Category: Free Essays

Organisational research has used ‘social identity’ to explain organisational commitment, motivation, satisfaction, employee interaction and so on (Ashforth & Mael, 1996). Identity influences individual behaviour at work (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The process whereby an individual attaches to a team involves cognitive, emotional and behavioural alignment (Tajfel, 1987). Social Group(s) and team(s), values and norms or attitudes may shaped an employee’s social identity. Therefore, an analysis of social identification could provide an insights into employees’ collective attitudes, thus intergroup relations.

Teamwork has become more prevalent in the workplace because of its contribution to organisational success (Cohen, 1997). Marolt (2002) notes that teamwork leads to higher quality of products, higher productivity, more frequent business processes and improves interpersonal relationships. Earlier research focused on physical factors that emphasies on productivity however a shift from productivity to human resources has occurred.

Management has intensified its enquiries more into the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of human behaviour. Indeed, since the work of Elton Mayo, T.N. Whitehead and W.J. Dickson in the 1930s, the significance of both the psychological and sociological factors which influence the members’ motivation and behaviour in groups was identified (Miklavcic Sumanski et al., 2007).

The focus has shifted from the traditional approaches to managing people based around bureaucratic power structures, money-based incentives and Taylorist-style work organisation to human relations. The role of individual, motivated workers and fostering the involvement of the employees to the organisations are of significant importance. Recently, there has been growing interest in organisational identity which centers on how employees derive their sense of self from organisations and how this self-definition generates behaviour that increases group effectiveness (Reade, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Benkhoff, 1997).

In response to the challenge of globalisation and the increased need for rapid response to meet customer expectations, organisations are modifying their conventional structures in teams in preference to those described as ‘virtual’ (Herzog 2001). Employees as distributed across time, space, and organisational boundaries, work together with links strengthened by the webs of information and communication technologies (ICTs) (DeSanctis & Poole 1997; Lipnack & Stamps 1997). In contrast to the benefits enjoyed, one of the challenges that organisations have faced in supporting virtual teamwork is to develop and strengthen the ties that bind the dispersed employees (DeSanctis & Monge 1999; Wiesenfeld et al 1999). In addition, conflict is found to be inevitable in distributed teams and is hard to isolate and manage (Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Mannix, et al., 2002). Studies of virtual teams have reported significant conflict among team members as the members encounter difficulties in coming to terms with different perspectives, unshared information and tensions resulting from distance and diversity (see Armstrong & Cole, 2002; Cramton, 2001).

When a shared identity is prominent in teams, there tend to be higher degrees of loyalty, trust and cohesion of team members in promoting the interest of the group as a whole (Brewer & Miller, 1996). In virtual teams, identification is important as it promotes a sense of togetherness (Raghuram 1996), thus identifying the antecedents and consequences of the identification process is necessary for the management of virtual teamwork (Wiesenfeld et al, 2001).

This thesis seeks insights into the formation of identity and intergroup relations in virtual teams. The purpose of the current study is to use social identity perspective as a lens to analyse the psychological process and the motivational aspect of social identification, relating these to the social and virtual team context and investigating the impact of employee’ identification on their intergroup and conflict-handling behaviour.

Over the years, there has been an increasing awareness of the need for a further understanding of group processes, especially with contributions from social psychology (e.g. Haslam, 2001; Wegge, 2000; van Dick, 2001; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). Social psychology has long been studying how people interact in and between social groups (Batt & Doellgast, 2004). Thus, the analysis of the current work is grounded in the social psychological domain. The social identity perspective in social psychology has its conceptual origins in Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (SIT) where social identity, categorisation and comparison are the core concepts of the theory (Tajfel, 1972, Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The empirical work was carried out in four organisations in different industrial sectors operating virtual teams. In total, seven multicultural virtual teams were examined.

This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical and empirical terrain that informs the study and is organised as follows: First, the development and evolution of small groups and teams in workplace is briefly presented, to inform the readers on how teamwork has been at the heart of the wave of efforts to improve productivity, job quality and the working condition of employees. Next, the different perspectives of studies in teamwork and organisational behaviour (i.e. sociology, psychology and social psychology) are reviewed in order to draw out the common themes and weaknesses, with the aim of justifying the relevance of the chosen perspective for the current study. Third, the theoretical underpinnings of social identity and its explication as found in social identity theory are outlined. Included in this discussion is the complementary theory of social categorisation, which was developed to elaborate the cognitive process of forming a social identity. It is important to stress at this stage that the social identity theory’s focus in groups and its concept of how an employee’s social self emerges in the group provide key insights in employees’ collective behaviour and the interrelations in the virtual teams. Finally, the philosophical foundation, methodology and methods chosen for the current study are briefly presented, followed by the organisation of the thesis.

1.2 An overview of team working

Teams are replacing individuals as the basic unit of work organisations. Teamwork has been adopted widely in manufacturing – e.g. in the automotive industry (Kuipers et al, 2004) as well as in other areas of business (e.g. within clerical areas) (Kinnie et al., 1998). In general, work teams are found both in manufacturing and service settings – e.g. clothing manufacturing teams (see Batt & Appelbaum, 1995) and audit teams (see Gupta et al., 1994). Traditionally, work teams are under the scrutiny and control of supervisors whereby work processes, resources and decisions are informed by them. More recently, self-managed, autonomous, empowered work teams are gaining favour because of their benefit gained in cost reduction, enhanced productivity, product quality and its work environment where members are involved in decision making (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).

Although teamworking became more important and attractive as a management technique in the twentieth century, much of the interest in teams and teamwork can be traced back to the fashion for reorganising production processes into semi-autonomous work groups in the 1970s and 1980s (Thompson & McHugh, 2002), or even a number of earlier distinct traditions of which include the socio-technical, the ‘Humanisation of Work’, the employee involvement trajectory (Batt & Doellgast, 2004).

The benefit of group working on morale (reduced boredom) and productivity (increased output) was identified by researchers at the Industrial Fatigue Research Board (IFBR) in the UK via the Hawthorne studies of 1924, followed by the work of consultants at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London in the 1950s. In the Tavistock research, the social, psychological and organisational advantages of autonomous group working were identified. From then on, the concept of team working was adopted as a management technique and the notion of autonomous group working was eagerly embraced by the Quality of Working Life (QWL) movement during the 1960s and 1970s. The focus had been on morale, and the implications of boredom for job satisfaction, productivity, absenteeism and labour turnover (Mueller, et al, 2000).

In the 1980s, the use of team working was broadened as fundamental to the competitive advantage of reducing boredom and absenteeism, particularly in relation to the quality of product and customer service, problem solving and so on (Buchanan, 1994). This led to the introduction of Quality Circle (QC) and the subsequent prevalence of self-managing teams. In the late 1980s, the ‘high performance work team’ (HPWT) was adopted to promote greater levels of involvement, commitment and skill development for the employees. At that time, team working was a popular management technique and the concept of flexible, empowerment teamwork was rediscovered.

As Procter and Mueller (2000) note, the utilisation of work team was still very much in manufacturing industry, particularly in the automotive sector until the mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, such application expanded further to service industries and the public sector – e.g. the telecommunication sector, insurance sector, the software industry and so on. In the 1990s, the use of management teams is expanding in response to the turbulence and complexity of the global business environment. As organisations seek to expand globally, there is great demand in providing rapid respond to meet customer expectation and to cope with the dynamic business environments. Hence, organisations are modifying their conventional structures in teams (Herzog, 2001).

With the development of ICTs, the workforce dynamic and working patterns are changing and the use of virtual teams became increasingly important. The creative use of new ICT capabilities has broken traditional spatial boundaries and allowed organisations to experiment with new working practices and business models (Robbins, 2003).

1.3 Different perspectives in studying teamwork and organisational behaviour

The current work seeks insights into intergroup relations in virtual teams, in particular the employees’ attachment to teams and their collective behaviour. In a nutshell, this research lies in the field of organisational behaviour, whereby it investigates the impact of individual, group and structure on behaviour within the organisations. There are various academic disciplines which are constituted to research people behaviour in organisations. The predominant disciplines are psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology and political science (Robbins, 2005). Although the current research is based on the concepts of social psychology, it is worthwhile discussing how other disciplines influence research on employee behaviour and teamwork. The discussion will be based on three influential traditions (i.e. psychology, sociology and social psychology) as suggested by Thompson and McHugh (2002) and Batt and Doellgast (2004) whose influence are deemed of relevance to the current study.

Different disciplines interpret and study teamwork differently. Marks (2005), Batt and Doellgast (2004), note that the study of work teams has mainly emerged from either the more positive psychological/managerial tradition or from the more critical, frequently sociologically influenced scholars. They note that the former concerns the internal characteristics of teams that lead to better performance (i.e. the focus is on productivity and employees’ well being); whereas the latter interprets teams as regulating mechanisms and believes that team working is a way of controlling employees.

In the study of people behaviour in organisations, psychology’s contributions have been mainly at the individual or micro level of analysis while sociology has contributed to the understanding of macro concepts such as group processes and organisation (Robbins, 2005: 12). Social psychology, on the other hand, assimilates concepts from both psychology and sociology, whereby it focuses on the influence of people on one another. The next section briefly discusses the influence of the macro-level i.e. the sociological stance on the study of teams, followed by the micro-level, i.e. the psychological as well as the social psychological perspective.

1.3.1 The sociological approach and Influence of the Labour process and post modernism

This sub-section describes the sociological approach to teams and how the assessment of teamwork is influenced by two critical traditions – the labour process and post-modernism. Sociologists focus on the evolution of society, or the forms, institutions and functions of human groups (Rush, 1989). As Batt and Doellgast (2004) point out, the labour process theory has significantly impacted on the sociological view of teams – teamwork is part of management’s strategies to control employees’ efforts and output while concerning the dynamic of conflict, coercion and consent within organisations.

The Labour process analysis (LPA) was first presented by Marx to understand the relationship between the creative power of human labour and the capitalist mode of production. His purpose was to show how labour power is shaped, organised and controlled to generate humanly valuable outputs. Marx identified three components of the Labour process – the purposeful activity of men (directed to work), the object for which work is performed (in the form of natural or raw material), and the instruments of that work (most often tools or more complex technology). During the labour process, the human and technical aspects interpenetrate (Thompson, 1983: 39). Marx (1976) stresses ‘Men not only affects a change of form in the materials of nature, he also realises his own purpose in those materials’ (p.284). In other words, man’s conscious and the way he can produce his own sustenance distinguishes him from the animal species.

Marx argues that when the system of production is capitalist, alienation occurs. When the minority of people own the means of production, the workers loose their control over the product, thus they can be separated from their product and the production activity. When the production is for profit through the commodity market, the workers sell their labour in exchange for wages. The exchange of market economy and commodities also turns every productive group into competitors, thus reducing the social relations amongst people to economic exchangers of commodity. As a result, capitalism dampens the quality of workers in terms of producing their own means of existence and of actualising their capacity at work (Thompson & Mchugh, 2002).

Marx’s labour process analysis (LPA) was subsequently used to understand work in organisations, and the employees’ responses to it. Indeed, much of the sociological research on work in organisations was influenced by the LPA, mainly after the publication of Braverman’s work – ‘Labour and Monopoly Capital’ in 1974 (Thompson & Smith, 2009). In Braverman’s work, critiques of the capitalist labour process were reviewed. Braverman explored how the application of modern management techniques, in combination with mechanism and automation, secured the real subordination and deskilling of work in the organisation. He argued that the capitalist mode of production requires efficient means of separating the control of workers (the conception) from their work (the execution). Braverman focused on Taylorism’s ‘degradation of work’ and he concluded that the ‘separation of conception from execution’ had led to a tighter control imposed on the workers and power remained in the hand of those at the top of the orgnisation’s hierarchy (Bolton, 2005). In general, the influence of Braverman Labour process relates to the development of job design, managerial control strategies, workers’ resentment at work and the impact of class struggle within the production process (Gidden, 1982; Salaman, 1982; Thompson, 1983).

Braverman’s discussion has its limitations. Gidden (1982) notes that Braverman’s labour process neglects the reactions of workers – the knowledgeable and capable agents to the technical divison of labour and Taylorism (p.40). Building on Braverman’s work, studies conducted by Edwards (1979) and Friedman (1977) revealed the changing forms of management control. Edwards (1979) proposes ‘welfare capitalism’ whereby social and other benefits can be provided in the workplace, whereas Freidman (1977) identifies ‘responsible autonomy’ as a way of generating a level of participation from the workforce. Undeniably, mounting dissatisfaction with Braverman’s analysis of management has led to a number of theoretical reformulations and empirical case studies in process and methods of controlling the labour process.

In addition, the use of teamworking (e.g. semi-autonomous work groups) was broadened as fundamental to competitive advantage in organisations in the 1980s. At that time, there was an emergence of new ideas of which included the post-Fordism and flexible specialisation (Thompson & Smith, 2009). A whole body of organisational research started to look at organisational practices and developed a framework which focus on the labour process, management strategies of control and resistance at work, with the acknowledgement of the organisational actors (e.g. employees) as active agents (Bolton, 2005). In the 1990s, with globalisation and the rapid adoption of the information of communication technologies (ICTs), organisations tend to promote greater levels of involvement, commitment and skill development for the employees. Team working (e.g. virtual team practices) appeared to be a widespread management technique to implement flexibility and empowerment in the workplace. Clearly, there is a move from command and control to collaborative trust and a high commitment to work relations.

At the same time, post-modernism also influenced most of the research in social science (Carter, 2008). Post-modernist perspectives have developed through Foucault-influenced scholars of organisations and new management practices (e.g. Barker, 1993; Townley, 1993; Sewell, 1998). For example, Barker’s (1993) study of the self-managed teams in an electronic plant demonstrated that there is a shift of the locus of control to the workers. Workers in self-managed teams develop a system of value-based normative rules that control their actions more powerfully and completely than the former system (p.408). Sewell (1998) was interested in the systems of managerial control in monitoring the activities of employees (e.g. computer-based control, closed-circuit television cameras, call centres) and he concluded that teams are often complementary to hierarchical forms of control. Townley (1993), on the other hand, applied the work of Foucault to the tenet of HRM. She explored the interplay between power and knowledge and her analysis indicates that techniques such as recruitment and selection techniques are important among organised populations and have impacts on the subjectivity of people. Her study sought insights into how employees come to make sense of the ‘selves’ and the ways they interact with others (Cater et al, 2002).

