New Home for Stanford Social Innovation Review: Good or Bad?
For me, the most intriguing mergers and acquisitions news of the week is not related to Blackstone’s rumored $1bn real estate deal, nor the rumors of an acquisition of Adobe by Microsoft, nor even a successful defense by Casey’s General Stores, a former client, to end a long hostile acquisition battle with Alimentation Couche-Tard, another former client (as you can see, the industries I covered in my last job were the sexy ones—convenience stores and grocery stores). Rather, what caught my eye was the announcement that the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) has been acquired by Stanford’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society (PACS).
Perhaps it’s just bias on my part, but I liked the idea that SSIR was a part of Stanford’s Center for Social Innovation, which in turn is part of the Graduate School of Business. I liked that it was a publication of a progressive business school program which understands the need for a pan-sectoral approach to addressing the big challenges of the future (kudos to GSB for being bold with an emphasis on social innovation and leap-frogging the more-limited corporate social responsibility path). I admit a bit of skepticism about the scope of “philanthropy and civil society” as it relates to developing solutions to the problems on which SSIR is focused. The mission of PACS is “to engage students, faculty and practitioners in scholarship and dialogue that examines ways in which philanthropic institutions, nonprofit organizations and other key elements of civil society work to address public interests…” Is this a good fit for SSIR? In contrast, SSIR’s press release description includes the note that
SSIR is written for and by social change leaders in the nonprofit, business, and government sectors who view collaboration as key to solving environmental, social, and economic justice issues.
I like that I see all three sectors—business, government, and civil society—in this language as compared to that of PACS.
 |
| Article on social intrapreneurship in business, Fall 2010 issue of SSIR. |
Effective philanthropy relies on groundbreaking research, practice innovation, and cross-sector collaboration. That is what this partnership and our future is all about—creating an intellectual hub for philanthropy and social innovation.
Or perhaps the nature of the business is such that the department in which the journal sits doesn’t actually have a significant impact on its content and approach—who knows? Still yet, maybe SSIR’s approach will change, and maybe it’s a good thing. Publishing Director Regina Starr Ridley calls the acquisition a “natural fit”. I’m sure the various parties involved have differing perspectives, as always. I’ll be watching for an article from SSIR on what the acquisition means to the editorial staff in the next issue, and for SSIR readers to discuss changes, if and as the journal evolves as a result of its new home.
Update 10/14/2010: Thanks to Shana Sachs of PACS for participating in the conversation and offering the PACS perspective in the comments to this post! SSIR also just sent a newsletter including a note about last week's Nonprofit Management Institute conference and an announcement made there on SSIR's new home: "The Institute also featured a joint announcement by Kim Nyegaard Meredith, executive director of the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society (PACS) and Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, founder/chairman of PACS. Meredith and Arrillaga-Andreessen announced that Stanford Social Innovation Review had become part of PACS, moving from the Graduate School of Business where SSIR was launched and had operated since 2003. With SSIR , noted Meredith, PACS creates a global center offering knowledge, innovative ideas, and accessible best practices for the public, business, and social sectors. SSIR will continue to focus on cross-sector solutions to global problems, publishing the quarterly print magazine and website as well as offering webinars and high-level conferences, such as the Nonprofit Management Institute."
Update 12/7/2010: I came across an article from August which announced the plans to move SSIR. It explains some of the rationale that was lacking in the communication surrounding the transaction.
Update 12/7/2010: I came across an article from August which announced the plans to move SSIR. It explains some of the rationale that was lacking in the communication surrounding the transaction.
Shana
October 11, 2010 12:12 PM
Shana
October 11, 2010 12:14 PM
Thanks very much for the thoughtful blog post, Nicolas. I'm the Program Manager at PACS, and I wanted to respond. We are very excited about the partnership with SSIR and see it as a great fit for both organizations. It's true that our work is focused the study of philanthropy and civil society, but one of the strengths of PACS is that it is totally multi-disciplinary-- working with five schools, twenty departments and 100 faculty affiliations so it will expand the cross sector work of SSIR beyond the Graduate School of Business. We believe the time is right to combine the scholarly research strength of PACS with the cross-sector voice and reach of SSIR. This partnership creates a global center offering knowledge, innovative ideas, and accessible best practices for the social sector.
By combining our strengths we have the potential to lead and serve the social sector in profound ways. We couldn’t be more excited about our vision for the future. Thanks again for the post!
(And sorry about the deleted post-- I saw a typo in the first sentence just after I posted. Hate it when that happens.)
Nicolas Takamine
October 12, 2010 12:58 AM
Hi Shana,
Thank you for the reply! SSIR itself also mentioned on Twitter that they were excited about the strength in scholarly research that PACS offers. I look forward to seeing how this strength is reflected. There is no doubt the social sector can use more solid research both to improve its effectiveness and to demonstrate that effectiveness to mobilize more resources. I won’t pretend to know SSIR's strategic plans or how different ownership will impact the content of the journal, but from what I’ve read I have reason to hope that the new ownership does not result in the loss of a holistic approach to social problems. I think the social sector is absolutely key in this approach (indeed, I have diverted my career from the private sector to the social sector), but the definitive problems we face cannot be solved by the social sector alone. To my knowledge, SSIR is the only major publication of this nature that is taking this approach today, and I appreciate it.
Thanks again for your response, Shana! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.