ABSTRACT
This research adopts a resource dependency approach to support the process of social innovation application within the context of nonprofit resource procurement using a comparative sample of resource-providing organizations (n = 8) and nonprofit resource recipients (n = 10). An organizational discourse analysis was adopted to explore concepts of power and legitimacy across groups revealing several ways that social innovation is employed and challenged by both resource recipients and providers. Further, a text coverage analysis revealed several discrepancies with the use of terminology between sub-samples. Together, these novel analytical approaches provide a narrative regarding the ways in which social innovation is co-conceptualized within nonprofit resource provision, including examining the role of language and power between stakeholder groups.
RÉSUMÉ
Cette recherche adopte une approche de axée sur la dépendance aux envers les ressources pour soutenir examiner le processus d'application de l'innovation sociale dans le contexte de l'approvisionnement en ressources à but non lucratif. Pour réaliser cet objectif, la recherche en utilisantrecourt à un échantillon comparatif d'organisations fournissant des ressources d'une part (n = 8) et de bénéficiaires de ressources à but non lucratif de l'autre (n = 10). Une Par surcroît, une analyse du discours organisationnel a été adoptée pour explorer les concepts de pouvoir et de légitimité au sein de ces groupes, révélantdémontrant plusieurs façons dont l'innovation sociale est utilisée et contestée à la foisautant par les fournisseurs de ressources que par les bénéficiaires et les fournisseurs de ressources. De plus, une analyse de la couverture textuelle a révélé plusieurs divergences dans l'utilisation de la terminologie entre les sous-échantillons. Ensemble, ces diverses nouvelles approches analytiques fournissent permettent, par l'examen du rôle du langage et du pouvoir entre groupes de parties prenantes, d'élaborer une récit narration sur la manière dont l'innovation sociale est co-conceptualisée dans la fourniture de ressources à but non lucratif, notamment en examinant le rôle du langage et du pouvoir entre les groupes de parties prenantes.
Keywords: social innovation, nonprofit organizations, foundations, resource provision / innovation sociale, associations organismes à sans but non lucratif, fondations, fourniture de ressources
INTRODUCTION
Driving the development of new social service programs in the nonprofit sector is an emphasis on social innovation (Shier & Handy, 2019; Bruneel, Clarysse, Staessens, & Weemaes, 2020); however, despite the value of socially innovative efforts in leading a new era of human service delivery, little is known about how human-service organizations and their resource providing partners may contribute to the mutual understanding and implementation of this concept. More research on the implementation of social innovation is needed for organizations to effectively identify opportunities to engage in related activities (do Adro & Fernandes, 2019).
Recently, the term "innovation" has received broad attention by funding bodies (Jaskyte, Amato, & Sperber, 2018) and has been commonly incorporated as evaluation criteria for the distribution of human service resources (Toepier, 2018). Use of the term "social innovation" within this context remains poorly understood, yet it defines which organizations receive vital support as potential recipients attempt to conceptualize social innovation through a method of synthesis (understanding how the term is commonly defined) and re-processing (re-conceptualizing the term within the specific organizational context) (Jansson, Benoit, Casey, Phillips, & Burns, 2010). How dynamics between funders and organizations contribute to the development of social innovation at an organizational level is unknown and occupies an understudied yet vital branch of nonprofit research. The following study addresses this gap by employing an organizational discourse analysis design and collecting qualitative data to address the research question: How do interactions with funders contribute to the conceptualization of social innovation within nonprofit human service organizations?
To answer this question, authors conducted semi-structured interviews with nonprofit resource providers (foundations) and resource recipients. Foundations were selected as key actors in the distribution of grant monies in Canada and include both private and public sub-types, both of which are established as a corporation or trust and engage exclusively in charitable activities. Private foundations may engage in their own charitable activities and/or fund other registered charities, while public foundations typically give more than 50 percent of their funding to other registered charities. Board composition also differentiates foundations in Canada; whereas private foundation board members are usually not at arms length and often include major donors, public foundation boards include arms-length members (Lefèvre & Fontan, 2017).
Both sub-samples provided rich data regarding the conceptualization of social innovation within the context of resource distribution. An organizational discourse analysis (which is a type of critical discourse analysis) identified main themes contributing to the meaning-making of social innovation, including ways in which providers and recipients of resources agree and differ on specific terms and ideas. A textual analysis provided another layer of analysis by focusing on terminology use within the dataset.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Social innovation
Social innovation has been broadly defined to encapsulate activities that are new and focus on creating social good through addressing unmet needs and expanding the number of options available to a specific social group (Shier & Handy, 2015a; Edwards-Schachter & Wallace, 2017). Two general areas of focus have emerged in conceptualizing social innovation: social innovation as a process and social innovation as an outcome (Nicholls & Ziegler, 2017). Examples of social innovation as a process include Dawson and Daniel's (2010) conceptualization as a "process of collective idea generation, selection and implementation by people who participate collaboratively to meet social challenges" (p. 16). Conversely, Pol and Ville (2009) focus on the outcomes of social innovation, viewing it as "any new idea with the potential to improve either the macro-quality of life or the quantity of life" (p. 882) for a group of people.
Importantly, most definitions of social innovation incorporate an element of "change in social relationships, systems, or structures" (van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016, p. 1932), highlighting the social in social innovation. Social innovation has also been organized into factors and characteristics describing associated activities within human-service organizations. Based on interviews with executive directors of nonprofits in the province of Alberta, Canada, Shier and Handy (2015a) identify three types of social innovations: socially transformative social innovations, product-based social innovations, and process-based social innovations. Socially transformative social innovations primarily generate public awareness on an issue or influence policy directions, whereas product-based social innovations are focused on creating new programs or new organizations, or adapting existing programming to meet emerging social needs, and process-based social innovations adapt organizational processes, practices, and structures to support social change (Shier & Handy, 2015a, 2016b). Nicholls and Ziegler (2017) also identify three categories of social innovation along a spectrum, which are incremental innovations, institutional innovations, and radical innovations. Incremental innovations seek to promote more efficient use of goods and services, whereas institutional innovations may adapt existing structures, and radical innovations create new products and services, or generate new groups or movements to change social relations for the benefit of marginalized communities (Nicholls & Ziegler, 2017).
