BLResearchDay (LJMU)
Not a member yet
77 research outputs found
Sort by
Exploring employee wellbeing and remote work. Developing an organisational framework for healthy hybrid work 2024
Full text linkExtended abstract from the Faculty of Business and Law Research Day 2024
How can UK small businesses utilise social media to increase consumer engagement in a post-COVID19 economy?
Full text linkExtended abstract from the Faculty of Business and Law Research Day 202
Free Markets v Financial Stability; Critically Examining Commercial Private Debt Regulation.
Full text linkExtended abstract from the Faculty of Business and Law Research Day 202
An exploration of employee trust and belonging for those working in a PIE
Full text linkIntroduction
In the current climate of economic uncertainty where many employers are seeking to recruit in a tight labour market (CIPD 2022) retaining and ensuring the engagement of employees is paramount. The importance of understanding what motivates and engages employees to ensure retention and high-performance working is of particular interest to those working in adult social care where recruitment is extremely challenging. In October 2022 Skills for Care reported that there were 165,000 vacant posts in adult social care. This study will investigate whether working in a psychologically informed environment can have a positive impact, not only on service-users in adult social care (Benson & Brennan, 2018) but also on employees resulting in higher levels of engagement.
Relevance and Impact of Research
This research will centre on three organisations within the Liverpool City Region whose focus is working with vulnerable people in adult social care and supported housing. The three companies are at different stages of implementing trauma informed care (McNally et al., 2022) and working within a psychologically informed environment (Benson & Brennan, 2018). However, if there is a positive impact how employees trust and feel that they belong to the organisations when they work in this way, there is potential for adapting a psychological working environment to other employers whose business involves employees dealing with challenging service-users or customers.
Literature Review
While there has been research undertaken into the impact a psychologically informed environment has on service-users (Phipps et al., 2017; Schneider et al., 2022), there has been little or no research on the impact that working in this way has on employees, particularly those working to support vulnerable people with complex mental health conditions who can present significant challenges.
Benson & Brennan (2018) refer to a psychologically informed environment as a place where the overall approach is holistic and considers the psychological and emotional needs of service users. Many of the people who experience homelessness have suffered complex trauma in their lives which in turn can have a negative impact on that person’s thoughts, feelings, behaviour, and self-image (Thompson et al., 2013). For front line support workers, working in this environment can be challenging, both in terms of the actual work but also through the impact on them as individuals (Schneider et al., 2022).
There is evidence that employees working in this sector have a deep motivation and compassion to seek job satisfaction through helping those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged (Ferris et al., 2016; Kulkarni et al., 2013; Writh et al., 2019). However, this can lead to high levels of emotional exhaustion (Stalker et al., 2007) and the potential for front-line workers to suffer secondary traumatic stress (Figley, 2002; Bride et al., 2004), which in turn could potentially leave employees vulnerable to stress and burn out (Maslach, 2003; Ferris et al 2016).
Having identified the potential vulnerability of employees whose main focus is supporting vulnerable people in these challenging environments Ferris et al. (2016) termed this “the Florence Nightingale effect”. They put forward the proposition that recognising the significant challenges that service-users face could potentially increase job satisfaction and reduce burnout for those employees when they have a shared solidarity with their colleagues and have a strong identification with the organisation in which they work. The suggestion by Ferris et al. (2016) is that identifying with the organisation gives employees an additional resource to deal with the challenges they face together with other colleagues, leading to increased positivity in workplace outcomes. Other areas considered in the literature review for this study will be the concept of reflective practice (Schon, 1994), employee engagement (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008) and trust and belonging (Searle et al., 2011).
Theoretical Basis
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger 1957) provides a theoretical basis for this research. This theory has been applied to support the understanding of workplace issues related to organisational behaviour (Bhave & Glomb, 2016). The proposition that employees who support adults with challenging and complex behaviour may have increased job satisfaction (Ferris et al., 2016) in an environment where there are potential negative effects on both physical and psychological well-being (Robinson, 2014) could be an example of how employees overcome the cognitive discrepancy i.e. the dissonance of the working situation (Hinojosa et al., 2017). A further theory applied to this research is organisational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) which is based on social exchange theory (Homans, 1961) and ideas of reciprocal behaviour. When an organisation values and treats its employees with respect, they will in turn increase their commitment towards that organisation (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades, Eisenberger & Armeli, 2001).
