of the strategies, norms, and values to be

characteristically similar to that of the business sector (Dart, 2004).

To better understand social entrepreneurship a grasp of the terminology is needed.

Unfortunately, there is no standard. For example, terms of nonprofit commercial

21ventures, social entrepreneurship, institutional entrepreneurship, and nonprofit

entrepreneurship are often used interchangeably in studies on social entrepreneurship.

This may come from inconsistent definitions and perceptions of the term

'entrepreneurship'. This variation may explain emerging ideas on entrepreneurship,

specifically, regarding attitudes and activities in different cultures (Hyrsky, 1999).

Because social entrepreneurship combines business and social interests, its roots

are in the literature on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship has been under study since

early in the twentieth century (Low & McMillan, 1988). Others have applied

entrepreneurial concepts to the study of social movements during the institutionalization

of empires and religious orders. The evidence of "charismatic entrepreneurs" and

"political entrepreneurs" as actors in society has been persuasive in linking institutions

and change (Eisenstadt, 1995). The study of entrepreneurship is much like the thrill of the

pursuit to innovate. As a result, the reality is that definitions have faltered in explaining

the process.

The phenomenon of entrepreneurship is intertwined with a complex set of

contiguous and overlapping constructs such as management of change,

innovation, technological and environmental turbulence, new product

development, small business management, individualism and industrial evolution.

Furthermore, the phenomena can be productively investigated from disciplines as

varied as economics, sociology, finance, history, psychology, and anthropology,

each of which uses its own concepts and operates within its own terms of

reference. Indeed, it seems likely that the desire of common definitions and a

22clearly defined area of inquiry will remain unfulfilled in the foreseeable future.

(Low & Mac Millan, 1988, p.141).

The seminal work of Joseph Schumpeter (1934) has been explored and referenced

extensively in studies of entrepreneurship undertaken over the last half century.

Schumpeter (1939) viewed the entrepreneur as a super-heroic leader with a strong

volition to break with social traditions and create economic opportunities. In

Schumpeter's view, entrepreneurs support new inventions and transform them into market

innovations. Short term profits would then draw imitators into the market. As a result,

existing market structures would destabilize and a rebound of innovation would occur.

This model was perceived as a series of business cycles and considered economic

development (Schumpeter, 1934).

Many scholars since Schumpeter have offered models of entrepreneurship as new

venture creation. Six elements of the innovation process are frequently cited in the

literature. This model posits an entrepreneur would: (a) locate a business opportunity, (b)

accumulate resources, (c) market products and services, (d) produce the product, (e) build

an organization, and (f) respond to government and society (Gartner, 1985). Gartner

designated the individual, the organization, and the environment as the three domains in

his model. Entrepreneurship was distinguished as a process of the interaction among

these variables, which would produce a variety of organizational forms and experiences.

While many scholars refer to those entrepreneurial processes emerging from

within an organization as "intrapreneurship" (Frumkin, 2002; Kuratko & Montagno,

1989; Wortman, 1990), this study recognized social entrepreneurship as a collective

change process. Because global economic pressures have put economic development

23expectations upon nonprofit organizations and social needs have increased, social

entrepreneurship emerges through new social enterprises in existing organizations or

through collaborative means.

Historically, most institutions are at risk during turbulent times. Hughes (1942)

observed that during World War II American institutions were influenced to spare

nothing in order to mobilize people and resources. The result was that the taken-for-

granted activities performed by nonprofit organizations were likely the first to face

financial crises.

Theoretical Underpinnings of Institutional Structure

Basis of Institutional Theory

Institutional theory has contributed to the understanding of processes in

organizations. Particularly, the theory enlightens our understanding of social change

(Powell & DiMaggio, 1991), organizational adoptions of innovation (Jonsson, 2003), as

well as founding and failure rates in businesses (Martinez & Dacin, 1999).

Institutional theorists have demonstrated that organizations are embedded in

social structures. Social structures (institutional structures) make up society's cultural

expectations, norms, and behaviors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977;

Zucker, 1987). Because of this embeddedness thesis, the appropriate level of analysis to

explore human nature is at the organizational level (Granovetter, 1985).

Institutionalism focuses on symbolic elements and power. Whereas, neo-

institutionalism (thoughts instituted 1950 and forward, e.g. Berge, 2001) has focused on

legitimacy and cognitive insights. Lawrence (1999) suggested that bringing the two

24focuses together resulted in a better understanding of the environmental context and

strategies in the organization.

Scott (1992) provided a concise explanation of four approaches to institutional

theory that have been studied over the last half century (see Table 1).

Table 1. Synthesis of Seminal Approaches to Institutional Theory

Scholar(s) Seminal Approaches

Hertzler, 1937; Hughes, 1942

Institutions are social spheres. This approach combines a

view that persistence and stability are essential to the

structural/functional perspective that views society as

interrelated systems that are both symbolic (cognitive,

normative) and behavioral.

Selznick, 1949

Processes of institutionalization, which instill value, are

necessary for self-maintenance and perpetuating the

institution. Leaders are responsible for protecting the

distinctive characteristics of the organization (Scott,

1992).

Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Meyer & Rowan, 1977

The process of institutionalization creates "institutional myths". These are stable patterns of behavior

25 Tolbert & Zucker, 1994; Zucker, 1977, 1987

guided by a belief system that the institution provides

effective and necessary rules.

Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1992

The foundation of institutional systems rests on the role of

symbols, cognitive systems, and normative beliefs that are

valued over the task environment or organizational goals.

In summary, institutional theory is primarily concerned with how an organization

adapts to its institutional environment and the resulting behavioral effects. Thus, an

institutional framework describes organizational characteristics (Martinez & Dacin,

1999) that reflect the socio-political and economic context for entrepreneurial activity.

Perhaps what is most persuasive in the institutional approach is that institutionalists have

traditionally considered economic activity to be based on social values (Chasse, 1995).

Conceivably then, institutional theory will help explain, among other things, how motives

to generate resources and social values converge with one another in the social

entrepreneurship process.

Institutional Structures and Structuration Theory

Concepts of institutional structure illustrate the interconnectedness of the

nonprofit entities and the environment (see Figure 1). Institutional structure is the social

structure in an organization or setting that embodies society's cultural expectations and its

norms and behaviors. It guides action at the organizational level (DiMaggio & Powell,

261991; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) and then at the individual level (Berger & Luckmann,

1966).

A key element of the institution is the practical knowledge gleaned from "taken

for granted" processes that sanction the routines of social life (Giddens, 1984). This, of

course, varies according to the conditions of the institution. In a societal institution such

as marriage, there are "taken for granted" processes that prescribe roles or rules (or laws)

within the institution. For instance, the role to provide for physical, social, and emotional

needs is shared across the marital relationship more equally in some cultures than others.

An example of a "taken for granted" process affecting nonprofits is in the practice of

philanthropy. At least in western cultures, most people believe that giving charitably and

providing for social needs is altruistic (Piliavin & Hong-Wen, 1990).

Processes in institutions are termed "institutional knowledge" (Giddens, 1984).

This knowledge is a boundary for structuring the enduring set of activities that make up

the institution. To identify what or how changes occur, it is helpful to link institutional

elements with structuration theory.

"Structuration theory suggests that the ability to go on within social routines, to

enact social practice, requires knowledge in the form of rules" (Lawrence, 1999, p.164).

These rules are the "techniques or generalizable procedures applied in the

enactment/reproduction of social practices" (Gidden, 1984, p. 21). Rules and standards

then give reason (or structure) to a variety of recurring social practices, resulting in

institutionalized sets of rules or structures, including hierarchical status. The rules of

hierarchies in a social structure are identified in numerous ways. For example, the office

27of a graduate student will have fewer resources and amenities than a Professor, a

Department Chair, or a Chancellor in a University setting.

Giddens' (1984) theory of structuration is a middle ground theory between agency

and environmental determinism (Jones & Conway, 2004). In the tenants of structuration

theory, structure does not necessarily dictate over the individual (agent). Rather, human

action can also influence structure. Thus, this provides an opening for leadership or

entrepreneurship theory to have relevance and potentially a pivotal role in these structural

arrangements. Leaders act as change agents and new structures can be developed.

Following the example of the offices in the hierarchy above, this can relate to leaders

who choose to flatten hierarchical structures and distribute resources more evenly. Or in

the case of the social entrepreneur, an innovative arrangement of resources will impact

structure.

Institutional structures (i.e., those rules, roles, practices, and beliefs) are

incorporated into both the formal and informal processes of organizations through

normative behavior (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). This normative behavior is developed by

individuals who rely fundamentally upon the institutionalized social structure to achieve

approval or legitimacy in their organizations (Lawrence, 1999). Although each

organization has its own distinctive rules, norms, and standards, these structures are

subordinate to the larger socio-cultural norms and rules of their institutional environment

(Hollingsworth, 2000). For instance, an after-school program may have rules, norms, and

standards of how it operates and how rules are enforced. However, the organization

overseeing the project may be subject to external rules, standards, and norms from the

nonprofit setting. Further up this chain of influence, the nonprofit setting is obligated by

28policies and dependent upon the culture and national interests of the environment to

which it belongs. Institutional space refers to those sets of cultural values and perceptions

(the "collective mental programming") that support socio-cultural identity (Hofstede,

1984, p. 21). This institutional space is evident at all levels.

The notion of structure being a process is important. Structure occurs in and

through the institutional environment relative to its national setting (Hofstede, 1984;

Howard, 1994). This helps explain the influence that national culture has on

entrepreneurial orientations (e.g. Tan, 2002). As agents interact with the conditions in

their structural environment, behavior is either constrained or facilitated by institutional

forces. Forces within the institutional environment for nonprofit entities appear to be

societal, demographic, and economic in nature (DiMaggio & Anheier, 1990). So, an

individual or organization advancing social innovation has a complex environment in

which to create change.

29

Institutional Space

National Setting

Economic and Socio- Political Context

Culture

Beliefs

Nonprofit Initiatives

Behavior

Facilitation

Constraints

Figure 2. Flow of process in Institutional environments: A domination view of antecedent variables in a social structure

Institutional Perspectives of Social Entrepreneurship

The underlying institutional theories useful to develop a theory of social

entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting were reviewed in the previous section. This

section will use the nomenclature of Scott (1995) to organize empirical evidence proving

that an institutional perspective is appropriate for developing an explanatory theory in the

nonprofit setting. It is the tension between the rigors of institutionalism and the need for

innovative action to serve social purposes that will be addressed in this study.

Scott (1995) offered a contemporary typology for behavior in organizations based

on "three pillars" of institutional structure (see Table 2).

30Table 2.

A Typology of Institutional Theory

Pillars Regulative Normative Cognitive

(Sense-making)

Basis of Compliance Expedience Social obligation Taken for granted

Mechanisms Coercive Normative Mimetic

Logic Instrumentality Appropriateness Orthodoxy

Indicators Rules, laws,

sanctions Certification

Prevalence of

isomorphism

Basis of Legitimacy Legally sanctioned Morally governed Culture, knowledge

Note: Adapted from Berge, 2001, found October 17, 2004 at

www.sv.ntnu.no/iss/Erling.Berge

Regulative

The distribution of power (e.g. Bourdieu, 1989), is a regulative principle of

institutional theory. Power is a relational practice exercised within institutional

boundaries. This is what guides the sociological perspective that leadership is a practice.

It is also perceived as influence or pressure stemming from the institutional space. An

example of power at the organizational level was shown in Wicks' (2004) study of non-

tenured faculty. Study results indicated that administration manipulated and controlled

31situations through rules and practices in order to meet organizational goals. Therefore,

rules and practices contributed to the established hierarchy, which included both

incentives and constraints to enforce compliance.

Another example of power in institutional functioning is found in the government

having broad power over other institutions. As is the case for the nonprofit, the

structuring of the sector is largely determined by governmental regulations regarding

taxation (Euske & Euske, 1991). Clarke's (2001) essay explained this relationship, noting

that because nonprofit organizations operate in a "quasi-market" context, there are

constraints of laws and rules operating at many levels (which lead to isomorphism in the

sector).

However, the government's conferring legal status as a nonprofit also confers

legitimacy. Legitimacy facilitates how organizations are able to access resources and hold

status within society (Baum & Oliver, 1991). In turn, the expectations from the

institutional environment are translated into the structure and operations of the nonprofit

sector (Euske & Euske, 1991). Legitimacy, both legally and socially, will constrain any

deviance from standards set in the sector (Miller, 2002).

The coercive pressure from society's expectations and inter-dependencies is a

universal concept associated with institutional theory (Zucker, 1987). Essentially, the

public sector can use rules and regulations to enforce compliance (Frumkin, 2002). For

instance, nonprofit organizations are being pressured from Managed Care regulations

(Clouties-Fisher & Skinner, 2006). Furthermore, new corporate oversight legislation in

the Sarbane-Oxley Act of July 2002 has state and federal officials interested in increasing

regulations over the nonprofit sector.

32As recent as February 2006, the Internal Revenue Service issued a report to

advise the nonprofit sector after citing several tax-exempt organizations, primarily

churches, for politicking during the 2004 campaigns. Laws prohibit charities from

participating in political campaigns (IRS Report 302, 2006).

The nonprofit sector uses its goodwill with external organizations to promote its

collective goals. This clearly distinguishes the nonprofit from the public sector (Frumkin,

2002). Goodwill between organizations will facilitate social innovation. Social

movements require good working relationships. However, politics from within nonprofit

organizations can induce conformance and constrain innovation.

In a study of six United Way state associations, Rugh (1996) found political

power, internally or externally, can impede social innovation by interfering with

consensus building. Building trust and reciprocal behaviors were an integral part of

managing power relationships.

Thus, regulative dimensions of institutional structures have dictated much of the

organizational conformity in the nonprofit setting. It has also limited the institutions'

ability to be innovative. That is why policy is so critical to sustaining changes that result

from social innovation.

Normative

Institutional theory has been useful in demonstrating how organizations adopt

some policies that are primarily for symbolic value, so that they may have external

legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). As an example, since the Enron debacle of 2001,

many organizations looked carefully at the tenets of social responsibility in order to

33maximize shareholder and consumer confidences. This led to more language around

"accountability" in the nonprofit sector (Raymond, 2004).

Normative and mimetic pressures can be a consequence of professionalization.

These are explained as a need to reduce uncertainty (Martinez & Dacin, 1999) or to

stabilize behaviors (Tolbert & Zucker, 1994). Many workgroup norms would be an

example, such as found in Meyerson's (1994) study.

Meyerson's (1994) study found that interpretations of ambiguity, burnout, and

general job stress were both normal and desirable in social work ideology. Her study

illuminated the relationship between daily individual (micro) processes and the macro

institutional forces. Secondly, organizational culture reflected and reinforced institutional

characteristics.

Affirming legitimacy is a dynamic process that requires time to affect change.

Therefore, some norms can be based on a societal myth. Because of this expectations,

rather than realities, often guide legitimacy (Euske & Euske, 1991). Wicks (2004), in a

case study of two Canadian academics, examined the institutional legitimacy of tenure.

Tenure (because of its enduring character) is an institution resistant to change. The

outcomes of tenure, which were limited in this analysis to the support of academic

freedom and trade-off for higher pay, were considered an institutional myth. Tenure

purportedly protects academic freedoms; however, the study suggested that tenure is a

mechanism for constraining or controlling behaviors.

The legitimacy of an institution is not evaluated necessarily against specific

standards, but against traditions. For example, the success for new religious start-ups is

dependent upon social perceptions of how credible the founders' commitment is to the

34religious beliefs that represent a larger community of faith. If the espoused religion is

deviant from legitimized forms, the likeliness of success dwindles (Miller, 2002). In the

entrepreneurship field, it has been shown that new organizational forms will struggle with

legitimacy and external stakeholders may resist innovation (Aldrich, 1999). Thus, if any

traditions, which are held as normative behaviors, are changed by social innovation or if

new institutional forms emerge there may be resistance. For example, it is probable that if

a new social innovation, such as a large Initiative with multiple partners pooling cutting –

edge resources, was made available as a resource for communities and the Initiative

charged for services, there would be resistance if previously the government had

provided a similar (or perceived to be similar) service for no or low cost.

If legitimating is critical for innovation, then what else should be considered?

Networks and social support are related with legitimacy and important facilitators of

innovation by creating environments of trust and understanding (Deeds, Mang, &

Frandsen, 2004; Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004).

Cognitive

Cognitive processes in institutional theory have been well studied (Covin &

Slevin, 1989; Keh, Foo & Lim, 2002; Mitchell, Busenitz, & Lant, 2002). The focus has

been primarily on opportunity recognition in different environments.

The socio-cultural environments of entrepreneurship have explained cultural level

influences that impact individual-level decisions to be entrepreneurial (Begley & Tan,

2001; Hayton, George, & Zahra, 2002; Tan, 2002). Hayton, George, and Zahra's (2002)

meta-analysis of entrepreneurship in 21 empirical studies reinforced culture as a key-

determinant that influences motives, values, and beliefs of individuals. Whereas, Tan's

35(2002) study looked more specifically at culture and national effects and found

national differences were found to be more influential than ethnicity. Tan's study

suggested the importance of institution-building in promoting an entrepreneurial-friendly

environment.

Institutional theory has been a useful framework for numerous studies related to

innovation. Studies in absorptive capacity, where firms are able to recognize value in

external opportunities, assimilate the opportunity, and apply it to for profit (e.g. Cohen, &

Levinthal, 1996), or strategy and decision-making in entrepreneurship (e.g. Ireland, Hitt,

& Sirmon, 2003) have also provided a breadth of understanding to the study of

entrepreneurship. However, few empirical studies of the nonprofit sector have provided

much detail in the areas of capacities, strategies, and decision-making from an

institutional perspective.

Mohr (1969) examined the determinants of innovation. His research confirmed

that innovations are the "function of interaction among the motivation to innovate, the

strength of obstacles against innovation, and the availability of resources to overcome

such obstacles (p. 111)." Overall, Mohr's findings on innovation influenced current

definitions of innovation in an applied setting (e.g. Glor, 1997).

Institutional environments and processes that foster social entrepreneurship are of

interest in this study. Social network theory has been used to describe the links between

entrepreneurs, opportunities, and resources. Primarily the theory has described the broad

and complex social process of entrepreneurship that personality-based theory does not

explain (Amit et al., 1993). Because these personal and professional networks are

instrumental in changing institutional structures (Lawrence, 1999), the study of social

36entrepreneurship will gain by connecting to larger bodies of existing network research,

such as social capital frameworks (Johnson, 2000).

Social Capital as a Transforming Tool

A tenet of social capitalism is that recurrent patterns of interpersonal interaction

will foster ties of trust and reciprocity that result in formal and informal alliances. The

social capital framework extends beyond socialization tactics because its results become

embedded into the structure of the organization. Work in organizational behavior has

determined that formal organizations are made of informal networks of reciprocity

(Bendor & Mookherjee, 1987; Burt, 1992). Moreover, significant work by Burt (1992)

provided the field multiple empirical analyses that explain a network phenomenon of

social capital at the organizational level.

Over the past decade Burt's studies demonstrated that structural holes, which are

the absence or relative weakness of connections between people, offer opportunities for

"entrepreneurial behavior" in order to access the knowledge of others. Social capital is

built through interpersonal relationships in social networks, increasing the flow of

information for the benefit the organization (Granovetter, 1977; Burt, 1998).

Burt suggested that social capital and social structure are a parallel phenomenon.

Giddens (1979) opined that a structure that does not translate into action cannot truly be a

'social' phenomenon. Social capital may be what drives structure.

Studies on social capital have been meaningful to the nonprofit sector as

organizations must rely upon coalitions to sustain themselves (Clarke, 2002). The ability

to mobilize and use resources is being entrepreneurial (Loidl-Keil, 2002). A better

understanding of how social capital is acquired and used in institutional structures may

37answer several questions. How does social capital commit others to the organization

and its mission in the process of social entrepreneurship? How do these ties move

innovation and risk-taking in an institutional structure?

Measurement Issues in Relevant Research

The previous literature reviewed has demonstrated an abbreviated view of the

scope of research on social entrepreneurship. Other empirical measures have added to the

understanding as it relates to supporting theories. The Aston measures have been used

over the last few decades to examine organizational features of innovation (Osborne,

1998; Walker, Jeanes & Rowlands, 2002). These measures originally contained five

structural variables (centralization, formalization, standardization, specialization, and

configuration) and eight contextual variables (size, age, founding, technology,

ownership/control, dispersal of locations, charter, and external resource dependency).

The measures are useful in examining characteristics of innovative organizations;

however, the measures do not demonstrate the way organizations can manage or develop

innovations (Walker, et al., 2002).

Social capital also has been an illusive concept to measure. The most consistent

empirical approach to measuring social capital has been to align it with the definition

used in a particular study. Thus, network theory has been used extensively (e.g. Burt,

1992; 1997a; 1997b; 1998) but has not been used to fully explore the relationship factors

that mobilize individuals or bind them to the collective. No consistent scale to measure

effects at the organizational or community level has evolved, so proxies are used in most

research into social capital. For example a sense of attachment to a community (e.g.

Cordes, et al. 2003; Miller, 2001; Pooley, Cohen & Pike, 2005).

38In summary, there is no set of uniform variables that adequately explain the

process of social entrepreneurship as it relates to social capital or institutional theory. The

social entrepreneurship process may be the nexus of leadership influence, institutional

structure, and social capital in nonprofit organizations.

The Context of Nonprofit Settings

This section delves more deeply into the research that has guided the nonprofit

sector and explains its role in the context of the national setting. The first part of the

section explains theories as they relate to nonprofit organizations. Following this

discussion are sections organized by how institutional practices have guided the sector.

Social entrepreneurship research and theoretical viewpoints are integrated into this

section.

Salamon and Anheier's (1998) theoretical perspectives are helpful to gain an

overall sense of the evolution and role of the nonprofit sector. An abbreviated table is

offered in summary (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Synthesis of Theory in the Emergence of Nonprofit Organizations

Theory Explanation for emergence of an NPO

Government

Failure/Market Failure

Based on the classical economic perception that the market

is limited to supply sufficient quantities of "public goods".

39Supply-Side Under particular circumstances, people (social

entrepreneurs) have an incentive to create a nonprofit organization to meet a demand.

Trust Due to a lack of information to judge the quality of goods or services, purchasers will seek alternative bases to establish trust. The nonprofit sector may achieve trustworthiness because they are less likely to be operating solely for financial gain.

Welfare State The nonprofit sector exists as a residual to what the state cannot or does not provide.

Interdependence There is an interdependence and partnership between the state and the nonprofit sector.

Social Origins Based on an embeddedness perspective, where prevailing social and economic structures will have significant impacts on nonprofit structures.

Note. Adapted from Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-

nationally by Salamon, L.M., & Anheier, H.K. (1998). International Journal of

Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213-248.

The theory of social origins coincides with a demand-side perspective on social

entrepreneurship. The demand-side view, as stated earlier in Chapter I, closely examined

the context in which entrepreneurship emerges (Frumkin, 2002; Stevens, 2003; Thornton,

401999). This typology further demonstrates the potential for social theories to

understand the emergent process of social entrepreneurship and contextual impacts.

Nonprofit Institutional Structures –Traditions and Values

The four functions of the nonprofit sector noted by Frumkin (2002) are to

promote political and civic engagement, to deliver critical social services, to be a vehicle

for social entrepreneurship, and serve as an outlet for expression of faith and values. It is

his premise that "only when nonprofits achieve important successes in each of their

functions will they receive and sustain financial support and public acceptance that they

need to continue to grow" (p. vi). Social entrepreneurship appears to be explained as a

normative behavior in the nonprofit sector. Institutional theory predicts that the more an

activity becomes a state of "taken-for-grantedness", the greater the possibility that it

becomes institutionalized (Wicks, 2004).

No unified theory of social entrepreneurship exists (Bygrave, D'Heilly,

McMullen, & Taylor, 1996; Johnson, 2000). Social entrepreneurship is dominated by

practice (Johnson, 2000) and social models of entrepreneurship are not distinguished as

separate in many research agendas. The breadth of interdisciplinary research in

entrepreneurship is "mind-boggling" (Kickul, Krueger, & Maxfield, 2005). Even

premiere research conferences blend economic and social entrepreneurship under one

umbrella (e.g. the annual Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference).

There are challenges in the nonprofit sector that affect the sustainability of

programs (Pietroburgo & Wernet, 2004). Nonprofit organizations have moved more

toward fees and charges for services, which has attracted for-profit entities to compete for

providing these services (Salamon, 1999). Contracts with government and the private

41sector have required a reengineering of the nonprofit sector's ability to provide

effective and cost efficient services. Greater efforts have been made by nonprofit

organizations to build internal capacities to provide and sustain programming (Lets, Ryan

& Groomsman, 1999).

Traditionally, there has been trust in the nonprofit sectors ability to be good

stewards of philanthropic dollars. The new market-like character of the sector has

undermined some of this trust. According to Salamon (2004), "a serious fault line seems

to have opened in the foundation of public trust on which the entire edifice of the

nonprofit sector rests" (p. 29). Values are a prominent feature of the sector. Volunteerism,

pluralism, altruism and participation are the hallmarks (DiMaggio & Anheier, 1990).

These values have reflected the American political values of minimalist government,

pragmatism, and individualism (Clarke, 2001). Apparently the mainstay values conflict

ideologically with the market-like quality of the sector. Consequently, the increased

demands on leadership to follow current business trends must be balanced with

preserving public perceptions of the organizations social character. It is beneficial for the

role of nonprofit entities to be more visible (Raymond, 2004), and to have organizational

accountability foremost on their agendas (Lee, 2003).

There is growing concern by some who dispute the tax-exempt status for

nonprofit organizations engaged in commercial ventures (Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003;

Lets, Ryan, & Groomsman, 1999). There are some nonprofit-qualifying outliers, such as

the National Football League (which has saved club owners under nonprofit IRS rulings

millions of dollars by securing low interest loans for stadium projects (Peter, 2002).

However, the majority of nonprofits work hard to encourage public trust. To do so, they

42must clearly demonstrate the connection between their social mission and their money-

making ventures.

Government reaffirmed a commitment to monitor the nonprofit sector. A

"Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2" created in 1996 and refined in 1998, imposed penalties for

501(c) 3 and 501 (c) 4 organizations to control excessive compensation and benefits

given to employees (Burnstein, Boulanger & Batchis, 2001). And more permanent

guidelines have been mandated under Internal Revenue Code 4958. This highlighted

accountability and transparency as growing issues for the nonprofit sector.

Institutional Practices – Capacity Issues

To better understand social innovations, it is necessary to examine organizational

capacities. Capacities refer to operations, structures, and processes that shape and

influence action (Sowa, Selden, & Sandfort, 2004). Few detailed models of good practice

exist in the literature on nonprofit organizations (Johnson, 2000). However, there are

many books and magazines that explain how to run a nonprofit entity. What is salient to

the capacity issue is that, according to Salamon (2003), effectiveness in the sector is

actually determined by organizational capacity.

The question of whether the nonprofit organization has the capacity to be flexible

and endure the risks involved for social entrepreneurship is an important one. Scale of the

organization is significant. The flexible organization has more opportunity to forward

social innovation. An ability to have lean, flexible organizations with decentralized

knowledge and action is relevant to size and access to resources (Raymond, 2004). Small

organizations have challenges. The majority of nonprofit organizations have incomes of

less than $25,000 with limited market share. "Only three percent of nonprofits have

43expenses over $10 million; 43.2 percent have assets of under $100,000" (Raymond,

2004, p. 103). Many nonprofit organizations are limited by their budgets to acquire the

many advantages available in technology (Raymond, 2004; Salamon, 2003).