What seems to be in common theme in these studies is the emphasis on subjectivity and identity. Much work has subsequently been carried out to analyse subjectivity by means of understanding the contradictions and ambiguities of management-labour relations. For example, Knights and Willmott (1989) highlight the means through (re)constructing subjectivities and identities in work relation, and examining how often face resistance. Consistent with this, Ackroyd and Thompson’s (1999) argue that employees are aware of management intentions and often retain the resources to resist and misbehave at work. Evidently, the reproduction of everyday life and the basis of control have shifted from the material to the symbolic – people not only struggle with their interests but also their work identities (Thompson & Smith, 2001; 2009).

Overall, the labour process and post-modern streams of scholarship have contributed important insights into the relationship between modern forms of working patterns (i.e. teamwork) and traditional forms of managerial control at work. While sociologists focus on the evolution of society, or the forms, institutions and functions of groups; psychologists concern with the study of mind and the interaction of the mind with an individual’s behaviour (Rush, 1989).

1.3.2 The psychological and social psychological perspective

Haslam (2004) notes that the psychological functioning associated with human behaviour was first identified by Wundt in Leipzig in 1879. Later on, two of his students, J. McKeen Cattell and Hugo Munsterberg took the interest further to study individual differences in order to analyse organisational behaviour. In line with Taylorism, Munsterberg (1913) argued that analysing the requirement of any job, along with identifying the key psychological components associated with productivity and individual aptitude are necessary. He then pointed out that identifying motivational principles that would facilitate worker participation in the process of scientific management is essential. In brief, his investigation of the effect of specific personality and environmental variables on job performance highlighted firstly, the highly subjective nature of workers’ reaction to their work despite their experience in work that is extremely dull; and secondly, the role of group membership in determining work satisfaction. He then concluded that groups can make positive psychological contributions to workplace environment (Munsterberg, 1913: 234).

Although Munsterberg’s work has influenced the major development of the psychological approach in the analysis of organisational behaviour, his work focuses mainly the individual differences and neglects the social dimension of organisational life (Haslam, 2004). Later, Mayo and his colleagues acknowledged that organisational life transforms individual differences into group similarities. Yet, their work informed little about the psychological processes and people’s psychological make-up. In the 1960s, there was growing interest in the cognitive processes whereby such work analyse the mental processes that might account for particular patterns of organisational behaviour (Haslam, 2004: 6-12).

Work in the social psychological and organisational behaviour tradition in teams concerns the internal characteristics of group that lead to performance (Batt and Doellgast, 2004). Rush (1989) notes that what distinguishes a social psychologist from a sociologist is that the former is primarily ‘interested in studying the behaviour of an individual and he relates to, or is affected by, the groups in which he loves and functions’, while the latter is more focused ‘the group as a whole and one group’s relationships with another’ (p.39). In other words, social psychologists are not concerned with biological, developmental or personality factors (Marks, 2005) but provide an analysis of the psychological process that explains how employees’ membership in teams and their social relations contribute to their organisational life (Haslam, 2004).

Social psychology is an appropriate approach for the current work in examining social identity and intergroup relations. Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s Social Identity Theory (SIT) is adopted as the theoretical framework for the research, as this theory highlights the awareness of the reality of the group and its contribution to employees’ social cognition and behaviour.

1.4 The Social Identity Theory (SIT)

SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and its offshoot, Social Categorisation Theory (SCT) (Turner, 1986) were developed with the attempt to understand the psychological basis of intergroup conflict and ingroup bias. The core assumption of SIT is that individuals categorise and define themselves in terms of a group membership. Having defined themselves in terms of social categorisation, individuals seek to enhance their self-conception by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparative outgroup (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Haslam, 2004). In other words, social categorisation requires the establishment of a distinct social identity and group members may develop conflicting relationships with out-group members in order to enhance the positivity of their social identity (Tajfel, 1972; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The disruptive dynamics of social categorisation as the basis for intergroup conflict implies that SIT and SCT are relevant theoretical foundations to analyse the identification process and its impact on conflict in virtual teams.

As Haslam (2004) describes, the psychological contribution of social identity is to create and define individual’s place in society. When an employee defines himself with a group or team they belong, ingroup bias may occur. SIT suggests that the mere act of individuals categorising themselves as group members is sufficient to cause them to confirm or establish ingroup favouritism. However, the importance of a particular category to a person’s self-conception (or category salience) varies according to the context (Abrahams & Hogg, 1988). The conception of SIT has also been detailed further to predict how group status, stability, permeability and legitimacy influence social identity (Tajfel, 1974, 1979; Hogg & Abrams, 1988).

In the continuing development, SCT has contributed in the understanding of the cognitive aspect of SIT. Turner (1978) argued that ‘switching on’ the social identity means that individuals have to go through the process of depersonalisation of self-perception – a process of self-stereotyping whereby the self is perceived as categorically interchangeable with other ingroup members. It causes a cognitive redefinition of the self (and others) with a particular social category. In brief, the ‘social collectivity becomes self’ (Turner, 1999). When employees categorise themselves as members of a group, similarities in the group and differences between the ingroup and outgroup become the drivers of identification.

Organisational identification, which means the psychological attachment between an individual and his/her work organization, has received increasing interest, primarily because of its effect on behaviour associated with enhanced organisational performance (Reade, 2001; Benkhoff, 1997). Organisational identification can manifest at different levels in an organisation – the organisational, departmental and team level (Rink & Ellemers, 2007). Identification processes, particularly the self-categorisation process are seen as an important mediator between the organisational context and organisational behaviour (Turner & Haslam, 2001). When individuals perceive their group identity positive and important to their self-conception, they tend to be motivated to conform to the group norm and engage in the group goals rather than their personal goals. As a result, virtual team identity can be viewed as a psychological as well as a social reality (Haslam, 2003).

Clearly, the identification process in virtual teams occurs at the interface of structure and agency, whereby both the organisational context and structures; and the cognition and pre-conception of employees influence the emergence of their social selves. The way that employees perceive the outgroup is associated with their social experiences, reflecting perhaps nationality, gender, classed, workgroup which given meaning within the group. However, the decision of whether or not to identify with the team lies in the employees’ assessment within their personal impressions, feelings and experiences. Because social identity has impact on behaviour, social identity is not only a cognitive categorisation process that take place in the employee’s mind, but a product that results from the process (e.g. Postmes et al, 2005). In other words, social identity directs the employees’ perceptions, beliefs and intentions, and allows what is in their mind to be translated into the collective activities (e.g. intergroup behaviour).

In the past, different scholars have used varied philosophical perspectives to interpret organisational identity and behaviour. Among the scholars are the positivists, interpretivists and critical scholars (Alvesson et al., 2008; Saunders, et al., 2003). Instead of using the positivist and interpretivist lens to understand the formation of identity and its impact on conflict in virtual teams, the critical realistic perspective developed by Bhaskar (1979, 1989, 1993, 1994 & 1998) is adopted for the current study. This is because the Critical Realists’ world view and its epistemological position captured within the structure-agency framework is able to explain how an agent (e.g. the employee, their perceptions and motivations) interacts with the enabling and constraining effects of social structures during the identification processes. Through this perspective, an understanding of the interplay between the subjective world of agents and the objective and independent world of social structures can be sought (Archer, 1995, 2002).

A qualitative approach is adopted throughout the research because of its strength in describing and explaining ‘human experience as it appears in people’s lives (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 137). There is an effort to understand, appreciate, and expose the processes and mechanisms that people use to give meaning to their own and other’s behaviour (Patton, 1984). With the case study method, the researcher is able to study different aspects of the processes and mechanisms, and examine them in relation to each other within the social and organisational context (Gummession, 2000). In general, an understanding of the contemporary phenomena within the real-life context can be sought (Yin, 1994).

1.5 The outline of the thesis

The structure of this thesis is organised into eight interconnected sections. Following an introduction to the thesis in Chapter One which contextualised the current study and introduces the reader to its key theoretical and empirical concerns, Chapter Two presented the literature reviews in teams and team working. The aim of this chapter is to review the nature, history and evolution of teams as well as the utilisation of team-based working, specifically virtual teamwork in the workplace. The chapter then moves on to look at a set of challenges, particularly the negative social consequences resulting from the virtual settings. Included in the discussion is the impact of distance, the ICTs and the diversity of virtual teams on employee identification as well as on conflict in teams. In light of these reviews, a key research aim and corresponding research objectives for the subsequent development of the thesis can be established.

Chapter Three moves on to discuss the established social identity theory which serves as an explanatory tool for the current study. The chapter discusses the theoretical conceptions and contributions of Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Social Categorisation Theory (SCT) in the understanding of the psychological underpinning and motivational aspect of identification in groups and intergroup relations. Much of the discussion considers the assumptions of SIT and SCT in various intergroup phenomena, particularly in areas of intergroup favouritism, inequality of group status, stereotypical and intra-group homogeneity, and changing intergroup attitudes through contact. The chapters also address some of the critiques and limitations of SIT and SCT.

Building upon the theoretical challenge in the previous chapters, Chapter Four develops a theoretical framework which seeks to explore the identification processes as well as their impact on conflict

The topic of this essay is that the Social Identity Theory (SIT) suggests that prejudice and discrimination against out-group members and, as a result, conflict groups may be inevitable; that all that is needed to trigger in-group favouritism and out-group bias is an awareness that one belongs to a particular social group and that another group, of which one is not a member, exists.

The SIT was conceived by Henri Tajfel and his student John Turner to amend and supplement Campbells’ Realistic Group Conflict Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The aim of the SIT was to provide a base level understanding of peoples’ social identities apart from their individual identities, that is, how people identify with groups that they belong to, the assimilation of in-group ideals as their own, the positive bias toward those of the same in-group, and negative bias (prejudice) toward those who identify with out-groups. It also explained inter group behaviour and its social context and also social comparison. The SIT suggests that the more extremely a person is associated with an in-group, the more likely they are to treat members of out-groups as objects comprised of traits universal to members of their out-group, rather than individuals comprised of both group and unique traits. It points out that, especially in our culture, intergroup conflict and competition is commonplace and easy to trigger. There is also suggestion that in-group bias is a universal trait affecting all social groups.

The momentum that helped forge this theory comes from Tajfel’s own personal history. Born in 1919 as a Polish Jew, Henri was called away from his studies in chemistry to fight with the French against the Nazis. A year later he was captured and survived by not allowing his captors to learn that he was a Jew (The Nazis most despised out-group). After the war, Henri returned home to find all his close relatives had been killed. After a time of helping the aftermath Henri studied psychology with a focus on social identity and group conflict such as he had seen during the war (Reicher).

The personal life and times of Henri Tajfel shows some insight into social identity and conflict groups. Such as a young Henri heeding the call to fight the Germans with the French even though he was Polish, in the Second World War the Nazi war machine and its subsequent expansion resurfaced a rift between the Nazis and the rest of Europe that was present in the First World War, leading to two main conflict groups, the Nazi’s and the Allied Nations. As Tajfel was not a Nazi, He identified with the French (part of his in group) and fought along with them. At the time of his capture, Tajfel had to change a part of his social identity in order to survive. As Nazis were more likely to torture and kill Jews over other captive groups Tajfel had to make sure that his captors never learned that he was a Jew. To do this He had to identify as a non-Jew which to him was an out-group, this however required no alteration physical changes (Providing that he didn’t have to expose himself to his captors) and psychologically, he was still himself. Tajfel succeeded and survived until the end of the war. This provides a good example of discrimination based on social grouping rather than individual attributes.

To this many people would say that those were the war days and that violence and emotion ran high, so it was easy to see such discrimination and hostility as commonplace, but times have changed and we are no longer like that. And, to an extent, they are correct. Though even now in Europe, many still consider the Jews as a powerful, threatening group of social and national outsiders (Werner, 2008), and there is still anti-Semitic violence taking place in this older, wiser world. But still, time has moved on and Western atrocities such as the vast commonplace racism of the early to mid twentieth century has dissipated, though not completely. Much of this is due to changing media portrayals of minorities, with thanks to such trail blazers as Sidney Portier (first black actor to play a lead in a major motion picture), The Cosby Show (first non-stereotyped black sitcom), and even Star Trek (first interracial kiss on U.S. television). By allowing people to identify with minorities in the media without stereotyping, aggression toward minorities reduces (Muller, 2009). However lessened, racial discrepancies and violence still occurs in the western world today. It seems that all our attempts to abolish social discrimination and conflict in the past few decades has come a long way, and if you think of things such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the partite, and the advancement of gay rights, the yes we have. However, if you look at the rise of the Mugabe Regime, the US War on Terror and its subsequent effects on the Muslim population, and even the psudoracism toward the ginger (ging-er) population, then no we really haven’t. Also, most attempts to abolish group conflict have at best reduced conflict, not ended it out right so long as both groups remain in existence.

It seems that intergroup conflict is unavoidable, as we put aside our old differences with one group, we just as quickly discover new differences with another group. Even here in New Zealand in-group bias and out-group prejudice is not only tolerated, it is applauded. Take this personal anecdote for example. In 2005 My best friend and I travelled to the city for my bachelor party. At this time the UK Lions rugby team was touring the country, playing against our All Blacks. Neither my friend nor I were rugby fans of any sort, but when we saw that an English pub was just down the street from where we were staying we decided to don any black clothing we had and go to the English pub to watch the game and give the Lions supporters a hard time. When we arrived we noticed that all the customers inside the pub were dressed in black to support the All Blacks, my friend and I looked around to see if there were any Lions supporters around and indeed we did find them. They had congregated outside in a caged off smokers area on the cold July night, watching a T.V. that was barely audible over the sound of traffic. When we asked them if they wouldn’t prefer a table inside they responded that they were quite happy where they were. My friend and I returned to our table near the bar to watch the game. Though when a Lions supporter came in to get a refreshment, they were met by a call to ‘go back where they belong’ or they were informed precisely how useless their team was. During half time, the smokers in the bar went to the smokers’ area occupied by the Lions fans and once again were insulted for their taste in rugby teams, among other things. The Lions lost the game and at full time the smokers returned to the smokers’ area to boats their mighty victory to the puny Lions Supporters.

