The research is based on a theoretical heuristic that explores:
·
whether
and how relationships between for-profit and nonprofit institutions are
characterised by power inequities;
·
how
language shapes and is shaped by these ‘partnerships’;
·
implications
of these elements for the nonprofit’s organisational capacity and for
individual social agency.
There are two steps to understanding the model. Firstly, the theoretical bases of power and language, social agency, organisational capacity and institutional context are described below. Secondly, an overall explanation of how these components fit together in the model follows from these individual concepts.
Research into power, language, social agency, organisational capacity and institutional context is quite rich in the organisational literature. In addition to the work outlined in the previous chapter, the research reported here relies on work from these areas. Although there has been research conducted into each of these constructs separately and in different circumstances, this is the first work that integrates this set of constructs to develop a theory of how language and power reflect and shape nonprofit/for-profit relationships in Australia. Another significant addition in this work is a theoretical link between two levels of analysis: individual and organisational. Language and power are incorporated as driving factors in the model.
The research questions with which investigations were begun reflect the two levels of analysis, the media impact and a strong focus on the experiences of the staff in the nonprofit organisation. The questions with which this research was initiated are:
1. Does the language used by nonprofit staff and in organisational documentation relating to relationships with for-profits reflect and contribute to the reproduction of the power relationship between the organisations?
1a. What elements of vocabulary, narrative structure and syntax constitute a 'language of inequality' between the private and third sector?
1b. How is this language different in genuine power-sharing relationships?
1c. To what extent is this linguistic space shared across nonprofit organisations engaged in similar relationships with for-profit firms?
1d. How is the structure of that language transmitted throughout the organisation?
2. Do relationships affect the organisational capacity of nonprofit organisations and the social agency of individuals? If so, to what extent can balanced power-sharing arrangements contribute to increased organisational capacity?
3. Does the media aspect of the institutional context of relationships in which nonprofits operate affect the social agency of individuals and the capacity of nonprofits?
3a. To
what extent are staff members in the nonprofit aware of the constraints on
them
of this aspect of institutionalism?
For this research, two complementary positions for the interplay between language and power were assumed. On the one hand, power is reflected by the individual and organisational discourse of a nonprofit. On the other hand power is inherent in the language, which describes structural constraints under which the organisation and individuals operate. Both play a crucial role in describing and understanding relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organisations. As will become clear in the following sections, these assertions are firmly grounded in existing research.
This work is an investigation into the experiences of staff in nonprofit, community sector organisations that are involved in collaborations with for-profit business. An examination of the language and power implications of these relationships looked at how the staff was affected by language that reflects inequality. One initial idea was that power and language affect and are reflected by social agency, (the extent to which people feel able to act positively on their own behalf) and organisational capacity (i.e. the ability of an organisation to respond to challenges and develop progressively).
In order to gather appropriate data through the case study approach (see Chapter 3 for more methodological detail), assumptions were outlined about areas that contribute to a theory of language and power in relationships between nonprofits and for-profit organisations. However, they offered the opportunity to filter the data, ask for clarification during interviews and documentation gathering and understand how new concepts emerged from the fieldwork phase. The literature, working definitions and existing connotations of collaboration between nonprofits and for-profits were detailed in the previous chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to present a discussion of the theoretical constructs of power, language, social agency, organisational capacity and institutional context. In the theoretical framework, power and language are inextricably linked.
Wildavsky offered a useful note on the connection between knowledge and power. In a discussion of program evaluation, Wildavsky stated that knowledge is useless without the authority and legitimacy to implement changes from that knowledge (1979). For example, nonprofit organisations may have knowledge that could inform the structure and process of an evaluation (i.e. what is to be measured and how), but they lack the power to carry out changes that they would see as contributing to the work of the program. This notion links into power as an indication of the authority to make and implement decisions. In that example, the power resides with the funding body overseeing the evaluation.
Power is shifted away from nonprofit organisations when 'funders' dictate the evaluative process. In this example, power may be exercised through a structural constraint--nonprofits are bound by their contractual obligations to carry out evaluations according to a given set of criteria. Foucault’s idea that power is a driver behind the creation of reality also illustrated how individuals and the knowledge that they gain through power are part of this iterative transaction (1980).