An 'effective' organization in the nonprofit setting has, (a) effective boards as

determined by stakeholder groups, (b) boards with higher social prestige, (c) use of

management techniques that have been accepted as a norm among practitioners, and (d)

change management strategies (Herman & Renz, 1998). Effectiveness is not a property of

the organization (such as an employee); it is socially constructed as a set of judgments

from stakeholders.

Establishing benchmarks for effectiveness is difficult. There are twenty-seven

types of tax exempt 501 (c) organizations alone (Raymond, 2004). Their missions range

from educational, civic, social, fraternal, health, legal, religion, to arts and culture. These

organizations target specific, needy populations to provide direct services or jobs with

competitive wages (Boschee, 1995; Raymond, 2004). Even though the variety of services

can be somewhat simplified as having "mutual benefit" or "public benefit" (Lee, 2003),

effectiveness is still determined by outsiders' perceptions of mission fulfillment (Kaplan,

2001).

Unfortunately, the rational economic model of entrepreneurship has demonstrated

that many small community-based organizations cannot compete as well as larger

organizations (Ireland, Hitt & Sirmon, 2003). As stated earlier, the size of most

organizations in the nonprofit sector may limit their success in competitive situations.

44Institutional Practices – Strategic Readiness

Under an economic model of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs are seen to create

value in a crowded market by creating new markets that move the economy forward

(Sullivan Mort, et al., 2003). Whereas, nonprofit entities differentiate themselves in a

crowded market through social entrepreneurship to add value by solving social issues

(Barman, 2002). Because social entrepreneurship serves as an important benchmark to

grow or sustain nonprofit organizations, it may be plausible that social entrepreneurship

is motivated by a need for differentiation to attract new stakeholders or retain current

ones. This may provide evidence that social entrepreneurship is a strategy for

continuation.

A better understanding of strategies for the adoption of market principles is

needed in the nonprofit sector (Salamon, 2003). According to Sullivan Mort,

Weerawardena, and Carnegie (2003), "entrepreneurship and marketing are closely related

(p. 77)." Businesses can adopt strategies to address market demands while adjusting or

expanding their missions. Conversely, nonprofit organizations must maintain their social

mission as they look for innovative strategies. How social enterprises are marketed will

greatly impact social perceptions and success at market entry (Sullivan, et al., 2003).

There is a stream of literature on corporate entrepreneurship that from a rational

economic point of view that examines strategy for gaining competitive advantages and

increased firm performance (e.g. Ireland, Kuratko, & Covin, 2003; Zahara, Jennings, &

Kuratko, 1999). Businesses are adopting innovation as part of their vision and culture.

Thus, they use entrepreneurial approaches in their strategic planning. Ireland and

colleagues contended (2003) that entrepreneurial approaches are really adaptive strategies

45reacting to ''triggers" from the external environment. This pursuit for opportunity and

growth, they stated, should define the "essence of the firm's functioning" (p. L1). Hence,

corporate entrepreneurship is strategic in nature.

Corporate entrepreneurship then is a process of committed action at the

organizational level. Given the economic crisis in the nonprofit sector, are organizations

committed to new ways of acting and responding, including corporate social

entrepreneurship throughout their stakeholder networks? Is there evidence that there are

institutional constraints attributed to the social entrepreneurship process?

Institutional Practices – Inter-Institutional Behaviors and Alliances

New small businesses spur the economy, in part, by replacing outdated

companies. The larger organizational mergers stimulate increases in market size,

reportedly due to more efficient operations. What is not clear according to Raymond

(2004) is whether these "death cycles" or the "urge to merge" scenarios are as useful in

the nonprofit sector. If it is so, Raymond suggested that perhaps mergers and alliances

may be what are needed to alleviate the current trend in declining revenues in the

nonprofit sector. At present, hospitals, educational institutions, and only a small number

of charities are able to successfully launch social enterprises (Thompson et al., 2000).

Cross-sector alliances between business and social enterprise are promising

events. These alliances have helped sustain nonprofit organizations while benefiting

communities (Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003). Clay and Bangs (2000) provided a case-study

of a public and nonprofit library system finding private funding. Fund raising and

development have become necessary in library budgets, in part due to the costs associated

with technology. In this situation the library reinvented itself as a public service

46corporation. Strategy, information symmetry, mobilization of volunteers, innovative

thinking, and strong evaluation processes helped strengthen their position in forging a

private-public partnership. This was enforced through a managerial committee that

oversaw the requirements to match goals and funding objectives that met requirements

for legitimacy, including its tax-exempt status. Among other strategies, the library

leveraged use of their foundation to attract financial support and partnered with two local

utility companies to provide additional funding for their environmental collection. The

study provided an exceptional example of a well orchestrated strategy to move processes

through institutional structures.

Institutional Practices - Leadership

Strengthening vision, leadership, and resources are fundamental to continuation of

the nonprofit sector (Thompson et al., 2000). Even though the capabilities and qualities of

leaders are important, the concept of leadership as a process was often overlooked (Bate,

Kahn, & Pye, 2000). Leadership was the identifiable pattern of behavior in the institution

(Howlett, 2003). In the nonprofit setting, leadership can be distributed across the

structure through key stakeholders. Building leadership can be an asset of the system,

rather than a single person

As mentioned earlier, leadership capacities in the nonprofit sector are challenged

from a lack of marketing and financial management skills needed for a market-based

approach to social innovation (Raymond, 2004; Zietlow, 2001). In a paper by Lasprogata

and Cotten (2003), a 'call' to be entrepreneurial in the sector also required an ability to

understand the legal implications of new enterprise and apply well-informed decision-

making skills to the process. This included how to commercialize core programming or

47adopt new programs to commercialize. Sometimes this requires establishing a separate

independent business enterprise, forming a second nonprofit corporation, or forming

subsidiaries. New organizational forms will require balancing social missions and

revenues with its nonprofit status.

Leadership is instrumental in change processes. A study by Nathanson and

Morlock (1980) demonstrated that it was not the resourcefulness of an individual that

brought forward innovation in the organization, it was the leadership capacity. Secondly,

while the nonprofit sector is characterized by its ability to work collectively, it was

determined that centralized power in a hospital setting facilitated innovation. This was

counter to Raymond's (2004) assertion that lean, flexible organizations with decentralized

knowledge and action are more able to be entrepreneurial.

More entrepreneurial talent is needed in the nonprofit sector. An emerging talent

was characterized as being more holistic in their thinking and possessing strong personal

values of social activism (Raymond, 2004; Salamon, 2003). Leaders must be more

skillful in collaborating and decision-making (Henton, Melville, & Walesh, 1997;

Johnson, 2000).

Summary

The review of literature informed and provided an historical context for social

entrepreneurship. Previous studies made apparent the institutionally charged and complex

nonprofit environment. Also, relationship-building was featured as an asset of the

organization. Moreover, studies found social entrepreneurship is an interdisciplinary area

that remains in flux.

48CHAPTER III

Procedures

This chapter outlines the procedures used in this qualitative multiple case study.

First, the assumptions and rationale for a qualitative design are explored. Following this,

the grounded theory design is briefly described, as is the role of the researcher, data

collection procedures, data analysis procedures, methods of verification, and the

procedures for reporting the outcomes of the study.

Assumptions and Rationale for a Qualitative Design

The core concepts associated with scientific analysis are philosophical in nature;

they are the beliefs or assumptions researchers bring to a study. These concepts help to

explain that there is lack of perfection in research because humans are involved (the

individual as a researcher). This imperfection relates to how these assumptions influence

research design and the efforts to understand the meaning of it all (Bryant, 2004). The

qualitative paradigm used in this study possessed assumptions of knowledge claims about

how the researcher will learn and what will be learned (Creswell, 2002b). These

knowledge claims were the underpinnings of this primary research and the stimulus for

selection of a grounded theory approach to the study.

Knowledge Claims

The qualitative paradigm is based on a constructivist principle: the belief that

reality is socially and subjectively constructed (Merriam, 1998; Creswell, 2002a, 2002b).

The socially-constructed institutional and social capital framework used as a backdrop to

social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector indicates a naturalistic inquiry found in

49qualitative research. The array of participants' world-views explained the social

activity within culture and context (Allan, 1991).

Interpretive research requires an understanding and analysis that is induced by the

researcher. The researcher interacts with the participants to get close to the findings.

Guba and Lincoln (1989) opined that the "inquirer and the inquired-into are interlocked

in such a way that the findings of an investigation are the literal creation of the inquiry

process" (p. 84). In this multiple case study, preconceived theory is used inductively to

integrate with the emerging theory. A priori theory has interpretive value to understand

another's reality and to explain behaviors or attitudes, particularly for an event, process,

or situation (Creswell, 2002a; Merriam, 1998).

A qualitative approach means the researcher is a participant with full awareness

that it is a values-laden process (Dixon-Woods & Fitzpatrick, 2001) factoring in personal

experiences and orientations. The researcher is an instrument in data collection (Dixon-

Woods & Fitzpatrick, 2001; Merriam, 1998). Therefore, a researcher's worldview is

relevant. While having acknowledged experience and knowledge in the areas of

community, education, entrepreneurship, and the nonprofit sector, the researcher

attempted to establish an objective stance toward the content and findings as they

emerged.

Methodological Assumptions

An objective of this study was to develop a theory of social entrepreneurship that

was grounded in context by using a qualitative case study approach. Merriam (1998)

stated that if variables are so embedded into the situation as to be impossible to identify

ahead of time, case study is likely to be the best choice. Using the case study approach,

50questions of 'how' and 'what' gained access to the thoughts, ideas and emotions of the

participants that would not be available in a quantitative approach.

A second endeavor was to explore the process of social entrepreneurship using

institutional theories and a supporting framework of social capital. This attempt to bridge

theory as a new theory emerged was evidenced in the types of questions asked and probes

used. This use of predetermined theory helped to shape the problem statement (Merriam,

1998) and was also a more purposeful application of what Glaser (1978) called "skip and

dip".

Glaser (1978) stated that the inductive, grounded theory design requires the

researcher to read widely in substantive areas prior to fieldwork somewhat different than

the actual target phenomenon. As the project enfolds, the researcher will then read and

incorporate research that is more specific to the research area studied. Glaser suggested

that the researcher can "skip and dip, thereby gaining greater coverage, since he now has

a clear purpose for covering his field, which is to integrate his generated theory with the

other literature in the field" (p. 32). It is clearly the researcher's objective to position the

emerged theory as middle ground into the macro institutional theory and discover how

the emergent theory may link to other theoretical frameworks. This, then, guides the last

objective of the study.

A third objective of the study was to integrate previous findings from multiple

academic disciplines. A grounded theory of convening opportunity will expand

interdisciplinary theories of leadership and social entrepreneurship. This emerging theory

helped to bear out recommendations or propose best practices for Community

Development Initiatives in the social entrepreneurship process. Merriam (1998)

51emphasized that qualitative research is a holistic process that relates how interrelated

parts form a whole. Entrepreneurship is considered a sequence of activity and behaviors,

including the perception of opportunity. The characteristics of this holistic process are to

create a new organization and pursue opportunities (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Hofer &

Bygrave, 1992). Therefore, it was necessary to match the right methods to the purpose of

the study.

Grounded theory has been useful in examining leadership processes (Kan &

Parry, 2005; McCaslin, 1993; Parry, 1998). Because researchers in the field of leadership

use primarily psychometric testing of variables, an "enduring and integrative theory of

leadership" (Parry, 1998, p. 85) has not evolved. Leadership is a social influence process

and is best measured when the broader social context is considered.

Given that future research agendas have called for more study on organizational

processes of entrepreneurship (Zahra et al., 1999) and specifically, social

entrepreneurship (Mair & Marti, 2003), then grounded theory, a comprehensive

qualitative method, was an optimal choice to meet the study criteria. A grounded theory

approach within this substantive area helps to resolve some of the deficiencies of

quantitative measures by exploring and integrating context.

Type of Design

A Grounded Theory Multiple Case Study

Grounded theory design is a "systematic, qualitative procedure used to generate a

theory that explains at a broad conceptual level, a process, an action, or interaction about

a substantive topic" (Creswell, 2002a, p. 439). The procedure involves the constant

comparison of data with the emerging categories and continual sampling. This procedure

52maximizes the similarities and differences in the data, grounding the theory in the

views of the relevant participants (Creswell, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Grounded theory methods were discovered by sociologists Barney Glaser and

Anselm Strauss in the late 1960's. This method of research emanated from studies of

terminally ill patients. It was Glaser and Strauss' contention that discovering theory based

on concepts derived directly from participants will better fit the situation being

researched than the more predominant sociological methods of verifying and testing

theories (Creswell, 2002a; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

The properties of a grounded sociological theory related well to the objectives of

this study, particularly, opportunities in Community Development Initiatives. The

properties of a functional grounded theory are: (a) the theory fits closely to the area of

study; (b) it is understandable by laymen concerned with this area of study; (c) it is

sufficiently general so as to apply to daily situations; and (d) a person applying this

theory can have control in everyday application of the theory to make it useful (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967).

Merriam (1998), in defining case study, concluded that the process of case study

is melded between the unit of study and the type of investigation. This study was an

instrumental case study. Primarily, the cases considered were secondary to the goal of

understanding an evolving theory of social entrepreneurship (Creswell, 2002b).

Consistent with the grounded theory methods, the significance and scope of

domain and process were determined. The unit or domain level of analysis was apparent

following a pilot test of the study protocol. The researcher was advised by an Executive

Director in one of the nonprofit organizations that to truly explore processes "you will

53want to study the initiative, which is our process of being entrepreneurial." Each

initiative was explored at the domain level. "Domains can be thought of as the set of

actors (individuals, groups, and/or organizations) that become joined by a common

problem or interest (Gray, 1985, p. 915)".

Exploring initiatives allowed the study to change the unit of analysis to the

domain rather than an organizational set. This approach gave field level results as well.

The field level focuses on the interaction between the aggregate community and its

environment. A field is the result of community members' interactions, mutual influence

of one another, and the shared meanings produced from these interactions (Smets, 2005;

Wilkinson, 1991).

The Role of the Researcher

The researcher's bias is that the researcher's worldview is centered in experience

and knowledge of the subject area. The researcher's past experience as a board member in

a nonprofit organization, several years experience as a practitioner in Community

Development, graduate education in relevant disciplines, and many years of experience in

management and leadership roles. This experience base was helpful in gaining entry into

the field portion of the study and was also useful in understanding terms or jargon used in

the field. The disadvantage was an over curiosity of the researcher, since it is an area of

interest to the researcher. The predetermined organization and techniques prescribed in

the Strauss and Corbin (1998) methods were beneficial. This technique consistently

grounds the analysis in data. The constant comparative analysis and simultaneous data

collection also gave sufficient opportunity for the researcher to remain close to the data

and not force the development of theory.

54Glaser and Strauss (1967) called this relationship between the researcher and

the data 'theoretical sensitivity'. It is an expected feature of grounded theory development.

There are two characteristics of the researcher's temperament that define theoretical

sensitivity. The first is an ability to have theoretical insight. The second is an ability to

use the insight to make connections into that particular area of research. Theory that

emerges in the study is derived from data and must be "illustrated by characteristic

examples of data"(p.5), which further keeps the researcher close to the data.

Techniques to reduce the data are essential in the application of grounded theory.

The interview in grounded theory follows the criteria of qualitative research and is

dialogic. However, it is necessary to move from broad to specific in order to reduce the

data to specific patterns of activity or behavior. Hence, it is useful to use less structured

questioning in the first phase of the study and to use very specific questions as the

substantive theory emerge. A blueprint or knowledge structure of these patterns is a

constructive guide for the researcher (Cohen, 1989). As the data are reduced the

researcher is able to integrate other types of data into the study and into the final analysis.

Data Collection Procedures

Sampling Parameters

A pilot test of the protocol began in July 2005 with seven in-depth interviews of

key decision-makers representing four nonprofit organizations. This purposeful sampling

provided information-rich details that identified the 'how' of processes as well as who,

what, and where (Sandelowski, 2000). There are 27 types of tax-exempt organizations.

So, a purposeful sampling technique was chosen (see Table 4).

55Table 4.

Sampling Parameters

Sampling Parameters Possible Choices

Settings Nonprofit organizations classified as 501(c) 3 with a mission that emphasized educational programming or advocacy for awareness.

Actors Key-decision makers as identified by the organizations.

Events A social innovation as determined by the organizations.

Processes The actions, reactions, and strategies that introduce new ideas, opportunities, and influence the process of social entrepreneurship.

Sampling Method

A qualitative design assumes the refocusing of the parameters for sampling

throughout the study (Merriam, 1998). Thus, organizations were initially selected based

on recommendations given through nonprofit networks and referrals. Data collected in

the pilot phase demonstrated that nonprofit organizations may not be entrepreneurial.

Once data had been collected that determined entrepreneurial processes could not be

examined, it was beneficial to focus on Initiatives in the nonprofit setting as

entrepreneurial processes. It also became evident to the researcher that a grounded theory

approach would provide rigor as a qualitative technique to examine structure and process.

Thus, purposive sampling changed to theoretical sampling as the study progressed, so

that participants were recruited according to the needs of the developing theory (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967, p. 45). This became a process of simultaneous data collection and data

56analysis. Strauss and Corbin (1998) stressed the importance of careful theoretical

sampling because it gives the researcher maximum opportunity to sequentially relate the

emerging theory to new concepts derived from participants.

By August 2005 the sample was refocused to participants representing public,

private, and nonprofit organizations involved in either of two Initiatives. A total of 22

people were interviewed between July 2005 and March 2006. Second and third round

interviews included six of the former respondents. Initial interviews from seven

participants not related to the two foci Initiatives were used to augment data, but only as

it related to institutional structure in the local nonprofit sector. Later, it was determined to

not use the augmented data in this study. A total of 29 interviews were conducted for the

study.

Nonprofit organizations designated as Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c) 3

Foundations were chosen as the entry point. The two foundations held primary roles in

the two Community Development Initiatives studied. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service

(2005) designates community foundations as public charities.

The field-level Initiatives studied were a city and a state initiative. Participants

were selected to be interviewed because of their engagement in the Initiatives and are

identified by their role and relationship to the Initiatives (see Table 5):

Table 5.

Sampling for Two Initiatives

City Initiative State Initiative Organization Title Organization Title

National Foundation associated with Initiative

Chief of Staff National Foundation associated with Initiative

Vice President

57Anchor Foundation Partner in Initiative Executive Director Anchor Foundation

Partner in Initiative President and CEO

Board for Foundation Chairman Board for

Foundation Past Board Chairman

Partner in Initiative Initiative Coordinator

Nonprofit Entity –and Partner in Initiative

Co-Executive Director

Nonprofit Entity –and Partner in Initiative

Executive Director Nonprofit Entity –and Partner in Initiative

Co-Executive Director

Partner in Initiative Public Partner Nonprofit Entity –and Partner in Initiative

Executive Director

Partner in Initiative Private Partner Partner in Initiative Site Leadership Partner in Initiative Site Leadership Partner in Initiative Program Organizer The City Initiative

The city initiative was funded from federal and local grants, the local school

foundation, and community-based organizations. Partners represented in the initiative

included private, public, nonprofit, business, and community members. These partners

provided leadership, resources, and programs for the initiative. The purpose of the

initiative was to provide innovative programs for youth, families, and the community to

improve learning and overall enrichment opportunities for the child and the community

as a result of strong school/community partnerships.

The State Initiative

The state initiative was funded from national, state, and local philanthropic funds,

fee-based services, public entities, and community-based organizations. Partners

represented in the initiative were private, public, nonprofit, and community members.

These partners provided leadership, resources, training, policy information, and programs

to target the goals of the initiative. The goals of the initiative were to provide a

58framework to work in partnership with rural communities to reverse current trends of

rural decline and foster new hope and strategies for a prosperous future.

Data Collection

Access

According to the research protocol, the Executive Directors of five nonprofit

organizations were first contacted by letter or email to introduce the study and invite

participation (see Appendix B). The researcher returned phone calls to individuals or

responded to emails to schedule interviews and answer questions. One organization did

not respond to the invitation, and one organization chose not to participate. Each willing

participant signed an informed consent to be (audio-tape) interviewed (see Appendix C).

With the exception of two phone interviews, all first round interviews were in person at

their work locations.

Two Community Development Initiatives were the focus of the study. The anchor

organizations of these Initiatives, two nonprofit foundations, were selected as entry points

into the study. Each foundation's Executive Director provided an overview of the network

and contact information for the partners in the Initiatives. The directors also gave

continuous support and additional materials throughout the study.

Ethical Considerations

The following general standards were adhered to in this study: (a) the primary

researcher was responsible for the ethical standards; (b) all participants were informed

about aspects of the study that could influence their participation; (c) requirements of the

University of Nebraska, Institutional Review Board were followed (see Appendix C).

Executive Directors from the two anchor organizations were considered individuals with

59authority or gatekeepers (Creswell, 2002a). Their permission was sought for access to

study participants involved in the Initiatives. To respect privacy, pseudonyms were used

for both the participants and the organizations.

Data Analysis Procedures

Grounded Theory Methods

Two key features of the systemic design (Creswell, 2002) for grounded theory

were implemented. The design provided a close reciprocal and iterative relationship

among data collection (data and participants), analysis, and theory. After a determination

was made to proceed with a grounded theory approach, the researcher chose the rigor of

the Strauss and Corbin (1998) techniques. The stages of Straus and Corbin's methodology

that followed in this study were:

1. Identify a substantive area to be examined.

2. Delimit a process in this domain.

3. Collect data to explain the phenomena that underlies this process.

4. Open-code the emerging categories in the data.

5. Identify a central category.

6. Axial code data to rearrange the categories in meaningful ways to identify

how process relates to structure so that a model of a knowledge structure

would emerge.

7. Selective coding of data to explain the key categories and present a story by

integrating and refining the theory.

These stages were both simultaneous and concurrent as the study moved forward. The

nature of the study (how it unfolded) determined the movement between coding stages.

60This was based on the quality of the interviews and the interaction between the

researcher, the data, and the evolving theory.

Computer Analysis

A choice was made to use computer-based qualitative data analysis software. The

relevance of this decision will be made more apparent in Chapters Five and Six. Software

usage provided maximum opportunity to collect a broad range of data, organize data sets,

and give instant retrieval of data consistent with grounded theory (Bong, 2002; Pandit,

1996; Weine, et al., 2004).

ATLAS ti, V. 5.0 was the qualitative data analysis software used in the study. The

researcher was self-taught. The version of software operates in a Microsoft Windows™

environment and is exceptionally user-friendly. However, there were some problems

experienced that resulted in lost or corrupted files. These problems were most likely a

result of user-error than a problem in the software.

The features of the software that proved most useful included having the files act

as containers for memos, coded transcripts, materials supplied by participants, copies of

relevant research and news articles, and the narrative support (which included transcripts

and notes after speaking with cultural informants). Instantaneous retrieval of data

enhanced the comparative analysis to elaborate relationships or develop dimensions in

the study.

Methods of Verification

Strauss and Corbin (1998) discussed the suitability of using quantitative standards

to judge qualitative. According to them, validating or verifying the accuracy or credibility

of a grounded theory study is found in strategies incorporated into the research and

61quantitative measures are not sufficient. According to Merriam (1998), the internal

validity comes from the match between what is real and the researcher's understanding of

the realities constructed by the participants (Creswell, 2002b; Merriam, 1998).

Internal Validity

The steps used to ensure internal validity in this grounded theory study were:

1. Triangulation. Multiple sources of data and methods were used. The number

and range of interviews were consistent with the grounded theory design. Sampling was

completed when saturation of categories occurred (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Additional

materials were provided by participants. They were: transcripts of a produced DVD,

newsletters, news articles, web-based data, journal articles, and additional commentary

from phone conversations. Observations of the researcher in the setting provided another

source of data.

2. Inquiry audit. A process developing through the constant comparative analysis

done in the grounded theory procedures and captured in the memos created by the

researcher.

3. Member checks. All participants reviewed verbatim transcripts of their

interviews. Participants were interviewed sequential to data analysis. This provided

feedback on the knowledge structure as it developed and helped develop the generative

theory.

4. Peer debriefing. An alternative to an external audit was a peer debriefing

accomplished through the Office of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research, University

of Nebraska-Lincoln. The researcher met with Dr. Vicki Plano-Clark at regular intervals

throughout the study from April 2005 to March 2006, to debrief on issues related to the

62research methods and techniques used in the study. In addition, Drs. Gina Matkin,

Georgianne Mastera, Dana Miller, and Kay Lynn Kalkowski were available for open

discussion on conceptual issues and methods that helped bring concepts to a manageable

level during theory building.

5. Respondents were involved in all phases of the research. Many participants in

the study enthusiastically provided general comments about the research during the

interviews. Several participants were interviewed multiple times with specific questions

related to the 'gaps' which formed as theory evolved.

6. Recognition of researcher's biases. At the onset of the study the researcher's

biases and assumptions were stated. The researcher provides an interpretation of another's

reality.

External Validity

Validity, according to Strauss and Corbin (1998), is the explanatory power of

building a substantive theory "one developed from the study of one small area of

investigation and from one small population" (p. 267). The purported merit of a grounded

theory study is the application to the population from which it originated. The more the

inquiry is systematic and intensely reaches the significance of the process through

theoretical sampling, the greater the explanatory power of the theory.

The results of this study cannot be applied to all community Initiatives, or to all

cases of social entrepreneurship. The descriptive detail from interviews with such

extraordinary social entrepreneurs (leaders) should provide the field an opportunity to

compare, contrast, and relate.

63Reporting the Outcomes

The description used in qualitative analyses can become a profound picture of

phenomena when reported in a study. However, Strauss and Corbin (1998) emphasized in

report writing that there are specific formulations that prove theoretical density and

description is secondary. Grounded theory reports an analytical story that clearly

incorporates the formulations of "problems, issues, and the use of strategies or

actions/interactions to manage these problems or issues–and explain what consequences

occur as a result of those actions/interactions" (p. 267).

This is a theoretical study. Few references to related research are interspersed

through this story of an emergent theory. The shaping of theory comes from the data.

Insights from the researcher link the emergent substantive theory of 'convening

opportunity' to broader theories in the final analysis. Hopefully, the paper provided

intellectual stimulation and has probed theoretical connections. However, true to the

qualitative paradigm, the participants' in vivo terms and natural language from extensive

interviews provide a story of social entrepreneurship. It is their view of personal beliefs,

oftentimes why they believed, and a wealth of experience that are unique to this study

alone.

64

CHAPTER IV

Descriptive Case Studies of Two Community Development Initiatives

Introduction

The purpose of the study was to develop a theory of social entrepreneurship

drawing upon two community development Initiatives. The research design is a grounded

theory multiple case study. More explicitly, it is an instrumental study, which places the

emerging theory 'convening opportunity' as the item of interest and the cases studied in a

supporting role (Stake, 1994).

What follows in this chapter are two descriptive accounts of the cases used in the

study. These accounts describe the context for an emerging theory of social

entrepreneurship. Two nonprofit foundations are featured in the study. Each organization

has a singular founding history and different missions and programs serving a targeted

constituency. Each is organized according to its own charter and bylaws.

For purposes of anonymity the description of the cases will incorporate

pseudonyms and a required vagueness to protect confidentiality of the participants.

Accuracy in portraying the Initiatives was provided by participants' interviews, additional

written and audio materials, and the researcher's observations.

Foundation for Rural Opportunity

Institutional Features

The Foundation for Rural Opportunity (FRO) was established in 1993 as a

nonprofit, charitable organization. It manages over $17 million in assets and provides

financial management, strategic development, and educational services to donors,

65

organizations, and communities in the state. The organization has established

approximately 170 affiliated funds intended for community betterment projects. Under

the FRO umbrella, community organizations are able to obtain IRC 501 (c) 3 nonprofit

status. The Foundation manages the funds for a small fee, and is able to aggregate the

funds and invest them for an enhanced rate of return. FRO also assists with fund raising

and several business management operations with the community organization.