This example has a clear cut in-group and a quite literal out-group, the in-group, through force of numbers had dominance in the situation initially. But why, you may ask, did the in group members have to ridicule the out-group members at every available chance? The answer quite simply is self esteem, just as the school bully will put down the smart kids to make themselves feel better, social groups will often discriminate out-groups as a means of enhancing self esteem (Lemyre & Smith, 1985).

This is not the only example of socially acceptable, intergroup conflict in this country either. The ever continuing Holden versus Ford debate is ever popular and in this case the group conflict is media driven with multiple televised Holden versus Ford races occurring annually and a seemingly unending supply of supporter gear as well as derogatory supporter gear designed to insult and degrade your particular out-group. Some members of both groups can take extreme measures in this conflict, such as disallowing out-group vehicles to park on their property. Attribution has a role to play in social conflict as well. Say for instance a Holden crashes during the Bathurst 1000 race the Ford supporters will commonly believe the fault to be in the car or one of the many short comings of it’s driver (who obviously must not be bright to be driving a Holden in the first place). The Holden supporters, however, would more likely believe that some external cause (or perhaps a stupid Ford driver cutting him off) was to blame. This is due to in-group bias causing people to make similar attributions to in group members as they do to themselves (De Cremer, 2000).

So far all the examples have involves high levels of emotional attachment toward the in-group. So is it fair to say that in-group bias and out-group discrimination are a result of heightened emotional commitment toward the in-group? To answer this, many experiments have been conducted based on arbitrary groups designed solely for the purpose of the experiment and in most cases the participants are randomly assigned to groups so that there is no predetermined affiliation between group members. The group members are then given simple tasks and the experimenters are looking for signs for in-group bias and out-group discrimination. The results of studies like these has shown that such discrimination does indeed exist, even when the groups are arbitrary and the group assignment is random (Brewer & Kramer, 1985) (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985) (Aviram, 2007). This shows that no emotional bond is requires at all for there to be discrimination between in-group and out-group members. All that is really required for there to be out-group prejudice is the knowledge that one is in a social group and that another group, an out-group, exists.

Summary

To summarize the discussion as it stands. The topic was to discuss the SIT and the notion that discrimination and prejudice toward out-groups and intergroup conflict is inevitable, also, that all that is needed for there to be such discrimination is the knowledge that both an in-group and an out-group exists. The personal history of Henri Tajfel and his life during the Second World War was discussed, pointing out the group conflicts and out-group prejudices present during that time. The discrimination of out-group members based on group affiliation rather than individual traits was pointed out. This historical account also gave some insight as to the motives behind the creation of the SIT. Then the role of media in the lessening of racial discrimination and conflict in recent decades was discussed, though it was pointed out that the amount of prejudice and conflict the media had affected had dissipated, it was never truly abolished. There was some discussion on the recent milestones toward intergroup peace globally and also the new found intergroup prejudice and conflict arising at the same time. The view of the discussion then moved to a New Zealand perspective starting with a personal anecdote of the national rugby obsession and the ethnocentric discrimination that arises from the organised conflict of the game itself. It was then discussed how the media and commercial marketing can also induce conflict and discrimination between groups with reference to the local Holden Versus Ford conflict. In this it was pointed out how in-group bias and out-group discrimination can influence the locus of attribution in the inference of others behaviour. Finally, experiments involving out-group discrimination in arbitrary groups of randomly assigned members was discussed, the results of which being in support with the notion that all that is required for there to be in-group bias and out-group discrimination is the knowledge that an in-group (to which one belongs) and an out-group (to which one does not belong) exists. The discussion as a whole utilised a combination of empirical research and real life examples to illustrate facts that validate the SIT and support the suggestions that it carries. The SIT provides a good base knowledge of social identity, social discrimination and conflict groups. However this does not make it the be all and end all of knowledge on this subject. With an ever evolving social climate and the development of new experimental techniques, the Sit is rather a solid foundation to which we can build a more profound understanding of the social world.

Social Identity, Subcultures and Style

Social identity is often tied to the concept of “subculture,” the members of which generally advertise their allegiance by making distinctive and symbolic choices in such things as clothing, hairstyles and footwear. Other elements, including common interests, slang and dialects, musical genres and meeting places are also important factors. Subcultures offer participants an identity outside of the ones ascribed by social institutions such as work, family, home and school. What follows will be an exploration of the role subcultures play in shaping social identity, with a particular emphasis on fashion.

Youth subcultures can be defined as “meaning systems, modes of expression or lifestyles developed by groups in subordinate structural positions in response to dominant systems, which reflect their attempt to solve structural contradictions rising from the wider societal context” (Brake, 1985). The term can also refer to specific subsets of a subculture, that is, sub-subcultures, or “scenes,” which are largely geographical, such as the London goth scene or the American drum and bass scenes. Scenes tend to be volatile, purposely marginal and tribal, with some members acting elitist towards those considered to be less fashionable, and with an overall oppositional attitude towards the culture at large (Thornton, 1995).

Many subcultures define themselves as being against the “mainstream,” or the commercialised culture promoted by the media. This dichotomy, the subculture versus the mainstream, is often more of a way of maintaining individuality than an actual social distinction (Gronlund and Holme, 2004). For what is the mainstream, really, but a set of subcultures? And how do the most obscure subcultures find their way into the minds (and wardrobes) of young people, if not through the media, which is essentially the mouthpiece of the dominant culture? The truth is that there is much overlap between cultures, both big and small, both prevalent and obscure, and this back-and-forth exchange of ideas is crucial in identity formation, no matter what the source or overall outcome.

Subcultures may last for extensive periods, like the punk or hip-hop movements, or fade away almost as soon as they are born. They may be centred around sports (such as the surf or skateboard culture), literature (such as the Beat generation), fashion or religion (Rinehart and Sydnor, 2003). To look at a a subculture is to examine the ephemera associated with the group – clothing, music, politics, etc. – and also the ways in which these symbols are interpreted by members of the dominant culture (Straw, 1991). Each subculture has a distinct individual style, with certain ways of dressing (clothing, shoes hairstyles), speaking (slang) and gathering (ravers at dance clubs, bikers at bars, etc.). Subcultures are continually combining and recombining old symbols in new ways, in a sort-of kaleidoscope of youth lore and culture. Youth identity itself shifts in concert with these genre transformations (Damrell, 1978).

Punk, for example, embraced a variety of accoutrements that, worn all together, appeared almost as a uniform. As seen in the photograph below, these include ripped, modified or “distressed” clothing; studded bracelets and necklaces; tattoos, piercings and other body modifications; spiked, dyed and eccentric hairstyles; etc.

But what do these clothing choices mean? What do these symbols represent? One way to analyze the punk aesthetic is to contrast it with its predecessor, the Teddy Boy revival. While the “’Teds’ revived cultural accoutrements in order to effect a magical return to the past, or an authentic stylistic aesthetic, punks deliberately assaulted meaning entirely, mocking not only those ascribed by persons outside their group, but those they developed themselves, in an attempt to evade closure on meaning of their emblems” (Hebdige, 1979).

The punk adoption of the swastika, for example, was a somewhat contradictory signifier in the negotiation of punk subculture. While it was adopted as a symbol of opposition, as an effective way to inspire anger, the punks themselves were not fascists whatsoever, but the opposite, aligning themselves with the Labour party, anti-poverty activists and the radical left (Brake, 1985). Wearing a swastika, therefore, became a symbolic opening, an invitation to negotiate meaning. In contrast, while the Teddy Boy revivalists of the early seventies developed a style based on nostalgia, made up of long coat tails, bouffant hairstyles and rockabilly music, all in an attempt to hark back to a bygone era, the group was “symbolically closed…meanings ascribed to their symbolic adornments were fixed, and the same whether viewed from inside or outside the group” (Hebdige, 1979).

While historically memorable, subcultures like punk are highly unstable, and vulnerable to co-option from the outside. There is a similar process of identity and style negotiation in the case of hip-hop culture:

“Hip–hop artists use style as a form of identity formation which plays on class distinctions and hierarchies by using commodities to claim the cultural terrain. Clothing and consumption rituals testify to the power of consumption as a means of cultural expression” (Rose, 1994).

Identity and style negotiation in the hip-hop community are often one in the same, as can be evidenced by self–naming in rap music, “branding” the streets by way of personalized graffiti tags, and the intense confrontations between freestyle competitors, breakdance crews and graffiti artists. Like punk, hip–hop’s opposition is directed outward, toward the dominant structure, or “the man.” Dominant, mainstream culture is mocked via symbolic assemblages which can reach ridiculous heights. As seen in the pictures below, these may include gaudy collages of jewelry or “bling;” enormous designer patches stitched onto clothing and other accessories; and a variety of other cultural accoutrements, from gold teeth and sports uniforms to fancy cars and champagne.

This all acts as kind of a “sartorial warfare against Fifth Avenue haute couture, for teenagers who understand their limited access to traditional avenues of social status attainment” (ibid).

Both hip-hop and punk, along with other subcultures, are subject to transformation and negotiation, much of which centers on notions of authenticity (Gunn, 1999). For example, in the “goth” genre, popular music may be defined or re-defined in terms of canonisation:

“Canonising simultaneously broadens and fixes generic boundaries, making room for the inclusion of new music in reference to the old. The logic here operates metonymically by fixing previously recognized bands of historical significance as the originators of a given musical genre, so that future musical acts with similar sounds may expand generic boundaries with the legitimate value of difference” (ibid).

The important factor here is authenticity. An inauthentic goth song or group would not fit comfortably within the subculture. Fashion functions much in the same manner. For example, a “true” goth’s uniform is generally black, which includes black nail polish, eyeliner and lipstick, along with belts, bracelets and the like. This is often paired with a “ghostly,” pale face, with the entire ensemble evoking something out of a fairy tale, or even the Gothic period itself. Some of these various choices can be seen on the group below.

However, goth style, in addition to punk, have both become absorbed by the mainstream. Nowadays, any teenager can go to a local Hot Topic, Urban Outfitters or similar retailer, that specializes in punk, goth, retro, rock ‘n roll or “alternative” styles, and try on the aesthetic.

The notion of authenticity sheds some light on our understanding of the negotiation of identity within various subcultures. Genre can be very territorial because of the degree to which self-conception is tied to a particular group. Rivalries over new styles, artists and lingo, and whether or not to include or exclude them, express the competition between unlike identities in what might be called a “canonization of selves.” (Damrell, 1978).

One can often distinguish youths from adults, not only by their age, but by their clothing, gait, posture and words. And in the West at least, prosperity has postponed the entry into adulthood, which has increased the importance of youth subcultures in terms of a search for identity. Subcultures allow a tangible way not only to view the world, but to be in it, providing, for the most part, a positive function in easing the transition from childhood to adulthood. And while the majority of practitioners leave these youth subcultures at some point, shedding their counter-culture personas for those of the mainstream, there will always be lingering reminders of one’s old allegiances, whether they be photographs, tattoos, or simply memories. And in this way, one’s connections to youth culture, along with the sources of identity that go with it, never fully fade away.

Bibliography

Brake, Michael. Comparative Youth Culture: The sociology of youth culture and youth subcultures in America, Britain and Canada. London: Routledge, 1985.

Damrell, J. Search for Identity: Youth, Religion and Culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1978.

Frith, S. The Sociology of Youth. Lancashire: Causeway Press Ltd., 1996.

Gronlund, A., and Holme, P. “Networking the seceder model: Group formation in social and economic systems.” Physical Review 70, 2004.

Gunn, J. “Gothic music and the Inevitability of genre.” Popular Music and Society, volume 23, number 1, 1999.

Hall, Stuart, and Jefferson, Tony. Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-war Britain. London: Routledge, 1993.

Hebdige, D. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methvan & Co Ltd., 1979.

Rinehart, R., and Sydnor, S. (eds.) To the Extreme: Alternative Sports, Inside and Out. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003.

Rose, T. “A Style nobody can deal with: Politics, style and the postindustrial city in Hip Hop.” in: Ross, A., and Rose, T. (eds.) Microphone fiends: Youth music and youth culture. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Straw, Will. “Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change: Communities and Scenes in Popular Music.” Cultural Studies 5, 1991.

Thornton, S. Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1995.

“Compare and contrast any two models of health. Briefly explain the relationship between named social factors and health”

There are numbers of ways of how health can be defined. One of most known definitions is by World Health Organization that states ‘health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of diseases’. However, there are three main models of health and each of them has its own definition. This essay will compare and contrast two models of health – bio-medical model and social model – as well as discus s range of social factors that affect it health.

Over the last century the most influencing and dominant model in health in Western countries has been biomedical model. It began in nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when there were great advances of medical science (Taylor, Field). Biomedical model is a conceptual model of illness that only includes biological factors, excluding possible psychological and social factors in attempt to understand person’s medical illness or disorder (Mondofacto, 2009). In other words, biomedical model sees human body as a machine that if it is not working then it needs to be fixed. Furthermore, it only embraces one cause of illness, dismissing other possible factors that may have lead to it. Prevention of disease is not the priority of this health model; it focuses on finding a cure. The aim of biomedical model is to “reduce morbidity and premature mortality” (Naidoo, Willis, 1994)

The social model of health is not as popular as biomedical model, because its cure of illness or disease is not so straightforward. It focuses on the lifestyles and behaviour of individuals as well as it stresses and encourages personal responsibility. According to Taylor and Field (2007) ‘significant improvement in health is more likely to come from changes in people’s behaviour and in the condition under their live’. Following this further, social model of health acknowledges influences on health of political, economic, social and environmental factors with the aim of changes in them, which will help to promote help. (Naidoo, Willis, 1994) On the contrary to biomedical model, the social model of health sees body as a whole rather than separate bodily part.

