Jefe de Equipo de Práctica de Actos de Comunicación

Chapter two has revealed three important clusters of findings. The first is that the workplaces of online endorsers of social enterprise heads are concentrated regionally in British Columbia. This is a reality in the context of technology that used by individuals to connect globally, but which is being used by social enterprises to connect regionally, and locally. Steinfield (et al, 2009) found that “an interest in connecting globally” was related to more use of a social networking site, however this trend is bucked by social enterprises who display a regional and local concentration of online connections, represented by the Cartesian workplaces of online endorsers. To arrive at this finding meant conducting “geo- visual social analytics” a complex multi-method methodological approach that flits across software programs to access patterns that are often difficult to find any using any other single methodological approach The second finding was that concentrations of quality “between” social enterprise heads occurred in Greater Vancouver, cultural social enterprises and areas of very high material deprivation, and this was partly explained by a statistically significant relationship of these patterns with Greater Vancouver. These

findings build on previous research (Hall & Elson, 2014) and flag three areas of further study around cultural social enterprises, urbanity and material deprivation in relation to the connectedness of social enterprises. Finally this study is the first to position social enterprises as existing in heterotopias. While studies have been done on linking sites such as online pornography Internet sites (Jacobs, 2004) and Facebook sites to the concept of heterotopias (Rymarczuk, & Derksen, 2014) this has not been accompanied by a quantitative approach. Therefore this study holds relevance for social enterprise studies but also for the wider study of heterotopias that tends to shy away from incorporating quantitative analyses.

Chapter three arrived at four findings. Women consistently accessed partner social enterprise Facebook pages over a period of one year and this was associated with crisis by social enterprise staff during interviews with them. Facebook pages were partly theorised in this role as crisis heterotopias, though other politicised gender perspectives also help drive analysis of the interview data, and could be useful as a consideration in further research. Large surveys, for instance one carried out by the Pew Institute (2009) on 2,253 respondents found gender parity in the usage of social media profile pages. This pattern does not fit with the case studies of partner social enterprises or the interview data. The third finding was that an additional factor may play into a social enterprise head becoming “between” in online professional networks, and this was having high numbers of endorsers who work in the same primary city the social enterprise Facebook pages reaches. While not conclusive, uncovering quantitative patterns this complex around the social networks of social enterprises is rarely seen in the literature. Finally it was revealed that the university-community partnership had been successful but not as expected through analytics, rather it succeeded by servicing needs identified by the social enterprises themselves.

Chapter four focused on the role social media profile pages play and how they operate as a crisis heterotopia as defined by Michel Foucault (1967). The findings ran contrary to the theoretical hypothesis. Rather than the morality of labour being thrown into crisis by the shift to online social media labourings, a wider crisis around geographic targeting, time and expertise was uncovered, and social media profile pages allow social enterprise staff to experience these crises in distinct ways. These ways, for larger more

experienced social enterprises centered largely on paying for highly geographically specific ads that run on social media and link back to the profile page. This allows a privileged experience of control. Conversely for smaller social enterprises a lack in time and expertise translates to profile pages fulfilling the role of forbidden places that when experienced flag deficits in time and expertise. These deficits were precisely the target of the university-community partnership, however with the advent of $10,000 Google ad word grants and a real need for pre-targeted social media advertising, future interventions could focus on these areas. In all cases the heterotopic functioning of profile pages is aimed within localities in British Columbia, supporting the patterns seen in chapter two. Finally, the exploration of heterotopias in terms of crisis and not in terms of deviance is a novel approach not seen consistently throughout the literature on heterotopia, which tends to focus on deviance.

Together, chapters 2, 3 and 4 uncover a new regional geography related to the social networks of social enterprises in British Columbia. This is a rich, complex and networked geography that spans the Cartesian and cyber realms and which isn’t reducible to binary constructs such as spatial/virtual, public/private, moral/immoral, global/local and gender parity. Each time these binary constructs have fallen down as assemblages, extensions, regional-local clusters and femininity have risen to fill in the black and white with grey. The causes for all the findings in this study are not readily discernible precisely because this new regional universe of social enterprises that has been uncovered in British Columbia so rich. For now, social enterprises in British Columbia are positioned as functioning with and through crisis heterotopias that both connect and juxtapose place within the non-Cartesian cyber place of a profile page. Finally, it is important to acknowledge the crises that social enterprise workers face daily in their confrontation with the heterotopic profile page.