Votre recherche

The concepts of entrepreneurship and citizenship intersect more and more in the educational projects of social entrepreneurship. In this article, we have analyzed an experiment conducted by a nonprofit organization whose mission is to increase citizen participation. We are interested in the discourses and tools that it has mobilized for training in social entrepreneurship. Our objective is to uncover the norms and values underlying the conception of citizenship transmitted through the training. We show that there are tensions between the aims of democratic citizenship promoted by the organization and the concept of the citizen that underlies training in social entrepreneurship. Our contribution is twofold: 1) We enrich the literature on education for democratic citizenship by analyzing a new approach, that of education in social entrepreneurship; 2) We take a critical look at the concept of social entrepreneurship when it is used in training for democratic citizenship by analyzing this practice and framing it within the field of social innovation

Social innovation is not well understood within the context of macro-social work. Frameworks for understanding social innovation as having dimensions of social entrepreneurship, social intrapreneurship, and social advocacy are elaborated. Challenges to the comprehensive understanding and utility of social innovation for macro social work are discussed, especially an overemphasis on social entrepreneurship as the only typical expression of social innovation as well as a mistargeted, deficit-based approach which assumes that contemporary social work is dysfunctional and can only be made functional through social innovation and entrepreneurship. Global and multidisciplinary insights and applications of social innovation for macro social work are reviewed. Finally, how the macro-social work approach to social innovation builds on and advances business approaches to social innovation is discussed.

This paper provides an overview of the state of art of research on social entrepreneurship and the establishment of this topic in the academic world. It uses scientometric methods in measuring the maturity of social entrepreneurship research. The empirical part reveals the exponentially growing number of papers, the institutionalization of social entrepreneurship in seven dimensions, the emergence of thematic clusters, and methodological issues. The paper makes concrete suggestions on how to overcome methodological challenges. Furthermore, we provide a ranking of the 22 most cited academic contributions in social entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, almost half of the most cited papers have not been published in journals but in books, raising doubts about the current (over-)rating of journal publications.

This paper provides an overview of the state of art of research on social entrepreneurship and the establishment of this topic in the academic world. It uses scientometric methods in measuring the maturity of social entrepreneurship research. The empirical part reveals the exponentially growing number of papers, the institutionalization of social entrepreneurship in seven dimensions, the emergence of thematic clusters, and methodological issues. The paper makes concrete suggestions on how to overcome methodological challenges. Furthermore, we provide a ranking of the 22 most cited academic contributions in social entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, almost half of the most cited papers have not been published in journals but in books, raising doubts about the current (over-)rating of journal publications.

This book examines the ways in which universities can play a crucial role in inclusive development, social innovation and social entrepreneurship. It aims to prove the importance of inclusive development and inclusive innovation on economic growth and demonstrate the ways in which universities can be pioneers in this area through initiatives in social responsibility and social innovation. For example, providing access to a university education without discrimination of race, gender, income status, or other factors would help to diminish the increasing income differentials currently being experienced in many countries, especially in the developing world. The research and studies included in this book provide insight into possible actions that can be taken by universities and public and private shareholders in inclusive development, social innovation, social entrepreneurship and overall regional economic and social development.

This book examines the ways in which universities can play a crucial role in inclusive development, social innovation and social entrepreneurship. It aims to prove the importance of inclusive development and inclusive innovation on economic growth and demonstrate the ways in which universities can be pioneers in this area through initiatives in social responsibility and social innovation. For example, providing access to a university education without discrimination of race, gender, income status, or other factors would help to diminish the increasing income differentials currently being experienced in many countries, especially in the developing world. The research and studies included in this book provide insight into possible actions that can be taken by universities and public and private shareholders in inclusive development, social innovation, social entrepreneurship and overall regional economic and social development.

Social innovation refers to the processes and outcomes that develop a novel approach to addressing a social problem or need. Compared to commercial innovation, it poses some distinctive challenges, particularly with regard to the incentives to invest in it, assessment of performance, and diffusion of effective innovations. Scholars began paying attention to this phenomenon in the late twentieth century, but many open research questions remain. The term ‘social innovation’ has had two meanings in the academic literature. In its earliest scholarly uses, primarily in sociology, it was used to refer to the creation of new patterns of human interaction, new social structures, or new social relations. The second focuses on innovations designed to address a social or environmental issue or to meet a specific social market failure or need. Often, both types of innovation are combined to establish new patterns of social relations that have positive social outcomes.

Abstract All over the world there are millions of social entrepreneurs that come up with potential social innovations. Some never get implemented in practice. Others are implemented, but then the passion fades or the solution does not reveal itself as promising for creating social impact. In some cases, the lack of sustainability or management capacity prevents a successful scaling up process. Despite all these potential obstacles, there are social innovations that go from promising ideas to becoming mainstream solutions, leading to new markets, industries, or social movements, such as Microfinance or Wikipedia. An in-depth look at main obstacles facing social innovators and the leadership skills required to overcome them is a meaningful contribution to the field of social innovation. The goal of this chapter is to propose such a contribution through an in-depth exploration of the life cycle of social innovation. The term “life cycle” implies a sequence of stages in the evolution of new ventures (Parker 2007).

Following Kuhn, this article conceptualizes social entrepreneurship as a field of action in a pre–paradigmatic state that currently lacks an established epistemology. Using approaches from neo–institutional theory, this research focuses on the microstructures of legitimation that characterize the development of social entrepreneurship in terms of its key actors, discourses, and emerging narrative logics. This analysis suggests that the dominant discourses of social entrepreneurship represent legitimating material for resource–rich actors in a process of reflexive isomorphism. Returning to Kuhn, the article concludes by delineating a critical role for scholarly research on social entrepreneurship in terms of resolving conflicting discourses within its future paradigmatic development.

Following Kuhn, this article conceptualizes social entrepreneurship as a field of action in a pre–paradigmatic state that currently lacks an established epistemology. Using approaches from neo–institutional theory, this research focuses on the microstructures of legitimation that characterize the development of social entrepreneurship in terms of its key actors, discourses, and emerging narrative logics. This analysis suggests that the dominant discourses of social entrepreneurship represent legitimating material for resource–rich actors in a process of reflexive isomorphism. Returning to Kuhn, the article concludes by delineating a critical role for scholarly research on social entrepreneurship in terms of resolving conflicting discourses within its future paradigmatic development.