The biomedical and social models of health are different in most of the aspects. Though their both promote health, their propagation towards it and understanding in health is different. While bio – medical model of health states that “the individual is not responsible for their illness and that mind and body work independently from each other (Ogden, 2004), the social model’s affirmation is different. It believes in overall state of health that addresses to physical, social and economic environment (Naidoo, Willis, 1994). For example, biomedical model of health would claim that lung cancer is caused by smoking, while social model of heath may suggest that passive smoking or hereditary disposition to the disease can be causes to it. Pursuing this further, Blaxter (2004) yet suggest that bio – medical model of heath does not promote a healthy lifestyle, as it could be thought if you are smoking, excessively drinking and eating unhealthily but not feeling ill, then it is acceptable to carry on with that. Controversially, social model of health is looking at it differently, by encouraging people to lead a healthy lifestyle and prevent illnesses and diseases (Blaxter, 2004).

The differences between the bio-medical and social models of health intensifies even more when in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries mortality and morbidity rates decreased. The reasons of these magnificent changes were ‘reduction in mortality from infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria and dysentery’ (Morgan, Calnan, Manning, 1998,). The serious debate begun between Griffiths and McKeown, after Griffiths claimed, the ‘growth of the hospital, dispensary and midwifery services, additions of knowledge of physiology and anatomy, and introduction of smallpox inoculation’ (ibid) were the great causes of declining in mortality rates. Despite the strong evidences, Tom McKeown proved that T. Griffith’s analysis were wrong and gave distinctive examination. It was concluded that particularly improved living conditions, sanitation and nutrition as well as limitation in family size were the major factors of reduction in mortality rates. By this, McKeown demonstrated that social and environmental conditions have a big impact on people’s lives.

In Modern Britain social classes still exist with lower classes living in poverty and facing inequalities in health. For long, health inequalities between social classes were not certified until ‘Black report” was published in 1980. By using infant mortality rates, life expectancy, mental illness and causes of death, it showed that the higher person’s social class is, the more likely he would be in a good health. Since the general living and working conditions are significantly worst in lower social classes, these evidences do not come as a surprise. Not only people live in inadequate housing conditions, such as damp, disrepair and lack of toilet facilities (Naidoo, Willis, 1994) – which have an impact on health – but also are more inclinable to lead unhealthy lifestyle with lack of exercises, poor nutrition and bad habits (Browne, 2005). Consequently, people living under these conditions have more health problems, such as heart diseases and respiratory illnesses. Following this further, people from deprived areas are not only more likely to suffer from ill health, but also, have to face a poorer medical care, with overworked GPs and long waiting lists in hospitals. (Browne, 2005)

However, bio – medical model of health does not agree with social model by raising awareness in inequalities in health between social classes, stating, that the ‘ diseases of affluence’ , such as coronary heart diseases and cancer are the major killers in contemporary Britain’ (Naidoo, Willis, 1994). Yet, Naidoo and Willis (1994) represented argument that these diseases are more common in lower social classes. Notwithstanding, Bio – medical model agrees with social model of health about sex differences in morbidity and mortality. Naidoo and Willis report ‘that women are more resistant to infection and benefit from a protective effect from oestrogen accounting for their lower mortality rates’ (Naidoo, Willis, 1994). Even so, the bio medical model can not explain the difference of women’s mortality rate between social classes yet again.

In conclusion, it is observable that both bio – medical model and social model of health has a great arguments in their believes and promotions. However, it is clear that social model of health is offering more holistic approach to health by looking at lifestyle and environment with the aim to prevent illnesses before it appeared. Saying that, without a bio – medical model of health, medicine would not be as much advanced as it is now. Ideally, both models of health should be working along side to provide with the best care in health and so much needed qualities in health.

http://www.mondofacto.com

Introduction

The idea of social exclusion, the forces within society which have contributed to it, and results of social exclusion are all issues that have been described in the following terms by Musterd, S and Ostendorf, W ((1998) p1):

‘The excluded lose the opportunities, the means and finally the ability to participate in society, which is expressed by a lack of labour market participation, low school participation, a weak position in the housing market, limited political participation and restricted socio-cultural integration…^[1]’.

Levitas, R (1998) has a slightly different view of social exclusion and her views have been described in the following way: ‘The MUD moral underclass discourse is rooted in neo-conservatism. Levitas describes this discourse as equating social exclusion with the development of an ‘underclass’….^[2]’ Therefore, while there are those who question the very existence of social exclusion problems: ‘…..the term does not necessarily imply either a positive or a negative state. It is simply a way of describing the established patterns of human relations in any given society….^[3]’, what the arguments of Levitas (1998) and Musterd, S and Ostendorf, W (1998) show is that social theorists have mapped an increasing trend within society which has entrenched wide gaps between social groups in terms of wealth and social status, and this trend has been noticed particularly in regard to urban areas and in terms of low income families. Social exclusion has led to an explosion at both extreme ends of the socio-economic scale, with increases in households that have a low income, seen to expand proportionally with increases in the amount of households with high income and skills that are highly sought after. Those at the bottom of the scale are frequently referred to as ‘excluded’ and those at the top are those who benefit from social inclusion. The broad policy of redistributive justice has been seen as a way to redress this socio-economic imbalance. Redistributive justice refers to a process whereby the political process encourages the distribution of property and wealth, by introducing schemes such as taxation, which can channel wealth from the wealthy to the poor in society. This concept has been associated with Marxism, Socialism and Pluralism.

Therefore, whether one accepts the discourse of an underclass propelling social exclusion, or whether one simply holds the view that social exclusion is mainly caused because of socio-economic reasons, it is plain to be seen that the UK government has recognised social exclusion as a problem which needs to be addressed in terms of policy. The effectiveness and coherence of these policies is of course, open to interpretation and criticism and two government policies will be examined in this essay to highlight the problem of social exclusion and to critique the government’s response to it. Two specific policies have been chosen by the writer with which to use as a focal point in the further discussion of the topic of social exclusion. The first policy is a policy called ‘Programme for Partnership’ which is aimed at narrowing the gaps that social exclusion imposes with regard to those living in urban areas of Scotland. The second scheme within the social capital and social exclusion area is the ‘Tackling Exclusion from Education’ scheme which proposes to see social exclusion as a problem which starts at an early age and which aims at improving the problems of social exclusion through the improvement of the education system in the UK.

Urban and the City

Few people doubt that the problems of social exclusion emanate in a substantial way from city life and problems associated with deprived urban areas. This scenario can be seen to produce an ‘underclass’ that live in these areas. As Martin (2004) has demonstrated underclasses, whatever their construction are a product of post industrialisation. Martin argues:

‘There are various interpretations of the term ‘underclass’. Indeed, Bovenkerk (1984) and Mann (1992 in Mann 1999: 150) argue that Murray’s account of the underclass sounds remarkably like Marx and Engels’ accounts of the lumpenproletariat, and the term itself has been attributed to the work of the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal. According to Gans (1995: 2) the ‘underclass’ is a ‘redefinition of an economic term originally introduced by … Myrdal in 1963 to describe the workers being forced out of a new economy, now often called postindustrial’..^[4]’

Therefore the first chosen policy which will be discussed in regards to the urban and the city topic is one which is aimed at dissipating the problems of an urban underclass. The scheme has only recently been announced by government and it relates to urban regeneration in Scotland. The scheme itself has been entitled ‘Programme for Partnership’ and it involves formulating ideas which will influence the long term lifestyles and opportunities of those living in deprived urban areas. This programme has held at its core the idea of ‘regeneration partnerships’ which encourages a level of cohesion between agencies charged with the responsibility of dealing with the problems of social exclusion in urban Scotland. For example, through directing resources to target inequality in the healthcare system, the ‘Programme for Partnership’ is intending to indirectly deal with the problems within the educational system such as low attainment which can be linked with poor health. This scheme therefore has been aimed at reducing inter-related problems linked with city life which combine to produce what has been described as: ‘……the horrible reality of being cut out of our credit-based, plastic card economy…^[5]’.

Other initiatives which have have been borne from this ‘Programme for Partnership’ initiative have been aimed at tackling the problems associated with homelessness, which is another sign of social exclusion. What the Partnership initiative has recognised is that homelessness is not a singular problem which randomly befalls those it affects. Homelessness, a problem endemic in urban areas can often be associated with poverty, low educational attainment, drugs, poor healthcare (particularly for the mentally ill) and family problems including abuse. Therefore, the government has formulated a new Code of Practice which encourages urban social service actors to develop strategies to deal with poverty which incorporate a holistic approach to dealing with the social problems that cause social problems, and not just isolated problems. The Cabinet Office’s social exclusion unit and the Scottish Office work closely to supervise and to help implement the ‘Programme for Partnership’ scheme. The Scottish Executive has recently been quoted as saying:

‘Part of the social justice strategy is the….development of person-centred services (and) involves the breaking down of the old vertical hierarchies, such as the historical division between the UK Benefits Agency and Employment Service, which have recently been merged…^[6]’.

Yet, rhetoric does not solve the problem of social exclusion, and this scheme may be of little use if its effectiveness cannot be measured and attuned to the fluid distribution of the problems of social exclusion in urban areas. There is a fundamental problem which arises when one attempts to tackle a broad problem with an inter-agency approach and this problem involves measuring the success and/or failure of the policy, and targeting appropriate solutions within this grey area. The resulting subterfuge may be of benefit to a government seeking reelection, but how far it has gone to reduce continuing problems associated with social exclusion in urban areas is difficult to see through the rising crime rates, the continuing problems of anti-social behaviour and rising poverty, problems which those in urban areas are particularly susceptible to.

Social Capital and Social Exclusion

As we have seen earlier from the explanation of social exclusion provided by Musterd, S and Ostendorf, W (1998), the problem of social exclusion mainly affects those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. The government has recognised that this problem in many ways reflects the way that poor children are treated in the education system. Statistics have suggested that there are links between a person’s educational and social development and this is particularly true of those who enter the educational system from a deprived background. Commentators such as Archer (2003) have pointed to a core problem relating to social exclusion and the educational system: ‘….educational inequalities not only persist, but in some cases have increased…^[7]’. Therefore the New Labour government have recently launched the ‘Tackling Exclusion from Education’ scheme, which is a scheme again aimed at local authorities and which encourages them to develop schemes aimed at improving literacy in young people and teenagers. This scheme therefore aims to facilitate the progression of young people within the education system and one of its objectives is to tackle problems associated with emotional and behavioral difficulties in young people, problems which contribute to the problems that have been described above in an urban context. Truancy is also a big issue in this regard and the ‘Tackling Exclusion from Education’ scheme encourages local authorities to introduce pilot schemes within schools to look at alternatives to excluding children, and to improve attendance records. In this way the problem of failure in the educational system can be seen as a root cause of those problems described in the above urban and city section, as problems in school often persist into later life, and these problems can often be seen within cities.

Linked with this Education initiative are schemes aimed at improving confidence among young people, and these schemes include out of hours activities which are funded by the National Lottery. As Majors (2001) has argued, ‘England is experiencing an education revolution. Few would deny that in the four years since the Labour government came to power they have made major advances in education and social inclusion.…^[8]’. Yet, again, this scheme suffers from the same inadequacies as the later scheme. The difficulty again lies with separating rhetoric from success. While it is true that the problem of social exclusion can be tackled in the ways described above, it is not clear whether these schemes are actually effective, in light of the poor comparison Britain makes with other Western European educational systems. An intrinsic problem which has dogged other areas of political life is recognised as ‘political spin’. This New Labour propensity to cloud problems with ‘spin’ has permeated the social sector as much as it has the political sector. This leads to a problem of measurement and of recognition and the increasing inconsistency that can be seen from looking at what the government says it is achieving and reconciling this with poor educational attainment, truancy and other problems which afflict poor, young people in British state schools.

Conclusion

This essay has looked at the idea of social exclusion both in urban areas and in terms of social capital. In many ways social exclusion, begs questions about the definition of freedom; questions about redistributive justice which Marx and Engels have asked many years ago. Therefore, few could argue that the problems of social exclusion emanate in large part from industrialisation and this has been a theme of the essay. While Bashford and Strange (2003) have argued that: ‘…new political imaginings of ‘freedom’… (and)…the invention of ‘liberty’ as an inalienable right…^[9]’ have improved the situations of many, the problem of social exclusion persists, as it argued by Rosenfeld and Tardieu (2002): ‘The very poor are shut out; the social institution is shut in. Both live with a sense of defeat and mutual misunderstanding … To the extent that there are overtures from either side, these seem doomed to failure and make no sense to the other side. Nothing is going on; there are no surprises, no exchanges, no meeting points. There is no story to tell….^[10]’. Therefore government policy which aims to target these problems must address social exclusion, not just in terms of description, but in terms of effectual strategy which measures success and failure in a fair and unbiased way.

Bibliography
Books and Articles

Archer, L. et al. (2003) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of Exclusion and Inclusion. Publisher: RoutledgeFalmer. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2003.

Bashford, A. and Strange, C. (2003) Isolation: Places and Practices of Exclusion. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2003.

Bollens, S. (2002) Urban Planning and Intergroup Conflict: Confronting a Fractured Public Interest. Journal Title: Journal of the American Planning Association. Volume: 68. Issue: 1. Page Number: 22+.

Johnson, M. (2001) It May Not Grab the Headlines, but Tackling Financial Exclusion Is Social Democracy in Action. Magazine Title: New Statesman. Volume: 130. Issue: 4530. Publication Date: March 26, 2001.

Majors, R. (2001) Educating Our Black Children: New Directions and Radical Approaches. Publisher: RoutledgeFalmer. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 2001.

Martin, S. (2004) Reconceptualising Social Exclusion: A Critical Response to the Neoliberal Welfare Reform Agenda and the Underclass Thesis. Journal Title: Australian Journal of Social Issues. Volume: 39. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 2004. Page Number: 79+.

Musterd, S. and Ostendorf, W. (1998) Urban Segregation and the Welfare State: Inequality and Exclusion in Western Cities. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 1998.

Riddell, S. and Tett, L (2001) Education, Social Justice, and Inter-Agency Working: Joined Up or Fractured Policy. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2001.

