Search results

To debate some of the commonly;held assumptions about social enterprises.

The three main assumptions that are commonly applied to the development and characteristics of social enterprises are discussed, namely: that social enterprise must be a collective or democratic pursuit; that social enterprise is institutionally different from earlier mechanisms designed to usher in a “third way”; and that social enterprise is better than doing nothing. Analyses the development of these three assumptions through the framework offered by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) on institutional isomorphism.

There are indications that the social enterprises sector would benefit from more co‐ops taking an ever‐greater market share in an ever‐increasing range of industries, but that this should be the outcome of decisions freely made by individual, autonomous organizations that are free to choose social enterprises over other available options. Concludes that the practical danger posed by the wrong kind of isomorphic tendencies is to the potential flourishing of alternative organizational forms, alternative business models, and alternative ways of seeing the economic world.

Clarifies some of the commonly‐held views concerning social enterprises.

This chapter bridges two theoretical concerns: making sense of emancipatory processes within institutional work on the one hand and providing a more nuanced understanding of actorhood on the other hand. The authors develop the notion of ‘institutional co-appropriation work’ to characterise an emancipatory process whereby an institutionalised actor in a subaltern position manages to emancipate by appropriating some founding features of the elites position. The authors build on a case study focussing on the ‘Everest brawl’, an altercation high up on the mountain that revealed a critical evolution of sherpa actorhood. The authors analyse the struggles in the Nepalese mountaineering industry and show how sherpa actorhood is currently being reconfigured by the action of a few individuals willing to be recognised for their climbing abilities, and not their role as porters. This case epitomises the emergence of two distinct phenomena, explaining the magnitude of the event: the emergence of an empowered ‘new sherpa’ revealing heterogeneity of sherpa actorhood, in contrast to the accepted representations and the institutional work blurring the underlying rules and institutionalised roles of the mountaineering industry in Nepal. The implications for institutional work literature are twofold. First, the study of emancipatory processes benefits from more nuanced cases, where the actor in the subaltern position does not simply try to remove the dominant actor. Second, the notion of ‘actor’ within this stream of literature should not be taken-for-granted as is often the case.

Library automation has both tested the educational preparation of librarians and created new educational demands. Four major consultants—James E. Rush, Jose‐Marie Griffiths, Wilson M. Stahl, and Rob McGee—discuss the competencies currently required of professional librarians, consider the extent to which new graduates and working librarians possess these qualifications, and identify methods by which organizations and individuals can realize the goal of professional competence. In addition to addressing formal educational programs, the consultants place a great deal of emphasis on continuing education. Continuing education must become a job requirement; library managers must be responsible for creating, encouraging, and supporting such opportunities for individuals and the total organization.

Five prominent consultants—Susan Baerg Epstein, James Rush, Jose‐Marie Griffiths, Rob McGee, and Wilson Stahl—address the development and use of the request for proposals (RFPs) in the library automation procurement process. Most consultants agree that the RFP is an effective means of selecting a system, if used properly. But it can be misused, is frequently substituted for sound judgment and intelligent decision making on the part of library staff, and is expensive. Librarians often focus so much on preparing the RFP that the goals of the planning process are lost. The preparation of the RFP is only one step in the procurement and installation process. It should be viewed as one intermediate objective, which must be coordinated with others to achieve successful results.

Today's online catalogs typically access machine‐readable records for books, journal titles, and audio‐visual materials, and indicate their circulation status. In the future, the database of these traditional records may be dwarfed by additional databases that will become part of the future electronic library. A few libraries are already experimenting with the addition of other text files to their catalogs. Broad‐band telecommunications networks and supporting technologies are being developed rapidly and will significantly affect the evolution of online catalogs. Growing applications of online catalogs, and network access to them, will require more sophisticated and powerful processing. Six prominent consultants—Joseph Becker, Gayla Kraetsch Hartsough, Raymond DeBuse, Jose‐Marie Griffiths, Rick Richmond, and Wilson Stahl—address these and related issues.

Five prominent consultants—James Rush, Richard Smith, Susan Baerg Epstein, Jose‐Marie Griffiths, and Rob McGee—address the issues that most effect system performance. They note that virtually every phase of planning for a system involves issues related to performance. No single topic is more essential to the successful implementation of a system. Guidelines and advise are provided.

The library automation marketplace is characterized by five significant realities. The first is the changing status of vendors in the marketplace. The development of capabilities and the support of installed systems compete for the same corporate resources, resulting in an evolution in the leadership position of vendors. Second, the market is polarized, containing experienced institutions that are replacing systems and institutions that are entering the market for the first time. Communication within the marketplace is intense, which can contribute to the success of a project; the peer network also can increase the chances of replicating older, proven technologies while making it more difficult for new vendors to enter the marketplace. The institutions that comprise the marketplace are extremely slow to develop their plans and commit their resources. The library automation marketplace is also very small and relatively poor. Library automation vendors must recognize and contend with these realities.