Research Design
Initially, it was proposed that this research followed a mixed methods design which is consistent with a pragmatic approach (Biesta, 2010). However, as it is intended to explore the feelings and experience of people working in a psychologically informed environment and whether this does impact on trust and belonging, it was felt that a subjective ontological approach (Cassell et al., 2019) alongside an interpretivist epistemological approach (Grix, 2019) was more appropriate to the study. Having identified the philosophical approach, the methodology for conducting research for this study will take a qualitative approach (Scotland, 2012) and will help with understanding the experience and beliefs of those working within a psychologically informed environment (Wisker, 2007)
Research Method
It is proposed that the research will be undertaken using semi-structured interviews (Di-Cicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006) and focus groups (Jackson, Drummond & Camara, 2007). A pilot focus group has already been facilitated with thematic analysis utilised to analyse the data collected (Kiger & Varpio, 2020). This pilot focus group will be used as a point of reflection to inform the rest of the study.
References
Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(2), pp.147-154.
Benson, J. & Brennan, M., (2018), Keyworkers’ experiences and perceptions of using psychological approaches with people experiencing homelessness, Housing Care and Support, 51-53, 21(2)
Bhave, D. P., & Glomb, T. M. (2016). The Role of Occupational Emotional Labor Requirements on the Surface Acting-Job Satisfaction Relationship. Journal of Management, 42(3), 722-741.
Biesta, G., (2010), Pragmatism and the Philosophical Foundations of Mixed Methods Research
Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A., & Grandy, G. (2018) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods: Methods and Challenges, Sage, London
CIPD (2022), Understanding the economy and labour market https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/trends/economy-labour-market-factsheet#8362 [accessed: 7th November 2023]
DiCicco-Bloom, B. & Crabtree, B.F. (2006) ‘The qualitative research interview’, Medical Education, 40(4), pp.314-321.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison S. & Sowa, D. (1986) Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 500-507.
Ferris, L.J., Jetten, J., Johnstone, M., Girdham, E., Parsell, C. & Walter, Z.C. (2016) The Florence Nightingale effect: Organizational identification explains the peculiar link between others’ suffering and workplace functioning in the homelessness sector. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, p.16.
Festinger, L. (1962) A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.
Grix, J. (2019) The Foundations of Research, 3rd edition, Red Globe Press, London
Harmon-Jones, E. & Harmon-Jones, C. (2007) Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(1), pp.7-16.
Hinojosa, A. S., Gardner, W. L., Walker, H. J., Cogliser, C., & Gullifor, D. (2017). A Review of Cognitive Dissonance Theory in Management Research: Opportunities for Further Development. Journal of Management, 43(1), 170-199
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Jackson, R., Drummond, D. & Camara S. (2007) What is Qualitative Research, Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), pp.21-28
Kiger, M. & Varpio, L. (2020) Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131, Medical Teacher, 42(8), pp.846-854
Maslach, C. (2003). Job Burnout: New Directions in Research and Intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 189-192.
McNally, P., Irvine, M., Taggart, L., Shevlin, M., & Keesler, J. (2022). Exploring the knowledge base of trauma and trauma informed care of staff working in community residential accommodation for adults with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 35( 5), 1162- 1173.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001) Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 825-836.
Robinson, K., 2014. Voices from the front line: Social work with refugees and asylum seekers in Australia and the UK. British Journal of social work, 44(6), pp.1602-1620.
Schön, D.A. (1994), The Reflective Practitioner : How Professionals Think in Action, Taylor & Francis Group
Searle, R., Hartog, D.N.D., Weibel, A., Gillespie, N., Six, F., Hatzakis, T. & Skinner, D., (2011) , Trust in the employer: the role of high-involvement work practices and procedural justice in European organizations, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22:5, 1069-1092,
Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making Paradigms Meaningful in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319-33
Skills for Care (2022), The state of the adult social care sector and workforce in England https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/adult-social-care-workforce-data/Workforce-intelligence/publications/national-information/The-state-of-the-adult-social-care-sector-and-workforce-in-England.aspx [accessed: 7th November 2023]
Wisker, G. (2008), The Postgraduate Research Handbook : Succeed with Your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
 
Exploring employee wellbeing and remote work. Developing an organisational framework for healthy hybrid work.