The Foundation has 22 directors on its board and another 16 serving in honorary

capacities. These directors live and work in multiple areas across the state and represent

the diversified needs of the state. Several of the founders of the organization, including a

President Emeritus and an Immediate Past Chair, remain active influences in operations

and outreach.

The board for FRO had well developed leadership. The breadth of experience

included: entrepreneurs, policy-makers, business owners, bankers, and more. Training

provided by a national Institute benefited relationship building within the executive

group. Enhanced communication and direction setting, particularly converting general

ideas to specific application, was considered important to a board according to its past

Chair. Having philosophical agreement on the most important issues was also important.

Engaging the public and making decisions about their future was one value that led to

promoting an environment where a hometown takes care of its politics, leadership, youth

engagement and philanthropy. This follows the foundations simple mission "the

betterment of the state's communities and organizations".

Due to its administrative role over other foundations within the state, FRO has

committed to being a clearinghouse of information regarding best practices for

foundation administration, fund raising, governance, development, education, and

outreach. FRO was on a continuous pursuit to find and exploit the standards of success in

community development as it related to philanthropy.

66

Joseph, President and CEO for the Foundation, reflected that a healthy

institution is necessary in order to provide the kind of cutting-edge work needed in a state

that is facing so many economic challenges. Although increasing staff beyond the current

11 would be favorable to meet a growing demand, Joseph considered his staffs' talents

instrumental in the innovative approaches to philanthropy. FRO has received national

attention for its innovative approach to applying wealth-transfer strategies to

philanthropy.

In 2000, the foundation benchmarked a new tool in community fundraising. The

tool was challenge grants of several thousand dollars contributed by individuals,

corporations and foundations to be used in communities across the state. A community

match was required, based on a population-based sliding scale. Census figures

determined the matching requirements. Communities had up to four years to reach their

required match. This encouraged local community leaders to create and build

endowments by starting "founders clubs". This effort was consistent with FRO's goal for

the state's philanthropic funds to gain at least five percent of the wealth-transfer in the

state.

A national study published in 1999 estimated that the transfer of wealth in the

U.S. would be in the trillions over the next few decades. Leadership from FRO partnered

with the Rural Policy and Business Center (RPBC) to examine implications from the

study. Using strategies from this study, the partners instituted their own study in 2001.

They found that the peak wealth-transfer in the state would occur in 2015. Given a sense

of urgency from these findings and current conditions of rural socio-economic decline in

the state, a philosophy to "marry philanthropy and entrepreneurship" was born.

FRO drew into partnership with two other nonprofit agencies the RPBC and the

Midlands Management Institute (MMI). These partners intended to "make the case" for a

broad rural redevelopment strategy. Part of the case was to change prevailing mindsets

67

that had fatalistic attitudes about rural decline. For example, it was stated that

Midwestern values of modesty were an asset and could also be a problem if it

"manifested negative projections about the future" in rural areas. Rural areas needed

archetypes of success to demonstrate that local people in rural areas could reinvigorate

their economies and curtail outward migration. There just wasn't enough charitable

money or government to get everything done that was needed to reach these goals. FRO

believed money was a tool, not an end goal. Therefore, values, strategy, serendipity, and

expertise were translated into an initiative to "grow hope" through a social enterprise.

Joseph, stated, "The beauty of the way the State is set up, and the way the culture

works in this particular place, is there is the opportunity to collectively pursue the greater

good here. So as I think through wanting to be a social entrepreneur in an environment

like this I can’t think of a better place to do it." Joseph saw his role as a leader to connect

the dots, to walk before running and to remain in the context of "proven-up

relationships".

The State Initiative

Opportunity Trajectories

Facilitators

By 2001 three nonprofit entities, including FRO, created a strategy for a state

initiative that would essentially "marry philanthropy and entrepreneurship". A short time

into this process a fourth core partner was identified. All four partnering organizations

had statewide and national recognition regarding their work on rural issues.

Over the previous four or five years there had been continuing sets of

conversations regarding the critical resources necessary to commit to an Initiative for

rural redevelopment. In 2002, a small grant was given by a national rural development

consortium to pilot a comprehensive Initiative in one county in the state. This pilot,

which would become Sustaining Rural Prosperity (SRP), was a new social enterprise

68

formed by three of the core partners. The scope and impact of this Initiative had never

been realized before in the state.

There had been prolific conversations over the years between the core partners of

this Initiative and a leader from a national foundation. According to the national

foundation leader, the earlier work of FRO, which had signified wealth-transfer as having

considerable impact on rural revitalization, had caught the attention of the national

foundation. Based on the fertile relationships between the national foundation's

leadership and the core partners, the new focus on wealth-transfer, and the achievements

of the pilot project, SRP was awarded two million dollars over a three-year period to

expand SRP into the rest of the state. The framework created by SRP was recognized for

its reachable goals and strategies that focused on building the capacities of leadership,

wealth-transfer, entrepreneurs, and youth in rural areas.

Convening Opportunity

Recognizing, Strategizing, and Structuring Opportunity

The SRP Initiative grew organically around existing relationships of colleagues

working on rural issues. They were not considered as partnerships of peers alone. The

Initiative sought partners wherever mutual interests brought people together so that

working together brought everyone farther than if done independently. Over 20

collaborative partners have been acknowledged, which included groups or organizations

that were public, private, and nonprofit. The four core partners had portfolios of

programs and training, in which they were already engaged statewide and some

nationally. These programs represented leadership development, entrepreneurship

research and training, consulting, policy, grant making, and philanthropy.

SRP would receive much of its initial support from the funding of the national

foundation. However, the Initiative would be a consulting business model. Partners have

a performance contract whereby they are compensated for hours or completed objectives.

69

This compensation would come from the communities that engaged the SRP Initiative.

The partners considered this social enterprising essential for sustaining the Initiative and

to honor the values of collective goals.

The Initiative established new sets of systems "that would take a series of burdens

off the backs of small communities." The focus for the Initiative would be communities

with a population of less than 5000, which was over 90 percent of the state's

communities. Balancing the basic values that underlie SRP and its mode for service

delivery helped determine the scale and scope of the Initiative. Primarily, the leadership

of the partners in the Initiative believed that communities do a better job of controlling

their destiny as opposed to somebody else. Therefore, in their view it was important that

the redevelopment processes be owned by that community. Leadership in SRP believed

that charging fees for their services in communities was aligned with those values.

The SRP Initiative grew "organically around existing relationships". The Initiative

was new and sought to create viable networks to apply learning from the three

dimensions featured in forming the strategies of the Initiative. These were to align the

benefits of research, practice, and community voices. In the words of the SRP members,

this collaboration was not considered as "partnerships of peers"; partners were sought

wherever "mutual interests brought people together so that working together brought

everyone farther than they could independently". The framework was operating in seven

communities in the state. They had plans to expand over the next three years.

How SRP was structured is difficult to describe. The structure resembled the

reported outcome, which is a flexible community that is open to emergent change. Each

of the partnering organizations provided some type of programming based on assessment

of the community's needs. These processes were undergoing development and had the

potential to be in a constant dynamic state. Essentially, the outreach from many resource

providers is gathered under the umbrella of the Initiative and focused toward one of the

70

four core targets of philanthropy, youth, entrepreneurship, or leadership development.

This focus and umbrella approach helped to avoid duplication of services and had

provided a network that did not exist prior to the Initiative. Activities were intended to be

"value-added" into the community's own processes and not interventions imposed from

the outside. The key to focusing community engagement into one or more of the target

activities was a person in the community or county who served as coordinator. This

coordinator may be a service provider or, potentially, a community volunteer. A

characteristic of the model was the "fuzzy boundaries" concept that is consistent with an

entrepreneurial model.

The hallmark of the SRP Initiative was to build capacities not only for the

communities but for those doing rural development. SRP had received national attention

as a transportable model that could provide systemic change in rural areas. Many of the

partners were asked to present the concept to national audiences. The Initiative has hired

external evaluators to look at these processes. As an archetype for rural redevelopment,

the evaluation will help to determine among things whether the model is sustainability

over time and can demonstrate measurable impacts. The latter has already been

identified. Stories were published in syndicated newspapers that demonstrated "hope

grew" in several communities in the state through new strategies for redevelopment. The

stories captured the communities' voices, and the SRP was merely a backdrop to their

stories. SRP, according to one of the partners, was right where they wanted to be.

Foundation for Excellence

Institutional Features

The Foundation for Excellence (FE) was established in 1989 by a school board to

support public education in a large urban area in the Midwest. From an initial gift of

$150,000 to becoming a pass-through organization of over 13.5 million dollars, the

71foundation has provided a significant "margin of excellence" to public education in the

community (Newsletter, 2005).

There was proven leadership at FE. Kathy, the Executive Director, credited the

competencies of the foundation's staff and governing board. Kathy had led the

organization for 15 years. She was recognized on local and national levels and served as a

consultant for other educational funds nationally. She remained active in community

groups and sat on the board of directors for other local nonprofits and a national

educational network.

An ample number of volunteers served on the board of directors (21 to 29 at any

one time). The board met six times a year and each director served on one standing

committee and one fund raising committee. Committee chairs were also required to

attend an Executive Committee that met once a month. Directors were chosen from

leadership in many professions, including public education.

Fundraising requires an agile board. Kathy's past experience led her to conclude

that having more members was better and keeping them longer best. Bylaws of the

organization limited each member to two terms of three years. According to Kathy, this is

not long enough for fundraising. Kathy innovated by creating a non-governing group of

around 60 volunteers called a Board of Trustees. This board consisted primarily of

couples, with perhaps one of the couple having had previous experience with the

foundation. This enhanced networking is vital in philanthropy.

Maintaining institutional histories and knowledge are considered important to

nonprofit boards and the wellbeing of nonprofits in the community. Thus, the

requirement to rotate-off boards isn't optimally efficient for organizations. According to a

72board member of FE, "there are a handful of people" willing to volunteer for nonprofit

boards in the city. It was related that although there is a desire to bring new "blood and

new experience" into the governing roles, there were benefits to having this handful of

people serve on boards around the city. In his estimation, there was value in the "cross-

fertilization" provided from those few volunteers that remained faithful to serve on

nonprofit boards. The shared institutional histories from other organizations opened

communications and allowed for more unified support.

Understanding mission risks or opportunities are aspects of careful and strategic

decision-making. The Board Chair stated it was "absolutely true" that board members

must understand the culture of the nonprofit environment. It takes time to adjust to the

language in the nonprofit sector, especially the excessive use of acronyms. It was related

that, "You probably get the highest value from your board member after they’ve been

there for awhile."

About ten years ago, a local study showed that 75 to 80% of the city's residents no

longer had children in school. As a result of these findings, and a trend nationally to

encourage social responsibility, the directors of the Foundation created a Public

Engagement Committee. Its purpose was to inspire more community involvement that

would promote the reciprocal benefits of a healthy educational system. There was

resistance by core collaborators to the concept ''public engagement". Some had the notion

this term meant something was broken and required fixing. However, the committee

understood public engagement as positive, meaning "democracy in action". The school

district had been recognized as one of the best in the nation. Reassurance by the

Foundation and broader use of the term elsewhere in society relieved misunderstandings.

73This view of public education's link to public engagement and democracy was

also promoted by the National Network of Foundations for Education (NNFE). An

executive for NNFE emphasized this by stating, "We believe in the role citizens and the

public play in improving our systems of public education". The role of local education

funds, such as FE, was to be "effective intermediaries in their community". These were

core institutional values for public education as stated from an NNFE representative:

We believe that public education is fundamental to a democratic and civil society.

The American public needs to see public education as a kind of institution that

really helps move forward the agenda of a democratic and civil society.

To shape new creative social movements that engage a broader constituency

requires convening processes that move with and against forces of change. The

Foundation for Excellence's mission was to raise funds, recognize excellence, and

reinforce positive relations between the community and the school. The first two "R's" in

the mission support the last "R". Reinforcing positive relations requires balancing

leadership among the foundation, the school district, and the community, and also

balancing available resources.

Julia, a former foundation employee and member of the city initiative, identified

the highly bureaucratic nature of the public educational system as "predictably planned,

annual activities that happen over and over". Usually these large structures support only

incremental changes. The change agents (leadership) within and without of the system

have unique challenges. "You have to be able both to be willing to challenge people on

the strength of their conventional thinking and challenge them to think in new ways and

… just do it."

74The City Initiative

Opportunity Trajectories

Facilitators

The apothegm of "just do it" in the minds of the foundation was a community

Initiative. There were several trajectories that created the Initiative. A national foundation

would commit both knowledge and financial capital to grow the social enterprise.

Momentum through many varied activities at the local level carried the Initiative.

The local community foundation had granted $100,000 to FE for youth

development programming. Simultaneously, the school district had applied

unsuccessfully for a grant (called 21st Century) directed toward low performing schools,

under the No Child Left Behind Act. The focus of the grant was primarily for school

districts to provide students with academic enrichment during after-school hours. All

activities were geared toward meeting local and state academic standards in subjects such

as reading and math. Programs were to also include character building and contemporary

issues facing youth and families.

A previous Director for Public Engagement at FE had worked closely with the

district as they prepared its grant application. The language in the grant application

connected to the underpinning ideals in another collaborative that included FE. The scope

of the federal grant was to create after-school programs called City Educational Centers

(CEC). FE's knowledge and experience in the community helped to determine a broader

focus was needed than the federal CEC model. Hence, FE applied for funding from the

local community foundation to launch a feasibility study around CEC issues.

75Convening Opportunity

Recognizing, Strategizing, and Structuring Opportunity

Parallel to these events, the foundation was working with two other community

Initiatives that brought multiple stakeholders together. Experiences demonstrated that

there was more public engagement with broader Initiatives. The Foundation compared

findings from the feasibility study, assessments of community needs, and weighed these

with prospects for funding. After examining the alternatives proposed by the federal

grant, they chose to create an Initiative that would be more collaborative and systemic

than the features of the CEC model proposed by the federal grant (and what currently

represents the models known nationally also as CEC).

FE recognized an opportunity to convene other community partners around the

issue. Through sets of conversations with stakeholders, a strategy was proposed. Kathy

visualized the values embedded in the Initiative as:

If you imagine a child coming to school with all these bags… [physical, social,

and economic needs]… they cannot concentrate and be a good student if they’re

dealing with all of this. So it was a really clear place for us to be. …people were

concerned about, “Oh should tax dollars be paying this or not?” This is clearly

community development at work. Our outcome is better achievement and better

success for this student in this school. So it was a perfect opportunity for us.

Kathy acknowledged the interdependencies between problems, solutions, and

stakeholders. The Initiative set a course to make the case for better education through

community development. In keeping with the FE mission, this meant that they would

have to share financial responsibility among stakeholders able to provide resources. As

76Kathy stated, "We had to be very careful… we didn’t want this to become something

that we alone had to fund." Over 80 meetings in the first two months were conducted

with community-based organizations to get their input and to discover how this new

social innovation would be structured.

A founder in the Initiative explained:" [The] key innovation with the CEC model

was identifying strong community partners that would be the lead organizations in

making CEC work". Lead partners in CEC represented another four nonprofit

organizations and public education. Other partners included several private businesses

and many community members. These partners had to commit and be able to support and

promote mutual goals of CEC. Leadership at FE made the case that to be a doable and

sustainable Initiative, it was necessary to infuse CEC concepts and planning into the

community through these partnerships. This meant bringing the CEC framework through

the schools directly to the families.

The structuring of the Initiative was values based and focused on the

interdependencies around multiple stakeholders that included the community. Public

education was seen as the "heart of democracy". Leadership envisioned: collaboration as

a basis for positive systems change; life-long learning as a shared responsibility within

the community; and that the schools were not solely responsible for education. The CEC

model applied these values to four goals: improved student learning and youth

development, strengthen and support families, strengthen and engage neighborhoods, and

create a systems change that would sustain the first three goals.

77Committees were not limited to youth development activities or after-school

care. Other issues related to health, housing, social services, and neighborhood

organizing were under the CEC umbrella. An example of a community betterment project

related the purpose of making neighborhoods more appealing for property valuation and

pride. Public organizations representing housing and social services were working

through committees with CEC, to help with housing. High mobility was seen as having

"a tremendous impact on the child’s education" when going from school to school.

Another strategy would be to use school buildings as pivotal assets. The earlier

study by FE had found that 86% or so of the community wanted to have CEC in their

school. "The "tipping factor" as Kathy called it, was when sufficient branding of the

Initiative occurred so that there was "buy in" from the community. Hence, the tipping

factor was favorable. An enterprising feature was that most of CEC sites would initiate

some type of fee-for-services in the after-school programming to subsidize costs.

This was a major structural shift from the original concepts of the 21st Century

grant. The CEC Initiative eventually became a structural umbrella for youth and

community development programming in 19 schools provided by five local agencies.

These programs were not limited to after-school activities like the scope of the national

CEC.

Sustainable and systemic change required building current capacities in the

community. The first capacity built was five leadership groups to organize the activities

of CEC. The structure for the CEC Initiative was, as one member said, "difficult to get

your head around." There needed to be enough framework to legitimize the Initiative and

avoid turf issues and yet enough flexibility to allow it to be creative. Communication

78among partners was largely done through formal meetings and informal networks. Lee,

a coordinator for CEC said, "Informal meetings … with partners, that’s a lot of the times

where the rubber meets the road." This related to maintaining relationships of trust and

obtaining the buy-in of each stakeholder to their ascribed roles.

Applying previous experiences and knowledge from multiple collaborations was

important. Limited success in two Initiatives showed that it was difficult to sustain

public engagement if there was not a "balance" of leadership. Metaphorically, Kathy's

view of an Initiative is a sandwich, where an Initiative rests between the two layers of

grassroots leadership and formal leadership. In the case of one Initiative, the grassroots

side was too heavy and not enough leadership. Whereas, in the other Initiative, formal

leadership was held too tightly by one person and subsequently there became a lack of

energy around the process.

By 2001, FE had received a $536,000 grant obtained through the NNFE for its

initiative. The NNFE obtained grants from various private and public sources, including

governmental agencies, which they were able to pass through to local education funds.

The Network had influence nationally and internationally and functioned as an

information clearinghouse for interests in public education. The Network worked closely

with policy makers, funders, and foundations to ensure quality and accountability in

education. They were able to promote the city's Initiative as a transposable model for

other communities to emulate.

The city's Initiative was a direct result of leadership at FE and the resources

provided through NNFE. Community-based partners, private partners, and public support

convened opportunity through the CEC framework. Opportunity was convened around

79the values and interdependencies of community stakeholders to address systemic

change. Hence, the goal of education and public engagement were addressed in a new

and creative way. The schools provided the built infrastructure and CEC developed a

talented and trained staff with community partners. Through the Initiative new and

contemporary services were began for youth and families.

There were many conditions that facilitated and constrained the process. The

cultural milieu of public engagement rising to the forefront was helpful to make the case

in this institutional environment. Finally, local capacities were developed and used to

leverage resources and create community partnerships for CEC.

Summary

The descriptive cases provide a backdrop for the evolving theory of 'convening

opportunity' in the two initiatives. Leadership, from the two nonprofit foundations

featured in this chapter, was instrumental in championing these new institutional forms –

the Initiatives. The two nonprofit organizations were the entry point for the researcher in

the study and served as referent organizations. This allowed the researcher to address the

institutional character of the nonprofit setting. Nonetheless, the data will show that the

story of 'convening opportunity' unfolds the result of the Initiatives are to catalyze

opportunities during the emergence of the community-field. The field is the pattern of

community members' interactions, where these interactions result in mutual influences

and shared meanings (Wilkinson, 1991).

80CHAPTER V

Developing a Grounded Theory

Coding Procedures

The strategies formulated by Strauss and Corbin (1998), and how they applied in

this study, are set forth in this chapter. The categories described in Chapter III are

developed, the context of the cases in Chapter IV is expanded upon, and a knowledge

structure is related to an emergent theory of convening opportunity, which is more fully

developed in Chapter VI.

The two basic techniques for developing grounded theory are: constantly making

comparisons and the asking of questions (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). These operations are

interwoven throughout the study.

Strauss and Corbin (1998) stated that "A good question is one that leads the

researcher to answers that serve the developing theoretical formulation" (p. 76). These

may be sensitizing questions that explain the data, e.g., "what is this?", or "what is

happening?" or," what actors are involved." Or the questions may be theoretical, e.g.,

"what would happen if…", or "how does what is explained here affect the structural

issues I am seeing?" A third type of questioning is more practical or structural, e.g.,

"which concepts have developed well?", and "is the developing theory logical", etc. The

final type of questioning, according to Strauss and Corbin, are guiding questions that

open up the research as a theory evolves, e.g., "how does X (the evolved theory) affect Y

and influence J?"

Grounded theory includes three phases of coding data, while recognizing the

artificial boundaries between each such coding phase. This may seem confounding.

81However, there is automatic and subconscious movement between phases of coding,

notwithstanding that very deliberate attention is being given to precision during each

phase. Thus, Strauss and Corbin's (1998) analytic techniques are rigorous and very

demanding of a qualitative researcher. A required diligence to record thoughts and ask

questions of the data during coding alternated moods between tedium and creative

fluidity. However, there was always a sense of forward momentum because of the

guidance and prescriptive nature of the process.

In a personal interview with Dr. Kathy Charmaz (November 2, 2005), (writer and

co-editor of Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time), she stated that

the prescriptive nature of the Strauss and Corbin method is limiting. Charmaz claimed

that creating procedures as you work with the data is a better approach to grounded

theory. In her opinion, systematic grounded theory such as the Strauss and Corbin

method is prescriptive rather than theoretical. She feels her approach allows researchers

to "innovate, rather than impose upon the data".

While this is the researcher's first experience with grounded theory, it appears that

the earliest prescripts of Glaser and Strauss (1967) were entrepreneurial and went against

conventional standards. The grounded theory method assembles resources in new ways

via the ability to systematize data around multiple sources and methods for obtaining

data. The researcher concluded that Strauss and Corbin's techniques to use pre-assigned

categories (causal conditions, phenomenon, context, intervening conditions,

action/interactions, and outcomes) are a pattern to induce process in new theory

generation, rather than a template to impose a boilerplate theory or knowledge structure.

82Open Coding

Open coding is a data analysis technique to "open" the data to the emergent

phenomenon. "Broadly speaking, during open coding, data are broken down into discrete

parts, closely examined, and compared for similarities and differences" (Strauss &

Corbin, 1998, p.102). During this phase of coding labels were applied to give meaning to

the ideas, events, and incidents participants described.

The first twelve interview transcripts were coded sentence by sentence, assisted

by the use of ATLAS ti software. This allowed the researcher to become "immersed" in

the data. During this process there was constant comparison of the data. Comparable data

sets were grouped under like terms. The length of the transcripts, coupled with the small

segments of data coded, yielded 213 codes in this first phase. Although these small

segments of data provided more codes than manageable, there became an immediate

sense that certain groupings or categories were emerging (see Figure 2 in Appendix C).

In these mid-to-early phases of analysis, categories and subcategories began to

emerge from the data. As many 'in vivo ' codes as possible (terms used by the participant)

were used to relate to broader concepts. The technique of adding properties

(characteristics) and dimensions (possible range) to the codes evolved into sets of data.

This technique conceptualizes what data belong to a category and its sub-category (see

Table 6). The categories and sub-categories are data driven, names for properties and

dimensions are interpreted by the researcher to characterize the categories. How the data

was used to develop these terms is demonstrated in the Axial coding section of this

chapter.

83Table 6.

Categories generated during open coding.

Category Sub-Category Properties Dimensions Trajectories External

Facilitator

Thought Leaders Champions Resource Provider Leader Legitimacy

Disengaged <=> Highly Engaged Dissuades <=> Inspires

Minimal <=> Much Unrecognized <=> Recognized

Internal Facilitator

Social Entrepreneurs Champions Resource Provider Leader Legitimacy

Disengaged <=> Highly Engaged Dissuades <=> Inspires

Little <=> Extensive Unrecognized <=> Recognized

Convening Process Recognize Opportunity Stakeholder Interdependence Values

Low Prospects <=> High Prospects No stake <=> Fully vested

Low <=> High Similar<=> Different

Strategizing Mission Driven Dispersion of Leadership

Ambiguous <=> Well defined Low <=> High

Individualized <=> Shared

Structuring Institutionalize Process Applied Learning Learning Network Reallocating Resources

Rigid <=> Fluid No <=> Yes

Problem focus <=> Appreciative Dysfunctional <=> Functional

Minimal <=> Great

Strategies Interactions Making the Case Putting problem in context Find agreement/organization Find agreement/partners Obtain community buy-in

Inside <=> Outside Unclearly <=> Clearly No level <=> All levels No level <=> All levels No level <=> All levels

Forging Partnerships Organizational assets Community assets Public assets

Unleveraged <=> Leveraged Poorly distributed <=> Fairly distributed Poorly distributed <=> Fairly distributed Poorly distributed <=> Fairly distributed

Relationships Influence in the Initiative Influence in the Community Influence in the Sector

Low trust/low value <=> High trust/high value Unbalanced <=> Balanced Unbalanced <=> Balanced Unbalanced <=> Balanced

Conditions Capacities Personal Capacities

Recognize strengths Legitimating Expertise Institutional Knowledge (in Domain)

Low<=> High Weak <=> Strong

Unknown <=> Respected /Trusted Low<=> High

Organizational Capacities Institutional features Legitimating Expertise Institutional Knowledge (in Domain)

Low<=> High Low <=> High

Unknown <=> Respected /Trusted Low<=> High

Community Capacities Institutional features

Low<=> High Low <=> High

84

Legitimating Expertise Institutional Knowledge (in Domain)

Unknown <=> Respected /Trusted Low<=> High

Axial Coding

The purpose of axial coding is to reassemble the data that were "fractured" during

the open coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this phase, which also overlaps

open coding, data are related to categories and subcategories. This overlapping started

following a second round of open coding. At this point, I was able to modify my

interview protocol and be more direct in questioning. Subsequent interviews helped to

refine the categories. Additionally at this time in the process, supplemental data

(newspaper articles, website publications, and journal sources) were also added into the

ATLAS ti database and were coded.

Labels from the codes were placed on two by two inch cards and categories were

placed on several eight by eleven inch paper signs. The cards and signs were placed on

the wall in my office. This allowed for a tactile and visual analysis, which became a

storyboard for the unfolding theory. It allowed me to move data and visualize where a

"fit" between concept and process occurred.

However, the ATLAS ti software was most useful in moving and retrieving data.

Families were created, i.e., that data were separated into retrievable sets. The researcher

was able to create families for codes, narratives, and external data. These families could

be recombined in any order and searched. For example, the narrative accounts of one

Initiative could be searched by a code family that represented one category. The output of

that search would be a report of quotations from participants that represented one

category of codes. A subsequent search using the same parameters, but using a different

85set of participants, would provide a report that was used to compare against the first

set. The search function in the software allowed any combination of families to be

queried. In addition, relationships between codes were created graphically within the

software (see Figure 4, in Appendix D). This gave order and meaning to the emerging

categories and related subcategories.

As mentioned earlier, there are not clear distinctions between moving from open

coding to axial coding. In fact, it is a process that seemed like 'spiraling and weaving'.

The process of coding was reciprocal and reiterative. The data were woven from a range

of sources, primarily participant views.

The following are examples of how major categories emerged with sample data.

Properties (characteristics) and dimensionality (possible range) created during the open

and axial coding processes are helpful to the third step of coding where the story of the

theory emerges.

