Voices in the Fog: Accounts of Social Entrepreneurship Identity in the UK Third Sector

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the durability of social entrepreneurship (SE) identity gleaned from narrative accounts of SE. Specifically, this chapter draws on in-depth narrative interviews with five leading social entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom to explore the contested nature of this identity in broader third sector discourse. These interviews were collected at intervals over a period of two years (2010-2011), and were driven by the development of political projects (such as Big Society) aimed at creating a cohesive sense of third sector organizations. As we know from existing research, SEs are at once simply described but also ambiguously identified, and there are many conflicting opinions about the way forward for researchers in this area. Also, we recognize that broader discursive forces have a direct influence upon our understanding of organizational sense-making and identity. The key literatures drawn from in this chapter belong to both discourse and SE fields, in particular this analysis focus on the interplay between discourse, identity and institutionalization (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Hardy, Lawrence, & Grant, 2005; Maguire & Hardy, 2006). Doing this allows for more clear explication of the discursive factors that influence SE identity at macro, meso and micro levels. As such, I develop an argument that the enforced ‘top-down’ approach to identity shaping by powerful political and economic discourse participants is only partly resisted by social entrepreneurs. In terms of the SE literature, a recent paper by Dacin et al (2010) has argued that the more profitable way forward in this field is to recognise the way SE works within key contexts. As such, SE becomes a delimited subject, one that can be applied to many different conventional, cultural and institutional frameworks. Alternatively, there are other competing voices in this academic discourse that seek to keep this critical debate alive (Teasdale, 2012). This approach challenges our understanding of SE, and argues that SE is shaped by political, economic-oriented and social-historical discourses. Directly or indirectly, this in turn influences how we (mis)understand SE and the implications of this on how SEs (as part of the third sector) operate in post-Global Financial Crisis economies (Alcock & Kendall, 2011; Carmel & Harlock, 2008; Mason, 2012). As such, this chapter takes up some of the challenge posed by both of these current research streams. From the UK experience, a number of interesting developments have taken place over the past few years. A change in Government has not necessitated a sea change in SE policy, rather SE has arguably been placed more centrally at the heart of public sector reform. In some ways, this is a positive sign of recognition of the key role that all ‘third sector organsations’ (including SEs) have in delivering important services to communities. Significant State resources have been expended on developing this third sector and have arguably been pivotal in fostering new generations of local leaders intent on pushing greater level of community development through entrepreneurship. However, these developments also create issues within SE discourse that require further analysis, especially that regarding identity. The central research questions for this study are: • RQ1: What identities are portrayed of social entrepreneurs? • RQ2: Are these constructions accepted or resisted? This research helps to address these questions through the narratives developed by social entrepreneurs in the UK, a methodological approach already used successfully in this area (Jones, Latham, & Betta, 2008). Using a discourse and content analysis frameworks, this chapter utilizes this qualitative data to isolate the articulations of resistance to the imposed SE identity. Furthermore, it is possible to identify resistance, and even counter-discourse, among SEs that would be seen as ‘successful’ in terms of their organizational growth and measures of economic and social benefit. The chapter concludes by drawing attention to the key contributions to knowledge arising from the study, in response to the two RQs. Firstly, the study identifies a clear picture of the self-identities of the SE participants, and empirically illustrates the fragmented nature of these identities as shown through the narratives. Thus, this finding aligns with some current research suggesting the SE discourse is, in a broad sense, fragmented. As such, this provides some compelling evidence linking macro-level SE discourse with the micro-level. With regard to RQ2, we find that the reports from SEs combine a hybridized identity that draws on economic concepts of SE, but also resist notions of SE policy as promoted by successive UK governments.