Full text linkIntroduction
Following the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent demand for ongoing remote work (Alexander et al, 2021; Taneja et al, 2021; Chung et al, 2020) hybrid forms of work are predicted to become a core feature of the global labour market (Microsoft, 2022; Bloom et al 2021). In January 2023, 28% of UK employees were working in a hybrid way (ONS, 2023); a CIPD (2023) report found 83% of organisations were offering hybrid work. In contrast, prior to the pandemic, less than 5% of UK employees worked mainly from home; in the 40 years prior to 2020 remote work had grown by only three percentage points (Felstead and Reuschke (2021).
The outcomes of hybrid work, on both organisations and employees, are unknown. The extant literature on remote work draws predominantly from a time when remote work was undertaken by the minority, limited to specific job roles and industries, or from during the pandemic when homeworking was involuntary. Existing research has been described as ‘fragmented and variable’ (Athanasiadou and Theriou, 2021). To date, studies have not been undertaken at a scale that would enable extrapolation to generally applicable conclusions, limiting the potential for the provision of practical advice for employees or managers (Messenger, 2019).
Wellbeing outcomes of remote work, including the impact on physical and mental health (Lundberg and Lindfords, 2002; Mann and Holdsworth, 2003), the impact of remote work technologies (Gualano et al, 2023) and the demands of remote work and their impact (Ter Hoeven and Van Zoonen, 2015), are acknowledged research gaps.
Literature
Four out of five organisations who intend to offer opportunities for hybrid work post pandemic include the potential to improve employee wellbeing as a key consideration (ONS, 2022). However, the relationship between remote work and wellbeing is complex and the extant evidence contradictory. It is not possible to state conclusively whether employee wellbeing is positively or negatively influenced by remote work. Research has established remote work has the potential to have both positive and negative effects (Wohrman and Ebner, 2021); for example, remote work has been found to reduce stress levels (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007) as well as increase them (Arvola and Kristjuhan, 2015). Overall, it is suggested remote work does have a net benefit on employee health, improving it more than damaging it (Crawford, 2022), attributed in part to its capacity to provide increased autonomy and control (Taveres, 2017). Remote work is generally considered ‘more good than bad for individuals’ (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007), however it cannot be inferred that it will result in wellbeing benefits for all remote workers (Anderson and Kaplan, 2014).
Research Objectives
There is a lack of knowledge about the health and wellbeing outcomes of hybrid work as well as the factors which might influence such outcomes. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance for organisations in respect of supporting wellbeing in hybrid work. This study therefore aims to:
Develop a detailed understanding of the positive and negative impacts of hybrid forms of remote work on employee wellbeing as identified by previous research.
Explore the perspectives of employees undertaking hybrid work and its influence on their subjective wellbeing, determining the factors that influence hybrid worker wellbeing outcomes.
Develop an understanding of how organisations are supporting the wellbeing of hybrid workers and the effectiveness of these approaches.
Create a framework that can be utilised by organisations to ensure that hybrid work is healthy.
Research Methods
This study will adopt a pragmatic philosophy, utilising a mixed-method approach. Phase one will consist of a qualitative and quantitative survey of hybrid workers which will be analysed thematically. Phase two will consist of semi-structured interviews with senior HR professionals whose organisations undertake hybrid work. Results will be triangulated to test the efficacy and usability of the framework, a validation of which will take place with a group of senior HR leaders.
Practical importance of the study
This study will advance knowledge on the issue of employee wellbeing and hybrid work in a future of work where remote work is taking place at scale. The development of the framework will enable organisations to both manage and mitigate the potential for negative impacts upon employee wellbeing, providing both insight and opportunities for action.
References
Alexander, A., De Smet, A., Langstaff, M. and Ravid, D., 2021. What employees are saying about the future of remote work. McKinsey & Company.