Category 1. Opportunity Trajectories Norms within the nonprofit sector dictate that organizations will align with larger,

national organizations for resources in terms of funding, networks, and learning

opportunities. Each of the Foundations in the study was concomitantly linked to outside

facilitators in the process of social entrepreneurship. These facilitators were represented

in this study by a national figure nominated by each of the Executive Directors.

These external facilitators provided recognized leadership across networks of

highly engaged people around domain-specific issues. In this study the issue is

community development.

86Property 1. Thought leaders.

This was dimensionalized as: Disengaged << ==================================>> Highly Engaged

Credentials and scope of network for "thought leadership" (an in vivo code) was

identified in the following statement by an external facilitator:

I'm a Vice-President for programming … in leadership development, technology,

diversity, and community development, all of which cut across the traditional

programming areas… We have the ability to convene high-quality people, who

are thought leaders on the cutting edge of issues and who enjoy a national

reputation.

Property 2. Social entrepreneurs. The institutional rules of the sector traditionally require some type of board of

governance over the nonprofit entity. These are voluntary positions, held in esteem by the

institutions and the community at large. The board carries the fiduciary responsibility and

is the governing body to which the Executive Director is accountable. The influence of a

board and its level of engagement within the organization and community will vary.

This was dimensionalized as:

Disengaged << ==================================>> Highly Engaged As explained to the interviewer during the pilot phase of the study, some Boards

take roles associated with management. Participants from the Initiatives revealed that the

board would have significant influence in the direction set by the organizations.

… we cannot be successful in our mission unless we have a healthy institution

here, unless we have an active and vibrant board, unless we have organizational

87structure and capacity and leadership within this organization and not just

leadership from me… So my board has come along with me and pushed me. I

mean I've had incredible mentors off my board.

Category 2. Convening opportunity. The reallocation of resources (e.g., money, manpower, physical infrastructure,

social capital) to create a new enterprise was accomplished through convening

opportunities. As stated by one participant:

… It really fits neatly and well into what we do well as a foundation, which is to

bring people to the table. And that buzz word or term that I had used before,

which was this convener of opportunity, I really think that accurately describes

what we do best.

Property 1. Recognizing opportunity. Interdependencies of stakeholders, values, and timing in the process were critical

to how opportunities were recognized and convened. This was dimensionalized as:

Low Prospects << =================================>>High Prospects The following is from a participant in the State Initiative:

"So the immediate sense is well you've got to reach that opportunity when it

comes. That is to say, "Yea but you know one step at a time. Let's make sure we

do this right, not just grab an opportunity whether we think it's the right or wrong

opportunity."

88Property 2. Strategizing opportunity.

As noted above, strategizing the opportunity coincides with recognition. In

strategizing the opportunity, mission and applied learning were significant to how the

opportunity could be cast. This was dimensionalized as:

Ambiguous << ===================================>>Well defined

Regarding strategy:

"We were very careful that we didn't want this to become something that we alone

had to fund."

There were strategic and insightful plans to convene opportunity around

interrelated needs. As stated in regard to systemic change:

And again we already know from the analysis that it doesn't take everybody, it

takes significant thought leaders making the changes and then seeing the result. In

this whole area of innovation, it is about systemic change. We go at it in a very

deliberate and strategic way to find the right people, in the right places, and at the

right levels.

Property 3: Structuring opportunity.

The structuring of the opportunity formed a new institutional form called an

Initiative. Details of organizational frameworks and funding sources varied between the

Initiatives. However, each Initiative had created networks and learning loops. Thus, the

structuring was dimensionalized as:

Rigid << ==============================================>>Fluid

89The following from an Initiative's website gives a first-look into the structuring

effects in the Initiative (this text is edited and the website not featured so that anonymity

can be preserved). The statement weaves the values, interdependencies, stakeholders, and

networks that describe the convening opportunity. As stated,

… Grounded in the belief that relationships and collaborations are the

cornerstones that create positive systems change. [Our] partners also believe that

life-long learning is a shared responsibility of our community's residents. The

schools cannot do it alone. [Our] initiative is an innovative approach designed to

link the community, neighborhoods, schools, and people of all ages, backgrounds

and walks of life to achieve our stated goals and outcomes. What makes the …

initiative different is the core value that education is a community-wide

responsibility and the emphasis on building capacity within neighborhoods,

community based organizations, and other systems to produce sustained

improvements and results. The … initiative utilizes five leadership groups to

mobilize and support the day-to-day activities at the neighborhood based

community learning centers.

Institutional features were also identified. Structure provided the strategies

necessary to meet mission requirements. This was stated as:

I mean you've got to have enough structure where it feels like you have a

framework and you've got some guidelines and some procedures that legitimize

the initiative. But we also know and understand and respect that the informal

networks, the informal relationships, and the informal meetings we have with

partners. That's a lot of the times where the rubber meets the road.

90Category 3. Strategies

This category symbolized the actions and interactions that commingle with the

emergent phenomenon of convening opportunity. Within this category, "making the case"

and forging the partnerships became robust features to convene opportunity in the social

entrepreneurship process.

Property 1. Making the case. Making the case was an in vivo code that became a recurrent theme. There were

continuous conversations happening at different levels of the convening process. The

property was dimensionalized as:

Inside<< ================================================>>Outside

The following quote identifies the relevance of making a case that could

encourage unrestricted funds:

… We were looking in the future to sustainability and talking to potential

contributors. How do you sell that? They were saying, "Who am I giving this

money to? What am I giving this money to? How do I know how it's going to be

spent?"... So part of what we were able to do was provide a structure through

which funds for sustainability [of the Initiative] could go through.

There was also the need to make the case for the internal partners to combine

entities and resources. Thus making the case was explicitly stated:

I actually saw a file folder that says "making the case." The point was—what

would we do to make a case for a more viable approach to rural community

development?

91Property 2. Forging partnerships.

The Initiatives were made of partners with different portfolios of expertise,

leadership, networks, and resources. Thus the key was to convene the opportunity by

leveraging these assets. The property was dimensionalized as:

Unleveraged << ==========================================>>Leveraged

As stated:

… We just don't approach partnerships here between peers. It's partnerships

wherever you can build a partnership. Because, you may have a bright

collaborative partner out there that's mutually interested in experimenting with

you and mutually interested in saying how we can together get farther than we

could independently?

An external facilitator added to this property by discussing how funders look at

strategic partners wanting to create opportunity around systemic change. There is a sense

of leveraging the essentials of learning networks and collaboration:

..If it's a strategic initiative, in other words multiple grants being made in a similar

area, and very purposefully selected to obtain some kind of a systemic change.

Then we make networking and co-learning an essential component of the work.

So that forces them to be engaged in a more collaborative, mutual learning

environment which usually changes the way that they do their own work. Once

they start rubbing shoulders with others with similar issues, new ways of doing

almost always comes out. We might put an evaluator on that to glean what they're

learning etc., but that kind of convening is what really starts stimulating kind of a

cross location thinking and innovation.

92Property 3. Relationships.

The two strategies of making the case and forging partnerships were dependent

upon relationships. This may be seen as an intervening condition; however, aspects of

bridging and bonding social capital provided support for these relationships to be a

strategic measure within convening opportunity. (This will be elaborated in Chapter Six).

Low trust /low value << ===========================>>High trust /high value

The following example easily details this. As stated:

And then we just begin to educate people on the nature of the constituency and

the fact that you have to build coalitions just like the rings on a tree, one heart and

one mind at a time through the relationships that people have.

Additionally, there were turf-related issues within the institutional boundaries of

community and partners. As stated:

And you know [the Initiative] is a great example. As we got into this, you know

when I referenced the potential for turf-related issues, a lot of those barriers came

down relatively quickly just based on personal relationships.

Category 4. Capacities.

Codes representing this fourth category reached saturation in the early phases.

(Data saturation is the point where no new meaning for data occurs). Social innovation is

related directly to conditioning, strengthening, or building capacities of people, places

and things. These conditions will be more evident in the Chapter Six, which will explain

the emergent substantive theory found in this study. The intervening conditions were

found to facilitate or constrain the actions and interactions of convening opportunity.

93Property 1. Institutional capacities.

The strategic readiness, community norms, and level of engagement affected how

the strategies could be structured. This was dimensionlized as:

Low << =============================================>>High There were generalizations and specifics that participants brought forward as

conditions that were intervened in convening opportunity. The statement below

demonstrated this phenomenon by comparing the community's current state with a

desired future state to show strategic readiness in the community.

Whereas, here you know we have a school district that has a reputation for being

one of the best in the country. We have a new school superintendent coming in

whose saying, "I want to take you from good to great". And so the role we're

playing is not really remedial, but we're saying we can do better.

During interviews questions regarding institutional barriers and facilitations were

asked. These rendered several examples of intervening conditions like below:

In terms of other institutional barriers, I think policy is certainly one. You know

often times one of the key factors is to what extent you have quality leadership

and rural social capital within the community.

Property 2. Organizational capacities.

The sampling described in Chapter III demonstrated that there were a variety of

institutional partners in each initiative. The partnering organizations represented all three

sectors –private, public, and nonprofit. Thus, organizational capacities ranged

considerably.

Low << ===============================================>>High

94 Example text included:

… [This] collaboration with these agencies … in [the City Initiative] is like a

perfect fit...it's a perfect fit because we have great schools… And we have great

social and public human services.

Property 3. Personal capacities.

Institutional theorists will suggest that leadership is an element of structure –that

it is a practice. According to Maxwell, (2005) leadership is a disposition, not a position.

Therefore, the category of personal capacities as it emerged in this study would

vigorously challenge leadership as a practice paradigm of habitual performance. There

was every indication of an entrepreneurial leader as defined by the participants.

Low << ===============================================>>High Leadership's relationship to institutional features was better reflected in the following:

…most of the central players in this are pretty entrepreneurial themselves and

fairly creative people themselves. So they're bringing those orientations and those

personalities to the table. I think the second thing, is we over the last 3 or 4 years,

built a culture where we've said that's important. I mean it's important that we get

paid, and it's important we do good work; but part of this is, at this point in all of

our professional careers, being creative and trying to be on the cutting edge of

what's going to work is personally pretty important to us.

Category 5. Domain Level Analysis

The Strauss and Corbin (1998) method calls for featuring context as a component

of an emerging conceptual model. As stated in Chapter Three, this study was focused at

95the field level of analysis that became the context for the study. Therefore, the chaotic

nature of current political and socio-economic conditions is a backdrop of the study.

Property 1. Macro-dynamics.

Institutional indicators, such as the regulative, normative and cognitive

dimensions (See Chapter II, p. 28) were the backdrop to social action. These are

dimensionalized as:

Lesser institutionalized<< =========================>>Highly institutionalized The following explained what the participant believed will influence the

regulative, normative, and cognitive elements of institutional structure to have systemic

change.

But people have to be able to act differently and that can include a mental model

shift, etc. We also think that people have to see a shift of resource flows; and that

ties to the third thing, which says that policy has to change. Our premise is that if

you look at any issue out there it, the current condition, is the result of some type

of a policy that's already enacted. So building capacities, looking at resource

flows and then shifting policy… that sustains what you're trying to achieve.

Category 6. Network Development Model

The final element was to consider the consequence of the core category. This

became apparent once the core category, convening opportunity, emerged.

Property 1. Great groups.

One of the intended outcomes from convening opportunities were several distinct

leadership structures based on networks, both internally to the Initiatives and externally

96to the constituencies served. Thus, capacities were strengthened and there are new

institutional features within these groups.

Lesser capacity<< ================================>> Greater capacity

An example cited from the text of the transcripts follows:

So we had been gathering people at the table, first housing people and the

foundation chaired the meetings. [Among these were the] Housing Authority and

we had a few construction folks. Anyway, we started with that kind of a group.

Well then we quickly learned from the Principal that you can't deal with these

issues until you talk about mental health and wages and all these social service

needs. So we plugged in a few more folks … So you know it took 2 or 3 meetings

to get this concept brought over to this table and bring these tables together so

people could see we're not talking about separate issues, these are the same issues.

The paradigm established by Strauss and Corbin (1998) provided the structure to

integrate these categories and subcategories into a set of relationships that, in summary,

provide the causal conditions, phenomenon, context, intervening conditions,

action/interactions, and outcomes that developed the emerging theory of convening

opportunity as a social entrepreneurship process in community initiatives.

Selective Coding

Strauss and Corbin (1998) forward this as a three-step process of creating a story

line, relating subcategories and their properties around a core category, and then relate

this at the dimensional level. The last step in this process is to find additional data to fill

any gaps that are apparent in the proposed model. Accordingly, additional sampling was

necessary.

97 For a few of the participants there were third round interviews to obtain the

"gap" data, followed by a third round of coding for verification. Also, new participants

were invited into the study at this phase. These processes fortified the study.

The Emergent Knowledge Structure

The core category of convening opportunity became the pivotal process to be

explained. Meshing categories and subcategories gave a general sense of what the data

were all about (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The story follows:

Opportunity was convened through Community Development Initiatives.

Convening opportunity was a process of recognizing, strategizing, and structuring

opportunity around shared values and partnerships. Leadership from two nonprofit

foundations and from national networks kick-started the process by providing resources,

such as a shared knowledge-base, networks, and funding. There were multiple conditions

that facilitated and constrained this process in the complex environment where it

enfolded.

A knowledge structure useful to guide the emergent theory is provided in Figure

3. This model diagrams (Creswell, 2002) the process of convening opportunity in

community initiatives. Chapter VI explains the paradigm model by exploring each of the

categories in the diagram.

98 Context

Figure 3. Knowledge Structure for the Process of Convening Opportunity

Capacities Institutional Capacities Community Capacities

Personal Capacities

Phenomenon

Outcomes

Change = the Emerging Field

Network Community Development

Capacity Building

Internal and External to the Initiative

Strategies

Making the Case Sets of Conversations

Over time With Partners

With Constituencies

Forging Partnerships

Balancing Leadership

Leveraging Pooled Resources

Relationships

Opportunity Trajectory

External:

"Thought Leaders"

Allocate Resources Legitimacy

Internal: Social

Entrepreneurs

Champion Allocate Resources

Legitimacy

Community Context Interpretation of context

(opportunities are defined within domain)

Institutional features Convening

Opportunity

Recognize Opportunity Stakeholders

Interdependencies Values

Strategizing Opportunity

Mission Aligning leadership

Structuring Opportunity

Applied Learning Institution building

Reallocating Resources

Intervening Conditions

Actions/InteractionsCausal Conditions

KEY: Words in Italics are in vivo terms used by participants the study. Bolded terms are categories that emerged in the study that identify the phenomenon of convening opportunity.

99

CHAPTER VI

Description of Theoretical Constructs

This chapter describes the emerging theoretical constructs for ‘convening

opportunity’ using participant views, observations, and news sources. A narrative of

social entrepreneurship in two community development Initiatives is given using

grounded theory techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The narrative is mostly iterative,

moving back and forth, so that emerging theory is featured above the cases. Structure and

process are inextricably linked in the progression and are identified with the following

categories: causal conditions, phenomenon, intervening conditions, context, strategies,

and outcomes.

Opportunity Trajectories

Causal conditions are conditions that kick-start the process being investigated. In

this study, the macro-dynamics of the political, social, and economic environment in the

U.S. had substantial impact on social needs. Given that a goal of systemic change and

values underpinned the Initiatives, challenges were frequently articulated. Participants in

both Initiatives’ emphasized education as a "silver bullet," a way to a "prosperous society

…is exposure for people and higher education" or "fundamental to a democratic and civil

society". Viable economies, health, and a critical need for a "leadership base" in

communities were other large issues. As a result, social cause based on need was

considered as a universal causal condition for convening opportunity.

100Current conditions were felt to be "always the result of some type of a policy

that’s already enacted". Consequently, policy was also inextricably linked to conditions

that call for social action. A participant's response was:

"[Policy] comes in when opportunities are recognized and identified, which

results in strategies being created. Strategies require partners to carry it out –

whether it is a congressional representative, community of people, or another

organization."

According to the participants in this study, external factors that contributed as

causal or kick-started the ‘convening of opportunity' were two national foundations that

had greater resource availability, mutual strategies, and a growing knowledge-base.

These foundations had missions and program opportunities aligned with the overall goals

of each of the Initiatives featured in the study.

The National Foundation of Innovation (NFI) is one of the largest private

foundations in the country. It is a comprehensive foundation made up of multiple

program areas that focus on what is "important for communities to thrive and be

successful" in the future. NFI consistently applied learning from its comprehensive

efforts to its newest endeavors. According to a leader at NFI, "[The foundation had the

ability to] convene high-quality people, who are thought leaders on the cutting edge of

issues and who enjoy a national reputation." This capacity gave them an ability to build

intellectual and conceptual capacities that facilitated their work with grantees. Their goal

was to work with grantees in a "partnering way and link them to others" doing similar

work. This allowed for diverse thinking and "allowing for multiple perspectives looking

at the same issues." This network model perpetuated more innovation than singular

101relationships or parochial networks. Organizations were given a competitive

advantage from the knowledge-base and networks provided by NFI. Having a grant with

NFI or "knowing one of the program directors" was considered an advantage for future

funding.

NFI was interested in creating a "new entrepreneurship development model to

create systemic change in rural areas". A $2 million award was approved by NFI to

provide funds for the SRP Initiative. NFI chose to fund six from 180 proposals submitted

from around the country. This instilled a sense of "thrill" and commitment in SRP.

Funding by NFI provided the resources to expand an earlier pilot of SRP.

This was viewed by both entities as a reciprocal opportunity. The NFI saw SRP's

proposal as an innovative way to make systemic change needed in rural America. A

leader from NFI said, "Building capacities, looking at resource flows and then shifting

policy… that sustains what you’re trying to achieve". There was a match of mission and

strategy in the SRP proposal to NFI's conceptual models. The NFI would be able to

showcase SRP as an innovative model in rural development. The knowledge gained from

applying the new concepts offered in the SRP proposal could be applied elsewhere in the

country. The new proposal was placing rural philanthropy 'front and center' in the

national spotlight. A participant from NFI said,

…what would be the way that we could expedite an efficient way of community

foundations to be aggressive advocates for change in their communities? And

what will come out of it in the next few months actually is an effort to look at

community foundations changing role developing rural philanthropy…we will

102likely use the experience here and through other networks to create a new and

innovative approach to upgrade community foundations.

Funding from another source had given SRP partners experience with using the new

framework. This opportunity would expand SRP from its initial seven communities to a

few others over the next three years. It also gave SRP national visibility, which expanded

their network partners with other grantees around the country.

The city Initiative gained its major momentum (and later resources) from FE 's

relationship with the NNFE. In 1999, leadership from FE and a group of stakeholders

drew interest in a community model of education centers operating in the Midwest. The

intent of FE and NNFE was to promote the type of model that was not purely after-school

care. NNFE's role was a network of organizations that work together to mobilize people

and resources for "quality public education for all children." Network members embraced

the concept of systemic reform in public schools. They believed the mechanism to do this

is to "believe in the role of citizens" as instrumental in public education. This was

articulated as the local educational funds were instrumental leadership to "effectively

engage their communities to align resources, policies, and public will".

FE committed to the vision of NNFE. The underlying value of NNFE was the

increasing need for community responsibility to support public education. It called for

educational reform that stated "quality public education for all children." The movement

was not intended to "denigrate the hard work or successes" in public education. The

network of local educational foundations wanted public education more visible as a kind

of institution that moves forward an agenda of a democratic and civil society.

103FFE was able to obtain grant funding of $536,000 to be used for the City's

Education Center Initiative. The national network served as a pass-through for these

funds, managed resources and provided technical assistance for a small management fee.

(Note: by 2001, the local public school district received 21st Century federal grant dollars,

and when combined with other community foundations' and public partners' resources

CEC were expanded.)

NNFE provided a platform for local educational foundations to showcase best

practices. This gave FE an opportunity to feature the city's CEC. The network was a

venue for local educational funds like FE to relay news about their communities. This

network of peers discussed results and outcomes from specific projects or strategies. The

Executive Director from FE was an essential member of the network serving on the board

and connecting the knowledge-base and resources available in the network to serve local

needs.

Both NFI and NNFE infused their well-articulated national goals into these state

initiatives. FE and FRO (and partners) had very "proven-up" (respected and trusted)

relationships with the leadership in these national foundations. These relationships

provided a conduit for input into the design and goals. The agendas included working

toward systemic change in communities using social innovation. The Initiatives were new

frameworks (a recombination of resources) to build the capacity of communities so that

an engaged citizenry (community) could improve its own economic and social conditions

that neither current policy nor government could do.

A foundation leader at NFI stated,

104"Our belief is that nothing really creative happens out of sameness; it only

happens out of diversity… nothing ever creative comes out of the middle of

anything. It only comes out of the edges, where people and issues are left that

interrelate the different perspectives and generate new ideas."

Leaders at NFI believed their "role is to catch the next wave of innovation and expedite it

- but not necessarily to create it". Innovation must be created by the community.

The innovations proposed by the two initiatives were well developed and

incorporated new ideas and proven practices. FRO had proposed an innovative and

stimulating approach to philanthropy, which caught the attention of the leadership at NFI.

The concept of wealth-transfer was a viable option to rural revitalization. It was not a

solution that could stand on its own. The complexity of the economic and social needs in

rural areas was well known. There was a need for more leadership, something to

"stabilize populations", and help for floundering rural economies. Training, particularly

in leadership and entrepreneurship, was already a viable solution. Nonetheless, wealth-

transfer not only benefited the steps to engage people in their communities, but it had the

potential to "make-up for what government could no longer do".

According to NFI's leader, "What you’re talking about is creating something the

size of the [major foundation] for [your state]. What would happen if that became the

economic engine of the future?" NFI leaders were convinced the SRP framework had

potential as a national model. The featured wealth-transfer was a viable option to sustain

rural communities' futures with an additional benefit of public ownership of the process

through the affiliated funds.

105 Leadership at the NFI considered the benefits of the collaborative model

proposed by the SRP Initiative. This model included wealth-transfer strategies along with

capacity building in the areas of policy, entrepreneurship, and leadership. Easily this was

viewed as a positive step toward 'convening opportunity' in communities under one

umbrella. The philanthropic concept of wealth-transfer offered new potential. In addition,

there was potential revenue to sustain the Initiative past SRP's initial funding. Action

research from the SRP model would be applied to other projects.

Innovative and strategic thinking at NNFE occurred through applied learning and

conversations. Like NFI, there were many collective and cumulative results of many "sets

of conversations". NNFE was conversing with mainly local education funds, like FE.

Also there were discussions with national leaders in education and policy.

The major result of these conversations were considered by National Network For

Education's leader as discovering, "one approach, one trend, one kind of activity that

local education funds are doing in their communities and how is that affecting school

districts and the functions of the community." These discussions were broadened within

NNFE into discussions of trends in the larger context, particularly within the landscape of

education and grassroots approaches. These broader discussions were through the

leadership at the director's level. However, a leader from NNFE stressed that these

conversations were rooted in the observations and experiences found at the local level.

A significant influence was the combined values and beliefs held by the

leadership internally and externally to the Initiatives. These collective values and the

institutional features of having nonprofit status kick-started the social entrepreneurship

process to convene opportunity for the city and state Initiatives.

106Comparing across each case, it was found that the trajectory for opportunity

was similar. Even though the philosophies of each Initiative were focused on two

different subsets of community (rural and urban), the principles remained consistent with

deliberative democracy and public engagement. This wasn't a new public agenda. Civic

engagement has been a perplexing issue for decades.

To heal our broken heartland will take something a thousand times harder to come

by and infinitely more precious than economic growth. For in the final analysis

what rural America needs most is not more money or more jobs, but democracy –

the form of citizenry willing and able to participate fully in the development and

sustenance of their communities. (Davidson, 1990, p.170).

Secondly, the anticipated need was systemic change. In each case, the role of the

social entrepreneurs (or institutional entrepreneurs) at the national level was found to be

an opportunity trajectory. This trajectory was through the organization of "thought

leadership" in response to the institutions and the effect of continual sets of conversations

with diverse audiences, which reported experiences and observations, research, and

values clarification. These collective wisdoms were combined with the marshalling of

financial resources, so that funds were awarded to proposed models for systemic change.

Convening Opportunity

Strauss and Corbin (1998) used the term phenomenon to describe "what is going

on here?" (p.130). Understanding that question is the crux of building new substantive

constructs of social entrepreneurship in two community development initiatives. The

phenomenon, in the participants' views, was convening opportunity. The opportunity

107identified was to create systemic change in communities by building the communities'

capacities to engage in the process.

The data did not refer to a process of ordered steps, but there were logistical

qualifications that place one action or condition ahead of another. The qualities of

convening opportunity were found to be dynamic and continuous. The conditions of

convening opportunity are: recognizing opportunity, strategizing the opportunity, and

structuring the opportunity.

Recognizing Opportunity

Recognizing the opportunity was referred to in the data as the interdependencies

related to articulating an opportunity to be convened, recognizing the stakeholders that

could convene opportunity, and identifying what values influenced the 'convening of

opportunity'.

The concept for the SRP Initiative was conveyed during multiple years of

conversations between colleagues. The colleagues represented four separate nonprofit

entities. Together they articulated an opportunity to be convened by envisioning "new

possibilities" for rural communities through new or improved small businesses,

philanthropy, networks of concerned and committed citizenry, and engagement of local

leadership to work as change agents against the progression of rural decline. A participant

said the purpose of SRP was for rural communities "to have the opportunity and to make

it happen, if they choose to take advantage of that opportunity." One participant said,

This is intended to be a place where people can convene and build partnerships

and through those partnerships we can develop greater capacity to fulfill whatever

108objectives we individually want to accomplish and collectively want to

accomplish that ultimately make [the State] a better place to live.

Each colleague had claimed a stake in the future of rural areas and was providing

a portfolio of expertise and resources to address community needs, thus becoming the

first stakeholders themselves. They "were always looking for ways to work together".

Further, the partners of SRP infused their value sets for an "entrepreneurial culture" into

the Initiative. SRP promoted entrepreneurship as a way to create economic vitality in

rural areas, which was mission fulfillment for SRP.

There was a balanced distribution of authority among the collaborative partners to

become what they termed the "core" leadership of the Initiative. The partners would be

the governing body for the Initiative, which would provide its "framework" for

opportunity to communities. The work of the Initiative hinged partially upon the four

core partners' portfolios of expertise, which was necessary to obtain grant funding.

However, there were multiple stakeholders in SRP that came from public, private,

nonprofit groups and the community-at-large. A critical piece was community as

stakeholders.

The SRP Initiative recognized their framework as an opportunity to add value to

the strategies that people in rural communities had to build their futures. In other states,

the state foundations distributed funds. However, the structure of FRO was unique. Local

communities were empowered with their own funds through their affiliated status. This

empowerment strategy was developed into the full framework of SRP. Stakeholders in

SRP were embedded at the community level. As a participant said,"… communities can

109customize for themselves to do this sort of work and then [the expertise held within

SRP] can come in from the outside and add value."

Discussions around the CEC model began with various leaders in public,

nonprofit, and private industry over a period of several years. The focus was an

opportunity to launch a city-wide community initiative centered on the schools. These

discussions both helped articulate the value of the opportunity to be convened and aided

identification of stakeholders. These were broad discussions focusing on community

issues, such as housing, migration, safety, health needs, and education. Early discussions

weren't quantified. According to one participant over 80 conversations were held among

stakeholders in the community after funding was made available. These conversations led

to what participants in the Initiative called a "three-legged stool". The CEC concept was

considered stable when it found solid support from leaders in the school, city, and

business community.

There was notable attention given the existing relationships in the community.