Resource dependency theory in human service nonprofits
Resource dependency theory focuses on the importance of resources to the organization and the extent to which required resources are controlled by other organizations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Thompson, 1967). "Resources" are defined as anything an organization may need to mobilize effort and pursue its goals (McCarthy & Zaid, 1973). Types of resources may include moral (support, validation, and external endorsement), informational (knowledge relevant to conducting services), material (money and other items needed to carry out services), and human (labour or leadership) resources (Cress & Snow, 1996). These resources are handled and exchanged in a variety of ways within an organizational environment, and organizations measure the importance of a given resource by assessing how much it can be accounted for in the outcome/service it produces (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Resource dependency asserts that resources are fundamental aspects of organizational survival (Cress & Snow, 1996), and that predictable, consistent inflows of resources are key in the quest for program sustainability (Benson, 1975; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). However, problems can occur when the environment is not dependable, leading to unforeseen changes in resource availability (Nienhuser, 2008). Financial resources are crucial components supporting the adoption and sustainability of social innovations in nonprofits (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016; Stefani et al., 2020), with a lack of funds often contributing to a delay in adopting related programs (Akuffo & Soop, 2020; Martins et al., 2020). Nonprofit direct-service organizations are generally understood as "resource receiving" and rely on consistent inflows of financial and other resources to sustain programming and to engage in social impact (Clayton et al., 2016).
Through the lens of resource dependency theory, the role of social innovation is both a contingency for resource procurement, and a vehicle for organizational legitimacy. Organizational legitimacy is closely tied to power as an important determinizing factor of resource distribution. Power itself can be distributed through influence, politics, and socialization (Burns, 1978) within an organizational environment in the form of control over resources and, by extension, other organizations (Benson, 1975; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Relatedly, organizations with power can attempt to change their environments by exerting control over other organizations who may depend on particular resources, forcing them to conform to specific structures, such as social innovation (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Benson, 1975; Nienhuser, 2008; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Nonprofits achieve legitimacy by aligning their goals and operations with the environment, which is determined by social norms and values (Maurer, 1971). When an environment shifts, organizations change accordingly to remain legitimate and generate and/or sustain social support (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Recently, social innovation has become a primary requirement for resource distribution in the nonprofit environment, as dictated by those who hold resources and power (Bruneel et al., 2020). Though several options for funding social innovations exist, procurement of grants provided by foundations is a primary source for many human service nonprofits (Cecere et al, 2018; Dinnie & Holstead, 2018). These actors can be described as "resource-providing" organizations. In Canada, foundations can be registered as either private, public, or charitable, and all share a commitment to redistributing resources to social causes, be it within their own programming, or that of other nonprofit organizations. Foundations often provide the parameters by which nonprofits achieve and maintain legitimacy through conforming to or co-developing conceptualizations of social innovation.
Political dimensions
Research has also focused on the political dimensions of social innovation, highlighting how related terminology communicates a set of underlying values that are latent in the operationalization of the concept. Studies have focused on the inherent tension between the use of social innovation as both an extension of neoliberal capitalist discourse and as a possible emancipatory pathway for human-service organizations to escape oppressive resourcing frameworks (Lachapelle, 2021; Montgomery, 2016). In the latter, social innovation is framed as a catalyst for social change that follows other widespread social movements that challenge dominant structures (Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019). For example, in a case study byTello-Rozas (2016), innovative social organizing between a group of local residents and organizations in La Victoria, Peru, successfully responded to and alleviated a waste management issue perpetrated by varying levels of government. In contrast, Lachapelle (2021) proposes social innovation is applied as a performative concept in humanservice organizations, where use of the term is meant to signal specific value-laden orientations, such as responding to grand challenges or contributing to organizational efficiency. Though each paradigm has been nested within the concept of social innovation, it has been argued that further research focusing on contextualized applications of this term will provide clarity regarding its realworld manifestations (Montgomery, 2016).
Foundations play a key role in accelerating innovations by filling gaps in government services (Mosley & Galaskiewicz, 2015; Finchum-Mason, Husted, & Suarez, 2020;), but have been found to be more apt to support programs that provide incremental improvements to social problems rather than funding social innovations that disrupt existing structures and challenge systemic issues (Giloth, 2017; Leslie, Khayatzadeh-Mahani, Birdsell, Forest, Henderson, Gray etai., 2020). One possible explanation for this trend may be how foundations define innovation (or more precisely, how funders' definition of social innovation differs from more widely held conceptions adopted by direct-service nonprofits). Supporting this notion, Jaskyte, Amato, and Sperber (2018) found that foundations in the United States often failed to provide a clear definition for innovation, and could benefit by meeting as a group to reach a mutually agreed interpretation of the term, including its breadth and scope for enacting social change. The funding of incremental innovations also contrasts with the perceived role of foundations as change agents and risk takers (Toepier, 2018). There is an observed need for foundations to shift their funding priorities to achieve their mandates of supporting innovation and promoting new initiatives (Aggarwala & Frasch, 2017; Clifford, 2017). The openness and willingness to invest in new ideas and innovation often require funders to place their trust in community partners (Svensson & Hambrick, 2019), and research has found that funders willing to work directly with grantees to better understand impacted communities and recognize the most important needs are more successful in supporting social impact (Bettis & Pepin, 2019).
The following study seeks to clarify and bolster the funding of social innovations by examining ways in which foundations and resource recipients perceive and define associated concepts. This includes identifying discrepancies in how social innovation is applied, while seeking opportunities to enhance mutual understanding of the concept within the context of resource allocation.
METHODS
Procedure
This study follows a pragmatic qualitative design utilizing organizational discourse analysis, which is a sub-branch of critical discourse analysis (Leitch & Palmer, 2010). Two main samples were developed for a comparative analysis: management staff in nonprofit human-service organizations that work directly with funding and resource acquisition (i.e., resource recipients) and staff of foundations that provide resources to nonprofits (i.e., resource providers). Data were collected from both groups utilizing semi-structured interviews that concentrated on processes of discourse and meaning making surrounding the term "social innovation," focusing on how dynamics between organizations that provide and exchange resources contribute to this process. This follows a resource dependency perspective, where key guidelines (i.e., social innovation) provided by resource providers contribute to actions adopted by resource recipients as they conform to these guidelines and seek legitimacy. A thematic analysis of qualitative data identified general and specific aspects of how organizations interpret and conceptualize social innovation through ongoing processes of engagement between resource providers and recipients. Prior to data collection, ethics approval was obtained from the University of Toronto Human Research Ethics Board.