Almarcha, M., Balagué, N. and Torrents, C., 2021. Healthy teleworking: towards personalized exercise recommendations. Sustainability, 13(6), p.3192.
Anderson, A.J., Kaplan, S.A. and Vega, R.P. (2015) The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being?, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), pp.882-897.
Arvola, R. and Kristjuhan, Ü. (2015) Workload and health of older academic personnel using telework, Agronomy Research, 13(3), pp.741-749.
Athanasiadou, C. and Theriou, G. (2021) Telework: Systematic literature review and future research agenda. Heliyon, 7(10), p.e08165.Bloom, N., Han, R. and Liang, J., 2022. How hybrid working from home works out (No. w30292). National Bureau of Economic Research.
CIPD (2023) Flexible and hybrid working practices in 2023, employer and employee perspectives, Available at: https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2023-pdfs/2023-flexible-hybrid-working-practices-report-8392.pdf [Accessed 24th August 2023]
Chung, H., Seo, H., Forbes, S. and Birkett, H., 2020. Working from home during the COVID-19 lockdown: Changing preferences and the future of work.
Crawford, J. (2022) Working from home, telework, and psychological wellbeing? A systematic review, Sustainability, 14(19), p.11874.
Felstead, A. and Reuschke, D., 2021. A flash in the pan or a permanent change? The growth of homeworking during the pandemic and its effect on employee productivity in the UK. Information Technology & People.
Gajendran, R.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2007) The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences, Journal of applied psychology, 92(6), p.1524.
Gualano, M.R., Santoro, P.E., Borrelli, I., Rossi, M.F., Amantea, C., Daniele, A. and Moscato, U. (2023) TElewoRk-RelAted stress (TERRA), psychological and physical strain of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review, Workplace Health & Safety, 71(2), pp.58-67.
Lundberg, U. and Lindfors, P. (2002) Psychophysiological reactions to telework in female and male white-collar workers, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(4), p.354.
Mann, S. and Holdsworth, L., 2003. The psychological impact of teleworking: stress, emotions and health. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), pp.196-211.
Messenger, J., 2019. Telework in the 21st Century, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Microsoft (2022) ‘Hybrid work is just work. Are we doing it wrong? Work Trend Index: Pulse Report’. Microsoft, Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work-is-just-work?utm_source=pocket_mylist [Accessed 29 September 2022]
Office of National Statistics (2022), Is hybrid working here to stay? Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ishybridworkingheretostay/2022-05-23 [Accessed 28th August 2023]
Office of National Statistics (203), Characteristics of homeworkers Great Britain: September 2022-January 2023 Available at: Characteristics of homeworkers, Great Britain - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) Accessed 28th August 2023
Taneja, S., Mizen, P. and Bloom, N., 2021. Working from home is revolutionising the UK labour market.
Tavares, A.I. (2017) Telework and health effects review, International Journal of Healthcare, 3(2), pp.30-36.
Ter Hoeven, C.L. and Van Zoonen, W. (2015) Flexible work designs and employee well‐being: Examining the effects of resources and demands, New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(3),pp.237-255.
Wöhrmann, A.M. and Ebner, C. (2021) Understanding the bright side and the dark side of telework: An empirical analysis of working conditions and psychosomatic health complaints, New Technology, Work and Employment, 36(3), pp.348-370
Building resilience in mothers caring for neurodivergent children: a multi-framework approach using personal resources and self-regulation.
Full text linkExtended abstract from the Faculty of Business and Law Research Day 2024
A Blended Value Proposition: Towards a Regional Sustainability Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Framework for the Social and Solidarity Economy in the Liverpool City Region
Full text linkIntroduction
“There is no alternative” (TINA) is a slogan that is strongly associated with Margaret Thatcher. The phrase is used to signify Thatcher’s claim that capitalism is the best economic system, based on her belief in a so-called moral society where the State is not responsible for everything, and people have freedom to make their own choices (Berlinski, 2011). This led many to believe that capitalism is indeed without alternatives (Altvater, 2006).
