HOW Actor-Network-Theory Could Transform Irish Social Enterprise DevelopmenT
I’ve started to use the term ‘pracademic’, a term defined by Volpe and Chandler in 2001, (which I imagine gives many people ‘the ick’ but resonates with me), as someone who values both academic and practical application. When I stepped into the world of academia, I was overwhelmed by the vast amount of knowledge available that practitioners often don’t know is available, and even if they did, they most definitely wouldn’t have the time to read it. I’ve been making a huge effort to keep up to date with research published on the topic of scaling a social enterprise, and so, I’m happy to share my thoughts and insights on some recent research, particularly because it is Irish-based. Social enterprise development in Ireland: making a case for actor-network-theory is a paper that was recently published in the Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, authored by Úna Quinn, Paul McCusker and Padraig Gallagher from ATU.
The paper proposes Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) as a way to bridge the theory-practice divide in Irish social enterprise development. ANT suggests we map networks as they actually exist—following the actors, understanding their relationships, and seeing how social enterprises emerge from these complex interrelated interactions. It is based on, no prior assumptions, a flat ontology and not viewing analysis of human/non human actors differently. When developing a social enterprise, of course, the human element is incredibly and fundamentally critical, but it’s likely there were a number of other elements involved such as physical spaces, technologies, funding instruments, and many other non-human elements that have helped to shape a social enterprise’s evolution. In my own research, I’ve looked at how social enterprises interact with a wide range of ecosystem actors - such as funder, intermediaries and government bodies. However, social enterprises don't just interact with these actors; they exist within dynamic networks where power flows in unexpected directions, informal relationships often matter more than formal structures, and where often material resources are just as important as human agency. Unfortunately, we tend to operate in an overly simplistic approach to social enterprise development: social versus commercial, state versus community, formal versus informal.
ANT encourages us to trace how power actually operates through networks. It’s imperative we understand how power flows through the ecosystem, not just looking at which actors are powerful and who might be deemed powerless. We need to look forward to uncover how might the power configuration be disrupted. Quinn et al. investigate how social enterprises actually emerge and develop within their specific network - rather than focusing on the theoretical framework of how they ‘should’ evolve. Again when I interviewed both social enterprise practitioners and ecosystem actors, I discovered significant gaps between how the ecosystem was supposed to work and how it actually functioned. ANT can help pinpoint where intervention points might exist that can alter this.
So why does this matter? Well, instead of assuming how social enterprises develop, we need to create a laser-focus in understanding how they do develop. Using this approach in relation to my data might uncover that:
There are unexpected influence patterns - 25% of the participants I interviewed had moved on from their role by the time I completed my research, indicating ecosystem instability. [ANT tenet 3 - not assuming hierarchy]
Hidden infrastructure dependencies exist - using ANT might reveal that legal form, reporting requirements, even physical space impact how social enterprises develop. [ANT tenet 2 - equally recognising human/non human resources]
Using ANT, could underpin the reason why, as I discovered, social enterprises use an iterative scaling pathways rather than a pre-determined approach - as I’ve called it, the interconnectivity of scaling factors. [ANT tenet 1 - no prior assumptions]
How does this all relate to social enterprise development in Ireland. The Macro Institutional Enterprise (MISE) framework data used by Olmedo and O'Shaughnessy (2023) shows Ireland scoring 4.59 in "institutional collectivism" but 5.74 for "in-group collectivism"—suggesting strong local loyalty but weaker institutional collaboration. ANT could help us understand how these tendencies play out in practice and identify leverage points for stronger ecosystem coordination.
In a nutshell, when I look back at my research - I think using an ANT approach in Ireland could lead to:
Better resource allocation (is there a better way to do pro-bono support for scaling social enterprises?)
Improved, supported and targeted collaborations
Creating more realistic scaling strategies
Better policy innovations (not relying on assumptions)
Of course, nothing is ever a quick fix, and using an ANT approach is no different. It has infact been called "slowciology" because thorough network mapping takes patience and this is an important feature of using an ANT approach. But given the importance of social enterprises in addressing Ireland's complex social challenges, from rural decline to social exclusion, surely it could warrant the time investment?
The Irish social enterprise sector has evolved significantly and has shown itself to be remarkably resilient and innovative. By developing more sophisticated ways of understanding how this innovation actually happens, we can move beyond random growth toward the kind of directed, empirically-informed development our communities desperately need. It’s worth a thought anyway!
References:
O’Shaughnessy, M., & Olmedo, L. (2023). Placing Irish Social Enterprise Ecosystem within the wider European Landscape. The Irish Journal of Management, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.2478/ijm-2023-0007
Quinn, Ú., McCusker, P., & Gallagher, P. (2025). Social enterprise development in Ireland: Making a case for actor-network-theory. Journal of Business and Socio-Economic Development, 5(3), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-06-2024-0061
Volpe, M. R., & Chandler, D. (2001). Resolving and Managing Conflicts in Academic Communities: The Emerging Role of the “Pracademic”. Negotiation Journal, 17(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2001.tb00239.x