Relating Practice to Theory in Indigenous Entrepreneurship: A Pilot Investigation of the Kitsaki Partnership Portfolio

Indigenous tourism research, past and present: where to from here?

“…by 2015." Academic research on Canadian Aboriginal tourism during this period reflected the public sector emphasis with research focused on sustainable development, planning policy and management, as well as supply and demand issues (Bennett, Lemelin, Koster, & Budke, 2012;Colton, 2005;Colton & Whitney-Squire, 2010;Dowsley, 2009;Dressler, Berkes, & Mathias, 2001;Ettenger, 2009;Grimwood & Doubleday, 2013;Hindle, Anderson, Giberson, & Kayseas, 2005;Koster, Baccar, & Lemelin, 2012;Kutzner & Wright, 2010;Kutzner, Wright, & Stark, 2009;Li, 2004;Lynch, Duinker, Sheehan, & Chute, 2010Mason, 2004Mason, , 2008Mason, , 2009Nepal, 2004;Notzke, 2004;Smith, 2007;Stewart & Draper, 2009;Stewart, Jacobson, & Draper, 2008;Williams & Richter, 2002;Zeppel, 2002).…”

The Social Entrepreneurship Zone

“…Other subsets of SE may include social enterprise (Mulgan, 2008), indigenous entrepreneurship (Anderson, Dana, & Dana, 2006;Hindle, Anderson, Giberson, & Kayseas, 2005;Peredo, Anderson, Galbraith, Honig, & Dana, 2004), venture philanthropy (Scaife, 2008), and environmental-or greenentrepreneurship (Neck et al, 2009). In cases where the explicit purpose for these and other organizational forms is to cause social change supported by the application of business practices, they would fit within the Social Entrepreneurship Zone construct presented in the next section.…”

A diagnostic evaluation model for complex research partnerships with community engagement: The partnership for Native American Cancer Prevention (NACP) model

“…Care providers function under different expectations and constraints than do government agencies, social service entities, advocacy groups, and the general public (each of which has its own culture), grouped under the heading “community.” (Bryan, 2005; Reid & Vianna, 2001) Meanwhile, academic researchers have their own distinctive cultures and reward systems, which frequently clash with the timelines and value systems of the other partners. Investments in major partnerships are intended to further collaborative efforts, but these efforts can be sabotaged by cultural differences among partners if those differences are not acknowledged and specifically accounted for, especially in any on-going evaluation design (Hindle, Anderson, Giberson, & Kayseas, 2005). A well-designed and responsive evaluation system can do much to monitor and to facilitate management of such cultural differences and their impact on effective functioning within a partnership.…”