In a world where large multinational companies are still dominating the global economy (Jara, 2017) with increasing inequalities (Camdessus, 2019) and income disparities (Dao et al., 2019), the discourse on alternative or diverse economies has gained momentum (Fisher, 2022). This study is motivated by one of the developing alternative economy approaches to capitalism; namely the concept of the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE). Over recent years the SSE has gained increasing visibility, but there remains a need to overcome the challenges that have historically hindered the mainstreaming of the SSE as a viable alternative economic system (Utting, 2016).
Morais and Di Meglio (2018) contend that one of the main challenges to the strengthening of the SSE is the establishment of an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for the SSE. This study aims to fill a gap in the research on of an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for the SSE by first delving into the emerging academic fields of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and, Sustainable SSE Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.
There are examples of some places in the world that have implemented Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for the SSE. Exploratory analysis of those in Canada (Quebec), Spain (Barcelona) and, Luxemburg will be conducted to uncover the interconnected elements, mechanisms, legal measures, and policy levers that have enabled their structural integration. These will form a benchmark for developing a Sustainable SSE Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for the Liverpool City Region (LCR).
The LCR, comprising the six boroughs of Liverpool, Sefton, Wirral, Knowsley, St Helens, and Halton, has been the subject of extensive research across various disciplines, shedding light on its social, economic, and cultural dynamics. One such study, conducted by Thompson et al. (2020), presented findings from a case study of the LCR’s social economy, highlighting the scale, scope, and value of its social economy. Their research provides valuable insights into the social fabric and economic dynamics of the LCR social economy, and this research responds to their call for future research in this field.
In 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the LCR declared its ambition to ‘Build Back Better’ a “fairer, greener and more equal” city region that is “the most progressive, values and ethics led economy in Europe” (LCRCA, 2020, p.1-2). At the core of this ambition are six principles that embody people-focused recovery, environmental sustainability, and the development of an inclusive and supportive LCR Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. This provides an opportunity for this research to explore how sustainability can be embedded in an LCR SSE Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.
Research Question
“How can a sustainability-oriented Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) Entrepreneurial Ecosystem be developed in the Liverpool City Region?”
Literature Review
Over recent years the SSE has gained increasing economic, social, and political significance, culminating in the UN International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopting the very first universal definition of the SSE in 2023. The ILO defines the SSE as a concept that designates organisations and enterprises, particularly cooperatives, mutual benefit societies, associations, foundations (CMAF), social enterprises, and other entities that are engaged in economic, social, and environmental activities (ILO, 2023). These organisations and enterprises share various social values and principles that place people and the environment over profit (ILO, 2023). Whilst the 2023 ILO definition signals a strong acknowledgment of the SSE and is an important step in its institutionalisation, there remains a need to overcome the challenges that Utting (2016) identified as being the barriers to the mainstreaming of the SSE. The formation of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for the SSE is a fundamental tool for the strengthening of the SSE (Morais & Bacic, 2020), and has been highlighted as one such challenge.
In spite of a growing scholarly interest in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, a review of the literature has revealed that researchers have struggled to reach a consensus on its definition and the concept remains loosely defined and measured (Stam & van de Ven, 2021). Overall, Entrepreneurial Ecosystems are a set of interconnected social, political, economic, and cultural elements within a region (Spigel, 2017) that formally and informally coalesce to connect, mediate, and govern the performance within the local or regional entrepreneurial environment (Mason & Brown, 2014).
It was Isenberg (2011) who initially gave a logical and influential model of an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem while connecting its features with the economic growth and development of any country or region. He identified six elements as key determinants of the dynamics of an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Those factors are favourable culture, workable policies, financial availability, capable human resource, enabled market mechanisms and subsequently a range of institutional support.
A recent study by Audretsch et al. (2023) investigated how the sustainability orientation of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem actors shapes outcomes and proposes that sustainability orientation could become the 7th and the most important pillar of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. In relation to Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, they define sustainability orientation as the extent to which actors balance social and environmental initiatives along with economic considerations that ultimately help to increase the level of sustainable-oriented entrepreneurial activity (Audretsch et al., 2023).