Sample and recruitment
There are two main respondent groups in this study, including managerial staff of direct-service nonprofits who are responsible for attracting funding and related resources (such as fundraising coordinators, project managers, executive directors, and funding account managers), and respondents representing foundations (public and private) that provide funding and resources to nonprofit human services. Respondents occupying these positions have unique insight of the relationships developed between resource providing and resource-recipient organizations. A main tenet of their work is focused on engaging in discursive correspondence, either written, verbally, or both, with the expressed purpose of resource distribution. As such, respondents can reflect on the exchange of language, power, and coded meaning, which is laden in the relationship between resource provider and resource recipient in nonprofit human services. Respondents also occupy positions that allow them to uniquely reflect on organizational dynamics impacting resource distribution or procurement, and therefore justify the organization as a unit of analysis. Capturing this dynamic from both angles, including those making decisions regarding resource provision as well as those vying for said resources, supports an analysis of discursive dynamics.
Respondents were recruited from a purposive sample generated from the United Way list of affiliated nonprofit organizations in Canada, which provides one of the most comprehensive national databases of registered human service organizations. This ensured that authors were sampling from a diverse set of stakeholders. Authors reviewed this list for organizations that were providing services directly to a community, and reviewed website content to select nonprofits that described their programs as "innovative," or used related terms (such as "socially entrepreneurial" or "transformational"). Then, contact information for an executive staff working directly with resource procurement were gleaned. For resource-providing organizations, authors sought foundations that utilized similar language on organizational websites and supported local human service nonprofits. Emails stating the purpose of the study and a brief introduction of the authors, as well as the ethics protocol, were sent to prospective respondents, and a follow-up email was distributed two weeks after initial contact. The final sample consisted of resource providers (n = 8) and resource recipients (n = 12).
Data collection
After agreeing to be interviewed and providing informed consent, respondents participated in open ended one-to-one interviews conducted over phone or video call by the primary author. Semi-structured interview guides were created for each respondent group. For members of nonprofit humanservice organizations receiving resources, a set of specific questions was generated following a review of the literature. Questions began by asking the respondent to explain the nature of their engagement with organizations currently or potentially providing resources, before guiding them to discuss social innovation within this context. The interview guide identified the process of developing proposals specifically, following research on this topic (Haddad, Ayala, Uriona Maldonado, Forcellini, & Lezana, 2016; Hammond, Lê, Novotny, Caligiuri, Pierce, & Wade, 2017). Further, some questions sought a rough definition of social innovation from respondents while identifying characteristics associated with the term that can be embedded in organizational practice. This strategy follows other studies conducting critical discourse analysis in nonprofit settings (Gonsalves & McGannon, 2020; Nairn & Guinibert, 2020). The guide concluded by asking the respondent to compare this definition with the organizational mission, further embedding the term in its organizational context and reflecting similar strategies from Khadka (2014).
A second interview guide was developed for respondents representing foundations that provide resources to nonprofit human services after consulting previous research. Similarly, respondents were asked to describe the nature of their engagement with nonprofits before exploring how social innovation is defined and integrated within this context. Questions were designed to elicit information about the use and application of this term, and how the respondents perceive dynamics of power as influencing this process. This approach is directly borrowed from similar studies (Clayton et al., 2015; Bakko, 2019). The final questions were intended to elicit examples from respondents of demonstrations of social innovation; these data provided rich accounts of the how texts are transformed into practice through discourse-a critical aspect of critical discourse analysis studies (Fairclough, 1995).
Analysis
Guiding the process of data collection and analysis was the implementation of organizational discourse analysis, which follows an adapted version of critical discourse analysis for organizational research, created by Leitch and Palmer (2010) and further honed by Chouliaraki and Fairclough (2010). Generally, critical discourse analysis focuses on social problems and related power dynamics (Mumby & Clair, 1997), with an emphasis on how text (including subjects and knowledge) is produced and reproduced through discourse, then operationalized in practice (Fairclough, 1995). Texts are therefore manifestations of discourse and are provided meaning through processes of power and influence (Fairclough, 1995). A focus on discourse reveals the effects of resource dependency from the perspective of power-holding resource providers and resource-dependent stakeholders. To achieve this analytical procedure, authors completed the thematic analysis as well as a content analysis of text coverage and identified commonly used terminology within the dataset. Analysis was supported by Nvivol2 qualitative data analysis software (2020).
Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim to text files for analysis. Transcribed qualitative interviews were analysed utilizing a thematic qualitative approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Creswell, 2009). The generation of themes began first with authors independently identifying "micro-discourse" (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000) within the data, which involves a selection of detailed language followed by application to a specific context (i.e., the conceptualization of social innovation between resourcing-providing and resource-receiving organizations). These micro-discourses reflected ways in which respondents understood the role of social innovation within their specific job domains, as well as how it was then applied to the practice of resource distribution. Authors searched for "systematic patterns" (Budd, Kelsey, Mueller, & Whittle, 2018) in the conceptualization of social innovation to frame findings, seeking common discourse shared between respondents to qualify a micro-discourse. Findings were treated as unique to each sub-sample for the purpose of highlighting the idiosyncrasies of resource-providing and resourcereceiving organizations. Once micro-discourses were identified independently by authors, findings were compared and discrepancies were addressed by revisiting corresponding data and discussing its interpretation, which reflects a "constant comparison" approach (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). This resulted in a final list of micro-discourses, which author 1 (AT) then transformed into themes by refining terminology to reflect concepts that were espoused in the data. Author 2 (MS) then reviewed these themes to ensure they adequately represented the systematic patterns identified at the beginning of the analytical process. This approach borrows from Gee's (1999) recommendations for discourse analysis, and studies adopting similar methodology (Greckhamer & Çilesiz, 2022).
FINDINGS
Thematic analysis
Resource recipients
Four emergent themes were identified capturing the application of social innovation within the context of nonprofit resource procurement for direct-service organizations: newness bias, emphasis on growth, communicating impact, and evidence paradox. Each theme is further described in the following sections.
A general bias toward new projects was identified by resource-recipient respondents to be of critical importance when considering successful resource procurement for social innovations. Organizations were found to highlight the novelty of services in various ways, including providing data or research about the broader service environment. Respondents commented on the uniqueness of specific interventions, and how it contributed to descriptions of innovativeness to potential funders. One respondent identified the use of environmental scans to illustrate newness within the service environment. Other respondents emphasized continuous improvement within granting proposals as a reflection of fostering new and innovative approaches to service delivery. Conversely, several respondents criticized what was perceived to be an overall bias for newness displayed by resource providers. Respondents feared that a newness bias might ignore community needs by concentrating solely on projects that were deemed novel. For example, one respondent stated, "The program itself is the same as it was six months ago, and they [funders] need it to be ... brand new ... the newest and best thing, but their definition of 'best' mismatches with community need" (NP-03). Similarly, some respondents cautioned that the focus on novelty by resource providers was often too strong and eliminated the potential for other programs to receive resource supports.