Rosenfeld, J. and Tardieu, B. (2002) Artisans of Democracy: How Ordinary People, Families in Extreme Poverty, and Social Institutions Become Allies to Overcome Social Exclusion. Journal Title: Social Theory and Practice. Volume: 28. Issue: 3. Publication Year: 2002.

Internet Sources

The Scottish Stationary Office (Undated) Social Exclusion in Scotland: A Consultation Paper. Available at: << http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents1/socexcl.htm >>.

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. (1994) Social Integration: Approaches and Issues. Available at: <>.

Anonymous (2002) Social Inclusion/Exclusion. Available at: <>.

Secondly, Karl Marx’s class conflict theory of Marxism will be discussed regarding its theoretical input to the preliminary causing of the riots. Capitalism engenders crime through the infusion of egotistic tendencies with the failure of means to satisfy such demands. A financial hierarchy has been created in which wealth and material possessions are crucial when escalating up this hierarchy.

Lastly, the theory of consumer culture shall be considered in response to the London riots. Consumer culture is broadly defined as ones desire and ability in living beyond basic needs. Merton (1938) suggests that crime occurs when an individual’s ambitions of material wealth cannot be achieved in a socially acceptable manner, leading to means of deviance such as theft.

Social Exclusion in response to the London riots.

‘Individuals, families and groups can be said to be in poverty when . . . their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities’ (Townsend, 1979). We need to remember that social exclusion doesn’t just happen within the working classes; it can happen across all the classes. Social exclusion differs to Marxism in that it doesn’t concern itself primarily with poverty, social exclusion can be multi-dimensional in which poverty is typical, but not always implicated (Saunders, 2003).

Social exclusion is contrast to Marxism in that the focus isn’t on poverty and class. Social exclusion happens for many global roots, whether this can be through the decline of manufacturing industries and the creation of structural unemployment.

Wilson (1996) highlights issues with people wanting to work but not having the necessary skills or education to do so. This therefore leads them into financial deprivation then essentially crime i.e. looting and robbery. University fees now situate themselves at ?9,000 alone. This prices out many individuals leaving them without the necessary education to strive and achieve in the workplace. In relation to the riots, it is this exclusion from societal expectations that leads individuals to have to fight for their place in society. Bauman and Rose also argue that active rejection of the lower class by society by downsizing industry creating higher unemployment, the labelling of those without jobs and the ideology that the lower class are criminogenic, violent, with many being ethnic. Social exclusion detracts poverty and class away from the causes of crime however, which was a very apparent concern in the spread of the riots. Coupled with this there is very little theory to actually explain the causes and effects of social exclusion in which is very apparent within the Marx theories.

MacDonald and Marsh (2002) state that ‘it has become a confusing and slippery “catch-all” phrase’ with no real explanation. Social exclusion reiterates the implication of dichotomy between exclusion and inclusion (Levitas 1996; see also Hills et al. 2002) in which is very poorly explained.

Marxism in response to the London riots.

Representation of anger and resentment from the working class, predominantly the poorest, most excluded individuals were shown towards the police, capitalism and racial victimisation throughout the London riots. The catalyst for the initial focus was the killing of Mark Duggan by police officials. Reports from the police and the news teams which followed this unlawful killing were contradictory and unclear leading to an uproar of frustration and anger. Marx would suggest that the police are an organisation of armed men, who look to implement the authoritarianism of the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, he would suggest that the media and police are all products of the same billionaires who fund and own such organisations. This coupled with the consumerist society is what drove individuals to rebel.

The Marxist theory suggests that societal judgment of an individual is performed on the contents of their wallet and wardrobe as appose to their characteristics and personality (Clinnard and Meier, 2008). Marx states that where a ‘ruling class’ classification is achieved; the individuals not situated in this group will revolt against them who do, thus creating power relationships between different social groups (Haralambos and Holborn, 2007). Inequality is largely fuelled through social deprivation; this creates jealousy, greed and conflict within societies and in turn leads to public displays of rebellion and revolt. The London riots of 2011 suggest that a society driven by consumerism encourages anti-social behaviour, coupled with the vast amount of material ‘looting’, we can assume that this revolt was aimed at the rich capitalists who situate themselves pinnacle within this hierarchy of wealth and importance.

Whilst applying Marxism to the riots and the real world it would seem that accountability for essential parts of society are lacking. A Marxist society see’s individuals who work hard being rewarded with wealth and stability for their efforts. Unemployment rates were exceptionally high within society at the time of the riots giving well educated and skilled individuals no means of income or alternatively, struggling whilst working hard in low paid jobs. Furthermore, within the riots it was stated that individuals involved were all low class, young and criminogenic complimentary to Marxist views of criminals being from a third class, lumpenproletariat. Amongst those convicted for rioting however was a millionaire’s daughter and law student who were firmly nestled within middle class families.

Colvin and Pauly (1983) suggested that people in lower paid jobs are controlled at work through manipulation and coercion. This can further be seen in the lead up to the riots of August 2011 through the policing of communities. 73 per cent of individuals interviewed in the ‘reading the riots’ article had been stopped and searched within the past year. Marx would suggest that this robust policing on specific communities are the ‘ruling’ class exploiting the working class, thus explaining involvement within the riots as an act of hatred for the authorities.

Consumer Culture in response to the London riots.

Throughout the aftermath of the London riots many aspects of society have been subjected to culpability in the reasoning for the preliminary causing of this rebellion and revolt. However, rather a large aspect of societal influence hasn’t been subjected to this liability, this being designers, retail companies and electrical suppliers. The riots were not focussed on the destruction of property or violent attacks upon our government/forces instead these riots were subject to obtaining goods free of charge. Footlocker, JJB, Carphone Warehouse etc. these were just some of the shops in which were targeted but these young individuals, this coming as no surprise. Businesses like these are home to the goods in which are most desirable by individuals today, highlighting that the riots happened due to an ‘out of control consumerist ethos’ (Hawkes, 2011).

Consumer culture has an illustrious history behind it. Slater (1997) stated that ‘consumer culture is discovered every few decades; or, to be uncharitable, it has been redesigned, repackaged and relaunched as a new academic and political product every generation since the sixteenth century’. Importantly, consumer culture became ‘mass’ during the 20th century, particularly after the Second World War (Hall et al. 2008). This shows that under no measures will consumer culture be controlled. Consumption has now replaced production as the defining characteristic of Western societies (Lasch 1979, Bauman 1998). Advertising is dominant in every aspect of an individual’s life, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, these are all new and improved ways in which products can be publicised. It is this constant barrage of consumerism that leads to every aspect of an individual’s life being consumeristic, education, where you reside etc. all are key in your social expression.

Merton (1938) states that when a materialistic wealth is unable to be achieved through socially acceptable means, crime and deviance will occur. This links well with Young’s (2007) view of a ‘bulimic’ society in that ‘massive cultural inclusion is accompanied by systematic structural exclusion.’ He then continues to say that ‘the consumer markets propagate a citizenship of joyful consumption yet the ability to spend (and sometimes even to enter) within the mall is severely limited.’ The riots of August 2011 where described as ‘envy masked as a triumphant carnival’ (Zizek, 2011). Bankers, politicians, footballers etc. are all subject to ample amounts of publicity and it is their materialistic wealth that creates this want and envy, in turn, leading to individuals going to these extreme lengths in order to achieve such wealth.

Hayward (2004) however creates a different notion. He believes that the material goods in which where taken during the riots where not for the wealth they bestowed but alternatively for the identity in which they gave the individual. Thus, where the employed and wealthy are also looting it is hard to label these select individuals into one generic category. This rebellion of consumerism and social exclusion that is seen everywhere when reasoning for the riots surely is incorrect. It was an attempt to join in (Bauman, 2011), climb that materialistic hierarchy and enhance your identity.

Conclusion:

The theories discussed above are merely three of many in which can account for the riots in August 2011. All three of these theories highlight issues surrounding poverty, class and the exclusion in which conjoins itself to this hierarchy of wealth. Karl Marx’s capitalism suggests response to the riots in that a good capitalism is needed to rejuvenate Britain but we must then account for the question, can capitalism be reformed to account these lower class individuals or simply continue to exploit them?

It is this exploitation in which needs to be controlled and accessed within many societal areas. It is extremely evident that the police forces abuse their stop and search powers and this is further targeted at the same individuals in which are secluded from society from governmental statues and manifesto’s; the youths, blacks and underprivileged. Education, direction and employment are very regularly inaccessible for these individuals which, in turn, lead to a lifetime in crime as means of survival.

But where there is consumer culture, they will be exploitation. Our direction, our role models tend to locate themselves at the highest end of this hierarchy of wealth. We see the watches they buy, we see the clothes they wear, we see the cars they drive, this strive for success and these material goods are the main factors in which also spirals an individual into a life of crime. The London riots saw an extremely large number of individuals overlooking the laws and their morals to provide themselves with these material goods in which they probably wouldn’t have owned without taking these measures.

The conservative government have a history in capitalism, exploitation and the lack of societal values. We saw Margret Thatcher openly state these views throughout her time as prime minister but, in this modern society in which we live it has become obvious that these views will not stand and individuals will do anything in their power to rebel against this.

This article is oriented to through a light and argues that social entrepreneurs do not give adequate consideration to gender and emphasise that there was a lack of research on women’s contribution as social entrepreneurs; this article suggests other possible areas of study to advance this field of research. It brings out the extensive literature on social entrepreneurs and female entrepreneurs, while also drawing on the gender/diversity literature. This article creates interest to researchers who wish to examine aspects related to women as social entrepreneurs. It is also relevant to government agencies and social enterprise organisations those are looking to gain a more understanding of social entrepreneurs, their characteristics and the issues they face. It provides key avenues of further work to better understand the way in which sex and gender interact with the practices of social entrepreneurs.

Though there is a tremendous increase in research on social entrepreneurs in recent years, a little consideration has been given to the women’s contribution make as social entrepreneurs. Some work in academic research has started to profile social entrepreneurs, describe why they choose to become social entrepreneurs, the hurdles they face and the strategies they adopt. Although the research on the topic of social entrepreneurs is increasing, it is still largely based on an idealised vision of which the social entrepreneur is, often restricting the concept to a narrow pool of individuals and not taking into account the actual diversity within this category. Teasdale et al., 2011 says one such category which has been largely ignored in the literature consists of the contribution that women make as social entrepreneur.

For the purpose of this paper, we will discuss the concept of social entrepreneurs independently of social entrepreneurship. This will avoid difficulties linked to the fact that not all social enterprises may be ‘entrepreneurial’ or that not all social entrepreneurship comprises social enterprises. The premise of this paper is that much of the literature on social entrepreneurs is heavily influenced by mainstream literature on management and entrepreneurship, and as such the work on female social entrepreneurs may follow the same trend. Much of the work in the field of sex/gender and management/entrepreneurship has changed focus over the past two to three decades, moving from a largely descriptive field of research to a much more analytical one. One of the key characteristics has been the progressive move from ‘sex to gender’, going from looking at ‘if’ sex makes a difference, to ‘how’ gender makes a difference (see Carter and Shaw, 2006 for a fuller account). The literature on women entrepreneurs has adopted an increasingly critical stance, denouncing the implicit maleness of the entrepreneur as a construct. One of its main criticisms is the androcentricity inherent in much of the entrepreneurship literature, which often relies on very gendered and stereotypical assumptions as to the role of men and women.

The mainstream literature has given much attention to the topic of traits, looking for the actual social or psychological attributes possessed by successful entrepreneurs. However, the gendered nature of these very traits has been heavily criticised by scholars in the field of gender and entrepreneurs (Ahl, 2006; Marlow et al., 2009). In opposition to trait theory, which relies on a social-psychological approach, a more sociological approach has been proposed to look at identity construction rather than traits. This gives a voice to alternative groups (e.g. women), for example in the male-dominated Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) incubators (McAdam and Marlow, 2010) or among ethnic female entrepreneurs (Essers and Benschop, 2007; Humbert and Essers, 2012). This paper builds upon this body of work to provide a critical view of existing work on (female) social entrepreneurs and to shape a future research agenda. In particular, it aims to provide a brief account of current research on social entrepreneurs, followed by some of the findings directly related to the contribution of women. Because of the limited amount of material on women as social entrepreneurs, the paper also draws on literature on women within the social entrepreneurship, with applications to the case of social entrepreneurs where feasible. This review is informed by a focus group organised in June 2009 in London that brought together key informants such as policy makers, female social entrepreneurs and academics. Finally, the paper aims to provide a reflective gendered account of how these bodies of literature can be combined to inform further research on women as social entrepreneurs, before suggesting some possible avenues for research on the topic in the future.

Social entrepreneurs: traits and limitations

Some of the traits attached to social entrepreneurs are starting to be well documented. Some studies like Prabhu, 1999 suggest that social entrepreneurs are younger, possibly due to a higher risk propensity related to lower levels of family responsibilities. Ramsay and Danton, 2010 found that evidence from the UK suggests however those very young individuals are not very well represented among social entrepreneurs. It is important to consider the effect of age as there may also be potential links with the type of social enterprise being set up: younger social entrepreneurs may work on transformational actions while older social entrepreneurs may tend to focus more on charitable organisations. It might also be alternative forms of organisations that are adopted by younger social entrepreneurs.

Leadbeater, 1997 focused on the development of social capital which is seen as important in the creation and subsequent development of social enterprises. Research into the potential importance of social capital among social entrepreneurs shows some evidence that personal/family history of (social) entrepreneurship may have a positive influence on the creation of social ventures but overall remains inconclusive. In the entrepreneurship literature, women are portrayed as being particularly influenced by this personal/family history (Marlow et al., 2009). This raises the question of to what extent this is also a factor among women social entrepreneurs.

Shaw and Carter, 2007 stated that social entrepreneurs are able to show “drive, determination, ambition, charisma, leadership, the ability to communicate vision and inspire others and their maximum use of resources”. In order to do so, as Alvord et al. (2004) suggest, a characteristic associated with successful social entrepreneurs is that of a ‘bridging capacity’. This capacity is shaped by a social entrepreneur’s background and experience which in turn is shaped by gender relations.