The SSE presents itself as an alternative economy that seeks environmental, economic, and social sustainability, promoting collective ownership and equality in the means of production (Telles et al., 2017). Accordingly, it is unclear why the organisations and enterprises that make up the SSE have rarely been the subject of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem research (Catala et al., 2023), despite the growing incorporation of the ecosystem perspective into numerous government policies.
Traditionally the SSE and for-profit businesses have generally been considered incompatible (Utting, 2016). However, the 2023 ILO definition of the SSE (ILO, 2023) offers an opportunity for research into this assumption of incompatibility, particularly as it refers to the inclusion of other entities that share the values and principles of the SSE (ILO, 2023). Indeed, there is a growing body of literature that focuses on for-profit enterprises that purposefully generate economic, social, and environmental value providing ‘Blended Value Proposition’ first articulated by Jed Emerson in the early 2000s (Nogales Muriel, 2023). Furthermore, in contextualising social entrepreneurship Seelos and Mair (2005 p.243) declared that there is no such thing as ‘non-social’ entrepreneurship. Since then, the concept of blended value has gained attention in the context of entrepreneurship. Blended value models have been proposed as comprehensive and coherent frameworks for business sustainability, offering a progressive approach to harnessing the Sustainable Development Goals for businesses (Redman, 2018). Furthermore, the notion of blended value has been linked to the broader discourse on shared value, corporate social responsibility, stakeholder theory, and social innovation (Voola & Voola, 2020). These are all consistent with the other substantive concepts, along with the aim of this study.
Aim
This research aims to propose a Blended-Value inclusive sustainability-oriented SSE Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Framework in the LCR. The Framework will be based on the global SSE principles, and the diverse characteristics of the region’s entrepreneurial communities, and the requisite legal and policy levers.
Relevance and Impact
This study provides new insights into the academic field of entrepreneurship by advancing knowledge on the relationship between Social Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, Sustainable Entrepreneurship, and the SSE as a burgeoning and credible alternative economic system. The importance and originality of this study are that it aims to propose a new guidance framework for a novel LCR Blended Value, inclusive SSE Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.
References
Altvater, E., 2007. The capitalist energy system and the crisis of the global financial markets: The impact on labour. Labour, Capital and Society/Travail, capital et société, pp.18-34.
Audretsch, D.B., Belitski, M., Eichler, G.M. et al. Entrepreneurial ecosystems, institutional quality, and the unexpected role of the sustainability orientation of entrepreneurs. Small Bus Econ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00763-5
Camdessus, M., 2018. Growing Inequality: What Can We Do? Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 10(1–3), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974910119851600.
Catala, B., Savall, T. and Chaves-Avila, R., 2023. From entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems to the social economy ecosystem. Journal of Business Research, 163, p.113932.
Dao, M.C., Das, M. and Koczan, Z., 2019. Why is labour receiving a smaller share of global income? Economic Policy, 34(100), pp.723-759.
Fisher, M., 2022. Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? John Hunt Publishing.
ILO., 2023. Resolution concerning decent work and the social and solidarity economy. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_848633.pdf
Isenberg, D., 2011. The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economic Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Institute of International and European Affairs, Dublin, Ireland, 12 May 2011, 1-13.
Jara, A., 2017. The future of globalization under new political realities. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 9(1-3), pp.75-85.
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA), 2020. Building Back Better. Our Economic Recovery Plan: for a globally competitive, environmentally responsible, and socially inclusive Liverpool City Region. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/600e9682e90e071433ef8c06/LCRCA_BBB_2020.pdf
Mason, C. and Brown, R., 2014. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Final report to OECD, Paris, 30(1), pp.77-102.
Morais, L. and Bacic, M., 2020. Social and solidarity economy and the need for its Entrepreneuring Ecosystem: current challenges in Brazil. Ciriec-España Revista De Economía Pública Social Y Cooperativa, (98), 5. https://doi.org/10.7203/ciriec-e.98.14138
Nogales Muriel, R., 2023. Social innovation, social enterprises and the cultural economy: cultural and artistic social enterprise in practice. (No Title).
