The research literature presents a growing body of evidence supporting Work Integration Social Enterprise (WISE) as a potentially valuable strategy for addressing the determinants of health, thereby contributing to improvements in public health (Roy & Hackett, 2016; Roy, Lysaght & Krupa, 2017). Most of the past research examining WISE outcomes relative to social, economic and health factors has been largely descriptive in nature. Limitations and difficulties related to research in this sector stem from the fact that it is a highly complex form of ‘intervention’. The intervention has several interacting components; each WISE is presents unique differences in the design and delivery of the intervention; development and delivery of the intervention needs to be sensitive to the local context, and therefore cannot be standardized or externally manipulated; and there is inherent complexity identifying the causal factors that link the intervention to outcomes. Critical to moving this work forward is having a means of measuring and distinguishing the core dimensions of WISEs such that such features can be evaluated, both with respect to their fidelity to the purpose and philosophy of WISE, and to their impact on outcomes. The goal of this study was to field test a measure of WISE dimensions for use in empirical studies and business self assessment and development.
Methodological Approach: The study involved field testing of a WISE evaluation prototype tool across 5 distinct businesses serving multiple sectors, including mental health, intellectual disability, corrections, aboriginal peoples, and homeless individuals. The WISEs were located in three Canadian provinces and Scotland, and were purposively selected to allow for testing across diverse organization types and populations. The instrument prototype was based on the self assessment tool originally developed by Social Firms UK (2010), with categories edited and new items added based on research conducted by the investigators (e.g. Krupa & Lysaght, 2016; Lysaght, Krupa & Bedore, 2014; Lysaght & Krupa, 2010). The tool was administered to WISE managers by interviewers and involved both scaled responses, and probes relative to each item to elicit information concerning the way each dimension is expressed and interpreted in various contexts. Interviews were audio recorded, and the results summarized into a data matrix. Results were qualitatively analyzed across respondents, with the range of item interpretations and key features being extracted and articulated relative to each item.
Main Argument: Item-by-item review resulted in revision of dimension categories, and development of scale anchors and descriptors. The properties of the revised instrument are being tested in a subsequent study. This evolving instrument represents a major advance in efforts to capture the unique features of WISE such that they can be accounted for in WISE outcome studies. The instrument requires additional testing and refinement, and assessment in international contexts.
Conclusions and Relevance to an International Audience: A tool of this type holds value not only for researchers, but also for practitioners in the field. Research that accounts for differences in WISE will help move the field towards performance standards, and evidence linking various WISE strategies and approaches to differential outcomes.
Main reference: Social Firms UK. (2010). Values-Based Checklist. Retrieved from http://www.socialfirmsuk.co.uk...
3. Governance, employment and human resource management