The new concept was to build on the strengths of a network of community-based

organizations and the school district (particularly, the Principals at the schools). Finding

the most salient stakeholders to work with the Initiative meant working through the turf

issues and finding consensus regarding which stakeholders would help provide services

within the framework of CEC. The formalized structure of CEC, such as the Leadership

Council and paid staff, would be responsible for the maintenance and continuation of the

framework.

110As stated, "getting your head around the structure" is no easy task. However,

each of these stakeholders had a vested interest in the outcome of this Initiative and a

claim to influence the process.

The mission of the CEC Initiative was conceptualized around contemporary

issues facing youth, families, and community. As was mentioned earlier, there was

awareness that to amass a kind of systemic change that could improve the socio-

economic conditions in communities it would take an engaged public to productively

create their futures. By valuing the need for public engagement, the Initiative would

include the client (the community) in its membership. The structure of the Initiative

would serve to orchestrate activities.

How salient stakeholders were identified to organize the activities happened over

a period of time. The original concept for a "wrap-around school initiative…percolated

out from a number of sources." FE was able to find funding for the pilots and a

feasibility study which led to an award of a larger grant through the NNFE. This

connection to resources and FE's vision for the Initiative made the foundation a pivotal

stakeholder. The foundation offered proven leadership via a strong supportive governing

board of local, recognized leadership and a talented and paid staff, which included a

nationally recognized Executive Director.

After identifying salient stakeholders, it was also important to frame core values

of the initiative. The articulated values of the Initiative mirrored those of the larger

network of educational foundations. Recognizing or identifying opportunity was

dependent upon the perceptions of the stakeholders and their values.

111Strategizing Opportunity

The next condition (subcategory of convening opportunity) found in the data was

strategizing the opportunity. The data referred to the importance of aligned leadership

and mission fulfillment as integral conditions for convening opportunity.

Participants from the core partnership for SRP made reference to the Initiative

being a "transparent model". The SRP model dispersed authority among stakeholders and

held core partners accountable in the management of each group's portfolio within the

framework. SRP’s portfolios included programming or activities in wealth-creation

through philanthropy, policy, small-business planning, agriculture interests,

entrepreneurship, leadership development, and youth development. Because the model

included a research and development component, which matched lessons learned and

new information with strategies, it was a model that continually developed.

Through the developing framework, the Initiative planned to assist local

leadership to "create strategies and reach goals" or to help communities "do a better job

of connecting young people to place and helping them to feel like they really have an

ownership stake and engagement" in their communities both socially and economically.

To do this it was important that they were able to connect with "leaders at the community

level, who are authentic representatives of the people who live there" and were aligned

with the goals of SRP.

Each person in SRP was there "to add value". Based on the value sets and

strategic direction of SRP, each of the organizations that contributed programming or

resources to the Initiative have mission fulfillment if they stimulate social and economic

entrepreneurship in a rural area or bring self-sufficiency to a community that would help

112to stabilize the population. The practical side of this was stated by one participant as

he discussed the growing scale of the Initiative.

How do we keep our entrepreneurial culture, our ability for creating new ideas?

…We’re going to go execute it in this place and learn from it and then use it.

Maybe adapt it and [it will] evolve in the next place.

It was a strategic choice to create a framework for SRP to build community

capacities that would in turn create systemic change. SRP had a public venue to state its

mission and report successes. Because rural communities needed archetypes of success,

national and local newspapers carried stories on community successes. These stories

minimized the role that SRP played in a community’s success. Leadership at SRP

internalized this as a good thing since the process is owned by the community, not SRP.

In its pilot phase, FE played a pivotal role in organizing leaders from local, state,

and national government to convene around the opportunities that CEC provided the

community. The leaders were brought out to the school sites. These contacts were

beneficial in providing access to partners within the local government and to assist with

moving the model statewide. The national leader was sponsoring legislation in Congress

related to this concept. Overall, the concept was considered intuitively "right" and studies

had shown it was something the community supported.

It was a strategic decision for FE to remain overseer for the Initiative. FE was

closely tied to public education and had a mission to interrelate with the community. Its

visibility in local, state, and national networks also made them an optimal choice for a

central role. As a participant from FE said, "[CEC] fit well into what we do well as a

foundation, which is to bring people to the table." Each partner (organizations that

113represented public, nonprofit and private and the community-at-large) in CEC had

differentiated roles around the same mission. All levels of community were invited to

become engaged in the activities of CEC.

Nonprofit organizations in the city had a history of partnering around grants.

However, the partnering didn't usually produce a collective mission. It was generally

multiple missions driven by multiple agencies blanketed under a grant. Once

collaborators obtained the awards, often they would retreat from the collective and work

independently with their share of the allocated funds. CEC was innovative in that it

"pushed the envelope" toward a collective mission.

The mission for CEC is intertwined throughout its structure. The various

stakeholders in the project are considered partners, which gives a diversity of input and

output. The input was given through both informal and formal channels and brought back

up through the Leadership Council of CEC. This gave the system flexibility and allowed

for the Initiative to consider each school's needs rather than a boilerplate approach in

programming. However, there were institutionalized features made public that served to

legitimatize the Initiative. These were a series of statements or protocols that included

mission and vision statements, operating principles, practice guidelines, and formal

evaluation. News releases and formal publications also highlighted the work and carried

the ideals of the mission further into the community.

The data showed that after recognizing the opportunity, the Initiatives aligned

leadership around the functions and goals (mission) of the Initiatives. The locus of

decision-making for maintenance of the Initiatives was a core leadership group, which

included the two local foundations. Strategizing the opportunity also identified

114mechanisms to build capacities, evaluate resource flows, and influence policy. This

was accomplished through aligned leadership and a combined mission.

Structuring Opportunity

Structuring opportunity was defined in the data as the creation of permeable

boundaries around the activities that will generate ideas and opportunity. The data

pointed to how opportunity was convened through frameworks of activity. These

activities included institutionalizing features so that rules, roles, practices and beliefs

were supported. Learning from outcomes and impacts were applied back into the

frameworks.

The structure for the SRP Initiative was not a simple structure at the community

level. A group of volunteers at the community level were responsible to organize the

local activities of SRP. A site leader was responsible for several communities as the

framework was implemented. The site leader was generally a paid staff from one of the

core partner's organization. This person had the potential to be a specialist in an area of

community development, rather than a generalist. This meant access to others in the

network of leadership was essential for immediate feedback when issues developed

outside the scope of expertise for the person leading activities in a community.

The SRP Initiative is considered a flexible framework tailored to each

community's needs (this is similar to the CEC framework, which provides for each school

and neighborhood). The features offered depended on which portfolio or what

combination of portfolios was offered. For example, sometimes the leadership base in a

community was very small. Finding the "special people" needed to lead the projects

115around the SRP framework was difficult. The community may feature one portfolio at

a time and over a longer period than a community that has another level of readiness.

Several institutional partners were attached to the SRP programming, including

colleges and universities, public and private entities. An executive committee acted as the

governing body, which was made up of the four core partners and various other selected

parties within the field of rural development. The committee's role was to strategize

opportunities for communities, provide maintenance to the overall structure of SRP, share

learned outcomes, advice on issues (including rural policy) and also provide intervention

into the process as needed.

It was shared that there is an inherent challenge in this "kind of structure versus a

corporate structure". Anyone of the stakeholders violating the trust or accountability had

the potential to damage "social contact and relationship" with one another, the

communities, or the Initiative. Adding structure that would manage issues, such as

reporting functions or formal meetings was instituted as a strategy to overcome any

unexpected problems.

The SRP Initiative operated under a consulting business model. All partners had

a performance contract. Each could be compensated for hours and/or completed

objectives. Consulting fees were managed by the organization providing the service(s)

and also helped to sustain other programming. Sometimes communities engaged in the

SRP framework were asked to supply seed money to match the NFI grant. However, the

money from NFI was seen by SRP as "a next stage venture investment" to support

research and development of the framework. In order for SRP to have sustaining power,

and the community to own the SRP framework, it was felt appropriate for communities to

116pay for assistance. This was considered related to the value of ownership. The

partners will continue to pursue outside funding, which they would like to keep in the

research and development coffers. This money may be used to apply the framework for

those communities that are under resourced.

The Initiative was developing what they called a "learning network". It would

expand their communication, help to organize activities and primarily serve as a way to

develop the Initiatives capacity by continual learning. The core partners were intentional

about creating an inclusive network and being on the cutting-edge of research and policy.

SRP was willing to partner with any entity that was amenable to the cause and integrity

that moved the SRP Initiative forward.

SRP had hired an outside evaluation service for the Initiative. The senior member

of this team was an accomplished academic and had been a great resource for the SRP

core partners over the last several decades. The participants in the study were looking

forward to the learning generated from a high level activity such as the design of this

evaluation.

According to participants, there was enough of a framework to support CEC to be

legitimate. Yet the framework had flexible informal networks to promote innovative

changes. The flexibility was a little awkward initially. One participant related it as "a

little bit of fumbling around feeling" from "not really understanding who was on first".

This was alleviated when two manager positions were created that gave a "better feel that

there was somebody in charge."

The structure was planned to create an organization that was task efficient and

could maintain itself. The Leadership Council's role was to maximize CEC influence and

117staying power. Participants related responsibilities "to guide the long term financing"

and mobilize and leverage resources from the community. Committees represented the

neighborhood around each school. These were educators, community-based

organizations, businesses, and service providers. Their role was to provide assistance in

planning and communication that was consistent with the diversity of its neighborhood.

A third body of leadership was called Action Teams, made up of people from various

community organizations. These teams leveraged institutional histories and knowledge.

Specifically, the teams provided professional development, established best practices, and

combined research and evaluation. A network of service providers were able to use these

resources to better the activities of the Initiative and to keep the Executive leadership

council informed. The role of staff at the school was to implement and integrate programs

from all the representative partnerships at the school location. Staff supporting CEC may

not have had prior experience with community development. Participants interviewed

related that most of the people working in programming at the schools came from

specialized backgrounds in youth development, education, or similar areas.

The CEC Initiative did not have 501 (c) 3 status as a nonprofit entity. One

participant viewed the evolved structure as beneficial for the Initiative. Moreover, money

was coming from several funding streams, so the type of structure created was to show a

structure that "alleviated some of this pressure to legalize an entity".

According to a participant, earlier research from the Foundation had shown

"every school it didn’t matter where you were, what socio-economics, there’s needs that

could be accomplished by having it right in the building". The original CEC pilot

included four elementary schools and had expanded operations into 19 of the city's

118elementary and middle schools. Each school was paired with organizations from

public and nonprofit entities that had partnered with CEC. There were also two

coordinators for CEC. Their offices were located within one of the partnering

organizations. In addition, CEC had relationships with local neighborhood organizations

and affiliated community-based initiatives that included local businesses. These groups

worked together usually in the form of committees. An outreach coordinator from CEC

would generally work at the location of the school and would meet with local

neighborhood groups to strategize goals and projects that were relevant to that school's

location and the surrounding community.

The structure of the Initiative also facilitated a feedback loop. Each time an

opportunity was convened a lesson was learned and applied to the next opportunity. At

the local middle school a student came up to the site CEC leader with an idea to have a

'rock' school with a scheduled performance as part of the after-school activities sponsored

by CEC and the local agency sponsor. Not only was this innovative, innovation like it

snowballed. Once CEC was able to put resources behind the student's concept, success

followed.

Academic achievement and character responsibilities were placed on the students

as conditions for participation. Eventually, more contemporary and relevant

programming started popping up in middle schools there and around the city. Following a

media blitz on the rock show, CEC leaders said they received numerous phone calls from

young adult musicians in the community who were asking to volunteer in these activities.

Citizenry were engaging in an opportunity that had been convened by CEC.

119An example of community and staff interaction occurred when CEC started at

one location five years ago. Staff of CEC was invited to monthly meetings with the

neighborhood families and the school. These meetings served as focus groups where

trends and issues in the neighborhoods would emerge through discussion. A local

swimming pool was getting closed down and that was a concern. Another concern was a

safety issue with a street that ran next to the school. The parents and CEC banned

together and worked with Urban Development and the city to resolve the two issues. A

participant said, "We had a couple that were really strong advocates and they'd call and

work really hard to make that happen and they made the case." A participant said that

CEC learned quickly that activating the families got more attention with the city (and the

city was a great partner). At the same time, the coordinated activities developed through

CEC were instrumental in moving the change process.

Funding for the Initiative comes from multiple sources, not just the NNFE

monies. Many of the activities sponsored under the CEC umbrella were from resources

held by partnering organizations. Some of the organizations charged fees for services and

resources (social enterprise) that typically support youth development and after-school

programming. Many businesses will support efforts through donations of money, time

served on committees and buying resources for a particular need. One example was a

garbage disposal for the school. According to a staff person with CEC, the greatest

example of an engaged citizenry was when neighborhood folks recognized a need and

went after funding in a way that matched their abilities. For instance, one mother was a

great baker so she held a bake sale to help supply a resource for CEC. The amount of

120money wasn't significant in the scope of the agency's budget, but the effort and

commitment demonstrated the cause.

Context

Context is the circumstances in which the participants in the study interact or

create actions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). There were four notable conditions of context in

'convening opportunity' that will be described here. They were: macro dynamics of the

environment, domain where the activity occurs, opportunity as defined within the

respective domains, and institutional features.

Community Context

Participants spoke of large global issues and state and city issues that contributed

to the context. However, according to the participants there were a few conditions of the

macro dynamics that formed specific actions.

Participants from each Initiative reported conditions of migration that contributed

to creating strategies. For the state Initiative, out-migration of young people from rural

areas was considered as "by far the most profound and the most detrimental" situation

impacting the economic future of rural towns. For the city Initiative, there were concerns

of "high mobility" and moving from "school to school". According to a participant, this

mobility impacted home-life, school performance, and neighborhoods.

Diverse populations stem from macro-situations. Many students and families

involved in the CEC framework came from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.

Programs and resource flows were adjusted to address ethnic and cultural diversity. In

SRP Initiative resource flows and strategies were implemented to adjust to the

121circumstances found in communities. A partner spoke of the issues surrounding

ability to pay. The participant said:

I mean to raise that kind of money [for the framework] you need a population of

about 5,000 at least. So for smaller communities, it means they might have to

collaborate together to raise that for that level of engagement (working together is

not necessarily a norm in rural areas). The downside is that there’s a whole set of

limited resource communities. Of course that’s where we’ll use some of our grant

money. It gives us an ability to partner with the tribes, with the new Americans,

with the historic Hispanic communities. This is where the capacity right now isn't

there to pay full freight. So you know that’s where we’re going to provide

leveraged opportunities to work with those communities.

Interpretations within the Domain

The domain is the "specific goals [the organization or group] wishes to pursue and

the functions it undertakes to implement its goals" (Levine & White, 1961, p. 597). Each

of the Initiatives described their functions related to development activities. However, the

CEC Initiative's central focus was public education and development activities other than

education were described more as a means to that end. SRP's goals were specific to

development. The domain influenced what actions or interactions occurred.

SRP's domain was building capacities through an initiative. The variety of names

identified by participants included: "economic development", "rural development",

"community development", "leadership development", and "entrepreneurship

development". There were also internal goals related to capacity in their Initiative. The

SRP framework was an "opportunity to innovate and so in this way it's very much a

122laboratory." SRP intended to "push the envelope and try ideas, learn from that, revise

and over time have the set of approaches that really do have traction".

The participants of the CEC Initiative, referred to the functions of the Initiative as

"programming", "after-school programming", "community-based programming"," youth

development", "community schooling", "community building", and "community

development", with tangential impacts of "economic development". There were internal

goals identified as "staff development", so internal capacities could be increased.

However, the goals of CEC were to address "the needs of poor children and youth, to

close the achievement gap between minority and non-minority students, and to foster

community involvement in school improvement efforts".

A constant-comparison of the data revealed two sets of language in the Initiatives.

Opportunities, context, and strategies were defined within the domain of the respective

Initiatives and their organizational culture using the language and philosophies

characteristic of their constituency (e.g. rural economic development versus urban

educational contexts). Each of the Initiatives, however, viewed convening opportunity

was through stakeholder networks. They applied frameworks to convene opportunity by

managing resource flows, provide learning networks, and legitimated structure with well-

articulated, value-driven collective goals.

Opportunity defined by participants from SRP revealed a framework to "grow

hope" by "building capacities" in leadership, small business owners, entrepreneurs,

communities, and in the SRP framework. The greatest advantage of having the

opportunity was to increase rural communities' capacities to solve their own problems.

123CEC defined opportunity along the line of a framework to "build learner-

centered communities through public engagement". This was also a capacity building

framework. However, the goal had the student and education explicitly "in the center".

While each Initiative's participants used the words "community development" to

describe "goals" or "mission" objectives, each domain had a somewhat different meaning

to describe context. For instance, in SRP Initiative, community development was stated

with terms to increase leadership capacities or economic or social conditions in

community. Whereas, CEC, since their primary goal (and organizational culture) was

public education and youth development, "community development" was stated in terms

like an "holistic approach" or "family outreach activity" or combating the overall affects

of a child coming to school with "all this baggage" so that health and social conditions

were addressed.

The data also supported that the participants were well read and well versed in

topics related to their domain. Several were published authors. Participants used

patterned language and jargon associated with their domain. Much of the language used

by SRP was script-like. This was most evident when participants discussed

entrepreneurship. Perhaps this was a result of "multiple sets of conversations" over the

years or shared experiences in writing grants and proposals. One participant volunteered

a history of entrepreneurship and traits of entrepreneurs from his vast reading and

experience. Participants had also professed an entrepreneurial culture.

Institutional Features

Several institutional features provided a context for interaction. The data revealed

several partners in the Initiatives having 501 (c) 3 statuses and governing structures that

124gave input for the Initiatives. This broadened the influences, relationships and

boundaries for the Initiatives.

Both structures of the Initiatives had features resembling their organizational

structures. Terms that identified units were: "executive", "leadership", "management",

"program," "community," or "neighborhood." These units were organized on: "boards",

"councils", "committees" or "groups". Roles were labeled "partner"," president", "vice

president," "chairman", "chief executive officer", "Co-Director", "Executive Director",

"boss", "supervisor", "staff", "coach", "member", "lead person," "lead representative" or

"volunteer." Most relationships were described in terms of "collaborating" or

"partnerships."

An interesting feature between the two Initiatives was that participants from CEC

reserved the term "leadership" for those at the apex of the Initiative. An exception was a

participant who worked directly with neighborhood groups used the term of "mantle" to

describe actions of leadership taken on by community members. A focus for SRP's

Initiative was to create youth and adult "community leaders".

Each Initiative had a hierarchy of task assignments that were managed within a

partner's organization or at the community or school. Some members in CEC had "dotted

lines" between organizations.

Because the Initiatives' frameworks were applied differently within the

communities, there were considerable differences in how task assignments were carried

out. Operating guidelines were formalized and explicitly stated by the CEC framework.

Each community-based partner also had its own structure and rules. This according to

one participant could be confusing for a site supervisor working "on the ground" with an

125agency. In the SRP Initiative, operating rules were generated and managed by the

organization providing services. In both Initiatives some services were free to the

community and others required fees.

Managing resource flows was a function of the institutional structure and a

significant contextual condition that impacted action. Managing resource flows in the

nonprofit setting meant being careful of "turf issues" or "competing with your own

partners" for resources. The partners at CEC were already putting in more than the typical

40 hour work week. Chasing grants wasn't good. According to a participant, you can't "let

the tail wag the dog". However, some schools "were already out of funding to do family

outreach or community development" so grants were a viable option. One participant

from CEC agreed that revenues generated by nonprofit organizations are likely to become

subject to more scrutiny, especially if the money didn't go back into the mission. Partners

with CEC who charged for before-or-after school programs were doing so to help sustain

missions. Fee-based programs were in areas of the city where socio-economic conditions

were good.

The Initiatives' generated revenues were used to support their frameworks or were

recovered by the partnering organization. In SRP additional revenues could help "pay the

freight" for under resourced communities, which was a norm in the nonprofit setting.

SRP was also able to provide assistance and mentoring, training, and consulting. This

was "to facilitate those groups of volunteers or employees to build action plans and

strategy". So in-turn they take their resources and expand the SRP framework in their

community.

126SRP emphasized an often overlooked resource flow. Capital could be tapped

under the wealth-transfer paradigm that FRO had championed. Communities could create

affiliated funds under the FRO umbrella and provide funding to utilize the SRP

framework. According to a participant it was "always assumed within broad economics,

but especially within rural economics" that "capital was our limiting resource".

Communities paying "the freight" for their own futures looked promising. Leadership

from FE also recognized the potential of wealth-transfer between generations to bring

resources to K-12 education.

The two foundations in the Initiatives knew the tension that comes with

philanthropy. "That’s always the trick …getting the unrestricted dollars, because most

people like to leave restricted dollars." Funds are needed for the "back office" work in

philanthropy. Besides sustaining the foundations, a concern for SRP was how to establish

endowments to sustain communities forever. Unrestricted endowments were needed

"because we know that what they [community] need today, and what they need twenty

years ago. We can’t possibly determine what they’re going to need in twenty years."

"Selling an unrestricted endowment isn’t "sexy" because "it’s not bricks and mortar."

CEC were able to get additional resources from the community-at-large by

networking and "bringing partners to the table". The consistency of volunteer resources

had an ebb and flow, which made it difficult to predict impact. These resources were

based on voluntary donations or grants. By placing the framework for the CEC Initiative

in the schools, they were utilizing a "best public resource" and a fixed infrastructure.

Macro dynamics such as diversity and socio-economic conditions were

considered as context. The domain each Initiative was located in influenced

127interpretations of opportunity and shared meanings. Several other institutional

features, including culture and norms were found as context.

Intervening Conditions

Intervening conditions "mitigate or otherwise alter the impact of causal conditions

on phenomena"(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 131). The opportunity trajectory (causal

condition) was the national foundations providing the capacities to convene opportunity

as city and state Initiatives. The national foundations provided financial, knowledge and

social capital. This included a well-articulated, values-driven social cause with strategies

identified (were conditional to funding) and the resources to permit the Initiatives to

convene "opportunity".

The conditions identified that could mitigate or alter the resource flow or

strategies identified were capacity issues. These were institutional, community, and

personal capacities.

Institutional Capacities

The participants expressed conditions regarding the scale and the scope (including

diversity issues) of the Initiatives' institutional capacities. Maintaining a viable

framework remained a challenge to institutional capacity. SRP participants expressed

concerns with the Initiative adapting to increased scale. This meant protecting the

entrepreneurial culture. A participant projected that, "if you move to scale and as you

achieve growth, if you don’t build mechanisms for [an enterprising culture] to

happen…there’s a whole set of organizational constraints that begin to ratchet that

down". There were also opportunities considered. A participant stated:

128I’ve tended to be pretty conservative about our growth…wanting us to make

sure we kind of incrementally grow. But of course with [the NFI grant] that raised

the profile. There were a whole lot of folks now that said boy we want to partner.

So the immediate sense is well you’ve got to reach that opportunity when it

comes.

The CEC Initiative also had mixed concerns for growth and many concerns for

sustainability. Resources were a predominant issue. A participant stated, "Creativity, it

far outpaces the resources we have and the [staff] time we have to develop those".

Another participant said,

As we grow bigger, as we expand the base within the communities or the

neighborhoods in terms of program offerings and more agencies get involved, I

don’t know. It may come to the point where we’ve got to draw a line, but I don’t

think we’re there yet.

Addressing issues in diversity, (gender, culture, race or national origin), was a

condition that mitigated process. A participant from CEC related that local leadership is

primarily "white middle class, upper class people, who don't reflect the communities they

serve". However, communities that are diverse in culture or race or national origin

primarily had the same handful of community activists or leaders. It was a well known

challenge in the city that it was difficult to get good representation of the diverse

community on committees or councils. Partners in CEC could have missions aligned with

faith-based principles not necessarily in alignment with beliefs held in all of the

communities. This was a tension, although well-articulated goals of CEC overcame most

issues.

129 A facilitating feature of the Initiatives' structure was that community

representatives were convened to decide what their neighborhood or communities needed

in terms of service or programs. For instance, in the CEC model, there were different

programs at each center due to the local leaders' input. In the SRP model, the

communities' leadership could choose any one of the four portfolios the framework

offered. And this service could be provided by a number of service providers.

The decentralized features of embedding leadership at the community level and

convening multiple partners at the location of the community were a unique to the SRP

Initiative. Continuous training of new leadership at the local level could have the effect

regenerating the framework with new capacities that could influence the intended

outcomes of change. There were discussions within SRP about "exit strategies".

However, the framework, particularly under an affiliated fund model for local

philanthropy, made SRP "forever" partners in communities. Because communities

provided the "bulk of the resources" for the framework, "quality control" and oversight

were a function of the local "site coaches". These coaches (usually a person affiliated

with a partnering entity) were described by a participant as, "lead representatives in that

community to ensure quality control. We want to know that we’re being creative in

helping solve problems [and] taking advantage of opportunities." This "architecture" was

designed to create a "learning community" by establishing a network to gather the input

and output information through the site coaches.

For CEC the benefit of a loose structure with many partners was "people did not

feel the pressure against their turf". Each partnering organization worked within

guidelines of their organization. Member partners also had representation on the

130governing structure of the Initiative. Regarding working with these community-based

partners a participant said,

[Community-based partners] have the wherewithal to raise some of their own

funding. But [CEC] are giving enough funding that community-based partners

want to stay part of this larger initiative. So you know you extend your ability by

tapping into the strengths of other organizations that have a proven track record in

the community.

The governing group tried to establish a system so staff "on the ground" did not have to

"serve two masters". With the arrangement as it was with multiple organizations,

participants acknowledged that "open communication" was essential. Communications

were made "easy" by "inter-school mail" and "web-based e-mail". Nonetheless, the

framework's permeable boundaries made "plugging-in" the various partners difficult to

conceptualize. The feeling was that if you "kind of herd these cats in one direction" the

framework was working.

Proximity to others was an organizational characteristic that kept coming up in the

data. This impacted engagement in the process and expanded learning opportunities. FE

and FRO were each advantaged by their propinquity with the national foundations.

Having access to these networks and the leadership at the national level was instrumental

in gaining access to information and resources.

CEC centralized their activities in "outreach" facilities. CEC ability to place staff

near the Principals and hold activities in the school was important for public engagement.

Secondly, placement of the office for CEC coordinators provided a "closer working

relationship with our partner because we’re housed in their building". Several of the core

131partners in SRP were co-locating into shared office space to facilitate easier access to

one another and foster "a creative environment".

Community Capacities

The communities' capacities was said to have varied across space and time. The

communities in the city didn't yet have the level of readiness to take full advantage of

public engagement through CEC framework. It had taken seven years to see the

successful results of a community betterment project that stemmed from a joint Initiative

around housing. Growth in the Initiative's partners suggested engagement was still

emerging. Most of the successful programming featured in local media was youth

development. Adult development was still lagging. A participant said (regarding the

school buildings and adult programming),

You know people don’t consume public goods very much anymore. Parks tend

not to appeal to affluent suburban populations, as much as they appeal to new

Americans or refugees. Our society tends to look down on public goods and

maybe the fact that there isn't a lot of adult programming in schools is not a

failure of CEC. It’s just a reflection of the consumer demand.

There were several examples of community readiness that impacted public

engagement (or "psychological engagement") with Initiatives’ activities. Due to the

newness of the concept of frameworks, there was a generalized lack of understanding in

the community that CEC provided an "infrastructure that anybody can plug into as long

as there’s the need".