Redman, A., 2018. Harnessing the sustainable development goals for businesses: a progressive framework for action. Business Strategy &Amp; Development, 1(4), 230-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.33
Seelos, C. and Mair, J., 2005. Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business horizons, 48(3), pp.241-246.
Spigel, B., 2017. The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 41(1), pp.49-7
Stam, E., van de Ven, A., 2021. Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Bus Econ 56, 809–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6
Telles, L. B., Macedo, L. M., & Bittencourt, J. V. M., 2017. Brazilian solidarity economy rural organizations: validating performance evaluation criteria based on decision makers’ perception. Sustainability, 9(6), 945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060945
Thompson, M., Southern, A., & Heap, H., 2020. Anchoring the social economy at the metropolitan scale: findings from the Liverpool City Region. Urban Studies, 59(4), 675-697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020972654
Utting, P., 2016. Mainstreaming Social and Solidarity Economy: opportunities and risks for policy change. UNSSE: unsse. org.
Voola, A. P. and Voola, R., 2020. Paradigms of development frameworks using gender equality strategies. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69625-6_44-1
 
Exploring Dynamic capabilities of Design thinking for Digital transformation of UK SMEs Towards Paradigmatic Innovation
Full text link
Introduction
The rapid advancement of technologies like Internet of Things (IOT), Big data and Artificial Intelligence (AI), has brought about transformative changes to industries globally. In the context of the United Kingdom (UK), Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are integral to economic growth. The economic landscape of the UK is significantly influenced by SMEs, making their adoption of innovative strategies crucial. Design thinking, a human-centric approach to problem-solving, stands out as a potent methodology. Its potential impact on digital transformation and paradigmatic innovation within SMEs needs a comprehensive exploration.
However, there is a critical gap in understanding how SMEs strategically leverage design thinking as dynamic capabilities for digital transformation, particularly in achieving paradigmatic innovation. This research aims to bridge this gap by investigating the dynamic capabilities of design thinking in driving digital transformation for UK SMEs, leading to innovative shifts in their operational paradigms. Recognizing this, the research focuses on elucidating the role of design thinking as a dynamic capability for reshaping how UK SMEs approach digital transformation and achieve ground-breaking innovation.
Research question
How do dynamic capabilities of design thinking help UK SMEs in understanding user needs through interactive prototyping and by providing empathy-driven solutions?
How do UK SMEs sense changes and seize opportunities through design-led strategies in the digital environment?
Aim of research
The aim of this research is to comprehensively investigate how SMEs in the United Kingdom utilise design thinking as a dynamic capability for digital transformation.
The primary objectives of this research are as follows:
To Investigate the specific dynamic capabilities within design thinking that UK SMEs prioritizes for digital transformation.ii. Uncover challenges and barriers encountered by UK SMEs in developing design thinking capabilities crucial for digital transformation.iii. Assess the impact of design thinking capabilities on the outcomes of digital transformation initiatives within UK SMEs.iv. Propose actionable strategies to enhance the effective utilization of design thinking capabilities by UK SMEs, overcoming barriers and maximizing the outcomes of their digital transformation initiatives.
Literature Review:
The literature review delves into the transformative potential of design thinking and its relevance to digital transformation in SMEs. It establishes the significance of design thinking as a driver for innovation, especially in the context of the UK business landscape. The review also explores challenges and opportunities associated with integrating design thinking into SME digital transformation strategies. The impact of Digital Transformation spans healthcare, finance, manufacturing and consulting, with vital integration for SMES economic development in the UK (OECD, 2021, OECD, 2023). The UK, a global Ai research hub, ranks among the top five countries due to significant Research and Development investments, exemplified by the initiative like the AI sector deal (Sjödin et al., 2021). Despite these strides SMEs face constraints hindering the full integration of digital transformation particularly due to the inability of SMEs to enact digital transformation towards innovation that is more meaningful to people.
Digital transformation offers automation, data analytics and cost reduction (Selamat and Windasari, 2021), and practical applications in customer service, predictive maintenance and supply chain management. The promising future of Digital Transformation for UK SMEs lies in dynamic capabilities of design thinking (Magistretti et al., 2021).
