Journals / Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 24

Multiple Institutional Logics in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship in Turkey

Türkiye’de Sosyal Girişimcilik Alanında Çoklu Kurumsal Mantıklar

Pages
559–589
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results show that actors in the field of social entrepreneurship emphasize both sustainability of social benefit and financial sustainability when defining social entrepreneurship.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to investigate institutional pressures, responses to the conflicting demands of responses to institutional pressures and multiple institutional logics on the social entrepreneurship field in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data of this study obtained from documents in the field of social entrepreneurship in Turkey is analyzed with NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis program.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results show that actors in the field of social entrepreneurship emphasize both sustainability of social benefit and financial sustainability when defining social entrepreneurship.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal girişimcilik · kurum · kurumsal mantıklar

Abstract

This study aims to investigate institutional pressures, responses to the conflicting demands of responses to institutional pressures and multiple institutional logics on the social entrepreneurship field in Turkey. The data of this study obtained from documents in the field of social entrepreneurship in Turkey is analyzed with NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis program. Results show that actors in the field of social entrepreneurship emphasize both sustainability of social benefit and financial sustainability when defining social entrepreneurship. Financial sustainability is mostly achieved through product sales. In addition, due to the lack of a legal framework in the legislation related to social entrepreneurs in Turkey, ınstitutional pressures in the field take place in the form of coercive isomorphism. Social enterprises respond to coercive pressures with a “compromise strategy” and carry on their activities with a hybrid structure both as a foundation/association and a company. This situation points out to the fact that multiple logics coexist in the field of social entrepreneurship. One of the logic prevailing in the field is "market" and the other is "social purpose".

Özet

Çalışmada, Türkiye’de sosyal girişimcilik alanındaki kurumsal baskıların, kurumsal baskılara verilen yanıtların ve çoklu kurumsal mantıkların araştırılması amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırmada, Türkiye’de sosyal girişimcilik alanındaki dokümanlardan edinilen veriler NVivo 12 nitel veri analizi programında analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, sosyal girişimcilik alanında yer alan aktörlerin sosyal girişimciliği tanımlarken hem sosyal faydanın sürdürülebilirliğine hem de finansal sürdürülebilirliğe vurgu yaptıklarını göstermektedir. Finansal sürdürülebilirlik ise daha çok ürün satışları ile sağlanmaktadır. Ayrıca Türkiye’de mevzuatta sosyal girişimcilerle ilgili yasal bir çerçevenin olmaması nedeniyle alandaki kurumsal baskıların zorlayıcı izomorfizm şeklinde gerçekleştiği görülmüştür. Sosyal girişimler zorlayıcı baskılara “uzlaşma stratejisi” ile yanıt vererek faaliyetlerini hem vakıf/dernek hem de şirket şeklinde hibrid bir yapı ile devam ettirmektedirler. Bu durum sosyal girişimcilik alanında çoklu mantıkların birlikte var olduğu gerçeğine işaret etmektedir. Alanda hakim olan mantıklardan biri “piyasa mantığı” iken bir diğeri de “sosyal amaç mantığı”dır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOBAL, H. Y. (2022). Multiple Institutional Logics in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship in Turkey. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 24, 559–589. https://ajindex.com/articles/538681

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Agrawal, A. & Hockerts, K. (2013). Institutional Theory as a Fra- mework for Practitioners of Social Entrepreneurship. Social Inno- vation, April, 119-129.
  2. Alter, S. K. (2003), Social Enterprise: A Typology of the Field Contextu- alized in LatinAmerica. Inter-American Development Bank Wor- king http://www.iadb.org/sds/doc/228070wc.socialenterprise.pdf. (Erişim: 02.07.2018).
  3. Washington DC, Arnold, M. (2017). An Exploratory Case Study of Institutional Entrep- reneurship: The Social Enterprise Mark in the United Kingdom. Law and Political Science, 1-79.
  4. Austin, J., Stevenson, H. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). “Social and Com- mercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Differ ent, or Both?”, Entreprene- urship: Theory and Practice, 30, 1-22.
  5. Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010), “Building Sustainable Hybrid Organi- zations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
  6. Bjerregaard, T. & Jonasson, C. (2014). “Managing Unstable Institutional Contradictions: The Work of Becoming”, Organization Studies, 35(10), 1507–1536.
  7. Bruton, G.D., Ahlstom, D. & Li, H.L. (2010). “Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Need to Move in the Future?”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Ap- ril 2010, 421-440.
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak Kılıç E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve De- mirel, F. (2014).
  9. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Pegem Akademi Yayınları,
  10. Ankara.
  11. Dahlmann, F. ve Grosvold, J. (2017). “Environmental Managers and Institutional Work: Reconciling Tensions of Competing Institutio- nal Logics”, Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 263-291.
  12. Dees, G. (2007). “Taking Social Entrepreneurship Seriously”, Soci- ety,44(3), 24-31.
  13. DiMaggio, P. J. & Walter, W. P. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Insti- tutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizatio- nal Fields”, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
  14. Doherty, B., Haugh, H. & Lyon, F. (2014). “Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda”, International Jo- urnal of Management Reviews, 16, 417–436.
  15. Dunn, M. B. & Jones, C. (2010). “Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: the Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967-2005”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 114– 149. Friedland, R. ve Alford, R. R. (1991). “Bringing Society Back In: Sym- bols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions”, In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizatio- nal Analy