Contextual influences on social enterprise management in rural and urban communities

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    76 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    The idea that difference exists between rural and urban enterprise activity is not new, the obvious comparators are measures such as social architecture, resource availability and accessibility. However, when the concept and practice of management in social enterprise is compared in these two contexts then there is opportunity to further our understanding of the contextual challenges encountered by social enterprise. In this paper six cases studies are compared and analysed: three cases are urban social enterprises and three classified as remote rural social enterprises. The urban cases are social enterprises located around Glasgow in the west of Scotland and are compared with three remote rural location studies, one on the Scottish mainland peninsula, the other in northern Scotland and the final case on a Scottish western island. We conclude that the main differences between remote rural and urban management of social enterprise are heavily nuanced by in-migration levels in both rural and urban locations, leadership and community needs and therefore deserving of context relevant policy.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)572-588
    Number of pages17
    JournalLocal Economy
    Volume31
    Issue number5
    Early online date29 Jul 2016
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2016

    Fingerprint

    Urban communities
    Rural communities
    Enterprise management
    Social enterprise
    Scotland
    Accessibility
    Resources

    Keywords

    • entrepreneurship, management, rural, social enterprise

    Cite this

    @article{4b980e5d50ce492d8608a95a9a6f59ce,
    title = "Contextual influences on social enterprise management in rural and urban communities",
    abstract = "The idea that difference exists between rural and urban enterprise activity is not new, the obvious comparators are measures such as social architecture, resource availability and accessibility. However, when the concept and practice of management in social enterprise is compared in these two contexts then there is opportunity to further our understanding of the contextual challenges encountered by social enterprise. In this paper six cases studies are compared and analysed: three cases are urban social enterprises and three classified as remote rural social enterprises. The urban cases are social enterprises located around Glasgow in the west of Scotland and are compared with three remote rural location studies, one on the Scottish mainland peninsula, the other in northern Scotland and the final case on a Scottish western island. We conclude that the main differences between remote rural and urban management of social enterprise are heavily nuanced by in-migration levels in both rural and urban locations, leadership and community needs and therefore deserving of context relevant policy.",
    keywords = "entrepreneurship, management, rural, social enterprise",
    author = "Anne Smith and Julie McColl",
    note = "Accepted: 9-6-16 (email in SAN) Note: author was also editor for this special issue of journal, and usual acceptance email process didn't apply. See also PURE record 23874525, same journal issue. Online pub: 29/06/2016 AAM provided 19-8-16, uploaded 24-8-16",
    year = "2016",
    month = "8",
    doi = "10.1177/0269094216655519",
    language = "English",
    volume = "31",
    pages = "572--588",
    journal = "Local Economy",
    issn = "0269-0942",
    publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
    number = "5",

    }

    Contextual influences on social enterprise management in rural and urban communities. / Smith, Anne; McColl, Julie.

    In: Local Economy, Vol. 31, No. 5, 08.2016, p. 572-588.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Contextual influences on social enterprise management in rural and urban communities

    AU - Smith, Anne

    AU - McColl, Julie

    N1 - Accepted: 9-6-16 (email in SAN) Note: author was also editor for this special issue of journal, and usual acceptance email process didn't apply. See also PURE record 23874525, same journal issue. Online pub: 29/06/2016 AAM provided 19-8-16, uploaded 24-8-16

    PY - 2016/8

    Y1 - 2016/8

    N2 - The idea that difference exists between rural and urban enterprise activity is not new, the obvious comparators are measures such as social architecture, resource availability and accessibility. However, when the concept and practice of management in social enterprise is compared in these two contexts then there is opportunity to further our understanding of the contextual challenges encountered by social enterprise. In this paper six cases studies are compared and analysed: three cases are urban social enterprises and three classified as remote rural social enterprises. The urban cases are social enterprises located around Glasgow in the west of Scotland and are compared with three remote rural location studies, one on the Scottish mainland peninsula, the other in northern Scotland and the final case on a Scottish western island. We conclude that the main differences between remote rural and urban management of social enterprise are heavily nuanced by in-migration levels in both rural and urban locations, leadership and community needs and therefore deserving of context relevant policy.

    AB - The idea that difference exists between rural and urban enterprise activity is not new, the obvious comparators are measures such as social architecture, resource availability and accessibility. However, when the concept and practice of management in social enterprise is compared in these two contexts then there is opportunity to further our understanding of the contextual challenges encountered by social enterprise. In this paper six cases studies are compared and analysed: three cases are urban social enterprises and three classified as remote rural social enterprises. The urban cases are social enterprises located around Glasgow in the west of Scotland and are compared with three remote rural location studies, one on the Scottish mainland peninsula, the other in northern Scotland and the final case on a Scottish western island. We conclude that the main differences between remote rural and urban management of social enterprise are heavily nuanced by in-migration levels in both rural and urban locations, leadership and community needs and therefore deserving of context relevant policy.

    KW - entrepreneurship, management, rural, social enterprise

    U2 - 10.1177/0269094216655519

    DO - 10.1177/0269094216655519

    M3 - Article

    VL - 31

    SP - 572

    EP - 588

    JO - Local Economy

    JF - Local Economy

    SN - 0269-0942

    IS - 5

    ER -