Respondents representing resource-receiving organizations discussed how they characterized social innovations to resource providers by emphasizing programmatic and organizational growth. An emphasis on growth included diverse ways in which resource recipients described the development of organizational programming, including the contributions of social innovations to growth across services. For example, two respondents discussed positive resourcing support for piloting innovative programs as a way of facilitating growth: "We actually do have a clear understanding of what our innovation process is ... So we're able to tell people 'this is where we are in the cycle and this idea. We're at the rapid and iterative very small pilot stage'" (NP-07). Two other respondents commented on the role of partnership development as a highly effective method of demonstrating organizational growth to resource providers.
Respondents identified several ways in which they communicated social innovation impact to resource providers as a strategy for resource procurement. One important focus for respondents was the articulation of localized innovation by demonstrating how a specific project provides a new option for a specific community, despite it possibly being widely integrated elsewhere. This was bolstered by emphasizing strong community connections and relationship building with stakeholders. Two respondents focused specifically on the role of community consultation as a method of generating social innovations, which can then be communicated to resource providers. Related activities supported the measurement of change within a service provider group or community, leading to more formalized monitoring and evaluation frameworks. One respondent captured this theme: "I think that's the kind of thing that funders want to see. They want to see change, they want to see people experiencing opportunities that they didn't have before, helping them to learn skills" (NP-07).
Finally, respondents described an evidence paradox characterized by contradictory guidelines provided by resource providers that emphasized innovation and evidence concurrently. These were not perceived to be synonymous by resource recipients, who struggled to articulate the innovativeness of a project while also providing an evidence-base for its effectiveness. For example, one respondent stated, "it's kind of interesting, because there is also a huge desire to make everything evidencebased, so that kind of contradicts being innovative" (NP-01). Many respondents commented on the need for resource providers to support transformative and disruptive social innovations, which reflect widespread change. However, these same providers were also requesting that organizations show proof-of-concept. This was sometimes accomplished by adopting an approach or program that had been successfully implemented within a different geographical context or service user group and showing evidence of impact.
Resource providers
Data from providers of resources to nonprofits were analyzed and generated four main themes: conceptual clarity, project differentiation, proof of sustainability, and supporting multidisciplinarity. Themes are described in the following sections.
Respondents representing foundations indicated difficulty in developing conceptual clarity regarding social innovation, despite many actively using this terminology to set requirements for resource provision. Many respondents encountered difficulty in identifying a clear definition of the term, and openly discussed its ambiguous use and application within the context of resource provision. The need for a universal definition of social innovation that is understandable and clear was emphasized by many respondents. Several respondents, such as the one quoted above, identified challenges associated with employing social innovation as a metric for distributing resources when the term is not widely understood or defined. This included poor alignment between resource providers and recipients, use of language that may distract from building strong resourcing partnerships, and the arbitrary use of terminology that may have conflicting definitions. Still, respondents struggled to meaningfully describe social innovation; one respondent commented, "I sometimes feel like I recognize it when I see it, but I'm not sure that I would be able to give you my own definition" (RR-06). Such an approach to applying social innovation in practice may not be helpful to organizations seeking to assess whether their own programming efforts fit the parameters (however vague) outlined by those in charge of distributing resources.
Discussion on the importance of project differentiation as a fundamental aspect of social innovation was also a common theme provided by resource providers. Respondents described how successful resource recipients were able to clearly demonstrate their comparative uniqueness within the overall service environment. Similar data reveals how project differentiation was often treated as a replacement for determining the innovativeness of resource recipients. Resource providers were therefore more likely to fund early-stage projects that incorporated a new idea or adapting an existing program for a new community. However, respondents also engaged in some debate regarding the role of novelty and its necessity to innovation. For example, one respondent stated, "I also get confused myself over whether something can be innovative if a lot of people are doing it, right? Does it kind of counteract the definition of innovation?" (RP-03). Deliberation within the respondent subsample reinforces how language related to social innovation is fluent and often ungrounded, leading to perplexation by resource providers when seeking to formulate definitional parameters.
Respondents also highlighted the need for proof of sustainability, where potential resource recipients could determine how social innovations contribute to long-term impact and success at a service-delivery level. Further, it was incumbent that social innovations could be scaled and integrated as core components of an organization. Resource providers summarized related activities as supporting service delivery efficiency. For example, one respondent stated, "[resource recipients] are making everything more efficient, they are saving money, they are giving more work and opportunity to be creative ... to me it is an innovation" (RP-05). Some respondents commented on the adoption of specific implementation methodologies to guide sustainability. For example, one respondent cited design thinking as an important component sought in grant applications. Conversely, other respondents commented on the misalignment between program sustainability and social innovation, noting that once a project achieved sustainability, it may no longer be considered social innovation as it is no longer new.
The final theme, supporting multidisciplinarity, reflects ways in which resource providers support social innovations that include collaborative efforts from multiple stakeholders of varying backgrounds. This included the blending of different knowledge bases by combining diverse professional skillsets on a single project or program. One respondent commented, "they are asked to describe their project in a whole bunch of terms, you know, risk-taking, does it demonstrate collaboration and partnership? Is it innovative? It is provocative?" (RP-05). This was supported by resource providing organizations that actively fostered multidisciplinary networks across sectors and providers to create opportunities for blending approaches.
While seeking partnership-based projects was not new for resource-providing organizations, the integration of social innovation within this scope was a recent and ongoing development. Table 1 provides a summary of data coverage across all themes from each sub-sample.
