Search results

This purpose of this paper is to examine the role of engagement and empowerment in “Transforming Care”, for people with a learning disability. The aim is to shift the balance of power so that people are able to live ordinary lives in the community, in the home they choose, close to people they love. It shares ideas to support people to take control over their own lives and to influence the system, so that it works with people, rather than “doing to” people.

The paper examines barriers and enablers to people having their rights as citizens. So that people have as much choice and control as they are comfortable with to live an ordinary life (bearing in mind any legal restrictions). The paper includes people’s involvement in system/service redesign. It critiques traditional views of looking at language, participation and power. The authors have used the language throughout which people have told us they prefer as a descriptor.

The authors present a framework for looking at the power of, and around, people with a learning disability who have mental health issues or have displayed behaviour that can challenge services.

This paper offers advice on how to address power imbalances at individual level and at organisational/system level. It looks at the language we use, the information we share and how we work with experts by experience to ensure we can transform care and support and enable people to live ordinary lives as citizens.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a cutting-edge new reality already having an unprecedented impact on society, the economy and businesses. Its future developments and long-term influence are still largely unknown. This article aims to examine AI’s potential benefits and challenges to corporate governance mechanisms, focusing on the board of directors.

The paper theoretically explores the influence of artificial intelligence on the board of directors’ capabilities, roles and functions.

Concerning rethinking board functioning in the era of artificial intelligence, the paper analyzes how artificial intelligence can impact the board of directors. It proposes some recommendations on how directors can more effectively integrate artificial intelligence into the boardroom, including establishing an internal artificial intelligence committee composed of experts with technical knowledge dedicated to managing artificial intelligence-related potential threats and opportunities.

Companies are invited to have some technical knowledge and expertise on artificial intelligence on the boards, fostering directors to upskill themselves in the new artificial intelligence technologies and establishing an ad-hoc internal committee. Policymakers are expected to keep pace with the growing proliferation of artificial intelligence solutions, defining a sharp regulatory framework.

The study advances knowledge in the corporate governance literature by shedding light on the effects of artificial intelligence on boards of directors and suggesting a set of best practices for its effective implementation.

The construct of “tradition” is commonly used in studies of society and culture and refers to historically patterned institutionalized practices that emphasize the “presentness of the past” in their transmission. However, there is “very little analysis of the properties of tradition” (Shils, 1971, p. 124), especially in the management literature. We draw on illustrative examples from Martha Stewart Living magazine to reveal the use and meanings of traditions and their relevance to understanding institutional micro-foundations in contemporary living. We investigate how organizations bundle various aspects of institutions in their presentation, and seek to advance theory on how institutions matter in everyday life.

Resource mobilization has come to dominate contemporary discourse on the making and survival of social enterprises (SEs). Emphasizing the socially constructed nature of idiosyncratic firm resource environments, this study integrates bricolage and social exchange theory to explore the means at hand and the kinds of practices SEs in China employ to mobilize resources to address persistent social problems.

Adopting a qualitative multiple case design, the research contribution is developed in the context of four SEs based in two cities in China selected through a two-stage process. The main data for the inquiry come from 21 face-to-face, semi-structured interviews conducted with key informants in 2018 and 2019. The authors supplemented this with secondary data about each SE curated from social media platforms and publicly available documentary sources, including press statements, reports and popular press video interviews.

The research findings suggest that SEs in China tend to follow a two-step resource mobilization process: fraternize and exchange. Leveraging the means at hand – “social practice know-how” and the practice of “proactiveness,” SEs strategically engage with actors in their environment (fraternize) to understand and explore the possible sources of the resources they require. Nevertheless, fraternization alone is not sufficient; SEs must demonstrate exchange values (social, economic, functional and regulatory) to convince resource owners to either directly release resources (funds, the right of use of empty spaces, technologies, time and efforts) or offer them indirect support (certification, government procurement). The process of fraternizing within the contingencies of organizing, intertwined with social exchange practices, constitutes the success of resource mobilization. The combination and reconfiguration of the expanded repertoire of mobilized resources provide opportunities for the SEs to make do and, in return, help them maintain their status as valued SEs in China.

This study extends the understanding of bricolage through a social exchange lens to unpack the process through which SEs in China mobilize appropriate resources for their businesses. Emphasizing the importance of the social dimension of bricolage in resource mobilization, a two-step model, comprising fraternization exhibited in the form of social practice know-how and proactiveness and social exchange, is presented as an essential mechanism in SEs’ resource mobilization in China.

This paper aims to analyse how social entrepreneurship organizations that use approach of social bricolage adapt their business model to develop social innovation. The past decade has witnessed a surge of research interest in social entrepreneurship organizations (SEOs). This has resulted in important insights concerning their role in fostering social challenges. The crisis of both public and private profit-driven models meet the arising of new initiatives designed to meet the minor and often abandoned cultural heritage consumption need. Drawing on the domain of SEOs and social bricolage framework, these initiatives are able to pursue the social and the economic mission together and to produce social innovation.

This paper aims to analyze how SEOs that use strategies of social bricolage can improve the development and diffusion of social innovation. Employing in-depth multiple comparative case studies of 15 cultural SEOs in the South of Italy, through the analysis of semi-structured interview, the study enhance current understanding of the social dimension of SEOs.

First results show that SEOs in the domain of minor cultural heritage adopt an innovative business model and in particular a social business model unraveling organizational dimensions falling into the social bricolage. The relation between social bricolage dimensions and social business model criteria produces outcomes in which social innovation can be expressed.

This study enhances current understanding of the social dimensions of business model involved in social innovation production of cultural SEOs. This research aims to be a benchmark of the social innovation initiatives in the field of minor cultural heritage management.