Developing a methodology for identifying social enterprise impact in community

This paper provides findings from a test study to examine: a) the nature/extent of impacts from social enterprise that disseminate into communities; b) how to identify and ‘measure’ these impacts. In a previous study we... [ view full abstract ]

This paper provides findings from a test study to examine: a) the nature/extent of impacts from social enterprise that disseminate into communities; b) how to identify and ‘measure’ these impacts.
In a previous study we used geographical methods and technologies to investigate wellbeing creation in a social enterprise located in a relatively disadvantaged suburb of an Australian regional city (Munoz et al, 2015 forthcoming). Fleuret & Atkinson’s (2007) Spaces of Wellbeing Theory provided a theoretical framework. Using multiple data collection methods, we found evidence of integration, capability, security and therapy generated in a social enterprise’s social and productive spaces. We mapped this using GPS and GIS. The study raised questions about how and whether social enterprise participants’ wellbeing affected their lives in the community, and the lives of other community members. That is, we were interested in flows of wellbeing into the community and/or feedback loops. This is important for understanding the wider impacts of social enterprise in communities. In the study reported here, we returned to the same social enterprise and, using multiple data collection methods, explored the effects of social enterprise participation on wider community life. Research questions were: how does involvement with the social enterprise affect participants’ community lives? What is the role of interaction with people and places in communities on participants’ wellbeing? What impact do social enterprise participants make on community life? Conducting this small-scale ‘test’ study has allowed us to design a feasible method for a larger study.
Six social enterprise participants were purposively selected for in-depth study. Individually, working closely with a researcher, they were asked to ‘map’ and/or describe their journeys to and from the social enterprise. Researchers and participants then went on a walk to actualise the map, taking photographs of places that participants associated with their social enterprise ‘life’, discussing experiences and interactions. GPS tracked the walks, later plotted using GIS, and linking verbal data with locations. Themes from observation and walking interviews were then discussed in a group for verification and exploration. Methods had to be highly adaptive to participants. Emerging issues were participants’ lack of confidence to draw ‘maps’, poor literacy skills, difficulties reflecting about complex issues/questions. We also interviewed three community members whose names recurred in conversations with social enterprise participants.
Data were later analysed for: overall themes, identification of key places and people linked to the social enterprise, network/web conceptualisations of how participants link with community members and places.
This small-scale test study raises methodological issues while suggesting a tantalising avenue for researching social enterprise impacts linking individual participants and community life. We found that data collection must align with participants’ capabilities. Forming close supportive partnerships with the researchers and using methods that distract from the fact of being scrutinised, is important. Using other community members for verifying and extending data added useful information. Findings suggest there are intriguing linkages between people and places in communities and social enterprise participants that can show wellbeing impacts. In particular, that key people are touchstones for social enterprise engagement, and also help in realising or extending social enterprise benefits. We found that certain community places can be identified as those where: new skills or connections gained from social enterprise participation can be realised (e.g. building a new fence in the community) or are transformed from negative to positive places through social enterprise participation (e.g. ‘hanging around’ the bus stop becomes working at the shop beside the bus stop). A large scale study is now required to build on these promising findings.