Text coverage
To assess frequency of terms within data, a text coverage analysis was conducted for both subsamples, including the number of occurrences for each word (n), as well as overall coverage (%), measured by the appearance of the term across multiple respondents. The top fifteen terms (including stemmed words) are summarized in Table 2. There are several discrepancies when comparing data from within and between sub-samples. For example, while "new/ newness" had the highest total occurrences within both resource recipients and providers, it was concentrated to fewer respondents, as indicated by a lower relative coverage for each group. While a smaller number of respondents mentioned newness as an important aspect of social innovation, they tended to emphasize this concept strongly by repeating the term more often. Conversely, the terms with the highest coverage also tended to have high overall occurrences. For example, the terms "program^)/ programming" and "different/ differently" had the highest coverage within resource recipients at 52 percent (n = 25) and 51 percent (n = 21), respectively. Over half of resource recipients mentioned these terms when discussing social innovation, while the terms "different(ly)" (22%) and "project(s)" (21%), were highest among resource providers. While both groups emphasized differentiation as a key component of social innovation, resource providers tended to also discuss project-based work, while resource recipients used the terms "program(s)/programming." Other notable discrepancies included the term "community(ies)," which was mentioned by almost half (49%) of resource recipients, but only 5 percent of resource providers. In other words, resource recipients included the scope of community at a significantly higher rate compared with resource providers, where the term was virtually absent in their data. Similar findings appeared for the terms "approach," "evidence/evidence-based/evidence-informed," and "relationship(s)," which were all more prevalent within the resource-recipient sub-sample. Overall, distribution of terms across respondents was higher in the resource-recipient sub-sample.
To visually represent term frequency, word clouds were created for resource recipients (Figure 1) and resource providers (Figure 2). Terms that appear larger and closer to the center of the cloud have higher frequencies within the sub-sample, while terms that appear smaller and on the periphery of the word cloud have lower frequencies.
DISCUSSION
Social innovation has received considerable empirical attention over the past 10 years (do Adro & Fernandes, 2019; Bayuo, Chaminade, & Göransson, 2020); however, examinations of how the term is operationalized at a practice level, especially within the context of nonprofit resource procurement and dependency, remains sparse. This research adopted an organizational discourse analysis approach to develop a better understanding of the ways in which nonprofit resource recipients and resource providers of foundations apply and define social innovation as a key factor influencing the way in which resources are distributed. A resource dependency perspective was applied to guide the study approach and analysis. In thematic analysis, resource recipients conceptualized social innovation as including a newness bias and emphasis on growth, while highlighting the role of communicating impact and an evidence paradox. Resource providers focused on conceptual clarity, project differentiation, proof of sustainability, and supporting multidisciplinarity. Similar text coverage between sub-samples was found for new/newness, different(ly), project(s), program (s)/programming, interesting/interested, and population(s), while discrepancies (i.e., higher occurrences within resource recipients) were found for community(ies), approach, evidence/evidence-based/evidence-informed, process (ed) (es), impact(ed)(s), relationship(s), research(er), consultation, and opportunity (ies). Findings have several repercussions for the practical use of social innovation, alignment between foundations and resource recipients, and the resource provision process.
Similarities in findings between resource providers and recipients identified core concepts and values shared across both groups. For example, both sub-samples applied a futu re-oriented perspective when discussing social innovation. Resource recipients emphasized the role of demonstrating growth within programs as a tactic for procuring resources, while resource providers commented on similar factors related to project sustainability. Related findings align with specific perspectives regarding the utility of social innovation within the context of implementation; namely, leading scholars argue that innovations are not possible until they have been meaningfully incorporated and adequately diffused into organizations (Zucker, 1987; Rogers, 2003). Respondents in this study largely agree that any social innovation must prove longevity before deemed successful, and this was an important part of the resource procurement process.
Another similarity between sub-samples was the contested role of novelty in supporting social innovation. For resource recipients, newness bias reflected the perceived tendency for resource providers to favour projects that were contemporary and had not been done before. Similarly, a strong theme for resource providers included project differentiation, which was discussed as ways in which direct-service nonprofits articulate socially innovative activities by highlighting originality when compared with similar organizations within the same environment. While resource recipients focused on overall novelty, resource providers adopted a comparative perspective as a method of ascertaining the distinctness of social innovations. A concentration on novelty is also common in research seeking to conceptualize social innovation (Shier & Handy, 2015a, 2015b; Solis-Navarrete, Bucio-Mendoza, & Paneque-Gálvez, 2021), and is often cited as a necessity for this work (Hunt & Ortiz-Hunt, 2017; Portales, 2019). While novelty cannot be disentangled from the core conceptualization of social innovation, respondents from both sub-samples in this study debated the extent to which an activity required exclusivity to be deemed socially innovative. This included questioning what makes something "new," while considering factors such as service user group and geographical location. This has repercussions on the relationships between resource providers and recipients, as an emphasis on new projects may limit and organization's ability to capture long-term funding. It may be incumbent upon resource receiving organizations to consistently frame their programs as "new" to meet related qualifications. This may distract from ensuring longevity of interventions addressing social inequities by shifting organizational focus to new programs or new adaptations to pre-existing programs, which may or may not be needed.
Despite some agreement regarding factors associated with social innovation, both respondent groups struggled with locating a meaningful definition. This may be unsurprising for resource recipients, given that research has shown how resource providers often fail to adequately define key factors related to funding decisions (Carcedo, Davis, Folkerth, Grubstein, & Kabel, 2020; Piatak & Pettijohn, 2021). However, this finding is particularly problematic for resource providers representing foundations, which are often tasked with providing sets of parameters and requirements for funding. According to resource dependency theory, organizations with resource control often hold power over establishing the parameters for distribution. However, in this study, while resource providers agreed that social innovation was an important aspect of funding decisions (some even used this language as evaluation criteria), they also found it difficult to elaborate on this concept meaningfully. Similar conceptual underdevelopment may lead to arbitrary use of the term (given how subjective its definition may be) and would explain why resource recipients were so challenged by its ambiguity. It is important to note that resource providers normally hold power when defining related concepts, which then dictates the ways in which resource recipients can respond in the form of funding proposals and fit their own programs and organization within the given parameters. Therefore, poor definitional constructs can place undue burden on resource recipients to fill in knowledge gaps. This may lead to a dilemma in identifying the party responsible for establishing a clear and accessible definition of social innovation: is it incumbent that resource providers set firm guidelines, given they adopt similar language, or should resource recipients champion their own interpretation as the organization serving community? Regardless, it was clear from the data that poor conceptual understanding contributed to a loss in meaningfulness and "innovation fatigue" experienced by resource recipients. These findings highlight a serious theory-practice gap as related research (which has adequately defined social innovation) is clearly not being employed within the context of nonprofit resource provision.