Some authors have focused on developing a universal definition of social entrepreneurs, one which is heavily linked to, and directly derived from, the definition of an entrepreneur. One of the definitions adopted by Nicholls (2006:224) draws on Dees (2001) and bears some similarities with Chell (2008). It is worded in the following terms: “Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:

i‚· adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value);

i‚· recognising and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission;

i‚· engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and learning;

i‚· acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand;

i‚· exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created”.

This definition assumes that there are fundamental differences between ‘mainstream’ entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. Chell (2007:18) has worked on reconciling the two definitions and concludes that the differences can be eliminated by adopting the following: (social) entrepreneurship is the process of “recognizing and pursuing opportunities with regard to the alienable and inalienable resources currently controlled with a view to value creation”. This definition, while providing a platform for renegotiating theoretical differences between entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs is still proving to be a very polarised stringent definition. This problem is in part resolved by adopting an alternative viewpoint where the ‘ideal’ social entrepreneur should not necessarily fulfil all criteria in the above definition fully, but that there are different degrees of fulfilment for each and that a social entrepreneur does not necessarily need to meet all of them (Dees, 2001).

If there are many commonalities between mainstream and social entrepreneurs, academic discourse bestows social entrepreneurs with extra, special, traits which underline the importance of their commitment and dedication to social aims. Not only are social entrepreneurs largely described as different in the literature, they are also often described as extraordinary individuals. Dees (2001:2) for instance describes entrepreneurs in the following terms: “their reach exceeds their grasp. Entrepreneurs mobilize the resources of others to achieve their entrepreneurial objectives”. Chell (2007:5) portrays a similar vision of the entrepreneur as “a household name with a personality that is ‘larger than life’”. These quotes present a view of the entrepreneur as both metaphorically and literally uncontainable. Further research needs to explore how this discourse relates differently to men and women.

It is also important to examine the role of women in the governance of social enterprises, The Social Enterprise Coalition’s State of Social Enterprise Survey (Social Enterprise Coalition, 2009) show that the social enterprise sector provides a more egalitarian environment for women, as can be seen in terms of presence on boards; 41% of social enterprise board members in the SEC Survey 2009 are women (Humbert, 2011). However, this differs considerably between sectors.

There is a strong need to recognise diversity among social entrepreneurs. Indeed ‘mainstream’ entrepreneurship studies have often been criticised for failing to address heterogeneity (Ahl, 2006; Essers and Benschop, 2007) and it appears that these issues are at least as pronounced with regards to social entrepreneurship. An emphasis on entrepreneurial traits can therefore be criticised as being overly reductionist in that it discursively creates a hegemonic model of the social entrepreneur as s/he ought to be. Furthermore, it embeds the characteristics of social entrepreneurs into individualistic and economic settings, while disregarding the impact of the socially interactive and emotional settings (Goss, 2005).

Social entrepreneurs: motivations, obstacles and strategies

In addition to work focusing on who social entrepreneurs are, other studies analysed why they choose to become social entrepreneurs, the obstacles they face in doing so, as well as some of the strategies they employ to overcome these. This approach departs from attempting to describe successful social entrepreneurs in that it does not solely rely on ‘natural’ characteristics but also recognises the importance of the environment, for instance through cultural or social influences.

As such, social entrepreneurial awakening can be seen as a multiplicity of trigger factors in individual, personal, familial and professional backgrounds. Becoming a social entrepreneur can be seen as the end result of a more or less long maturing journey, characterised by a range of positive and negative inputs which are interpreted in a time-dependent cultural, societal and personal context. Amin (2009) talks about two main routes that lead to becoming a social entrepreneur. One is about being nurtured with the social economy and using the skills and resources acquired within that setting. The other is to come from the public or private sector and apply skills gathered there in the context of the social entrepreneurship.

Motivations for social entrepreneurs are extremely complex, with evidence that rational choice theories are inappropriate due to the complexity and range of different inputs and their interpretations (Spear, 2006). Most studies find that there are usually many similarities between the motivations of ‘mainstream’ and social entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs may not rate independence and income security highly, but give a lot of importance to their social objectives (Shaw and Carter, 2007). These social objectives are often portrayed as additional factors (Prabhu, 1999; Spear, 2006; Hudson, 2009) and include factors such as altruism, ethical/social concerns or ideological aims.

While there is a significant degree of overlap among these categories, all of these extra motivations rely heavily on an individualistic identity construction, without considering the collective identity’s role. Furthermore, social entrepreneurs’ motivations remain conceptualised using the entrepreneur’s model, albeit with some added elements. This approach of adding extra elements is replicated when looking at the obstacles faced by social entrepreneurs. These are presented as being quite similar to those faced by ‘mainstream’ entrepreneurs (Thompson, 2002). Future research will need to consider how some factors such as ethnicity and gender affect the magnitude of the obstacles encountered.

Very little work has looked at issues of diversity among social entrepreneurs. The UK Government Equalities Office (2008) examined the motivations and obstacles associated with women social entrepreneurs within BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) communities. This work identifies a tendency to get involved with one’s community as a motivating factor while at the same time experiencing multi-disadvantage and discrimination. Multiple, and interacting, layers of identity can therefore be seen both positively and negatively.

Generally social entrepreneurs report experiencing difficulties in accessing finance, as do mainstream entrepreneurs. Alternate sources of funding are used with little reliance on the three Fs (family, friends and fools), but instead finance is sought from charitable trusts or the public sector (regional, national, and European) (Shaw and Carter, 2007). This differs from the situation among ‘mainstream’ entrepreneurs, who are more likely to rely on ‘bootstrapping’ methods of financing their business (relying on internal funds rather than raising money externally). Women entrepreneurs are themselves more likely to rely on bootstrapping, raising the question of whether this is also the case among women social entrepreneurs.

Another characteristic of social entrepreneurs is that they tend to operate in locations and sectors where they have experience (Shaw and Carter, 2007). Although this could be presented as caused by lack of experience, it could also be explained by the fact that they use available resources in a way that maximises their experiential capital. Alternatively, it could also be a strategy to minimise risk. As Shaw and Carter (2007) stress, in the context of social entrepreneurship, social and personal risk are more prevalent as opposed to financial risk. No discussion of the concept and experience of risk among women social entrepreneurs exist in the literature to the author’s knowledge.

Women in the Social Entrepreneurship

To understand the area of female social entrepreneurs, and given the paucity of material available, this paper will therefore take a broader view by examining research on gender more broadly defined before discussing how the findings in those fields may apply to social entrepreneurs. Labour can be subdivided into at least three categories: self-employed, domestic and community work. While the experiences of women in both self-employment and domestic work have been well documented, less work has been undertaken on their community work and volunteering. This section aims to present some of the key findings in the literature on women’s paid and voluntary labour.

Mailloux et al., 2012 says women have had a positive impact on society through their involvement in the social entrepreneurship, by putting some topics such as children, family, women’s health, violence and discrimination towards certain groups of population on the social agenda. Research also suggests that women may use the voluntary sector to counteract negative attributes such as re-entry to the labour force or building up skills. Generally, the involvement of marginalised groups is they women, ethnic-minority groups, are associated with greater levels of change. This can be seen through the involvement of women in supporting women’s issues, sometimes within particular communities which may otherwise not benefit from the services or products provided. Caputo (1997) for example finds a link in the US between black women volunteering and changing social conditions.

Research on women in the social entrepreneurship, whether in paid work or volunteering, attempts to generate a profile of these women and what they do. The proportion of women involved in the social entrepreneurship is greater than other parts of the labour market, as shown by example by Mailloux et al. (2002) and Teasdale et al. (2011) in Canada and the UK respectively. Their activities are contrasted to that of men and studies show that there are differences apparent in the type of work performed by women, the type of organisations they are involved with, as well as the nature of their involvement within these organisations.

Women perform extra volunteer work on a regular basis (e.g. care work) without recognising it as such in the formal voluntary sector (Mailloux et al., 2002). In addition, the link between lower earnings and women seems to also apply in the social entrepreneurship, with lower salaries and benefits than in the private sector in a Canadian context (Mailloux et al., 2002). The popular misconception that involvement in volunteering is a way of occupying free or leisure time, particularly among privileged groups, needs to be challenged given that, in fact, much (less formalised) volunteer work is being undertaken by members of marginalised groups in order to counteract negative circumstances (Neysmith and Reitsma-Street, 2000). The motivations of women in the social entrepreneurship do not appear to be specific to women. They can consist of wanting to make a difference, to act, to help; belong to a group; build links with the community (Mailloux et al., 2002), thereby suggesting that there is a strong community embeddedness in the voluntary sector. Neysmith and Reitsma-Street (2000:336) emphasise that what they call ‘the participatory component’ should not be underplayed and that volunteers attach importance to being “part of something that [aˆ¦] is ‘ours’, not ‘mine’ or ‘theirs’”. The motivations for volunteering are therefore seen as wanting to build relationships with others, developing life and work skills, getting ownership of the fruit of one’s labour and combating negative social stereotypes.

However, volunteer work is devalued in contrast to paid work. One aspect of this devaluation is through the invisibility of volunteer work. Volunteering has been “theorized as an extension of women’s family work, reinforcing separate spheres of ideology where men’s work is defined and rewarded, as a public contribution but women’s work, even though done in the community, is defined essentially as an extension of their private responsibilities to family” (Neysmith and Reitsma-Street, 2000: 342). Further research should examine the extent to which expectations of such gendered roles are present in the social entrepreneurship.

In terms of paid work, Gibelman’s (2000) research suggests that the glass ceiling is still prevalent in the US nonprofit sector, along with evidence of a gender pay gap. An analysis of HR policies revealed a set of anti-discrimination affirmations with usually no plans for implementation. Furthermore, policies related to facilitating access to management for women (i.e. flexitime or help with caring arrangements) were seldom addressed. The study however fails to examine the role these policies play in (dis)advantaging (wo)men. Indeed, Moore and Whitt’s (2000) findings indicate that men are disproportionately more present on voluntary organisations’ boards, more likely to occupy multiple seats and to be involved in a various number of sectors compared with their female counterparts. As they state, “nonprofit boards in the United States remain bastions of white, male privilege” (2000: 324). Overall, the authors conclude that attention needs to be given to the lack of access to boards to promote greater gender equality rather than on how individuals fare within the boards once they get in.

The notion of conflict for women between traditional and modern gender roles is an important one to draw upon. Very little work has been done on this topic, but some US and Canadian evidence suggests that even though women hold a desire to break away from traditional gender roles, there are advantages in using these along with punishment for moving to a more modern structure (Mailloux et al., 2002). However, this move to more modern gender roles may have a detrimental effect, particularly on volunteering, with lower participation from women (Caputo, 1997).

The extent to which these patterns of inequality are found amongst social entrepreneurs is largely under-researched. In addition, since many of the sources quoted above are based in North America, the degree to which these findings could be extrapolated to Europe, or the rest of the world, remains a serious concern. Current European studies (e.g. Teasdale et al., 2011; Humbert, 2011) infer that there are many similarities, but their number and scope remains limited. In their study, Teasdale et al. (2011), support many of the findings highlighted in this section, and are not able to examine social entrepreneurs operating in either the public or private sector.

While there is a dearth of research into gender effects in the social entrepreneurship, patterns of inequities present in the private sector may be largely replicated in the social entrepreneurship, albeit on a smaller scale. The extent to which these patterns are similar, or different, remain critically under-researched. Furthermore, none of this work to date has been applied to social entrepreneurs. In the next section, a gendered reflection on these areas of research is provided, along with some possible topics of research into this field.

Conclusion

Research on social entrepreneurs remains largely dependent on the assumption that a common set of characteristics inherent to social entrepreneurs exists. In effect, this has led to attempts to produce a universal definition of the social entrepreneur. This approach, which replicates the development of research on entrepreneurs, is problematic in the context of female social entrepreneurs since it relies on individual characteristics and may ignore the collective nature of entrepreneurship and may not address the real diversity of social entrepreneurs. This tendency towards the reification of the social entrepreneur requires further research particularly in terms of how it affects men and women differently and whether it excludes particular groups. This tension replicates the long-running argument in mainstream entrepreneurship as to the degree of inclusiveness that should be bestowed to the definition of an entrepreneur.

Indeed, this area of research remains highly centred on previous research on entrepreneurs, and merely adds in extra elements, such as the ‘social’ or the ‘female’, often ignoring the contribution of the intersection of these two concepts. It is the lack of attention given to the interaction between these two concepts, coupled with a lack of questioning of their stereotypical underpinning, that constitute one of the major drawbacks of this field of research.

The stereotypical position is often evident through studies undertaken on women in the social entrepreneurship. Women are portrayed as doing different types of jobs, in different types of organisations, at a lower level and for less money. The rhetoric of difference (with men?) prevails. Moreover, women are portrayed as not motivated by pecuniary reasons but more by a desire to act as what can only be described as mothers of the community: women are there to help, to build, for others but never for themselves, and are seldom valued or rewarded for their work. Research undertaken on social entrepreneurs has often consisted of examining them in contrast with mainstream entrepreneurs (Nicholls, 2006). There is a lurking danger in any comparative stance in that it can easily position one party as the ‘deviant other’, often implying an inferior position. This is certainly the case with female entrepreneurs (Ogbor, 2000; Bruni et al., 2004; Hytti, 2005; Ahl, 2006). Indeed, previous research has shown that in the case of female entrepreneurs, it might be inadequate to use theories derived from an essentially male experience to describe women entrepreneurs (Stevenson, 1990; Greene et al., 2003). This argument has much deeper implications in that it shows that existing models of entrepreneurs based on the so-called mainstream entrepreneur are models based on what Ogbor (2000) terms the ‘white male hero’. These models assume that the entrepreneur does not have caring and/or domestic responsibilities (Ahl, 2006). The challenge resides in creating new models or adapting these to the area of the ‘social’ and the ‘female’ simultaneously. Adapting models in entrepreneurship research such as the family embeddedness perspective advocated by Aldrich and Cliff (2003) or the socio-economic context presented by Brush et al (2009) would be beneficial.