The CEC Initiative required a cross-section of community leadership's "buy-in" in

order to mobilize partnering agencies. It was felt that the city had an effect of being a

132"small community" that had advantages and disadvantages. It was stated that like

within many communities, the formalized leadership will have some people "committed

to and living by the status quo", which acted as a constraint to other development

activities. However, within the CEC Initiative the "small community effect" was an

advantage. Good relationships with the community were viewed as instrumental in

enrolling partners. Also, there was a kind of checks and balance that came with diverse

thinking around the "child at the center". A participant said,

You need some kind of institutional behavior. You need people who are worried

about pennies and you need people who are worried about formalities and

structures. And then you need these soft, mushy hearted people who are thinking

let’s get through this crap and make sure that these kids are getting what they

deserve.

SRP experienced problems with community readiness related to community size,

or a lack of local leadership available to coordinate activities. In other communities,

support from elected officials was necessary to get "complete buy in." Sometimes the

necessary "advocates" were not available. There was always a sense of optimism in

approaching any community. According to one participant,

What we know about systems change, and what we know about movements is

you don’t need a majority. In fact, you can get by with 30% of highly passionate

people to actually change an entire system.

There were many communities very strategically ready to apply the framework of

SRP and had. The annual report of the NFI had showcased one community that had an

increase of ten young couples moving to the rural town of Pandora. The report included a

133short video, which used a lot of symbolism to frame the work of SRP in the state. The

message was that a rural community could "basically control your own destiny".

According to the video, "a hallmark of this initiative is…creative cooperation…based on

homegrown assets". The video went on to show that the focal community was replicating

the Initiatives' creative cooperation and had built a new capacity to continue to do so.

Personal Capacities

The personal capacity of leadership was a strong mitigating factor. The relational

networks of trust and reciprocal behavior, social capital, held by the leadership in both

Initiatives influenced the availability of resources. "Relationships" and "trust "were

threaded throughout the data. The relationship that partnering organizations had with

each other was found to develop respect and trust. A participant said,

You know you have to have that ability to kind of weigh things and make

decisions kind of on the fly that are both practical and reasonable. But also serve

the interests of your students or chances are you miss getting any opportunities.

And that depends upon you having good relationships. If you don’t have good

relationships you’re unwilling to take those kinds of risks. So the relationship that

[two partners in CEC] have allows him to take those kinds of chances. To do

things a little bit on the edge that you know you have to do to be a successful

entrepreneur.

Particularly, it was felt that the principal's support and understanding of "what

[CEC] is and what it isn't" was critical. It was also important for executive leadership to

understand that for those "on the ground…the world looks very different than sitting in

an administrative chair", so communication and understanding were underscored.

134The capacities of leadership within the Initiatives were significant influences

on process. Because the study featured FE and FRO as entry points into the study, there

were many supportive comments by participants regarding the top leadership of those

two organizations and their directors. The national foundations' leadership was also

highly praised. Observation and interaction with all of the participants interviewed (who

were recognized officially by one another as "leaders") illustrated personal capacities of

great intellect, passionate persuasive abilities, and strategic orientations. The comments

that demonstrated the strengths of leadership were plentiful. The participants were

humorous, and thoughtful. Participants revealed insights into their character and abilities

to influence. For example, as one participant said,

"But it's fun because we take the community's cares and concerns, all the families,

you know neighborhood people, we'll interact with them or the business people

and say, "Gosh we're having a lot of problems with tagging, what can you guys do

about that?"

Examples are given for several comments that demonstrated knowledge or

experience of colleagues. "He is the perfect example of the social entrepreneur." "He is

very savvy." "I had been picked out of a pool of people from the state's industry to help

decide how to advance entrepreneurship in the state." It was stated that for an

entrepreneur is was important to "leverage your experiential past and add to it with the

educational past."

Additionally, there were insights into the depth of understanding that some of the

participants had about self in entrepreneurship or as an entrepreneur. A participant

described a philosophy that each person has a filter of "what’s rightful and appropriate"

135as determined by "culture". Each person has orientations that are "political, economic,

social, altruistic, individual, and theoretical", according to the participant. An aware

person can be self-regulating and find strategies to balance these dimensions of self. It

was considered important to uncover "operating models" of entrepreneurship.

The personal capacity to be innovative as a leader was a critical condition that

would facilitate or constrain process. Leadership asked hard questions and moved

through bureaucratic trappings. As a participant said,

…people that are willing to kind of say, “Well I understand that but is that really

enough? It may be sufficient but is it really adequate?” So they are always

thinking about new ways to bring in new resources in creative ways. I think [it]

tends to make people who are used to a very comfortable bureaucracy,

uncomfortable.

The intervening conditions for 'convening opportunity' were those capacities that

were dynamic and could always be in flux. These conditions and capacities could

facilitate or constrain the strategies or outcomes of the causal condition of the Initiatives.

Each Initiative had similar categories of conditions, but each case had some degrees of

difference.

Strategies

"There are actions/interactions, which are strategic or routine responses made by

individuals or groups to issues, problems, happenings, or events that arise under those

conditions" (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 128). Answering the process questions of how

opportunity was convened and who convened it formed an understanding of the strategies

136used. Making the case and forging partnerships were the two primary strategies in the

process of ‘convening opportunity’.

Making the Case "Buy in" or "psychological engagement" or "sell" or "making the case" were

terms used to describe the interactions to persuade others to support a social cause or to

move others to action in the Initiatives. Audiences for making the case ranged from

policy makers, supporters, or partners who provide services to the consumers of the

service.

Persuasive language was used to explore collective goals and to leverage

resources. Sometimes it was democratic principles and utilitarian concepts projected in

the language used. For example one participant said, "That they [the community] could

be the next one to do some greater good on behalf of society." Creating rhetoric to cast

meaning that was "conceivable and believable" was considered a strategic necessity.

Especially, since the leaders believed that the "ownership stake" communities must

address was a pivotal piece. As one participant stated, "The problem with community is

nobody owns it and everybody owns it". So how the case was made to community was

critical. This was considered to be "psychologically engaging" people.

Both Initiatives were using techniques of appreciative inquiry to draw upon the

communities' voices in determining community needs and desires. When asked how you

would advise someone doing the work, a participant with the CEC Initiative said,

I would say, get out and talk with people. Meet with people and find out what

drives them. Find out what's important to them and what they want to see in the

community that is centered on the school. Talk with parents, talk with kids, find

137out, talk to the neighborhood people, talk to the business and just listen.

The issues involved with making a case were critical to the mission of the

Initiatives. Consequently, framing was important to narrow meanings down to something

understandable. The issues framed by SRP were to show economic "relevancy" of rural

areas and convince others "there’s not enough either of government or charitable money

to get this stuff done", it would take entrepreneurship or leveraging resources. For the

CEC Initiative making the case required framing the Initiative as natural partners in

creating a healthier, more participative community.

The way to "make the case" was the same in each Initiative. The best

communication was "telling the stories". Sometimes these were stories of the needs, but

mostly the "success stories" encouraged "buy-in". Sometimes it was multiple "sets of

conversations" over time that built relationships.

And then we just begin to educate people on the nature of the constituency and

the fact that you have to build coalitions just like the rings on a tree, one heart and

one mind at a time through the relationships that core of people have.

In each Initiative public engagement was a "cornerstone" to the movement for

systemic change. The earliest problems that the CEC Initiative had with the buzzword

"public engagement" had made it clear that not only a "case" was to be made for

engagement, but a clear understanding of the "case" was critical. Accordingly, a

participant explained how important it was to be "introducing language with the idea that

that helps you build culture and a shared understanding of what it is we’re trying to do".

138The words used to name SRP sometimes were not understood by people

outside the immediate culture of SRP. To make the case in communities and with

collaborators there was a commitment "to creating some new language’. A participant

from SRP said,

Our work is based on pretty rigorous research. But when we go out into the field

and work with people those translations are made so that folks can understand it. I

mean it’s like this idea of entrepreneurial talent …it’s awkward for people at first

but we think it’s important that we have a shared understanding of this concept

Branding was helpful to leverage or mobilize resources. The CEC model received

national branding under the 21st Century grant. The city Initiative’s network model was

unlike most other CEC initiatives. It was felt by one participant that other centers with

"less of an ability to raise their own funds is probably more dependent on the brand and

the materials". Local news carried many stories about CEC. However, the reality was that

on the ground CEC were known by parents and students as "before-and-after school

programs".

Collaborators in the SRP Initiative often used their own program name-brands as

they provided services in communities. The local coordinator was responsible for fitting

these pieces together under the SRP umbrella.

The name "Sustaining Rural Prosperity" was thought to "evoke an emotional

response from people beyond just saying your community." A participant said, "We are

very intentional about using the word [sic] because we’re pretty sure it has an amazing

emotional connection to their hometowns". Another participant said, "Words are

important and we spend a lot of time with it and probably should spend more."

139The message was articulated multiple times by each participant in SRP Initiative.

They said (in same or similar version),

[SRP] says… it says, keep in touch. You may go outside to learn, but don’t

dismiss the fact that you can have an environment in your hometown, if the

hometown takes care of its politics, leadership and youth engagement and

philanthropy. It’s possible for you to come back to this small town and do it.

Participants from CEC used words like "working together and get organized" as

something the partners were doing. Subsequently, creating and organizing activities for

adult and families that utilized the school buildings was something that they found

challenging. One participant told of the problem with engaging parents at CEC "in any

kind of meaningful way in terms of direct services provision". The participant said,

"So in order for communities to truly utilize schools’ resources, [schools] just

can’t be glorified, extended day learning opportunities. If you really want to take

ownership over your schools, you have to be able to use [the schools] more for

everybody.

Forging Partnerships

SRP’s core partners envisioned "a very long term endeavor" under a basic

collaborative model. As a partner said, "That’s how we do business and have done

business for quite some time. So that part is not unique to us." Historically, the partners

had witnessed as a rural development strategy "based upon deficiency". Government

grants were based on who could plead the best case. A participant said, "We’ve said you

need to give us money because we’re poorer than you are and that’s the system we’ve set

up". The new strategies were a major shift. As a partner said,

140You know I think we’ve a real commitment on all of our parts to use this as an

opportunity to kind of rationalize our relationship. I mean really integrate the

services we offer to communities… Actually instead of seeing all these different

players out there they see a cohesive mold that’s really been thought out and that

fits together.

The partners of SRP were individually committed to having an entrepreneurial

culture in the partnership. A participant said,

Most of the central players in this [partnership] are pretty entrepreneurial

themselves and fairly creative people themselves. They’re bringing those

orientations and those personalities to the table. I think the second thing is over

the last three or four years we have built a culture where we’ve said

[entrepreneurial approaches are] important. I mean it’s important that we get paid.

It’s important we do good work. But part of this is, at this point in all of our

professional careers, being creative and trying to be on the cutting edge of what’s

going to work is personally pretty important to us.

The partners believed that communication in the culture was "wide open". Being

colleagues had brought them through "difficult times" and worked it through so that they

have maintained friendships and professional relationships. The next challenge to the

partnership was how to bring new partners into an existing culture.

The leadership for SRP was thoughtful about how to balance strategic and

creative processes. To convene opportunity they were "intentional", "deliberate", and

"strategic" in locating the "right people", "right places" and at the "right levels". And

creative processes were beneficial in convening opportunity. A participant said,

141The other thing that we’re currently working on is through our learning

community... set aside bigger blocks of time …pull into that creative mold…

when you do that is the opportunity to bring other people in so that you expand

the kinds of people around the table, which enriches the creative process. So

we’re trying to be fairly intentional about ensuring that we maintain a creative

element in this and I think that’s particularly important that as we are growing the

demands to simply run this thing are getting bigger. And it’s very easy then to let

the creative time get pushed out.

The SRP Initiative participants had to balance their time with being creative and

learning from their "experiment". This work was a learning process to balance the

"tension between short term and long term gain". The short term was to have funds to pay

the bills and the long term was to create mechanisms that could sustain the Initiative. The

partners also had to learn the balance of immediate value and long term effects in the

communities. A participant said,

I mean communities they like this stuff. But … when they go back to the County

Commissioners, they’re going to look at those bottom line metrics and [ask] has

progress been made. Whether we feel more enlightened or not isn’t going to get

them to write a check.

The community-based partners in the CEC framework were considered strong

partners by participants. The network provided resources for partners, which included

some funding and materials. However, there remained a tension for community-based

partners to keep their branding and their relationship in the community solid because

142each partner was responsible for his/her primary source of funding. The success of

the network was the relationships being built. A participant said,

Working in partnership of all these collaborative organizations and the school and

that's, that was really tricky. And it did, it took a long time and cause we had to

build relationships and that's, I guess essentially that's what it's about is building

relationships between people between organizations, building trust and it takes a

long time and it doesn't take much to wreck that.

Partnering meant that there was a value-added resource of the CEC framework

available in the community. An example of a partner's work "on the ground" in this new

area of community development was that of facilitating community's engagement. A

participant said,

We’re just more as an advisor and kind of help facilitate the use of the building

and connections. Sometimes there's value added resources, like we're members of

the food bank. So if like they [the local neighborhood committee] need food

brought, we'll check the food bank list. If we can provide that we'll let you know.

Or we've got a babysitting club [at another site] and there's a parenting class going

to be put on by the school psychologist and school counselor. We'll match that

resource to provide childcare for the parenting class. So we kind of help facilitate

these things. About three times a year we really start talking about goals and what

do we want to try to accomplish and things. But in between those meetings, it's

really about getting those things done and checking that list off and jump through

all the hoops we got to get these things done.

143Each Initiative used making the case and forging partnerships to convene

opportunity. The behaviors that participants identified were both strategic and routine

actions. Making the case was through multiple sets of conversations with different

audiences. These conversations and dialogues were both appreciative inquiries from the

communities and making a "sell" to the community for them to engage. There was

considerable attention given to framing language or developing shared meanings within

the culture of each Initiative. Partnering was strategically locating and identifying the

most salient stakeholders. Balancing the power in the Initiatives, as well as pooling

resources, was a process of acknowledging partners strengths and leveraging those

strengths.

Outcomes

Strategies (actions/interactions) have outcomes. These outcomes may be a failure

to respond to or a result of the strategies (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). An outcome of

systemic change was not a verifiable condition of 'convening opportunity' in this study.

The primary outcomes in both Initiatives were creating frameworks that continued to

convene opportunity. The frameworks had both intended and unintended outcomes.

The model of SRP was considered "innovative" by the initiators and the

facilitator. The scope of this community development effort pushed into unexploited

areas by placing multiple resources into one Initiative. According to a participant, "It

becomes very robust in terms of the number of communities, the scale, the budget, and

the number of people involved. So that makes it unique because of the duration and the

scale of the Initiative." Additionally, the feature of SRP being a "network" embedded into

144the community was intentional. A participant said, "They don’t have to be doing

[development of rural areas] in a vacuum or in a silo, but now are part of the community

doing this". The partners had also developed a framework that was meant to appeal to the

sense-making abilities of people in community.

The SRP Initiative's approach to philanthropic grant-making gave communities a

framework to "break away from the restrictions that are placed on us when we get a grant

from the government". Through the affiliated fund approach power was given to the

community through greater "autonomy than that of a government relationship".

SRP's framework was also an opportunity for the partners to innovate within their

own domain of community development activity. They could, as a participant said,

"Go out and push the envelope and try ideas, learn from that and revise and over

time. Learn all the sets of approaches that really do have traction. So that’s part of

this too –the learning community. It is really the foundational tool of what we’re

trying to do with [the model].

Money and materials, and the social connections, "benefited the partners" in CEC.

Although, the core work of each partner is focused on schools that they have

relationships with to provide service. Since each community-based partner in the

Initiative must raise funds or their own organizations, those with "less of an ability to

raise their own funds are probably more dependent on the CEC brand and the materials

that they provide".

An innovation of the network was to enter into the domain for community

development in programs other than before-and-after school programs. These community

development activities were undergirded by the philosophy of public engagement.

145Serendipitously or strategically, the before-and-after school programs provided a

bridge to bring the community-at-large into the framework. A participant said,

…relationships …they get to know staff, … through positive interactions that they

learn to trust us and see us as partners helping their kids and their families provide

a service for free for them… from this…The Neighborhood Committee has really

taken the mantle on strengthening families and doing family events and things

like that.

Sometimes community development was happening in more incremental steps

than the youth development work (e.g. the neighborhood betterment project that had been

in committee for several years before fully engaging the neighborhood in a community

betterment project). However, the partners at the schools were also instrumental in

making community development happen. As a result, they were building their capacities

to learn and grow from the community processes.

So I think that's what, you know working together, everybody playing their role

and coordinating with everybody else we actually produce something far greater

than if you just kind of thrown little 'stone soup' out here.

The ability of the CEC Initiative to overcome "turf issues" was considered a

positive outcome by participants. Each partnering organization had autonomy with its

partnered schools and neighborhoods. CEC was a supporting framework that community-

based partners could attach to, so "turf" was less and less an issue after initial roll-out.

Both Initiatives received local, state, and national attention for their innovation in

community development and public engagement. The outcome of this recognition was

"humbling" and gratifying for the Initiatives' leaders.

146Summary of Convening Opportunity

The logic of Strauss and Corbin's (1998) technique is to organize findings within

categories to discover the process being studied. The logic applied to the study found

when a causal condition(s) exist (well-articulated values-driven cause and resources

availed) and these conditions contribute to a phenomenon (convening opportunity

through an Initiative), the context (macro and domain influences and institutional

features) and intervening conditions (institutional, community, and personal capacities)

influence the strategies that are employed (making the case and forging partnerships) to

bring about certain outcomes (frameworks that are network models of community

development that continue to convene).

For both cases the opportunity identified was to create systemic change in

communities by building the communities' capacities to engage in the process of

convening opportunity. These changes were articulated differently. However, the overall

effects were intended to be healthier more vibrant communities with greater social and

knowledge capacities. Opportunity was the possibility that a member of the community-

field identified with or created and implemented promising innovations, and necessary

resources were found and applied in order to sustain the innovation over time (Dorado,

2005).

Initiatives were created to provide a framework that was intended to build

capacities in individuals, community, and also within the frameworks. These

strengthened capacities were framed by stakeholders as a pattern of actions-reactions that

would lead to systems change. An engaged public could improve social conditions,

147because of the underpinning values of democracy and public engagement (community

ownership).

Convening opportunity in social entrepreneurship at was an action-reaction

process of recognizing opportunity, strategizing the opportunity, and structuring the

opportunity. Recognizing the opportunity provided a clear, well-articulated value-driven

cause to create strategies and structures that could mobilize resources and stimulate

collective action. The identified opportunity was to create systemic change by building

the communities' capacities to do so. The overarching value was identified as a

democratic principle of public engagement and the "community had to own the process"

in order for real change to occur.

Strategizing the opportunity identified mechanisms to build capacities, evaluate

resource flows, and influence policy. This was accomplished through aligned leadership

and a combined mission among all partners, including the constituencies plugged into the

network or framework.

Structuring the opportunity provided a framework for how opportunities were

convened within the social and community fields. These varied by context for each

Initiative.

148CHAPTER VII

Convening Opportunity in Social Entrepreneurship

This study integrated categories of causal condition, phenomenon, context,

intervening conditions, strategies, and outcomes using grounded theory methods (Strauss

& Corbin 1998) (see Figure 3).

The study was guided by two research questions. Research question one asked:

What is the theory that explains the process of social entrepreneurship in Community

Development Initiatives? This study found action sets of convening opportunity as a

process definition of social entrepreneurship was discovered. Research question two

asked: How and to what extent do institutional structures and processes of engagement

facilitate or constrain the process of social entrepreneurship? Institutional structures were

found to be significant contextual and intervening variables in the phenomenon of

convening opportunity. New institutional building was a consequence of convening

opportunity. Social capital was found to be a necessary element to facilitate process.

Evidence from the study provided new constructs, grounded in the data. This

evidence has generated theoretical propositions and sub-propositions related to the two

research questions that guided the study. Recommendations are made to test the

propositions so that the constructs can add to a grand theory of social entrepreneurship.

Research Question One – Defining Social Entrepreneurship

"Good science has to begin with good definitions"(Bygrave & Hofer, 1991, p.13).

This study supports the following definition of social entrepreneurship in two community

development Initiatives. Social entrepreneurship is a process of convening opportunity,

149where opportunities are recognized, strategized, and structured so that communities

may exploit and reconvene them.

Dorado's (2005) definition of convener in the context of institutional

entrepreneurship varies from what is found in this study. Dorado stated, "In contrast to

entrepreneurs who define a project, conveners identify a problem and convene other

actors to define a solution"(p. 409). According to Dorado, the conveners are organized to

be problem solvers and are not necessarily entrepreneurs. Trist (1983) would agree. This

study uses the term convener for two reasons. This was an in vivo term used by

participants in each Initiative. Secondly, there are no cognitive, social, or political reasons

a convener may not be someone who searches for social opportunity, recognizes an

opportunity and takes action to develop this into a planned social change by mobilizing

resources (Gupta et al., 2004; Stevens, 2003; Thompson et al., 2000).

In this study the conveners were able to convene others into the process of

entrepreneurship. This doesn't move too far from Dorado' model though, as she places the

convener as one who mobilizes resources.

Based on findings in this study it is reasonable to make opportunity the subject of

convening. Especially, given the following definition of opportunity that Dorado

provided, "opportunity is the possibility that a member of the community-field will

identify with or create and implement promising innovations, and necessary resources

will be found and applied to sustain innovations over time (p. 391)." Opportunity is

described in the organizational literature as creating organizational advantage or

competitive advantage (Anderson & Jack, 2002: Davis & Aldrich, 2000; Day, 2001;

Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Opportunity defined in the study was to create a framework

150that built the communities' and the frameworks' capacities to engage in the process of

creating systemic change.

Theoretical Propositions and Subpropositions

Theoretical Proposition One

1.0 Social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting is a process of convening

opportunity. The process is identified by actions of recognizing opportunity,

strategizing opportunity, and structuring opportunity.

1.1 Convening opportunity is a trigger-response that sets into motion active-

reactive patterns of change.

1.1.1 Any element of the process will overlap and be

interdependent with the action, interaction, and strategies of

the actors (leadership).

1.2 Recognizing opportunity is an action set to develop a clear, well-articulated

value-driven social cause to create strategies and structures that will

mobilize resources and stimulate collective action.

1.3 Strategizing the opportunity is an action set to identify salient stakeholders

(aligned leadership), and frame a mission that identifies the values in the

social cause.

1.3.1 Strategizing the opportunity establishes mechanisms to

build capacities, evaluate resource flows, and influence

policy.

1.4 Structuring opportunity is an action set to create a basis for managing the

strategies, which has potential for new institutional building.

1511.4.1 The structure is dependent upon a solid knowledge-base

of the context of the opportunity and useful strategies.

1.4.2 The structure is able to manage and allocate resources.

1.4.3 The structure has permeable boundaries around the

activities so that it will generate ideas and opportunity.

1.4.4 The structure is legitimated through the successful

institutionalization of convening opportunity processes,

which includes making the case and forging partnerships.

Theoretical Proposition Two

2.0 Making the case is a strategy used to engage people in the process of convening or

exploiting opportunity that has been convened.

2.1 Making the case occurs through relationships.

2.2 Making the case occurs through multiple sets of conversations or dialectical

means.

2.3 Making the case will engage people having the capacity to engage or will

motivate people to build the capacity to engage.

Theoretical Proposition Three

3.0 Forging partnerships is a strategy used to build the capacity to convene opportunity.

3.1 Forging partnerships intends to disperse and balance power across the

framework structured to convene opportunity.

3.2 Forging partnerships leverages pooled resources of talent, expertise, and

revenue.

1523.3 Forging partnerships is predicated on relationships built in strategizing

the opportunity.

Theoretical Proposition Four

4.0 The process is recursive. It is a process that is characterized by indefinitely

repeating itself and reapplying itself to its output.

4.1 During recursion, the process will change as context and capacities change.

4.2 An outside facilitator is any entity that has already recognized, strategized,

and structured opportunity.

Theoretical Proposition Five

5.0 Facilitating and constraining events in convening opportunity are defined by the

actors' social reality and the institutions' response to new institutional building.

5.1 When entrepreneurial mechanisms in the framework pressure the status quo

change emerges in the community-field.

5.2 Social capital is both a facilitator and constrainer for convening opportunity.

5.2.1 Social capital constrains 'convening opportunity' when actors are not

able to use the social capital of another actor or actors possess low

levels of trust and relationships in the social field.

5.2.2 Social capital facilitates 'convening opportunity' when actors are able

to use the social capital of another actor or actors possess high levels

of trust and relationships in the social field.

153Discussion

A process of social entrepreneurship was studied in two community development

Initiatives. This study extended research in the field of institutional entrepreneurship and

also offered new insights on social capital, which were two theoretical lenses that support

findings in the study. This discussion first integrates findings with theories used in the

study as constraining and facilitating factors. Finally, the emerging constructs are

discussed and linkages are made to other theories.

Research Question Two – Constraining and Facilitating Factors

Theoretical Lenses

Institutional Analysis

Primarily, the study has extended an understanding of how institutionalized

structures affect the use of entrepreneurial mechanisms to pressure the status quo. The

studied Initiatives were developed as social organizations building new institutional

forms. The purposes of these Initiatives were related to a need for systemic change.

Institutional theory has been influential in explaining processes for organizational actions

and the development of new organizational forms (Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002;

Greenwood & Suddaby, 2005; Maguire et al. 2004).

Studies that use an institutional approach focus attention on the relationships

among organizations and the fields in which they operate. In this study the domain

activity was similar in each of the two cases. Participants and their organizations were

attached to the nonprofit setting. The two local foundations, FRO and FE, had legitimated

status with the respective national foundations. Legitimacy was based on the shared

culture and knowledge between the two organizations. In addition, leadership in each

154organization had status with the leadership in the national foundations, which

facilitated resource sharing.

There were mimetic pressures through the national networks to address agendas

for systemic change. These mimetic pressures were affects from affiliation to the larger

nonprofit setting. Mimetic pressures reduce uncertainty (Martinez & Dacin, 1999) or

stabilize behaviors (Tolbert & Zucker, 1994). It's normative behavior for state

foundations to assimilate the goals and strategies of a national network of foundations

(Hollingsworth, 2000).

The scope and scale of the national foundation gave its leadership more power

through resource flows. The foundations had greater positional and legitimated power

from their national statuses, which also facilitated more political influence. Greater

knowledge of the macro-environment and the social, political, and economic issues

facing their constituencies were organized in data sets and clearly articulated as value and

knowledge statements from the national leaders.

Cognitive processes in institutional theory relate to recognizing features within a

domain that are potential opportunities (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Keh, Hoo, & Lim, 2002;

Mitchell, Busenitz, & Lant, 2002). A national leader at the Foundation for Innovation

regarded social entrepreneurship as changing a system. Consequently, the recognized

opportunity appeared to be related to "change". Strategies were outlined as "three major

things that have to happen to change a system, they were: "building capacities, looking at

resource flows and then shifting policy".

Building capacities was evidenced by providing training and opportunity for

change. One example was giving the role of leadership to community members so that

155the role would as one participant said, to empower or enable people "to act differently

than they have before". This change occurred when new events emerged in the social or

community field. For instance, a dialogue in a community on wealth-transfer provided a

young woman an opportunity to publicly address a community issue. Norms in the

community were such that attempts were made by some to have her not be heard.

However, the local leader from SRP managed the situation by stressing acceptance and

the young woman's rights to having a voice in community issues. This represents the

cognitive and symbolic elements of institutional structures that create patterns of

behavior (Meyerson, 1994). Changing behavioral patterns meant sometimes managing

conflict or providing a new rule or resource to give a community member the opportunity

to act differently.

In both cases the opportunities to connect to resources with the national

foundations demonstrated how Initiatives were extending the institutional goals of the

national social sphere. The sense-making of "public engagement" and new economic

strategies were translated to the work of the local Initiatives. The CEC Initiative

addressed "public engagement" for systemic change and SRP addressed hope for rural

revitalization with new strategies that mirrored the larger foundations.