Supporting thematic analysis were several divergent findings from text coverage analysis. Overall, variance in term use was higher in resource recipients (even after considering differences in sample size), indicating that more respondents from this group used similar terms compared with resource providers, where terms were more isolated to a smaller number of individuals. This could indicate that language pertaining to social innovation resource provision is highly localized and differentiated among resource providers, whereas resource recipients are in greater agreement about what social innovation is. Other discrepancies pertaining to specific terminology were found when comparing sub-samples. Words such as "community(ies)," "impact(ed)(s)," "consultation," and "relationship(s)" were more common in the resource-recipient group, reflecting an emphasis on localization and human-centredness that was not found in resource-provider data. The absence of related terms in resource provider data is concerning and indicates potential neglect of a community-focused lens.
Integrating community and human factors is critical when considering equity-based outcomes associated with social innovation and must be a substantial component of how foundations select projects to support. Similarly, words such as "approach" and "process(ed)(es)" were also largely missing from resource provider data, despite appearing across many responses from resource recipients. This may reflect a focus on implementation and integration of social innovations adopted by resource recipients that is not equally harnessed by resource providers.
The theme "evidence paradox" offers insight regarding how resource recipients can struggle to achieve legitimacy when funding parameters are unclear. Resource recipients were quick to voice frustrations regarding what was described as incongruent funding guidelines when asked by resource providers and foundations to demonstrate innovativeness and an evidence base concurrently. An emphasis on evidence use was also prevalent for resource recipients in text coverage analysis; however, a similar frequency was not prevalent within resource providers, who neglected to identify this factor in any meaningful way. A comparison of data between respondent groups shows a gap between what is deemed important by resource recipients and resource providers. It could be that resource providers perceive the use of evidence as ancillary to social innovations, while resource recipients interpret this factor as a key aspect of how resources are distributed, thereby being a necessity to achieve organizational legitimacy. Further, providing evidence may be a factor common across all decisions made by foundations (regardless as to whether it involves a social innovation or not), and is therefore not a unique aspect of their interpretations of social innovations, resulting in low prevalence within the data. Conversely, use of evidence may not be as important to resource providers as resource recipients believe. However, this explanation is less likely to be the case as it does not align with previous literature, which tends to highlight the importance of evidence use in funding decisions (Lambert, Carter, Burgess, & Haji Ali Afzali, 2018; Greenhalgh & Montgomery, 2020). Overall, the discrepancy of evidence-related language between groups offers another way in which resource providers use their power as decision-makers. In this case, guidelines for funding were interpreted as paradoxical, where resource recipients pointed to the challenges of proposing a program that was both innovative and evidence based. However, resource providers can continue to offer unclear requirements because they hold power in their authority to distribute vital funding.
Given the relevance to practice-based development of social innovation within the context of nonprofit resource provision between foundations and direct-service organizations, suggestions for both resource providers and recipients may be offered because of this study. Firstly, it is important for resource providers to couple the use of complex terminology with clear, concrete, and understandable definitions that are widely recognized and rooted in practice and research. Findings from this study show how poor conceptual development can cause major barriers to both resource providers and recipients when engaging in the process of funding and granting distribution. To avoid confusion, social innovation must be given well-developed guidelines and boundaries that are co-developed by foundations and community stakeholders, such as potential grant-receiving organizations and their service users. Such guidelines can then be articulated to resource recipients in a way that can be easily followed in granting applications. In this way, foundations can function as "organizational field" builders, where the selection of resource recipients can serve to shape or restructure a particular domain (i.e., social innovation) in a way that most benefits community (Bartley, 2007).
To promote the use of social innovation as an autonomous and practical concept, the term must be used by all groups purposively to avoid employing it as a catch-all phrase to describe supported programs. One way of achieving this may include enhanced co-operation between resource providers and recipients to develop a mutual understanding of social innovation that is both rooted in evidence and reflective of community work. This may include the implementation of specific collaborative bodies, such as community advisory boards or governance tables, that include representation from human-service organizations, community members, and funding institutions. Such interdisciplinary models may transgress the power imbalance between resource providers and recipients by providing opportunities for community voices to be positioned at the centre of the social innovation discussion. This may lead to more equitable funding structures, such as the development of social innovation-focused grants and funds, which can direct resources into specialized activities considered innovative. Related approaches reflect a "trust-based" philanthropy approach, where resource recipients are provided with increased ability to use funding dollars in a way that is most responsive to unique community-based needs (Taddy-Sandino, Ammann Howard, & Nascimento, 2023), and can include streamlining processes, reducing reporting imperatives, incorporating ongoing feedback loops, and enhancing implementation supports (Powell, Evans, Bednar, Oladipupo, & Sidibe, 2023).
Likewise, resource-recipient organizations should consider their own autonomy in the process of resource provision for social innovations. It is imperative to incorporate intentionality when seeking resources, such as funding and grants, to support socially innovative programs and projects. For example, resource recipients may be selective by limiting grant-seeking activities to funds that reflect community voices by creating their own definition of social innovation that reflects evidence but also incorporates community needs, and using this definition as a compass when selecting which funds they may submit to. Supporting this process, resource recipients may leverage preexisting interorganizational networks (such as professional societies, service frameworks, and partnerships) to advocate for more transparent granting practices, including the incorporation of a community lens and a clear definition of social innovation. However, it must also be acknowledged that resource-constrained organizations may lack the opportunity to engage in related activities due to the urgency of resource needs. Such resource precarity can make organizations more vulnerable to the sometimes strict or unclear guidelines espoused by foundations (Power, Hall, Kaley, & Macpherson, 2021). Consequently, human-service organizations may commit "mission drift," where to capture funding to keep programs running, activities within that organization stray from the organization's fundamental vision and values in order to fit into stringent funding requirements (Símatele & Dlamini, 2020). Changes to the way in which foundations approach distribution, including the suggestions above, may help prevent this. Finally, findings from this study support the adoption of specific methods when seeking resources for social innovations. This includes focusing on project differentiation (i.e., the articulation of uniqueness and community need within the service environment) rather than solely describing newness. Further, resource recipients should ensure that social innovations are both sustainable over long-term service periods and include a multidisciplinary approach.
Sampling and methodological procedures contribute to some limitations for the current study. Difficulty in recruitment due to the small number of personnel occupying resource-provision roles, as well as restrictions to availability for respondents (who are typically coping with high workload demands), contributed to an overall sample size (n = 20) that was average when compared with similar studies (e.g., Reid, 2018; Bergfeld, Plagmann, & Lutz, 2020). Demographic information of respondents was not collected to protect confidentiality. The qualitative nature of this research also limits the generalizability of findings, and the absence of quantitative inferential analysis precludes the identification of any causal relationships in the data. Finally, due to sample size and study scope, an analysis across foundation sub-types (i.e., private vs public) was not possible for this research. While there are similarities across the types of activities engaged in by all foundations, operational and programmatic differences may have produced different findings between types. This study was unable to capture potential differences.