The difficulty in conducting research on women as social entrepreneurs lies in paying attention to the discourses briefly outlined in this paper. It is important to depart from these discourses, as “discourse and perspectives about, and for, the nature of entrepreneurialism are fundamental to both theory (how we think about, conceptualize and define terms) and practice (what capabilities and behaviours we believe apply to people whom we refer to as entrepreneurs) and moreover, to how the terms are used in a wider socio-political arena to serve particular ends” (Chell, 2007:7).

Sociologists argue that gender is the social meaning given to their sex category. Furthermore, that we (human beings) have created a gender social division through our Historical, Cultural and Social Practices. This means that the way we have lived in society has structured and created what it is like to be male or female/Masculine or feminine. This poses a challenge to the Biological Assumption that our sex (i.e. our chromosomes and genes) determines whether we are male or female and also determines what it is like to masculine or feminine.

The debate above will be the subject matter of this essay. Closely looking at how our historical, cultural and social practices have created gender and more importantly created gender inequalities in regards to health, wealth, occupations. Also generally looking at unequal social perceptions of how men are perceived to be stronger (physically and emotionally) and how men are perceived to be better at certain things e.g. football, driving. In contrast looking at how it is incorrect to presume that a male’s Biological Characteristics make him better at certain things mentioned above or how a woman’s Biological characteristics make her weaker than a man.

The theory of biological essentialism (Marsh et al 2009) argues, as mentioned above, that our gender is determined by our sex, i.e. our chromosomes and genes which also determines what it is like to be a male or a female. This theory has been the subject of many sociologic studies because “sex differences have often been proposed as explanations for the differences in social roles performed by women and men. Essentialist, or biological, arguments attribute the different social roles performed by woman and men to underlying biological structures.” (Marsh et al 2009:219). The above is suggesting that men and woman take on different roles in household, workplace etc because they are biologically different (Marsh et al 2009). The theory above has been used to suggest that men are more hostile and competitive which is what makes them better at being the breadwinners of the family(Marsh et al 2009), whereas woman have a more caring nature which makes them better for the nurturing roles in the family. (Marsh et al 2009). However, as the biology of a man and woman has always been the same since their existence this does not offer an explanation on why men and women’s roles have changed over time and it does not explain why men and women roles are different in different cultures. Therefore although it is acceptable to say that biology may play a small part in explaining the role differences between the different sex groups the best explanation for these differences must be that they are socially constructed through history, culture and social practices.

In contrast the theory of Social Contructionalism suggests that our gender is the social meaning given to our sex which shows what it is like to be male or female and also creates implications of being male or female. This theory suggests that from a young age we are taught by those around us what actions are appropriate for your gender. This is called “Gender Socialization” (Marsh et al 2009:222). Furthermore it has been said that “The girl learns to hamper her movements. She is told that she must be careful not to get hurt, not to get dirty, not to tear her clothes, that the things she desires are too dangerous for her…Studies have found that young children of both sexes categorically assert that girls are more likely to get hurt than boys” (Young 2010:208).

The above suggests that gender is something that is bred into us from a young age so we never have a chance to challenge what is meant by gender. It also creates a weak perception of the female. This brings me to discuss one of the biggest social constructions today, the idea that woman are weak and the idea that they need a man to lift heavy things (Young 2010). It is suggested that the reason females come across as weaker is because they are taught to be feminine from a young age which also means that they have to seem timid (Young 2010). A Current example of this would be if we see a woman on a building site doing manual labour our socially constructed minds would automatically not regard her as feminine. Young’s argument also suggests that woman are not as good at sport as men because “woman often approach a physical engagement with things with timidity, uncertainty and hesitancy. Typically we lack an entire trust in our bodies to carry us to our aims.” (Young 2010:207). The only plausible reason for this is that there is a socially constructed idea that our bodies are not as strong as men’s.

This social construction has caused many inequalities to exist between men and women. However inequalities now have changed from Historical inequalities that used to exist. This is because as times have gone on attitudes have changed to what is acceptable for men and woman to do. For example, historically men were the bread winners of the family who went to work, where as the woman’s job was to stay at home cook, clean and look after the children. This is not so much the case now with the majority of woman going out to work. However, attitudes have not totally changed because even though many women go out to work, there are not many men who stay at home to look after the children, this is seen by society as a challenge to a man’s masculinity with many derogatory terms (for example ‘sweetiewife’) being used to describe a house husband. Here an inequality exists because of historical practices, the inequality being that society thinks that it is acceptable for a woman to stay at home and not work where as a man doing the very same thing would be frowned upon. However as one inequality has arisen another has disappeared, for example people no longer think that it is unacceptable for a woman to be in the work place which was the case many years ago. The above provides evidence of historical gender inequalities being socially constructed, this is obvious because the change of attitude and practices over the years has allowed for a change in roles undertaken by the male and the female.

The Social Construction of Gender has created many

In this essay I will attempt to firstly define Social Democracy and what advantages and disadvantages it brings to a state. Then I will move on to showing how Social Democracy is still existent within contemporary Britain through the means of public spending on education and benefits. I will explore Labours contemporary policies to show that Socialism is still present in Labour. However I will then explain how the Labour Party, which has its foundations in Socialism, has changed and moved towards the Third Party or ‘New Labour’ which also values Capitalist aims. I will then argue that Britain is becoming more of a Capitalist state under ‘New Labour’ and how globalisation has affected this.

Giddens described social democracy as:

“Social Democracy – moderate, parliamentary socialism – built upon consolidating the welfare state.” (Giddens. A, 1998, p4)

He recognised how Social Democracy differed to Marxism.

“Social Democracy saw free market capitalism as producing many of the problematic effects Marx diagnosed, but believed these can be muted or overcome by state intervention.” (Giddens. A, 1998, p8)

The advantage of Social Democracy is that Socialism uses the welfare state to abolish exploitation within the market system and destroy the division of society in class groups. They aim to remove all inequalities whether it’s economic or political using state intervention when needed. (Przeworski. A, 1985, p29) This gives everyone an equal start in life.

Giddens told of the state intervention as government intervening in family or individual life when needed. Social democracy saw that there was a vital need for state benefits to help those who are unable to fend for themselves. (Giddens. A, 1998, p9) The advantage of this is that it closes the income gap between the different classes.

However Giddens coined the main disadvantage of a Social Democratic state.

“The economic theory of Socialism was always inadequate, underestimating the capacity of Capitalism to innovate, adapt and generate increasing productivity. Socialism failed to grasp the significance of markets as informational devices, providing essential data for buyers and sellers.” (Giddens. A, 1998, p4-5)

In the Labour revolution of 1945-1951 Britain was a planned economy, nationalised industry and expanded welfare state, a Social Democratic state. (Reitan.E.A, 2003, p27) However toward the 1970’s Britain faced lowest productivity within the major industrial states, high unemployment and inflation. There was unwillingness of workers to move around to find employment. Managers were also slow in introducing technology that would improve productivity. (Reitan. E.A, 2003, p141) this shows that at that time the British state was unable to keep up with the market changes and generate increased productivity backing up Giddens claim that Socialism is unable to increase productivity and adapt to the market. (Giddens. A, 1998, p4-5)

There are characteristics of the welfare state within contemporary Britain. We see the state still providing free education. Just recently there are reports saying that there have been increased spending on education. The figures showed that the spending has been increasing for more than 50 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8562405.stm

The graph below shows the figures of increased public spending on education.

Education spending

(Derived from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8562405.stm)

The graph shows how in the U.K. the state is spending money on education has increased from 50% to almost 140% in 2005-2006. Spending money on education in the UK will giving everyone an equal start in life and removing inequalities which are characteristics of a social democracy. (Przeworski. A, 1985, p29)

Another demonstration of a Social Democracy within contemporary Britain is the benefit system. The British government provide benefits for those who are disabled, low income, unemployed, have dependent children, aged over 60, pregnant or recently had a child and those who are caring for another.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/index.htm This is a clear indicator of Socialist practise as they are using the welfare state to eliminate the inequalities within a state. (Przeworski. A, 1985, p29) By providing people who are less off with benefits it closes the gap that Capitalism has created for them. (Giddens. A, 1998, p8)

Britain’s current government Labour still has policies that are indicators of Social Democracy.

“We want to rebuild trust in politicsaˆ¦put more power in the hands of individual citizens so that they can influence the decisions which affect themselves, their families and local communities”

http://www.labour.org.uk/democracy_and_citizenship

This aims to equal chances to voice individual opinions. This ensures that power isn’t just given to a certain class and that it is equally distributed between the classes. http://www.labour.org.uk/democracy_and_citizenship

There are also ways of creating equality between genders.

“Introduced the National Minimum Wage – two thirds of the beneficiaries are women and it has played a substantial part in narrowing the gender pay gap.”

http://www.labour.org.uk/Equalities

Labour believes everyone is entitled to equality. They aim to be fair to those regardless of gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, race, religion or belief.

http://www.labour.org.uk/Equalities This demonstrates Social Democracy’s existence within contemporary Britain.

But there are clear indicators that the British state is moving away from Socialism. Currently Britain is under the Labour Party governance. Social Democracy essentially underpins the British Labour Party with the Labour Parties motto “A future fair for all”.

http://www.labour.org.uk/future-fair-for-all This clearly indicates that their main aim is for equality within the British state. However there has been speculation.

“The evidence shows that labour has become split into two clearly differentiated constituencies: those with secure employment (insiders) and those without (outsiders).”

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199216352/toc.html?q=

There has been speculation that there’s a ‘new labour’ party. This was seen arising when Blair was in power. The ‘new labour’ seemed to embrace capitalism and ‘abandoned classical social democracy for the ‘third way’ revised social democracy. (Driver. S, Martell. L, 2006, p26)

“The Third Way was used to mark out Labour’s departure from the politics of the Social Democratic state, signifying a reconfiguration of relationships between the economy and state.” (Newman. J, 2001, p40)

The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepreneurship, and enterprise and wealth creation. It also values social justice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/458626.stm However we see how the Labour Party who once was based on Social Democracy edge away and heading towards Capitalism.

However does contemporary Britain still value social justice over Capitalism under the Third Way? In recent times we see lowered public spending.

“We’ve already spent ?4bn less on unemployment benefits and income support for the unemployed than was anticipated.” Comment Alistair Darling to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8406670.stm

We see lowered welfare spending which raises questions about Labours “a fair future for all”. However ‘New Labour’ sees this less as a social right and more about personal responsibility and social duty.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199266722/acprof-9780199266722-chapter-2.html?q=#acprof-9780199266722-chapter-2 This clearly shows how the Third Way governance is prioritising economic issues over social issues.

The contemporary British state however has many characteristics of a Capitalist state. Globalisation has also contributed to the breakdown of welfare state in contemporary Britain.

We see now that due to globalisation instead of business fighting over market share but now we see states fighting. “States remain interested in survival at the very least, and pursuing power at the most.” (Aydinli. E, Rosenau. J.N, 2005, p127)

Globalisation is described as “the denationalisation of politics” (Aydinli. E, Rosenau. J.N, 2005, p127) which essentially means that states are no longer deciding policies that benefit them but in fact they make policies that suit globalisation.

“The emergence of a global market economy and the need for global competitiveness have handed neo liberalism a powerful new weapon with which to contain and neutralise the counter pressures of domestic politics.” (Mishra. R, 1999, p3)

There is also the belief of the hyperglobalisation thesis where states believe that if their state does not increase incentives for businesses to invest in their state businesses will go elsewhere. States are constantly competing for foreign investment. Therefore they lower corporation tax to increase the incentive. (Ravenhill. J, 2008, p343)

So now we see states producing policies that are business friendly. State aims are to lower inflation and a steady currency which is argued to attract businesses as lower inflation would mean lower raw materials for businesses and steady currency means there is less of a risk for the business to be exposed to fluctuations in exchange rates. (Mishra. R, 1999, p5) States constantly fighting over investment has caused them to jeopardise domestic policies.

“The incremental tightening of domestic environmental policies has sometimes been delayed or blocked for the fear of incurring economic competitive disadvantages.” (Holden. B, 2000, p186)

This shows that states are more concerned about economic growth and not about equality within the social classes.

“Not surprisingly a higher level of insecurity, poverty and equality has become accepted in many countriesaˆ¦the retreat from the mixed economy and the welfare state is visible everywhere with the Anglo Saxon countries leading the way.” (Mishra. R, 1999, p3)

A good demonstration of the British state favouring Capitalism over Socialism is recently to the bank crisis. We see the state pouring money into the financial sector instead of using it to close the gap of inequality. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7666570.stm

It could also be argued that the states increase spending in education

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8562405.stm is purely for Capitalist reasons.

“Better-educated workers are likely to be more productive at their own jobs; they may, at the same time, raise the productivity of their colleaguesaˆ¦their importance has valuable implications for the role of public financing as well as for the organisation of education.” (Miles. D, Myles. G.D, Preston. I, 2003, p121)

States invest in human capital to make their domestic workforce more productive. They also benefit an increase in technological progress. States with high economic activity are generally those with a state financed education system. (Miles. D, Myles. G.D, Preston. I, 2003, p121) This can be used to argue that Britain’s public spending on education is purely for Capitalist reasons and not Socialist. Therefore indicating Britain’s welfare system is Capitalist based.

In conclusion I think the British state still had characteristics of a social democracy but with the changes in the economy due to globalisation states has started to prioritise the market over social equality. The contemporary British state produces too many policies that are Capitalist friendly and they have became even clearer with the recent recession. We see Britain moving away from a Social Democratic state towards a more market driven Capitalist state.