However, field influences and contextual environments were not as similar

between the Initiatives. The CEC Initiative was from an urban setting, which produced a

set of constraining and facilitating factors to influence this new structure. Whereas, the

SRP Initiative had a different set of institutional features that affected its system.

To analyze change in the nonprofit setting, a structural analysis is essential. A

structural analysis will identify equilibrium, common values, and boundary maintenance

156in the social structure. Critics of this type of analysis assert that this view gives little

account for change in a system. Eisenstadt (1995) observed no such limitation. "Our

major point is that the institutionalization of any social system…be it political, economic,

or a system of social stratification or of any collectivity or role…creates in its wake the

possibilities for change"(p. 87). The process of institutional building is not random.

Institutional analysis demonstrates institutionalization will organize a prescribed system

as a solution to problems in social life (Eisenstadt, 1995).

Social Capital

Public engagement was central to the values and mission of the two Initiatives.

An emphasis was continuously placed on relationships and interests in the "hearts and

minds" of the community. Social capital has been an area of focus in public engagement

(Putnam, 1995; 1996; 2000) and is central to many debates. Social capital begins through

people's social connections and networks based on values of trust, mutual reciprocity, and

norms of action. "Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular,

honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other

members of that community" (Fukuyama, 1995, p.26).

Community is an arrangement of social forms (Bender, 1978). Social processes to

interact within the community have been viewed as networks. The study participants

from each Initiative viewed their organized structures as networks of partners

(Initiatives). Of particular interest is how these networks facilitated public engagement.

Engagement (commitment to social action) is an emergence in the network. This

can be a personal (social) network or a community-field network (Allen, Personal

communication, November 3, 2004). The community-field is the pattern of community

157members' interactions, where these interactions result in mutual influences and shared

meanings (Wilkinson, 1991). To engage people in the social network may or may not

create norms of trust and reciprocal behavior in those relationships. Interaction in the

social-field may create shared understandings and or normative behaviors, but it will not

connect to public engagement in terms of the inspiration (influence) to act.

When engagement (or social capital) emerges from the community-field these

patterns of activity will result in influence and shared meaning, which is a higher level of

engagement than engagement in the social network. To engage community as it relates

with the field concept, "attention is directed more to the dynamic processes that create

and alter community structure than to the effects of structure on social processes"

(Wilkinson, 1991, p. 32). By engaging the community-field, new institutional forms can

emerge. Social innovation is the result of new networks of norms, trust, and reciprocal

behavior pushed beyond the social field.

There were indications that SRP had their framework adapted to the community-

field. The outcomes from communities had provided evidence that the communities were

taking ownership of the process. The framework did several things that facilitated the

community-field emerging. First, it provided a stimulus for ownership by the community

because it created pooled resource flows using the wealth-transfer model. This in turn

inspired "hope" and a sense of continuance.

Secondly, SRP's framework didn't give the community merely task assignments to

organize. The framework gave meaning by ascribing the role of leadership at the

community level. Symbolic interactionism and role theory are likely two theories that

could be used to explore the structural influences of community members leading in the

158Initiative. What these theories presume is that there are sets of cultural and normative

influences that will facilitate or constrain the leader's actions in the community field.

Further, the role of the local leadership and the training provided by the Initiative was

intended to create an "entrepreneurial culture" with language and ascribed meanings that

were meant for the community to imbibe.

Social capital facilitates 'convening opportunity' when actors are able to use the

social capital of another actor or possesses high levels of trust and relationships in the

social field. To show the significance, it is helpful to look at the differences between a

community and social field. "The primary distinction between the two fields is that in the

social field individuals pursue their own self-interest while a community field cuts across

these fields and is more generalized, it is within the community field that we see

collective action focusing on public good" (Allen, 2001, p. 119). An example of engaging

at the level of the social-field is the scenarios described when grantees may

collaboratively apply for grants, but fail to move to a level engagement that would

facilitate innovation or change in a system.

Interactional perspectives and social capital concepts have been of interest to

community development research. These concepts demonstrate the relationship between

communities' capacities for engagement and the community structure (Allen, 2001;

Sharp, 2001). Community fields are studied under each of these constructs. However,

both constructs have theoretical ambiguity and proxies for measurement that remain too

varied (Sharp, 2001).

The results of this study indicated that when emergence happens in a community-

field an entrepreneurial event occurs. News sources provide accounts of events that each

159Initiative sponsored. These field level examples of engagement occurred as

entrepreneurial events of change. For the SRP Initiative, this was a community's

successful economic revival. And for CEC, the community events that had a high level of

public engagement was an entrepreneurial event that pushed the status quo.

Structures of the Initiatives facilitated or constrained the emerging of community

field. The SRP Initiative had a greater propensity for engagement in the community field

because how the organizational framework was arranged. SRP was more decentralized

and communities were embedded into the framework. Consequently, communities were

responsible for process, including managing resource generation and leadership.

Studies of social entrepreneurship (institutional entrepreneurship) have

demonstrated the ability of technical leaders to have influence on new organizational

forms within the fields they operate (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2005; Maguire et al., 2004).

It is probable that emergence in the community-field (engagement) and local leaders

having absorbed a capacity to have technical skills will have greater effects on systems

change.

In the case of CEC there was evidence that there was more activity at the social

field because of its structure. The management level of the organization was more

centralized (board, leadership council, school principals, community-based partners, etc.)

and these entities were predominantly responsible for resource flows. This distance of

leadership from the community-field meant that engagement happened more frequently at

the social field, where meetings and programs were a venue for organizational

maintenance and task assignments between partners and community members.

160A high level of appreciative inquiry at the community level and the work of

the service providers at the schools can provide direction and engagement for community

field level action. Indications for the emergence of the social field and the community

field did occur when innovation emerged from the community. Such as, the rock show,

bake sale, and community betterment projects. (It is probable that there were more

examples). However, public interest in some of these activities may have be motivated by

self-interest (e.g. a community member volunteers because they love rock music). New

behaviors of public engagement may occur at the social field and have good results.

However, a more deep and durable change happens at the community field level.

In each of the models of community development commonly described in the

literature, change is enforced by actors who act as facilitator, advisor, or

advocate/organizer. The change mechanisms in a self-help model presuppose that people

in the community will identify and solve problems themselves. A technical assistance

model has experts (science), who can provide the necessary means and solutions to

community problems. Whereas, a conflict model of community development presumes

power as the basic resource (Flora, et al., 1992; Green & Haines, 2002).

SRP and CEC developed networks of partners or agents (drawing upon Agency,

e.g. Giddens, 1984) in an entrepreneurial model. The Initiatives avail themselves as

experts (technical capacities). And the networks also built capacities in the community,

believing the community could best determine their own needs (self-help). These

networks would also act as frameworks (containers) to draw resource capacities into the

framework and build consensus around social issues. The open nature of these systems

161makes it a viable opportunity to bridge policy makers and community members

together through modern technology and the network the Initiatives provide.

Constructs of Convening Opportunity

To understand how social entrepreneurship is a process of convening opportunity,

it is helpful to show how the constructs emerged in relationship to conceptual

understandings of entrepreneurship. (See Table 7).

Table 7.

Comparison of Entrepreneurship Models

Entrepreneurship

Gartner (1985)

Convening Opportunity

(Social Entrepreneurship)

Sattler Weber (2006)

Collaborative Problem-

Solving

McCann, 1983; Gray, 1985)

(Institutional

Entrepreneurship)

(Dorado, 2005)

Locate Opportunity Recognizing Opportunity Problem Setting

Accumulate Resources Strategizing Opportunity

(Making the Case) Direction Setting

Market Products and

Services

Structuring Opportunity

(Forging Partnerships) Structuring

Produce Product Networked Model of

162Community Development

Build an Organization

Respond to Government

and Society

Gartner's (1985) maintained that the process of innovation was the interaction of

the elements (described in Table 7) and the "domains" of the individual, the organization,

and the environment. In the present study, referred to here as Sattler Weber (2006), the

researcher's findings replicated Gartner's "domain" interactions. However, the elements

or phases of innovation differed. McCann's phases of problem-solving, which according

to Dorado (2005) is a feature of institutional entrepreneurship, were most applicable.

This study explicitly relates to only the first phases of new venture creation

Gartner's (1985). Each Initiative had social enterprises (generated revenues) operating

within their models of social entrepreneurship. The study of convening opportunity

focused on the patterns of activity and institutional responses that occurred through the

convening opportunity phase. The study did not address an economic model of

entrepreneurship nor a focus on outcomes, which are the final phases in Gartner's model.

Convening opportunity addresses a social movement process of entrepreneurship, with

field level changes as social innovation.

Social systems are those patterns of relationships in a society that once established

tend to perpetuate themselves (Giddens, 1984). Change in the institutional context

(structure of rules, roles, practices, and beliefs) occur depending on agency, resource

mobilization, and opportunity (Dorado, 2005). Dorado stated that studies help to

163enlighten the field on the "paradox of how institutional change is possible if actors'

intentions, actions, and rationality are conditioned by the institutions they wish to change

(p. 385)." In this study, each Initiative was engaged in institutional building to develop

and expand value-sets. This was to establish new networks that could change existing

norms and patterns of behavior. The complexity and myriad of social and economic

issues was too large for any single organization to make significant impacts so Initiatives

were created.

According to Dorado (2005), actors define a project, gain support from backers,

and in tandem with backers will bargain for acceptance from external stakeholders. The

bargaining is to frame issues so as to convince others in the field a need for change. This

calls for politically skilled actors. Change agents are skilled at environmental scanning;

understand the mutual benefits of collaborating; and are attentive to evaluating and using

lessons learned. Largely, the skill is needed because a complex problem will call for

convincing others of the need for collaborative solution making (Dorado, 2005; Gray,

1985; Weick, 1998). In collaboration, agents are catalysts to explore the possibilities of

cooperation. These agents, according to Dorado, must be credible, knowledgeable, and

positioned as an unbiased entities.

Coalitions increase in times of crisis and may be field-level attempts to create

change (Gray, 1985; Trist, 1983). In this study the Initiatives were created by nonprofit

organizations that had prior experience with other Initiatives addressing social issues.

However, in each of the cases addressed in this study, the new Initiative had a much

larger scope and scale than previous experiences.

164Weick (1998) stated that when complexities are large it is important for

organizations to develop a "coherent story of what is going on as much as to decide what

should be done given the unfolding story (p. 40)." In convening opportunity this was

considered as strategic sensemaking or making the case. There were successful strategies

to bring partners to the table and to engage community members into active participation

in economic and social issues.

Gray (1985) asserted that collaborations are "the set of actors (individuals, groups,

and /or organizations) that become joined by a common problem or interest (p. 912)."

Problem domains require the resources of several stakeholders to achieve optimal

outcomes. However, to effectively problem-solve, there must be attention given to

process and not how to control another organization in the collaboration (Gray 1985;

Trist, 1983).

The organizational arrangements of the Initiatives in this study were not similar,

although each Initiative claimed of having "networks" of stakeholders or partners. SRP

had a more decentralized structure. Focus was placed on moving the client into the

structure. Leaders in the community or partnering organizations provided task

assignments (training or community organizing) as services at the location of the

community.

CEC had formal rules and guidelines organizing its overall structure.

Programming by CEC partners was facilitated using local infrastructure (the school

building), and task assignments were the responsibility of each partnering organization.

Local coordinators acted as quality control and capacity builders for the framework. This

structure was necessary in order to have legitimacy in its organizational field of education

165in an urban environment. CEC had "pushed the envelope" in terms of the scale and

scope of the Initiative, as compared to previous collaborations.

The reason the Initiatives in this study came into being was the identified need for

social change was bigger than any one entity could solve alone (Trist (1983) called these

metaproblems). Gray (1985) defined this as "pooling of appreciations and/or tangible

resources, e.g. information money, labor, etc. by two or more stakeholders to solve a set

of problems which neither can solve individually (p. 912)." For several years FE had

worked in smaller, local initiatives and saw that bringing the "tables together" would help

to overcome limitations in resource flows. They also recognized that a simple network of

community-based organizations would not have the capacity to create change without

collective action. Partners from SRP echoed similar reasons for wanting the power to do

things in a collective manner.

According to Gray (1985), bureaucratic organizations are not likely to adapt to

complex environments. The complexity of the social issue involved partnering across

public, private, and nonprofit entities in the Initiatives. This was likely to influence

institutional processes in each of the sectors represented. Action by one organization will

have an influence on the remaining partners. This Gray believed, enhanced a "pooling" to

achieve greater understanding of the context. To Gray, the "pooling" effect is a negotiated

order of events that are managed collectively and incorporate the different perspectives.

Institutions preserve their boundaries (Selznick, 1949). This would indicate that in

this study, each of the Initiatives were likely to have functional changes as a result of the

multiple organizations in the Initiatives and constant negotiation in institutional

boundaries. A minor occurrence of this in the study was the example of hashing through

166to negotiate the term "public engagement". Once the school district understood the

rationale or definition, it was accepted as a viable means to promote educational

outcomes.

SRP purposely used "learning networks" to pool information flow. By having

community members as part of the network understandings of process and shared

meanings were distributed through Initiative. In CEC, this was accomplished through

meetings and events held at the school. Both Initiatives had public venues for

communicating outcomes and presence in the area.

A Comparison of Convening and Collaborating

To illustrate by comparing and contrasting, the findings in this study will be

related to Gray's (1985) model of inter-organizational collaboration. Her model uses

constructs from McCann's (1983) collaborative problem solving model. McCann's model

has been used to illustrate mechanisms of institutional change (Dorado, 2005; Gray,

1985).

Gray's (1985) model is set in the context of collaborations between business, labor

and government. How that context applies in this study is the Initiatives had multiple

stakeholders from business, government and other private organizations; however they

were predominantly nonprofit organizations. Thus, the institutional features of the

Initiatives were like that of the organizations in the nonprofit setting and within their

domain of activities (i.e. education and community development).

Three sequential phases, i.e., problem setting, direction-setting, and structuring

(McCann, 1983), will be used to illustrate the similarities and differences this study found

in regard to convening opportunity. It must be emphasized that social entrepreneurship is

167a process to solve social issues in innovative ways. The strategies of the problem

solving model are useful concepts to illustrate and discuss findings.

The major differences between the McCann's (1983) categories used by Gray

(1985) and the categories found in this study is the "glass half-full" affect. Social

entrepreneurship was a process to incorporate innovative (catalytic) changes for an

overall systemic change. This was to be done by building upon the capacities of the

communities and the Initiatives. Each Initiative is attempting to evoke agency or a

collective response to change the environment. Agency suggests that resources may be

used creatively to bring about institutional change (Giddens, 1984). Gray's use of

McCann's model is not intended to bring about catalytic results or necessarily promote

creativity.

A second important difference between Gray's propositions and findings in the

study relate to the sequential phases of collaboration in problem solving. The process of

convening opportunity was not a sequential or a simple iterative process that applied

action sets over and over again. This study demonstrated the dynamic, recursive nature of

convening opportunity as a strategy that interacted with the institutional environment

(Aldrich & Martinez, 2001). The process of convening opportunity was to learn and

apply. Engagement in the social or community field is connected to the framework of the

Initiatives. Over time, the acquired capital (social, human, and sometimes financial)

provided a means to affect the Initiatives' stocks of capital, which served to provide more

opportunity (new stories and knowledge to make the case for engagement). A recursive

action will apply it back to the actions output (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; van der

Wusten, & Knippenberg, 1998).

168The following section begins with a definition by Gray (1985) using

McCann's typography. Following each of Gray's conclusions is a similarly defined event

from the model developed in this study. A brief explanation with findings is given.

Problem setting in collaborations

The objective of problem setting, according to Gray (1985) is to give "explicit

form or identity" to the issues that allows stakeholders to communicate about the issue

and eventually to act. This identification includes who has a legitimate stake in the

situation and how the situation is defined.

Recognizing opportunity in social entrepreneurship

In this study, recognizing opportunity is found to be actions that develop a clear,

well-articulated, value-driven social cause to create strategies and structures that would

mobilize resources and stimulate collective action.

In the present study values and goals undergirded the Initiatives, so that all

stakeholders (public, private, or business) were aligned to one mission in each respective

Initiative. As stakeholders convened, the governing boards for each of the nonprofit

groups also actively engaged in forming the Initiatives. Each partnering organization had

their internal controls and values.

Lawrence, Hardy, & Phillips (2002) suggest that the local effects of collaboration

can generate what they call "proto-institutions" or institutions in-the-making. When new

"practices, rules, and technologies transcend a particular collaborative relationship" there

was potential for new institutions (p. 281). Lawrence and colleagues suggested that there

is potential for interorganizational collaborations to be catalysts of change in the

institutional fields and potentially to shape them. Given the views of Lawrence and

169colleagues, there is evidence that the Initiatives in the study were building new

institutional responses (via the frameworks) to the issue of public engagement in

community development.

This work by Lawrence and colleagues (2002) has implications for this study.

These Initiatives catalyze change when engagement occurs in the community-field. This

also suggests that there may be a "second order" effect, a recursive affect that if

institutional change occurs at the community field, institutional changes may occur in the

network (Lawrence et al., 2002; Warren, 1967).

According to Gray (1985) those who initiate collaborations critically impact their

success or failure. This person or entity is considered the convener in Gray's model. In

the studied Initiatives the local foundations had natural authority and were legitimated

partners. They reflected the local histories and had built on existing relationships (Padgett

et al., 2005). These arrangements facilitated resource distributions and knowledge-

sharing.

Stakeholder theory implies that an actor must have a stake and an ability to

influence. There is risk in having a stake (Mitchell, Agle, &Wood, 1997). FE met some

resistance initially because the community viewed the Foundation as an extension of the

public school system. The community was concerned with having an "800 pound gorilla"

leading the initiative, assuming that the foundation was a bureaucratic function of the

local school district. This is a natural response given that stakeholders are dependent

upon the group to minimize harms and achieve interests (Mitchell et al., 1997).

Stakeholders were more amenable to the Initiative once they recognized the Foundation

was a separate entity.

170Participants in study acknowledged that the strengths of the Initiatives were

based on the strengths of its partners, including community members. This coincides with

Gray's (1985) conclusion that stakeholders must represent the complexity of the problem

and have the requisite expertise to address it. Expertise requires a capacity of knowledge

and reputation to address issues. In this study capacity was both an outcome of convening

opportunity (building capacities in the constituency) and the current capacities were

facilitating and constraining conditions for convening opportunity.

Direction setting for collaborating

The objective of direction setting according to Gray (1985) is to have the values

articulate and direct a common purpose. This legitimates the mission. Stakeholders

benefit from an expanded view of the situation and knowledge of the mission. This also

establishes a clear direction for policy.

Strategizing the opportunity

Strategizing the opportunity is identifying salient stakeholders (aligned

leadership), and framing a mission that identifies the collective values and goals in the

social cause.

The strategy to create Initiatives was a strategy common to the field, which is to

leverage access to resources (Pietroburgo & Wernet, 2004; Raymond, 2004; Salamon,

2003). Shared leadership, rather than fusing leadership into one group, was featured in

the study. Core partners at SRP and the Executive Leadership group in CEC worked as

the primary group to collaboratively strategize and provide maintenance of the Initiatives.

Each of the partnering organizations had their respective leaderships' input into the

processes of their Initiatives.

171In this study, shared leadership had advantages. By working together there

was collective sense-making. The partners were able to "construct, filter, frame, and

create facticity" (Dorado, 2005, p. 389) in order to make sense of the situation. Making

sense of what is going on in complex situations is as important as knowing what to do

(Weick, 1998). Studies on institutional change have shown that there is a dialectical

process that goes on between actors, meanings, and actions (Dacin et al., 2002). This

suggests that the many sets of conversations that the core partners had were foundational

to change. In both cases, these conversations progressed over several years before the

Initiatives were developed.

The result of these sets of conversations was to acknowledge the

interdependencies between stakeholders and values, which corresponds to Gray's (1985)

conclusion on collaboration. These conversations served to legitimate generalized values

that were held by the collective. This was pronounced in how the underlying values were

repeatedly articulated by participants.

Values motivate leadership in grassroots activism, whereas practices of leadership

are not different from business (Brant, 1995). A question of values versus business

leadership was not answered in this study. However, each Initiative partner having 501

(c) 3 status acknowledged their governing boards as giving it needed support. There were

planned sessions for the boards to have creative and strategic input.

The study revealed what was articulated as "aligned leadership" or the "right

person at the right place at the right time" or general comments of how critical the

leadership was "on the ground ". The site leaders (located directly with the community,

either in the rural area or at the schools) were also managers. They had task assignments

172to manage innovation. Could they be innovative? Institutional theory would say that

routine behaviors, like managing tasks, most likely produce incremental and transient

change (Dorado, 2005; Giddens, 1984). However, according to Giddens (1984), agency

occurs when a person is creative and motivated to move away from scripted patterns of

behavior. Thus, the social entrepreneur "on the ground" for the Initiatives had a critical

role to engage community members and a motivation to be creative.

Structuring for collaboration

The objective of structuring, according to Gray (1985), is to have systematic

interactions among stakeholders provide ongoing and essential appreciative processes.

This was seen as a self-regulating process, whereby stakeholders view themselves as

convening opportunity or producers of change. In Gray's view, this structuring sets the

stage for strategic negotiations and the redistribution of power. A collaborative structure

also reinforces interdependence within the collaboration.

Structuring opportunity

Structuring opportunity is creating a basis for managing the strategies, which has

the potential to create new institutional networks with new sets of values and norms.

An orientation toward local interests is the "hallmark of community action"

(Wilkinson, 1991, p. 83). Community action occurs in the social field. A community field

change will have new sets of values, norms and networks that serve to link and

coordinate action to reinforce the special interests in the field (Wilkinson, 1991). The

community field is considered an abstraction of the social field. The "frameworks" that

are applied in communities are strategic in both Initiatives. They are meant to create

planned change.

173Nonprofits have been seen as policy-shapers. Nationally, nonprofits have roles

in mobilizing popular support and being able to identify concerns of citizens (Orr, 2001).

There had to be awareness at the local level but it was also critical to keep checking the

policy environment. A participant said, "You raise your head up. That you’re able to

articulate to the people at the top, what’s happening at the local level".

In Gray's (1985) meta-analysis, the proposed collaborative model is dependent

upon a solid knowledge-base of the context of the problem and useful strategies. This

was also the case in this study. Knowledge was consumed and produced by the process of

convening opportunity.

Structuring the opportunity provided a means to determine how opportunities

were convened within communities. According to Quinn (1988), organizations will seek

flexibility and adaptive capacities and yet they desire stability and control. FE responded

to external pressures to change the foundation's name, so as to give it branding. They also

framed "public engagement" in a way that eased constituency concerns and provided for

an organizational structure that legitimated the Initiative. Whereas, SRP partners created

a management structure that was based on a business model (contractors). Strategies for

organizational structures for SRP were based on collegial experiences that brought

multiple perspectives on issues.

SRP appeared to have an agenda for a "new economic institution" in rural areas

(Dacin et al., 2002). The result of this agenda could not be determined in this study,

except for stories of successes in communities that were individually recognized for new

economic impacts. In each case, the Initiatives provided a framework so that community

members were essential in the process of creating change. The broader these networks

174become, the more backgrounds and experiences are apt to bring new social

interpretations and behavior that acts to diminish consensus around the taken-for-granted

practices. Zilber (2002) considered this the "micropolitics" of institutional change.

From an institutional perspective, leaders in nonprofit entities are tasked with

producing a ‘rational image’ to meet the external environment’s expectations (Euske &

Euske, 1991). At the same time there is a need to create frames (such as public

engagement) that condense contextual realities into words that make meaning. (Several

examples were provided in Chapter VI). Collective action frames are meant to inspire and

motivate others toward collective action (Benford & Snow, 2000). Therefore, strategic

planning and development of practices such as framing were a way to provide a rational

image.

Entrepreneurship is said to flourish more readily in less formalized and adaptive

structures, such as an open systems model with boundary spanning (Buxton, Carlone, &

Carlone, 2005). There are rational systems (formal system) and open systems (Scott,

1992). An open system (interdependent with its environment) will have an organizational

structure that eliminates or reduces formalization and is adaptive to its environment

(Scott, 1992, Starnes, 2000). It is important for the structure to have permeable

boundaries around the activities, so that it will generate ideas and opportunity. Plugging

in new partners was seen as an ongoing function of the system. Studies have shown that

each stakeholder must believe benefits exceed costs. This underscores the importance of

the combined mission, pooling of resources, and a capacity that together can solve a

complex problem. The capacity of communities to work together must be perceived as a

benefit.

175According to Gray (1985) when stakeholders are dispersed transaction costs

increase. These transaction costs to partners are often time and money (Ostrower, 2005).

Nonetheless, decision-making (Jelinek & Litterer, 1995) and social capital (Burt, 1992,

1997a, 1997b, 2000; Purdue, 2001) depends upon whether or not there are good

communication flows in a network.

Networking addressed the distance between partners (for both Initiatives) and was

a means to have high-involvement and shared learning. A participant from SRP spoke of

the transaction costs associated with networking. He stated that these cost issues had to

be addressed but that cost analysis should not deter networking. High-involvement in

networks may also stimulate social capital, which may increase the flow of information

and knowledge and reduce transaction costs in networks (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood,

2002; Burt, 1992, 1997a; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). (See Chapter II, i.e. network theory

and social capital).

The constructs developed in this study indicate that there were two essential

strategies in the process of convening opportunity. They were making the case and

forging partnerships.

Making the Case

Social entrepreneurs are able to mobilize resources based on framing values that

are found to be legitimate in society (Beford & Snow, 2000). Burns (1978) regarded these

values as monitors of leadership. Examples were liberty, justice, and equality, which

were values articulated in both Initiatives.

Values attributed to social entrepreneurs are usually expressed as end-values.

They are collaborative values expressed in models of transformational leadership theory

176and framed by social entrepreneurs as the principles for collective action. Such values

inspire as well as place institutional constraints on those who would refrain from

supporting them or on those apathetic to such values (Waddock & Post, 1991).

Clarke (2001) stated that organizations will frame their political identity, social

authority and agendas based on funding sources. Making the case was the same in each

Initiative and telling the stories when it related to community. However, for the SRP

Initiative the community was a paying client. It was important to make the case by

speaking to the community in their language and not in the language of research. Social

interaction (mutual minding) is the major substance of community. "The interaction is not

contrived… rather [it is] ubiquitous and genuine" (Wilkinson, 1991, p. 14). This places

extraordinary pressures to be both natural and strategic in making a case for change.

Forging Partnerships

Forging partnerships is a strategy used to build the capacity to convene. Each of

the Initiatives had public partners in their networks, which is considered a normative

behavior. Along with the interdependence between the state and the nonprofit sector

(Salamon & Anheier, 1998), cross sector alliances with business has been successful in

the past (Clay & Bangs, 2000). Businesses were represented as partners in each Initiative,

which is particularly useful to gain resource capacity (Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003). Some

businesses were connected at the neighborhood and community-level as support.

It was told that "on the ground" there was some tension from "wearing the hats"

of partner organizations. For CEC the site supervisor was given requirements from

several directions. In the SRP model it is difficult for site leadership to have full

knowledge of each partner's portfolio. This made the network important so that peers

177could exchange information and better coordinate activities across sites. This

coincides with how networks have been related to both legitimacy and innovation in the

studies of institutional processes (Deeds et al., 2004; Maguire et al., 2004).