CONCLUSION
The current study offers insight regarding relationships between nonprofit resource providers and recipients in a way that is rarely reflected in research on human services. Specifically, the study sought to generate a deeper understanding of how the term "social innovation" informs how resources are distributed to direct service nonprofits by foundations in an era where related language occupies popular rhetoric within the sector. Resource dependency theory informed an organizational discourse analysis approach to evaluating definitions and contestations between and within subsamples (of resource providers of foundations and recipients). Outcomes from this study can be used to inform foundation resource provision practices that are attuned to community needs while contributing to partnerships with resource recipients that are founded on common values and perceptions of the social innovation process. Specific practices aimed at achieving these outcomes should be sought, such as collaborations between resource providers and recipients to co-conceive conceptualizations regarding social innovation that are community informed and accessible to direct-service organizations. Judicial use of a broad social innovation evidence base should also be consulted when seeking common conceptual grounds. Future research can support this process by identifying models of engagement supporting effective collaborations between foundations and human-service nonprofits, while also aiming to measure the impact of these activities on community groups receiving services.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Aaron Turpin is an incoming Assistant Professor at MacEwan University in the Department of Human Services and Early Learning. Email: [email protected]
Micheal L. Shier is Associate Professor at the Factor-lnwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto and Canada Research Chair in Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship in the Human Services. Email: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Aggarwala, R.T., & Frasch, C.A. (2017). The philanthropy as one big impact investment: A framework for evaluating a foundation's blended performance. The Foundation Review, 9(2), 119-133.
Akuffo, H., & Soop, T. (2020). Funding social innovation for health with research funds for development. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 9(1), 120-120.
Alvesson, M„ & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136-158.
Bakko, M. (2019). Protecting and expanding control: A philanthropy's negotiation of welfare system change during the war on poverty. Social Service Review, 93(4), 764-803.
Bartley, T. (2007). How foundations shape social movements: The construction of an organizational field and the rise of forest certification. Social Problems, 54(3), 229-255.
Bayuo, B.B., Chaminade, C., & Göransson, B. (2020). Unpacking the role of universities in the emergence, development and impact of social innovations - A systematic review of the literature. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 155.
Benson, J.K. (1975). The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 229-249.
Bergfeld, A., Plagmann, C., & Lutz, E. (2020). Know your counterparts: The importance of wording for stakeholder communication in social franchise enterprises. Voluntas (Manchester, England), 32(1), 104-119.
Bettis, A.J., & Pepin, S. (2019). Strengthening support for grantees: Four lessons for foundations. Foundation Review, 11(3), 96-104.
Bruneel, J., Clarysse, B., Staessens, M., & Weemaes, S. (2020). Breaking with the past: The need for innovation in the governance of nonprofit social enterprises. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(2), 209-225.
Budd, K., Kelsey, D., Mueller, F., & Whittle, A. (2019). Metaphor, morality and legitimacy: A critical discourse analysis of the media framing of the payday loan industry. Organization (London, England), 26(6), 802-829.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Carcedo, J., Davis, M., Folkerth, M., Grubstein, L., & Kabel, C. (2020). Is more always better? A reflection on the dynamic nature of nationally and regionally focused funder collaboratives. The Foundation Review, 12(2), 14-92.
Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., & Mancusi, M. L. (2018). Financial constraints and public funding of eco-innovation: Empirical evidence from European SMEs. Small Business Economics, 54(1), 285-302.
Cegarra-Navarro, J-G., Reverte, C., Gómez-Melero, E., & Wensley, A.K. (2016). Linking social and economic responsibilities with financial performance: The role of innovation. European Management Journal, 34(5), 530-539.
Chouliaraki, L., & Farclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis in organizational studies: Towards an integratio nist methodology. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1213-1218.
Clayton, J., Donovan, C., & Merchant, J. (2016). Distancing and limited resourcefulness: Third sector service provision under austerity localism in the north east of England. Urban Studies, 53(4), 723-740.
Clifford, D. (2017). Charitable organisations, the Great Recession and the age of austerity: Longitudinal evidence for England and Wales. Journal of Social Policy, 46(1), 1-30.
Cress, D. M. & Snow, D. A. (1996). Mobilization at the margins: Resources, benefactors, and the visibility of homeless social movement organizations. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 1089-1109.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1).
DiMaggio, PJ. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Dinnie, E., & Holstead, K.L. (2018). The influence of public funding on community-based sustainability projects in Scotland. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 29, 25-33.
do Adro, F., & Fernandes, C.l. (2019). Social innovation: A systematic literature review and future agenda research. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 17(1), 23-40.
Edwards-Schachter, M., & Wallace, M.L. (2017). Shaken, but not stirred: Sixty years of defining social innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 64-79.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London, UK: Longman.
Finchum-Mason, E., Husted, K., & Suarez, D. (2020). Philanthropic foundation responses to COVID-19. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1129-1141.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Giloth, B. (2017). Generative philanthropy: Long-term investments in economic opportunity. The Foundation Review, 9(4), 103-125.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine Press.
Goetz, J.P. & LeCompte, M.P. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gonsalves, C.A., & McGannon, K.R. (2020). Constructing women's heart health and risk: A critical discourse analysis of cardiovascular disease portrayals on Facebook by a US non-profit organization. Journal of Health Psychology, 25(13/14), 2317-2327.
Greckhamer, T, & Çilesiz, S. (2022). The extension of strategic management discourse into public education administration: A critical analysis. Organization (London, England), 29(4), 619-652.
Greenhalgh, C., & Montgomery, P. (2020). A systematic review of the barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by philanthropists when determining which charities (including health charities or programmes) to fund. Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1-199.
Haddad, C.R., Ayala, D.H F., Uriona Maldonado, M., Forcellini, F.A., & Lezana, A.G.R. (2016). Process improvement for professionalizing non-profit organizations: BPM approach. Business Process Management Journal, 22(3), 634-658.
Hammond, G.W., Le, М.-L., Novotny, T, Caligiuri, S.P B., Pierce, G.N., & Wade, J. (2017). An output evaluation of a health research foundation's enhanced grant review process for new investigators. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 57-66.
Hunt, R., & Ortiz-Hunt, L. (2017). Entrepreneurial round-tripping: The benefits of newness and smallness in multi-directional value creation. Management Decision, 55(3), 491-511.
