Shared Platforms as Innovative Support for Small NonprofitOrganizations: Toronto Case Study Evidence
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.22230/cjnser.2019v10n1a282Mots-clés :
Small nonprofit, Shared platform, Innovation, Bricolage / Petite association sans but lucratif, Plateforme partagée, BricolageRésumé
This research examines the structure, organization, and evolution of the shared platform, an innovative organizational structure intended to assist the capacity concerns of small nonprofits. The grounded and exploratory inquiry of multiple participants in a shared platform organizational community in Toronto shows that there are two distinct variants of the shared platform, and that the evolution of an administrative form to a community development form of shared platform occurred through a process of field-level bricolage.
Cette recherche examine la composition, l’organisation et l’évolution de la plateforme partagée, une structure organisationnelle innovatrice conçue pour aider les petites associations sans but lucratif qui se soucient de leurs limites de capacité. Cette enquête ancrée et exploratoire de participants multiples dans une communauté organisationnelle à plateforme partagée à Toronto montre qu’il y a deux variantes distinctes de la plateforme partagée, et que son évolution d’une forme « administration » vers une forme « développement communautaire » s’est effectuée par un processus de bricolage sur le terrain.
Téléchargements
Références
Andersson, F.O. & Neely, D.G., 2017. Examining the Role and Diversity of Fiscal Sponsors in the Nonprofit Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(3), pp.488–504. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0899764016664030 [Accessed October 10, 2017].
Baker, T. & Nelson, R.E., 2005. Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), pp.329–366.
Bluedorn, A., 1993. Pilgrim’s progress: Trends and convergence in research on organizational size and environments. Journal of Management, 19(2), pp.163–191.
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational Learning and Communities of Practise: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), pp.40–57.
Dart, R., 2016. Grounded Qualitative Research on Shared Platforms in the GTA. Laidlaw Foundation. Toronto, Canada.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiMaggio, P., 1988. Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. In L. G. Zucker, ed. Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 3–22.
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H. & Tracey, P., 2010. Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4), pp.681–703.
Essig, L., 2014. Arts Incubators: A Typology. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 44(3), pp.169–180. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10632921.2014.936076 [Accessed October 10, 2017].
Gould, S. & Jay, S., 1982. Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. Science, 216(4544), pp.380–387. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.7041256 [Accessed October 10, 2017].
Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R., 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The Big Five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), pp.27–48. Available at: http://amj.aom.org/cgi/doi/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785498 [Accessed October 12, 2017].
Horton Smith, D., 1997. The Rest of the Nonprofit Sector: Grassroots Associations as the Dark Matter Ignored in Prevailing “Flat Earth” Maps of the Sector. NVSQ, 26(2).
Jurbala, P., 2012. Good forms: The new shape of not-for-profit organizations. The Philanthropist, 24(4), pp.283–294.
Kvale, S., 1996. Interviews: An introductin to qualitative research interviewing, Newbury Park, Califoria: Sage.
Lamichhaney, S., Berglund, J., Almén, M. S., Maqbool, K., Grabherr, M., Martinez-Barrio, A., ... & Grant, B.R., 2015. Evolution of Darwin/’s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing. Nature, 518(7530), pp.371–375.
Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C. & Phillips, N., 2002. Institutional Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration: The Emergence of Proto-Institutions. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), pp.281–290. Available at: http://www.jstor.org.cat1.lib.trentu.ca:8080/stable/3069297.
Levi-Strauss, C., 1968. The Savage Mind, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
MacArthur, R.H. & Wilson, E.O., 2001. The Theory of Island Biogeography, Princeton University Press. Available at: https://books.google.ca/books?id=wuU3CwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=macarthur+wilson+island+biogeography+1967&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwps211uvWAhWmxlQKHdnBCB4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=macarthur wilson island biogeography 1967&f=false [Accessed October 12, 2017].
Maguire, S., Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T.B., 2004. INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN EMERGING FIELDS: HIV/AIDS TREATMENT ADVOCACY IN CANADA. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), pp.657–679. Available at: http://amj.aom.org/cgi/doi/10.2307/20159610 [Accessed October 12, 2017].
Marsland, J., 2013. Shared Platforms and Charitable Venture Organizations, Toronto, Canada.
McCracken, G., 1988. The Long Interview, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
McIssac, E. & Moody, C., 2013. A Platform for Change, Toronto, Canada.
Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A. & Laland, K.N., 2004. PERSPECTIVE:IS HUMAN CULTURAL EVOLUTION DARWINIAN? EVIDENCE REVIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Evolution, 58(1), p.1. Available at: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1554%2F03-212 [Accessed July 21, 2017].
Neuman, L., 1994. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Allyn and Bacon.
Patterson, C., 1987. Evolution: Neo-Darwinian Theory. In R. L. Gregory, ed. The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 234–244.
Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K. & Miller, D., 2008. Rediscovering social innovation. Standford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), pp.34–44.
De Queiroz, K., 2007. Species Concepts and Species Delimitation. Systematic Biology, 56(6), pp.879–886. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article-lookup/doi/10.1080/10635150701701083 [Accessed July 21, 2017].
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S., 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), p.217. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259271?origin=crossref [Accessed October 12, 2017].
Shier, M.L. & Handy, F., 2014. From Advocacy to Social Innovation: A Typology of Social Change Efforts by Nonprofits. Voluntas, 26(6), pp.2581–2603. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9535-1.
Stevens, D. & Mason, M., 2010. Tides Canada Initiatives Society: Charitable venture organizations: A new infrastructure model for Canadian registered charities. The Philanthropist, 23(2), pp.98–119.
Stinchfield, B.T., Nelson, R.E. & Wood, M.S., 2013. Learning From Levi-Strauss’ Legacy: Art, Craft, Engineering, Bricolage, and Brokerage in Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37(4), pp.889–921.
Wollebæk, D., 2009. Age, Size and Change in Local Voluntary Associations. Acta Sociologica, 52(4), pp.365–384. Available at: http://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/00016993/v52i0004/365_asacilva.
Wright, L. & Witt, J., 2016. SHARED PLATFORM GUIDEBOOK, Toronto. Available at: http://theonn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ONN_Shared_Platform_Guidebook.pdf [Accessed October 10, 2017].
Zahra, S.A. et al., 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), pp.519–532. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902608000529 [Accessed October 12, 2017].
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Canadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research 2019
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
La soumissions d’un manuscrit original à la Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OSBL et l'économie sociale / Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research (ANSERJ) implique que le texte soit original et qu’il n'ait pas été publié ou soumis pour publication ailleurs.
La revue estime que la publication de la recherche scientifique a pour but de diffuser les connaissances, et ce dans un régime à but non lucratif qui ne bénéficie ni à l'éditeur ni à l'auteur sur le plan financier. La revue se donne la responsabilité, envers ses auteurs et la société en général, de rendre le contenu disponible en ligne étant donné que la technologie permet. Conformément à ce principe, la revue publiera tous ses numéros en ligne.
Les auteurs qui publient dans l'ANSERJ s'engagent à publier leurs articles sous la licence Creative Commons, Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International (CC BY). Cette licence permet à quiconque de copier et de distribuer l'article à condition que l'attribution appropriée soit donnée. Pour plus de détails sur les droits qu'un auteur accorde aux utilisateurs de son travail, veuillez consulter le résumé de la licence et la licence complète.
[
Le contenu publié entre 2010 et 2019-10 est sous la « Licence de Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
Le contenu publié entre 2019-10 et 2023-12 est sous la « Licence Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
Le contenu publié après 2023-12 est sous la « Licence Creative Commons 4.0 International » (CC BY).]