INTRODUCTION

New product development (NPD) is the locus of the innovative potential of organizations. Every organization, regardless of size, profit motive, or industry experiences regular pressures to renew, expand, or modify its product or service offerings (Leenders et al, 2003). The rate of market and technological changes has accelerated in the past decade. Central to competitive success in the present highly turbulent environment is the firm’s capability to develop new products (Gonzalez and Palacios, 2002). New products are increasingly cited as the key to corporate success in the market. During the 1970s, new products accounted for 20 % of corporate profits; in the 1980s, they accounted for 33 % of profits (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 1986). In the 1990s, this figure has risen to 50 % (Slater, 1993). A recent study estimates that new products provided over 42 % of company sales in the period 1985-1990, up from 33 % in 1980 (Page, 1993). The number of products introduced by these firms was expected to double (Booz et al, 1982). However, new products continue failing at an alarming rate. The most recent studies show new product success rates at launch of less than 60 %-54.3 % for the UK, 59 % for the US, 59.8 % for Japan and 49 % for Spain (Edgett et al, 1992). Recent years have witnessed extensive research into the determinants of new product success; however, these new studies do not appear to have had much of an impact on managerial performance. Therefore, a clear understanding of the factors that drive product success is needed in order to help firms optimize the resources dedicated to the product development process and increase the market demand for a firm’s new products.

Malaysia now has an export driven economy boosted by high technology and knowledge based industries, although the emphasis is changing from pure manufacturing to higher value added products and activities. Manufacturing sector in Malaysia contributes almost 80% of overall country’s export and besides, Malaysia also known as the 17th largest exporting nation in the world. For that reason, Malaysia’s firms have to work hard in order to maintain, preserve and enhance in manufacturing sector. According to Raja Musa, it is stated that products manufactured in Malaysia are accepted in developed countries such as US, EU and Japan. This shows that Malaysia manufacturing sector already achieved a level that can be proud of and it can be related with the help of new product development for the success of its products.

The study aims to test the critical success factors that are correlated with the NPD in a statistically significant manner by using the model from Gonzalez and Palacouis, (2002). According to Gonzalez and Palacouis, the critical success factors have common factors such as top management support, market orientation, NPD process, NPD speed, technology, knowledge management, NPD teams and NPD strategies. However, this study will only cover top management, NPD strategies, NPD teams. This paper will also describe a survey of NPD in Malaysian manufacturing industry and discusses the implications of these findings for this sector.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

There are several research objectives that this study attempts to achieve, which are to:

Identify the factors of top management support, NPD strategies, and NPD teams that affect the success of new product development.

Analyze the factors of top management support, NPD strategies, and NPD teams that influence new product development success.

1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In achieving the above objectives, this research addresses the following questions:

Is the success of new product development affected by the factors of top management support, NPD strategies, and NPD teams?

Is top management support, NPD strategies, and NPD teams influence in new product development success?

1.8 CONTRIBUTION AND SCOPE

The research paper will be contributed to all the parties in an organization including senior managers, managers and staffs especially in manufacturing industry.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the concept of new product development (NPD). The chapters review the relevant literature extensively. Among the topic discussed are critical success factors for NPD, top management supports, NPD strategies and NPD teams.

2.2 Concept of New Product Development (NPD)

The concept of new product is susceptible to various definitions. A definition considered basic describes a new product to cover original products, improved products, modified products and new brands developed through an organization’s research and development efforts (Ulrike, 2000 and Kotler, 1991). In a similar classification (Petrick and Echols, 2004 and Stanton et al., 1994), three distinct categories of new products are identified. These are: those that are really innovative, satisfying unsatisfied needs; replacement products that are significantly different from the existing one in form, function and benefits provided; imitative products new to the organization but not new to consumers.

In the other hand, new products had been described along two dimensions: ‘newness to the organization’ and ‘newness to the markets’. Ranging from low to high on each dimension, six categories have been identified. These categories are: cost reductions; improvements in existing products; repositioned products; additions to existing product lines; new product lines allowing a firm to enter established; markets, new to the world products that create new markets (Ilorri et al, 2000 and Pujari et al, 2003).

2.3 Critical Success Factors for New Product Development

NPD is indeed very important for companies. However, developing new products is a risky and uncertain process. In order to reduce the risks and uncertainties, companies need to evaluate their new product initiatives carefully and make accurate decisions. Although the outcome of a new product evaluation decision can be influenced by the environmental uncertainties that are beyond a company’s control, companies can successfully improve the accuracy of their new product evaluation decisions (Ozer, 2003 and Debruyne et al, 2002). Historical cases suggest that firms can make two types of erroneous decisions when evaluating their new product ideas. First, they might decide to pursue a potentially unsuccessful new product idea. Second, they might decide not to develop a potentially successful new product. In either case, firm’s accure big losses, while the former leads to investment lose the latter leads to missed investment opportunities. Given this background, it is clear that it is in the interests of firms to make accurate new product evaluations and critical success factors for NPD can sign a way to evaluate this process accurately (Sanders and Monrodt, 1994).

From previous study, proficiency in new product development can contribute to the success of many companies. According to Poolton and Bar [17], “if companies can improve their effectiveness at launching new products, they can double their bottom line. It’s one of the area left with the greatest potential for improvement.” In the past decades, many studies have focused on the critical success factors (CSF) associated with the success/failure of new product development (NPD).

Lynn et a1 [ 141 developed a model of the determinants of new product development success. He sent informants a series of cases and asked them to identify eleven key factors as shown in table 2. Lester [13] carried out a study and found a range of potential problems that can derail well-intentioned new product development efforts. By working through these problems, he discovered the fifteen critical success factors in five areas of new product development. Poolton and Barclay [I71 identified a set of six variables that have consistently been identified in the literature as being associated with successful NPD. Cooper [3] studied on hundreds of cases revealed what makes the difference between winners and losers on the new product development process. He extracted twelve common denominators of successful new product project and seven possible reasons (blockers) offered by managers for why the success factors are invisible and why projects seem to go wrong, or aren’t well carried out.

It can be found that the factors proposed by the four studies are not totally the same and it is hard to generate a common set of CSF for NPD. It is even hard to generate these factors to any specific industry. In fact, there are many other studies on CSF or drivers for NPD [e.g., 2, 3, and 201, which will not be reviewed each by each. Montoya-Weiss and Calantone [15] reviewed 47 research studies about the determinants of new product performance and found each of these studies attempted to identify the factors that improve NPD success rates. However, each uses a somewhat different method and different factors and provides results that are useful but sometimes inconsistent with or even contradictory to other studies’ results. What they share is a general focus on what is necessary for success of NPD.

In the recent literature that can find several models based on the lessons and recipes for success in the product development process. For example, Rosenau and Moran (1993) furnish a guide for success with project management tools to the product development process, emphasizing speed to market, quality management and multifunctional teamwork. On the other hand, Bowen et al. (1994) highlights seven critical elements that any outstanding product development project should have in common: (1) recognize and nurture the firm’s core capabilities, (2) a guiding vision shared by all members in the cross-functional team, (3) project leadership and organization, (4) ability to instill the team with a sense of ownership and commitment, (5) ability to rapidly learn and to reduce mistakes and misunderstandings, (6) ability to push forward the company’s performances, and (7) ability to integrate within projects following a systems approach. Bobrow (1997) provides a list of success factors for new products, including a clear strategic direction, a corporate culture aligned behind new products, a sensible allocation policy of resources and people, and a cross-functional team dedicated to the new product development process. Beside this, Chorda et al (2002) state that top management support, NPD process and analysis of market requirements are key success factor for NPD. In the view of Gonzalez and Palacious (2002) critical success factor are top management supports, nature of market, and product quality, supplier and costumer involvement in design process. According to Varela and Benito (2004), management emphasis, experience in NPD, centralization, novelty, NPD process style and technical activities are important factors to achieve successful NPD.

2.4 New Product Development and Top Management Support

The Malcolm Baldrige criteria highlight the importance of leadership. Leaders must pay attention to developing the “right” corporate culture. In the words, order, rules, and regulations, along with uniformity take second place to goal achievement. The strategic focus moves away from stability, predictability, and smooth operations toward a search for value added. It is emphasized that without management commitment, improvement efforts fail. This commitment must be not only active, but also visible. The intent is to develop leadership that is open-minded, supportive, and professional (Spivey et al, 1997)

NPD is an ambiguous process with different people and departments having different perspectives about how things are to be done. It is therefore a political process involving struggles for resources, influence and power which can generate conflicts. This conflict only be able to cope with top management decisiveness (Atuahene, 1997). Several works documented that top management initiative and support is a key aspect in order to achieve new product success (Zirger and Maidique, 1990; Chorda et al., 2002; Varela and Benito, 2004). Management commitment provides organizational support for change, generates enthusiasm, provides a clear vision of the product concept and assures sufficient allocation of resources (Poolton and Barclay, 1998: 200; Clarck and Fufimoto, 1990).

2.5 New Product Development Strategies

NPD strategy is determined within the framework of the organizational objectives, environmental factors, past and present performances, resource availability and corporate capability. Generally, three types of organization can be identified depending on the NPD strategy adopted. These are classified as reactors, planners and entrepreneurs (Ilori et al, 2000). ‘Reactors’ wait for problems to occur (e.g., dwindling market share) before attempting a solution while ‘planners’ anticipate such problems. ‘Entrepreneurs’, however, anticipate both problems and opportunities for timely exploitation.

A simple classification gives two types of NPD strategies as either offensive or defensive (Debruyne et al, 200; Wilson et al., 1992). The offensive strategy opens up new markets or enlarges the existing one through careful planning, while competitive forces or other changes in the operating environment stimulate the defensive strategist into action. An organization’s continued commitment to an offensive strategy could be very expensive in terms of the high degree of risk and investment in money, skill and time, but also with a lot of potential for higher returns. This contrasts sharply with the relatively low risk/low return defensive strategy (Liu et al, 2004; Kim et al, 2004).

In other consideration, Johne and Snelson (1990) gave two approaches in formulating NPD strategies as the traditional asset-based and market-based. The components of the traditional asset-based approach are given as product cost-cutting, product modification, product-line extension and new product line. These, all seeking to build on existing product lines and technical know-how, are applicable in the existing market and with greater intensity in new markets. Beyond the conventional asset-based approaches, the market-based options seek for a wider and a more profitable exploitation of opportunities with a sharper focus on potential market opportunities outside a firm’s business. Considered a novel and exciting approach, it is made up of project offering, system offering, commodity offering and service offering strategies within a product support matrix. These offering strategies consider a wider myriad of benefits a product offers to specific target market, hence the differentiations in products and support as considered appropriate.

Firth and Narayanan (1996) defined a NPD strategy as having three aspects: (1) new embodied technology; (2) new market applications; (3) innovation in the market. Based on these three aspects, his research lead to a NPD strategy definition, i.e. (1) innovators; (2) investors in technology; (3) searching for new markets; (4) business as usual; (5) middle-of-the-road. Beside this, Barczak (1995) divided NPD strategy into three categories based on Ansoff and Stewart’s classification: first to market, fast follower and delayed entrant. Song and Montoya-Weiss (1998) utilized Ansoff’s product market matrix model considering the growing in our current market and technology strategy. The results lead to incremental NPD. A development strategy that pursues a new market with a new product and technology will create a “real new product”. A strategy involving a current market and new product or new market and current product is classified as a moderate innovation. Veryzer (1998) used new models with two important aspects: technological capability and product capability. Technological capability means that a product must be made using a technology beyond the current company technology level. Product capability represents the benefit of a product recognized or experienced by customers. Therefore strategies that firms follow decide to their NPD performance.

2.6 New Product Development Teams

NPD teams are frequently used to integrate employees from several company departments and give opportunities for simplification and parallel processing. Many empirical studies have found that this practice increases a project innovation and NPD success rate (Sanchez and Perez, 2003: 140; Atahuene and Evangelista, 2000; Bonner et al, 2002; Jassawalla and Sashittal, 1998). NPD teams can take various forms including teams comprised of personnel temporarily assigned to an NPD team from a firm’s functional departments to develop new product. In addition, members of NPD teams often are organizationally linked through matrix structure to their functional departments. Two other NPD team forms involve, first, functional specialists permanently assigned to distinct new product or new venture development groups and, second, senior managers whose primary focus makes them directly responsible for the development of new products (Millson and Wilemon, 2002; Oliver et al, 2004). NPD team members face the same types of challenges that all decision makers face: they are subject to judgmental biases, believe in their ability to influence results post-decision, suffer from limited capacity to deal with data, are often overly ambitious, and must face the consequences of their decisions. The work is considered to be inherently challenging and often depends on making intuitive “leaps” (Cooper, 2003). So NPD teams composition and other group factors affect NPD process.

2.7 Theoretical Framework:

Top Management SupportsIndependent Variables Dependent Variables

New Product Development Success

NPD Strategies

NPD Teams

Figure: Theoretical framework of this study

The theoretical framework gives an overview in achieving the critical success factor in new product development. It shows that there are four variables that are interrelated in a process to make the new product development successful. There are three independent variables which consist of top management support, new product development strategies and new product development teams. Meanwhile the dependent variables consist of new product development success. This is a single model which to identify the critical success factors in new product development.

2.8 Hypothesis

H0: There will be positive relationship between top management supports in NPD success.

H1: There will be positive relationship between NPD strategies in NPD success.

H2: There will be positive relationship between NPD teams in NPD success.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will explains the procedure used to conduct the study including the data collection, data source and measurements being used to process the data collected. The respondent of this research topic will be the employees of the firm in Malaysian manufacturing industry.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

Ways of collecting data by having questionnaire methods. The questionnaire will be distributed to the employees. There will be 30 questions being prepared in the sheet whereby the questions will be categories into three variables which consist of top management supports, NPD strategies and NPD teams.

3.3 DATA SOURCE

Most of the data collection above taken from the articles and journals.

3.4 UNIT OF ANALYSIS AND RESPONDENT

The unit of analyses was distributed to 200 firms which represent all manufacturing industry. These particular types of industry were chosen as the research samples compare to other industries for instance, manufacturing related firm which these industry were more involve in new product development. The respondent will be focus on the managers of the company whereby they are the one who handling about new product development in the organization and they were the one which facing it every day.

3.5 SAMPLES

The population of this study covered manufacturing industries registered with Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (MIDA) and Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM). The respondents taken from Malaysian manufacturing directory because the sample of respondent will be 200 persons in this research process and the place where sample were focus on the Malaysia northern region that include Perlis, Kedah and Penang.