Jansson, S.M., Benoit, C., Casey, L., Phillips, R., & Burns, D. (2010). In for the long haul: Knowledge translation between academic and nonprofit organizations. Qualitative Health Research, 20(1), 131-143.
Jaskyte, K., Amato, O., & Sperber, R. (2018). Foundations and innovation in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(1), 47-64.
Khadka. (2014). Geopolitics of grant writing: Discursive and stylistic features of nonprofit grant proposals in Nepal and the United States. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(2), 141-170.
Lachapelle, M.D. (2021). Emancipatory social innovation: Within and beyond the innovative society. Voluntas (Manchester, England), 32(5), 1113-1125.
Lambert, R., Carter, D., Burgess, N., & Haji Ali Afzali, H. (2018). The development of funding recommendations for health technologies at the state level: A South Australian case study. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 33(4), 806-822.
Lefevre, S., & Fontan, J.-M. (2017). Which appropriate framework to study and describe philanthropic foundations in Canada? Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy, 8(2), 5-23.
Leitch, S., & Palmer, I. (2010). Analysing texts in context: Current practices and new protocols for critical discourse analysis in organization studies. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1194-212.
Leslie, M., Khayatzadeh-Mahani, A., Birdsell, J., Forest, P.G., Henderson, R., Gray, R.P., Schraeder, K., Seidel, J., Zwicker, J., & Green, L.A. (2020). An implementation history of primary health care transformation: Alberta's primary care networks and the people, time and culture of change. BMC Family Practice, 21(1), 258-258.
Martins, T, Braga, A., Braga, V., & Ferreira, M.R. (2020). The social innovation momentum: A qualitative analysis of governance and funding processes. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 17(1), 97-120.
Maurer, J.G. (1971). A summary of studies on organizational legitimacy. Open Journal of Business and Management, 5(3), n.p.
McCarthy, J.D., & Zaid, M.N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994) An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Montgomery, T. (2016). Are social innovation paradigms incommensurable? Voluntas (Manchester, England), 27(4), 1979-2000.
Mosley, J.E., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2015). The relationship between philanthropic foundation funding and state-level policy in the era of welfare reform. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1225-1254.
Moulaert, F.Y., & MacCallum, D. (2019). Advanced introduction to social innovation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mumby, D., & Clair, R. (1997). Organizational discourse. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction: A multidisciplinary introduction (vol. 2) (pp. 5-19). London, UK: Sage.
Nairn, A., & Guinibert, M. (2020). A dance of excellence, accessibility, money and national identity: A discourse analysis of the Royal New Zealand Ballet's website. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 25(3), n.p.
Nicholls, A., & Ziegler, R. (2017). An extended social grid model for the study of marginalization processes and social innovation. Creating economic space for social innovation. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2737 20063_.An_Extended_SociaLGrid_ModeLfor_the_Study_of_Marginalization_Processes_and_Social_lnnovation [December, 2019].
Nienhüser, W. (2008). Resource dependence theory - how well does it explain behavior of organizations? Management Revue, 19(1/2), n.p.
NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software. (2020). QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 12.
Piatak, J.S., & Pettijohn, S.L. (2021). Government-nonprofit funding relationships in human services: Differences in cost-reimbursement and fixed-cost agreements. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, 5(3), 131-152.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. San Jose, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878-885.
Portales, L. (2019). Social innovation: Origins, definitions, and main elements. In L. Portales (Ed.), Social innovation and social entrepreneurship (pp. 1-14). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Powell, R., Evans, D., Bednar, H., Oladipupo, B., & Sidibe, T. (2023). Using trust-based philanthropy with community-based organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 28(2).
Power, A., Hall, E., Kaley, A., & Macpherson, H. (2021). Voluntary support in a post-welfare state: Experiences and challenges of precarity. Geoforum, 125, 87-95.
Reid, RJ. (2018). Foundation transparency: Opacity-It's complicated. The Foundation Review, 10(1), 77-89.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). London, UK: Free Press.
Shier, M.L., & Handy, F. (2015a). From advocacy to social innovation: A typology of social change efforts by nonprofits. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6), 2581-2603.
Shier, M.L., & Handy, F. (2015b). Social change efforts of direct service nonprofits: The role of funding and collaborations in shaping social innovations. Human Service Organizations, Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(1), 6-24.
Shier, M.L., & Handy, F. (2016b). Executive leadership and social innovation in direct-service nonprofits: Shaping the organizational culture to create social change. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 27(2), 111-130.
Shier, M.L., & Handy, F. (2019). Leadership in nonprofits: Social innovations and blurring boundaries. Voluntas (Manchester, England), 31(2), 333-344.
Simatele, M., & Dlamini, P. (2020). Finance and the social mission: A quest for sustainability and inclusion. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 12(2), 225-242.
Solis-Navarrete, J.A., Bucio-Mendoza, S., & Paneque-Gálvez, J. (2021). What is not social innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 173.
Stefani, U., Schiavone, F., Laperche, B., & Burger-Heimchen, T. (2020). New tools and practices for financing novelty: A research agenda. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(2), 314-328.
Svensson, P.G., & Hambrick, M.E. (2019). Exploring how external stakeholders shape social innovation in sport for development and peace. Sport Management Review, 22(4), 540-552.
Taddy-Sandino, S., Ammann Howard, K., & Nascimento, L. (2023). Diving deep on equity and power: Exploring shifts in philanthropic practice with the Iceberg Model. The Foundation Review, 14(2), 104-120.
Tello-Rozas, S. (2016). Inclusive innovations through social and solidarity economy initiatives: A process analysis of a Peruvian case study. Voluntas (Manchester, England), 27(1), 61-85.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Toepier, S. (2018). Public philanthropic partnerships: The changing nature of government/foundation relationships in the US. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(8), 657-669.
van der Have, R.P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923-1935.
Zucker, LG. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
This research adopts a resource dependency approach to support the process of social innovation application within the context of nonprofit resource procurement using a comparative sample of resource-providing organizations (n = 8) and nonprofit resource recipients (n = 10). An organizational discourse analysis was adopted to explore concepts of power and legitimacy across groups revealing several ways that social innovation is employed and challenged by both resource recipients and providers. Further, a text coverage analysis revealed several discrepancies with the use of terminology between sub-samples. Together, these novel analytical approaches provide a narrative regarding the ways in which social innovation is co-conceptualized within nonprofit resource provision, including examining the role of language and power between stakeholder groups.