Although forging partnerships will leverage pooled resources of talent, expertise,

and revenue to magnify outputs, it is not easily facilitated. Traditionally, leadership in the

nonprofit sector comes from many layers in the organization and represents a variety of

personalities, thresholds for change, and values (Salamon, 2003). Institutional norms

drawn from a variety of partners will influence process (Dacin et al., 2002). Given the

breadth of members in these networks, there is a variety of institutional features, more so

with CEC because of its direct connection to public domain activity. However, well

articulated missions help to "herd the cats in the same direction".

Summary

The findings of this study suggest that social entrepreneurship is a process of

convening opportunity, where opportunities are recognized, strategized, and structured so

that communities may exploit and reconvene them. Making the case and forging

partnerships were explicit strategies to convene opportunity.

This study found structures that were dynamic and evolving. The two community

development Initiatives that were the focus of the study are continuing to contribute to

changes in the social fields. These changes are represented in the new patterns of

interactions that community members and partners of the Initiatives have as a result of

the interventions in community. An emergent outcome was public engagement in the

community-field. Although, the boundaries between a community field and social field

178are largely artificial, the engagement at the community-field is more reflective of

enduring and collective change.

Comparative differences between the two cases demonstrated two sets of

concerns. CEC was more concerned about sustainability because of its dependency to

outside grants or donations. Whereas, the SRP model had some concerns about getting

the scale right so that the partners could balance the consultant model with fees charged

to the community and outside funds that could defray costs for under resourced

communities and allow for more research and development.

This study focused more on process than outcomes, so less attention was given in

the interview phase. Findings indicated that the institutional structure of these Initiatives

was formed by the enduring patterns of behavior for the intangible functions of the

organization. The findings included the communications, leadership, planning, policies,

idea generation, and decision-making that support the Initiatives. It was found in this

study that the entrepreneurial event was the intentional convening of opportunity when

frameworks (in vivo term) were applied in communities. When entrepreneurial

mechanisms were applied to pressure the status quo, then changes occurred in the

community field. The frameworks approach was carried out to build capacities in people,

to engage them into the process of creating better futures collectively, to instill as sense

of hope, and also to build capacities in the Initiatives.

An outcome from convening opportunity was a "networked" model for

community development. This model differed from the typical self-help, technical

assistance, and conflict model predominantly found in the literature on community

development.

179Conclusions

Although the in-depth analysis of these two community development Initiatives

may not be generalized across institutions, the analysis does provide propositions that can

be tested empirically. The literature supported the concept of convening opportunity,

which was a model of social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit setting. The institutional

and social capital perspectives were helpful in keeping the study focused on what was

process.

Recommendations

In addition to finding propositions related to the phenomenon, it was found that

the process revealed multiple phenomenon that warrant additional study. Particularly,

gaining a better understanding related to structure and interaction in the community-field.

Additional studies from interactional field theory would be a natural fit to the study of the

outcomes of convening opportunity.

Testing other theories would be useful in broadening the concepts of convening

opportunity in community development and leadership. For instance, an experimental

design would be able to show if there are true effects from role-theory or expectancy

theory. It would likely demonstrate whether or not engagement in the community-field

and entrepreneurial events are greater if community members are given the role as leader

in the Initiatives or other community development activities.

There are practical considerations of the study, which is to address relevant

findings and establish best practices for social entrepreneurship. The applied learning

gained from these learning networks and the formal evaluations of outcomes (when

combined with the findings from this study) would benefit the field.

180Of interest to social entrepreneurship research would be an understanding of

what conditions set the stage for more intense and widespread instances of public

engagement in sponsoring innovation. Can "one success" story that sparks an interest,

which triggers someone to volunteer or become a leader or leave a bequest trigger a

systems change? Or can one trigger of innovation set up an action-reaction pattern that

potentially alters the local environment of a community? If one experience is a proto-type

for change, then what institutional arrangements and distribution of resources are needed

to react to create systemic change? This study contributed to this understanding.

However, longitudinal research would be able to bring a greater depth of understanding

on outcomes of convening opportunity.

More study from an institutional approach would give a better understanding of

how each of the constructs in convening opportunity if applied, will influence structures

in communities that are attempting to become more entrepreneurial. It is possible that the

lack of specificity that was given by the Initiatives in how they made the case for change

facilitated pushing the social fields to change. Further study on how making the case can

be used as a mechanism to promote change has potential in explaining change in a

community field.

Studies in leadership will gain from using an institutional perspective to better

understand how leaders contribute in an entrepreneurial process. This study makes a

contribution in that regard by demonstrating that leadership is central to the process of

convening opportunity.

To move the constructs to a grand theory will require a closer look at the

constructs and testing them empirically across wider populations. More exact

181measurement using the propositions found in this study would help determine if these

constructs of convening opportunity found accurately describe a process of social

entrepreneurship.

182References

Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage. Aldrich, H.E., & Martinez, M.A. (2001). Many are called but few are chosen: An

evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship: Theory

& Practice, 25(4), 41-56.

Allan, G. (1991). Qualitative research. In G. Allan, & C. Skinner, Handbook for

Research Students in the Social Sciences. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Allen, J. C. (2001). Community conflict resolution: The development of social capital

within an interactional field. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 119-121.

Alvord, S.H., Brown, D., & Letts, C.W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal

transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

40 (3), 260-282.

Ambergey, T.L., & Dacin, T. (1994). As the left foot follows the right? The dynamics of

strategic and structural change. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1427-

1452.

Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in

entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 815-134.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2004). Boston, MA: Houghton

Mifflin Company.

Anderson, A.R., & Jack, S.L. (2002). The articulation of social capital in entrepreneurial

networks: A glue or a lubricant? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 14,

193-210.

183Barman, E.A. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of nonprofit

organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80(4), 1191-1222.

Bate, P., Kahn, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to

organizational structuring. Organizational Science, 11(2), 197-211.

Baum, J.A.C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187-218.

Bender, T. (1978). Social theory and the problem of community. In T.Bender (Ed.),

Community and social changes in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press (pp. 3-43).

Bendor, J., & Mookherjee, D. (1987). Insitutional structure and the logic of ongoing

collective action. American Political Science Review, 81, 129-154.

Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An

overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.

Berge, E. (2001). Institutions and institutional design (SOS3508). Retrieved October 17,

2004, from http://www.sv.ntnu.no/iss/Erling.Berge/ Verified April 14, 2006.

Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the

creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review,

27(4), 505-522.

Bong, S. A. (2002, May). Debunking myths in qualitative data analysis. Forum

Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line

184Journal], 3(2). Retrieved September 23, 2005 from http://www.qualitative-

research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02bong-e.htm Verified April 14, 2006.

Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. Across the board, 32, 20-25.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Acts of resistance: Against the new myths of our time. Cambridge,

UK: Polity Press.

Brant, K.E. (1995). Grassroots leadership: A qualitative study of social activism at the

very source (leadership). (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los

Angeles, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3846.

Bryant, M.T. (2004). The portable dissertation advisor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row.

Burnstein, M., Boulanger, C.S., & Batchis, W. (2001, February). Treasury regulations

implement "intermediate sanctions". Retrieved May, 20, 2005, from

http://www.pmstax.com/ftp/exempt/bull0102.pdf Verified April 14, 2006.

Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Burt, R.S. (1997a). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19(4),

355-373.

Burt, R.S. (1997b). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Quarterly, 42,

339-365.

Burt, R.S. (1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality & Society, 10(1), 5-47.

Retrieved January 5, 2003, from Academic Search Elite database. Verified April

14, 2006.

185Burt, R.S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In R.I. Sutton & B.M.

Straw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Retrieved April 14, 2006 from

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/ronald.burt/research/NSSC.pdf Verified April

14, 2006.

Buxton, C. A., Carlone, H. B., & Carlone, D. (2005). Boundary spanners as bridges of

student and school discourses in an urban science and mathematics high school.

School Science & Mathematics, 105(6), 302-312.

Bygrave, W.D., & Hofer, C.W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16(1), 13-22.

Bygrave, W.D., D'Heilly, D., McMullen, M., & Taylor, N.T. (1996, March). Toward a

not-for-profit analytical framework. Proceedings from the 19th Entrepreneurship

Research Conference (pp 30-39). Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

Chasse, J.D. (1995). Nonprofit organizations and the institutionalist approach. Journal of

Economic Issues, 2, 525-533.

Chell, E. (2000). Towards researching the "opportunistic entrepreneur": A social

constructionist approach and research agenda. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology 9(1), 63-80.

Clarke, S.E. (2001). The prospects for local democratic governance: The governance

roles of nonprofit organizations. Policy Studies Review 18(4), 130-145.

Clay, E.S., & Bangs, P.C. (2000). Entrepreneurs in the Public Library: Reinventing an

institution. Library Trends, 48(3), 606-618.

186Cloutier-Fisher, D., & Skinner, M.W. (2006). Leveling the playing field? Exploring

the implications of managed competition for voluntary sector providers of long-

term care in small town Ontario. Health Place, 12(1), 97-109.

Cohen, B. (1989). Developing sociological knowledge: Theory and method. Chicago:

Nelson-Hall.

Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company. How social capital makes

organizations work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on

learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-153.

Cordes, S., Allen, J., Bishop, R.C., Lynne, G. D., Robison, L. J., Ryan, V. D., & Shaffer,

R. (2003). Social capital, attachment value, and rural development: A conceptual

framework and application of contingent valuation. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1201-1208.

Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and

benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.

Creswell, J.W. (2002a). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J.W. (2002b). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dacin, M.T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W.R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional

change: Introduction to the special research forum. American Academy of

Management, 45(1), 45-57.

187Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management &

Leadership, 14(4), 411-424.

Davidson, O.G. (1990). Broken heartland: the rise of America's rural ghetto. New York:

The Free Press.

Deeds, L.D., Mang, P.Y., & Frandsen, M.L. (2004). The influence of firm and industry

legitimacy on the flow of capital into high technology ventures. Strategic

Organization, 2, 9-34.

Dees, J.G., & Anderson. B.B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit

and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16-29.

Dees, J.G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Working paper, Stanford

University –Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.

DiMaggio, P.J., & Anheir, H.K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and

sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137-159.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional

isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American

Sociological Review 48, 147-160.

Dixon-Woods, M., & Fitzpatrick R. (2001). Including qualitative research in systematic

reviews: Opportunities and problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice,

7(2), 125-133.

Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization

Studies, 26(3), 385-414.

Drucker, P.F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles.

New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

188Eisenstadt, S.N. (1995). Power, trust, and meaning: Essays in sociological theory and

analysis. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Euske, N.A., & Euske, K.J. (1991). Institutional theory: Employing the other side of

rationality in non-profit organizations. British Journal of Management, 2, 81-88.

Finding strategic corporate citizenship: A new game theoretical view. (2004). Harvard

Law Review, 117(6), 1957-1981.

Flora, C.B., Flora, J., Spears, J.D., Swanson, L.E., Lapping, M.B., & Weinberg, M.L.

(1992). Rural communities: Legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Foy, J.J. (2004, April). Applying the new federalism of 1996: Governors and welfare

reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting Midwestern Political Science

Association, Chicago, IL.

Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York:

Free Press.

Gartner, W.B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new

venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.

Gartner, W.B. (1989a). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and

characteristics. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 27-37.

Gartner, W.B. (1989b). "Who is an entrepreneur?" Is the wrong question.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 47-68.

189Gartner, W.B., Bird, B.J., & Starr, J.A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating

entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory &

Practice, 16(3), 13-31.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action structure and

contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:Aldine

Press.

Glor, E. ( 1997). Policy innovation in the Saskatchewan. Public sector, 1971–82.

Toronto: Captus Press.

Granovetter, M. (1977). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,

1360-1380.

Gravovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and the social structure: The problem of

embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.

Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human

Relations, 38(10), 911-936.

Green, G.P., & Haines, A. (2002). Asset building and community development. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2005). Institutional Entrepreneurship in mature fields:

The big five accounting firms. Retrieved November, 12, 2005 from:

www.bus.ualberta.ca/rsuddaby/ Publications/greenwoodsuddaby.pdf Verified

April, 14, 2006.

190Gupta, W., MacMillan, I.C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership:

Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business

Venturing, 19, 241-260.

Hayton, J.C., George, G., & Zahra, S.A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A

review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 26 (4), 33-

53.

Henton, D., Melville, J., & Walesh, K. (1997). The age of the civic entrepreneur:

Restoring civil society and building economic community. National Civic Review,

86(2), 149-158.

Herman, R.D., & Renz, D.O. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: contrasts

between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit

Management & Leadership, 9(1), 23-38.

Hertzler, J.O. (1937). The natural history of social institutions, the Y.W.C.A. American

Sociological Review, 2(2), 295-298.

Hofer, C.W., & Bygrave, W.D. (1992). Researching Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship:

Theory & Practice, 16(3), 91-100.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hollingsworth, J.R. (2000). Doing institutional analysis: Implications for the study of

innovations. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4), 595-644.

Howard, J.A. (1994). A social cognitive conception of social structure. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 57(3), 210-227.

191Howell, J.M., & Shea C.M. (2001). Individual differences, environmental scanning,

innovation framing, and champion behavior: Key predictors of project

performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 15–27.

Howlett, M. (2003). Administrative styles and the limits of administrative reform: A neo-

institutional analysis of administrative culture. Canadian Public Administration ,

46(4), 471-495.

Hughes, E. C. (1942). The impact of war on American Institutions. The American

Journal of Sociology, 48(3), 398-403.

Humboldt Area Foundation (2001). Glossary. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from

http://hafoundation.org/about/glossary/index.html Verified April 14, 2006.

Hyrsky, K. (1999). Entrepreneurial metaphors and concepts: An exploratory study.

International Small Business Journal, 18(1), 13-34.

Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F., & Covin, J.G. (2003). Antecedents, elements, and

consequences of corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of Management

Best Conference Paper, Entrepreneurship Division, L1-L6.

Ireland,R.D., Hilt, M.A., & Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship:

The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963-989.

Johnson, S. (2000). Literature review on social entrepreneurship. Canadian Center for

Social Entrepreneurship: Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta at Edmonton.

Retrieved April 14, 2006 from

http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/Publications/Publications/Lit.%20Review%20SE

%20November%202000.rtf

192Jones, O., & Conway, S. (2004 in press). The social embeddedness, diversity, and

geographical reach of the entrepreneur's network: The case of James Dyson. In E.

Elgar (Ed.), International Entrepreneurship: The Globalization of Small and

Medium-sized Enterprises Orientation, Environment and Strategy, (p. 3).

Montreal, Quebec: McGill International Entrepreneurship Series.

Jonsson, S. (2003). Trickle-up and trickle-down institutionalized norms and the spread of

new ideas. Academy of Management Proceedings, H1, 6.

Kan, M.M., & Parry, K.W. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership

in overcoming resistance to change. Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 467-491.

Kaplan, R.S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit

organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), 353-371.

Keh, H.T., Hoo, M.D., & Lim, B.C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky

conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory

and Practice, 27(2), 125-148.

Kickul, J., Krueger, N., & Maxfield, S. (2005). Measurement issues in entrepreneurship

studies. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 5-7.

Kuratko, D.F., & Montagno, R.V. (1989). The intrepreneurial spirit. Training and

Development Journal, 83-85.

Lasprogata, G.A., & Cotten, M.N. (2003). Contemplating enterprise: The business and

legal challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal

41(1), 67-111.

Lawrence, T.B. (1999). Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25(2), 161-188.

193Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of

interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy

of Management Journal 45(1), 281-290.

Leana, C. R., & Van Buren III, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and

employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538-555.

Lee, D.P. (2003). The business judgment rule: Should it protect nonprofit directors?

Columbia Law Review, 103(4), 925-969.

Lets, C.W., Ryan,W.P., & Groomsman, A. (1999). High performance nonprofit

organizations: Managing upstream for greater impact. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Levine, S., & White, P.E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of

interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(4) 583-601.

Lin, N. (2001). Building a network theory of social capital: Theory and research. New

York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Loidl-Keil, R. (2002). Juggling with the paradoxes in social enterprises? Paper presented

at EURAM conference in Stockholm, May 8-11, 2002. Retrieved November 12,

2005 from:

http://www.sses.com/public/events/euram/complete_tracks/nonprofit_managemen

t/loidl-keil.pdf Verified April 14, 2006.

Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M.A. (2001).Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and

the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal 22(6-7), 545 – 564.

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future

challenges. Journal of Management, 14, 139-162.

194Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T.B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in

emerging fields: HIV/Aids treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of

Management Journal, 47(5), 657-679.

Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship: What are we talking about? A

framework for future research. IESE Business School. Barcelona,

Spain:University of Navarra. Retrieved October, 21, 2005 from:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=673446 Verified April 14,

2006.

Mangan, K.S. (2004). Teaching business skills to people with a social mission. Chronicle

of Higher Education, 51(10), A10-A12. Retrieved October 23, 2005 from

Academic Search Premier database. Verified April 14, 2006.

Martinez, R.J., & Dacin, M.T. (1999). Efficiency motives and normative forces:

Combining transactions costs and institutional logic. Journal of Management,

25(1), 75-96.

Maxwell, J. (2005). The 360º leader. Nashville,TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

McCann, J.E. (1983). Design guidelines for social problem-solving interventions. Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(2), 177-192.

McCaslin, M.L. (1993). The nature of leadership within rural communities: A grounded

theory. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2003).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 4773.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

195Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure

as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.

Meyerson, D.E. (1994). Interpretations of stress in institutions: The cultural production of

ambiguity and burnout. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 628-653.

Miller, K.D. (2002). Competitive strategies of religious organizations. Strategic

Management Journal, 23(5), 435-456.

Miller, N.J. (2001). Contributions of social capital theory predicting rural community

inshopping behavior. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 475-493.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, R. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder

identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.

Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.

Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., & Lant, T. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial

cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(2), 93-104.

Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. The American Political

Review 63, 111–126.

Morial, M.H. (2004). Redefining devolution. Harvard Journal of African American

Public Policy, 10, 131-134.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the

organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-266.

Nathanson, C.A., & Morlock, L. L. (1980). Control structure, values, and innovation: A

comparative study of hospitals. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 21(4), 315-

333.

196Orr, M. (2001). Build: Governing nonprofits and relational power. Review of Policy

Research, 18(4), 71-90.

Osborne, S.P. (1998). Organizational structure and innovation in U.K. Voluntary social

welfare organizations: Applying the Aston Measures. Voluntas: International

Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 9(4), 345-362.

Padgett, S., Kinabrew, C., Kimbrell, J., & Nicola, R.M. (2005). Turning Point and Public

Health Institutes: Vehicles for systems change. Journal of Public Health

Management Practice 11(2), 116-122.

Pandit, N.R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory

method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4). Retrieved October 13, 2005 at

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html Verified April 14, 2006.

Parry, K.W. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership

research. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 85-105.

Perry, G.J., Roderer, N.K., & Assar, S. (2005). A current perspective on medical

informatics and health sciences librarianship. Journal of Medical Library

Association, 93(2), 199-205.

Peter, J. (2002). Building NFL fortunes. The Dallas Morning News: Sports Day.

Retrieved November 18, 2005 from

http://apse.dallasnews.com/contest/2002/writing/over250/over250.enterprise.fourt

h1.html Verified April 14, 2006.

Pietroburgo, J., & Wernet, S. P. (2004). Joining forces, fortunes, and futures:

Restructuring and adaptation in nonprofit hospice organizations. Nonprofit

Management & Leadership, 15(1), 117-139.

197Piliavin, J. A., & Hong-Wen, C. (1990). Alturism: A review of recent theory and

research Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 27-65.

Pooley, J., Cohen, J., & Pike, L. (2005). Can sense of community inform social capital?

Social Science Journal, 42(1), 71-79.

Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P.J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational

analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Prabhu, G.N. (1999). Social entrepreneurship leadership. Career Development

International, 4(3), 140-145.

Purdue, D. (2001). Neighbourhood governance: Leadership, trust and social capital.

Urban Studies, 38(12), 2211-2224.

Putnam, R. D. (1995) Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. The Journal of

Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

Putnam, R. D. (1996). The strange disappearance of Civic America. The American

Prospect, 7(24), 34-48.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and

competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Raymond, S.U. (2004). The future of philanthopy: Economics, ethics, and management.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Rugh, T.E. (1996). Innovate of die: Six lessons about fostering inventiveness from the

United Way state associations. Association Management, 48, 48-54.

198Salamon, L.M., & Anheier, H.K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining

the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. International Journal of Voluntary and

Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213-248.

Salamon, L.M. (1999). The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The Case of America.

Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(1),

5-23.

Salamon, L.M. (2003). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit America. Washington,

DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Salamon, L.M. (2004). The nonprofit world faces many dangers. Chronicle of

Philanthropy, 16(6), 49-51.

Sandelowski, M. (2005). Interactive qualitative analysis: A systems method for

qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 15(5), 719-720.

Sattler Weber, S.K. (2002). Saving St. James: A case study of rural female entrepreneurs.

Unpublished master's thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Sattler Weber, S.K. (in press). Saving St. James: A case study of five farm women

entrepreneurs. Agriculture and Human Values.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge MA: Harvard

University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical

analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scott, W.R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Scott, W.R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

199Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Sharp, J. (2001). Locating the community field: a study of interorganizational network

structure and capacity for community action. Rural Sociology, 66(3), 403-424.

Smets, M. (2005). Micro-processes of field construction: Evidence from a global law

firm. Paper presented at the 21st EGOS Colloquium "Unlocking Organizations",

June 30-July 2, 2005, Berlin, Germany. Sub-Theme 40: “Professional Service

Organization at Work. SWG: Professional Service Organizations and Knowledge-

Intensive Work” Retrieved January 20, 2006, from:

www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/ccc/Working+Papers/

Sowa, J. E., Selden, S.C., & Sandfort, J.R. (2004). No longer ‘unmeasurable’?: A multi-

dimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit

and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(4), 711-728.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of

qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Starnes, Becky J. (2000). Achieving competitive advantage through the application of

open systems theory and the development of strategic alliances. A guide for

managers of nonprofit organizations. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector

Marketing, 8(2), 15-27.

Stevens, S.K. (2003). In their own words: The entrepreneurial behavior of nonprofit

founders. (Doctoral dissertation, The Graduate School of the Union Institute and

University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 303.

200Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sullivan Mort, G.S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship:

Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88.

Tan, J. (2002). Culture, nation, and entrepreneurial strategic orientations: Implications for

an emerging economy. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4), 95-111.

Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship – a new look at the

people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5), 328-338.

Thornton, P.H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology,

25, 19-46.

Tempkin, K., & Rohe, W. (1998). Social capital and neighborhood stability: An empirical

investigation. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 61-88.

Tolbert, P.S., & Zucker , L.G. (1994). Institutional analyses of organizations: Legitimate

but not institutionalized, ISSR Working Papers in the Social Sciences 1994–95,

6(5), 1- 45. Los Angeles: Institute for Social Science Research, University of

California.

Trist, E.L. (1983). Collaboration in work settings: A personal perspective. Human

Relations, 36(3), 246-268.

van der Wusten, H., & Knippenberg, H. (1998, August). The ethnic dimension in 20th

century politics: A recursive model. Paper presented at the 1998 International

201Geographical Union Conference, Amsterdam:Vossiuspers. Retrieved

December 12, 2005 from http://www.nuim.ie/staff/dpringle/igu/wusten.pdf

Verified April 14, 2006.

Waddock, S.A., & Post, J.E. (1991). Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change. Public

Administration Review, 51(5), 393-401.

Walker, R.M., Jeanes, E., & Rowlands, R. (2002). Notes and surveys: Measuring

innovation – applying the literature-based innovation output indicator to public

services. Public Administration, 80(1), 201-212.

Warren, R.L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus of investigation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(3), 396-417.

Weick, K.E. (1998). Sensemaking as an organizational dimension of global change. In

D.L. Cooperrider & J.E. Dutton (Eds.), Organizational Dimensions of Global

Change (pp.39-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weine, S., Muzurovic, N., Yasmina K., Besic, S., Lezic, A., Mujagic, A., Muzurovic, J.,

Spahovic, D., Feetham, S., Ware, N., Knafl, K., & Pavkovic, I. (2004). Family

Consequences of Refugee Trauma. Family Process, 43(2), 147-160.

Wicks, D. (1998). Organizational structures as recursively constructed systems of agency

and constraint: Compliance and resistance in the context of structural conditions.

Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 35(3), 369-390.

Wicks, D. (2004). The institution of tenure: Freedom or discipline? Management

Decision, 42I(5), 619-627.

Wilkinson, K.P. (1991). The community in rural America. Middleton, WI: Social

Ecology Press.

202Wimberley, T., & Rubens, A. (2002). Management support organizations and

university partnership in nonprofit education, training and consultation. The

Social Science Journal 39, 129-36.

Wortman, M.S., Jr. (1990). Rural entrepreneurship research: Integration into the

entrepreneurship field. Agribusiness, 6(4), 329-344.

Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D.F., & Kuratko, D.F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences

of firm-level entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship: Theory

and Practice, 24(2), 45-63.

Zietlow, J. T. (2001). Social entrepreneurship: Managerial, finance, and marketing

aspects. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 9(1), 19–44.

Zilber, T. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meaning, and

actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management

Journal, 45, 234-254.

Zucker, L.G. (1987). Institutional theories of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology,

13, 443-464.

203Appendix A

Literature Map

204

Figure 1. Literature contributing to study of convening opportunity

205Appendix B

Invitation to the Study

206

207Appendix C

Interview Protocol

208

Interview Protocol #1

Name: ________________________________ Date & Time: __________________

Title or position: ________________________ Location: _____________________

Pseudonym: ____________________________ Interviewer: ___________________ Introduction I want to thank you for taking the time to be interviewed today. What we discuss will be recorded and later transcribed. I will be asking you to review the transcription with notes I make regarding my understanding of what you say. It is important that I am representing your views. In this study I am interested in the process of entrepreneurship. I want to know your perspective, so please feel free to discuss your views. I may ask you some additional questions that you have not reviewed as we go along in order to clarify what you mean. Are you ready to begin? Questions:

I will be doing outside research to find how your organization was created and the mission of the organization. Origins and Development

Briefly describe your organization, including

the governance structure and current programming. In what ways has your organization changed from its original structure and purpose? As the organization developed what kind of help has it received from the outside?

Entrepreneurial Opportunities

Describe the process of how ideas are brought forward in the organization including any barriers to new ideas. How are decisions made that affect new programs or services?

Formal opportunities? Informal opportunities?

209How is information disseminated prior to a decision? Once decisions are made how is the information disseminated? How are you able to have broad, honest debate, including opposing positions? Describe recognition for innovation. (employees or organizational unit)

Describe your organizations ability to generate revenue that is independent of donor dollars. Some people would say that making money in a nonprofit is undermining the reputation of the nonprofit sector, what would you say?

Institutional Capacity

What draws a person to work in the nonprofit sector?

Describe the leadership in your organization.

What successes or pitfalls are there to implement change or to create new products or services?

What issues of power are parts of your job? What is the relationship of leaders to others outside the organization and within? (Staff…. others in the community)

Institutional Linkages

Describe the relationship between the leadership in this organization and others in the organization. Describe your internal communications.

Are relationships inside or outside the organization important or required to find or create innovative ideas? How so?

Describe the relationship between the

210leadership in this organization and the community. How would you characterize the relationship of your organization with other organizations in the community?

When has there been a need to establish collaborative links? Is this a common strategy among organizations in this area? (Probe as to reasons why or why not.)

What are your sources of information about other community projects or activities?

Clearinghouse

If you were to offer advice to another

nonprofit organization that chooses to start an entrepreneurial venture, what might that advice be?

211Appendix D

Institutional Review Board Forms

212

213

214Appendix E

Examples from ATLAS ti

215

Figure 3. Second stage of coding by smaller chunks of data

216

Figure 4. Example of modeling relationships in coding