Theoretical Framework:
The research adopts a theoretical framework that integrates the principles of design thinking as dynamic capabilities. By drawing on established theories related to dynamic capabilities, the study aims to provide a structured understanding of how design thinking contributes to the adaptability and innovation potential of SMEs.
Dynamic Capabilities Theory guides this study, emphasizing adaptable resources and capabilities for Digital Transformation of UK SMEs towards paradigmatic innovation. It identifies the barriers, the resource limitations and the dynamic capabilities of design thinking towards innovation.
Research Design:
A qualitative research methodology will be employed to gain comprehensive insights into the impact of design thinking on digital transformation and paradigmatic innovation in UK SMEs. The methodology includes semi-structured interviews, case studies, and document analysis of 25 UK SMEs actively engaged in digital transformation initiatives and demonstrating a commitment to design thinking principles. This approach ensures information-rich cases for in-depth exploration.
Data Collection and Analysis:
Semi-structured interviews with key decision-makers and detailed case studies will provide a nuanced understanding of how design thinking is operationalized in the digital transformation context. Thematic and document analysis will be employed to identify patterns and trends in the data.
Expected Contributions:
The outcomes of this study will extend the existing knowledge on design thinking as dynamic capabilities for SMEs in the UK. It will offer actionable insights for SMEs to enhance their digital transformation strategies, leveraging design thinking principles to achieve paradigmatic innovation. The research aims to contribute to the academic discourse on the strategic role of design thinking in the digital evolution of SMEs.
Discussion of the relevance and practical importance of the study
Understanding the dynamic capabilities of Design thinking is important for SMEs as a paradigm shift calls for a new way in which SMEs think about innovation. SMEs will begin to check the reasonability of innovation and thereby develop new skill set when it comes to innovation.
This study will contribute to strategies to enhance the effective utilization of design thinking capabilities by UK SMEs, overcoming barriers and maximizing the outcomes of their digital transformation initiatives.
References
MAGISTRETTI, S., PHAM, C. T. A. & DELL\u27ERA, C. 2021. Enlightening the dynamic capabilities of design thinking in fostering digital transformation. Industrial Marketing Management, 97, 59-70.
OECD 2021. The Digital Transformation of SMEs and Entrepreneurship, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD 2023. OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market, OECD Publishing, Paris.
SELAMAT, M. A. & WINDASARI, N. A. 2021. Chatbot for SMEs: Integrating customer and business owner perspectives. Technology in Society, 66, 101685.
SJÖDIN, D., PARIDA, V., PALMIÉ, M. & WINCENT, J. 2021. How AI capabilities enable business model innovation: Scaling AI through co-evolutionary processes and feedback loops. Journal of Business Research, 134, 574-587
Exploring the practice of job crafting and its impact on perceived job quality in the NHS, UK.
Full text linkExtended abstract from the Faculty of Business and Law Research Day 2024
The development of punitive damages for marine ecological harm within the People’s Republic of China: Punitive damages with Chinese characteristics
Full text linkExtended abstract from the Faculty of Business and Law Research Day 202
Data sources:
LJMU Research Online (Liverpool John Moo...PATT40 (LJMU)Biomolecular Research Reports (BRR) (LJM...Design and Technology Education (LJMU)
BLResearchDay (LJMU)Journal of Living Labs (LJMU)Journal of Natural Products Discovery (L...Journal of Social Media for Learning (LJ...Student Law Journal (LJMU)PRISM (LJMU)Public Health Institute Journal (LJMU)SPARK (LJMU)Student Experience Proceedings (LJMU)Transformation in Education (LJMU)Innovations in Practice (LJMU)Links to Health and Social Care (LJMU)
BLResearchDay (LJMU)Journal of Living Labs (LJMU)Journal of Natural Products Discovery (L...Journal of Social Media for Learning (LJ...Student Law Journal (LJMU)PRISM (LJMU)Public Health Institute Journal (LJMU)SPARK (LJMU)Student Experience Proceedings (LJMU)Transformation in Education (LJMU)Innovations in Practice (LJMU)Links to Health and Social Care (LJMU)Access Repository Dashboard
Do you manage BLResearchDay (LJMU)? Access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard!