Smith Et Al 2008 JEC - Social Eship Grounded Learning

March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
Journal of Enterprising Culture

Vol. 16, No. 4 (December 2008) 339–362
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A GROUNDED LEARNING

APPROACH TO SOCIAL VALUE CREATION
BRETT R. SMITH
Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056
smithbr2@muohio.edu
J. Enterprising Culture 2008.16:339-362. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
TERRI FELDMAN BARR

by UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER on 01/19/15. For personal use only.
Miami University
SAULO D. BARBOSA
EM Lyon Business School
and
JILL R. KICKUL
New York University Stern School of Business
The value of the inclusion of social entrepreneurship in entrepreneurship education

courses and programs is considered in light of the increase in social entrepreneurial
ventures worldwide as well as changing business school requirements. Using a
grounded learning theory approach as a foundation, we consider factors unique
to social entrepreneurship and present a live case social venture which pro-
vides hands-on experience to students. Student comments regarding their learning
through this experience are also included. Future directions for social entrepreneur-
ship education pedagogy and research are discussed.
Keywords: Social entrepreneurship education.
INTRODUCTION
In 2004, a special issue of the Academy of Management Learning and

Education (AMLE) was published focusing on entrepreneurship education.
The issue was driven by the recognition that entrepreneurial education was
“unique not only in its subject matter, but also in its pedagogical approach”
(Greene, Katz, and Johannisson, 2004: 238). With the growing number of
339
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
Brett R. Smith et al.
academic programs focused on entrepreneurship, this special issue reflected

current best practices in entrepreneurship education, including the identifica-
tion of new theoretical constructs, application of new theoretical and method-
ological approaches to studying known entrepreneurial phenomenon, and
constructive critiques of then current teaching tools. Shortly after the publi-
cation of the AMLE special issue, Kuratko (2005) published a paper tracing
the history of entrepreneurship education from the late 1800’s, identifying
predominant themes in entrepreneurial research and education, examining
the current state of entrepreneurship education in the U.S., and considering
the challenges of entrepreneurship research and education into the future.
Both the special issue and Kuratko reflected a domain of entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurship education limited to the study of for-profit business

ventures. It is to this last point that authors Paul Tracey and Nelson Phillips
(2007) published their postscript to the 2004 special issue, outlining the need
to include the study of social entrepreneurship in entrepreneurship programs.
(SOCIAL) ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
An entrepreneur is generally conceived of as an innovator looking for oppor-

tunities. Originally a French word coined over 200 years ago, an entrepreneur
literally is “one who undertakes … an important task or project” (Dees, Emer-
son, and Economy, 2001: 3). Entrepreneurs in the business world typically
measure their achievement in monetary terms. Their mission and focus is
most often defined directly or indirectly in terms of economic value (Austin,
Stevenson and Wei-Skillern, 2006). To that end, entrepreneurship educa-
tion has likewise focused predominantly on those concepts and skills nec-
essary to accomplish economic success, including negotiation, leadership,
new product development, innovation and creativity, venture financing, and
idea protection, to name only a few (Kuratko, 2005).
However, “entrepreneurship is by no means confined solely to eco-
nomic institutions” (Drucker, 1985: 23). The term ‘social entrepreneur’
is a relatively recent moniker given to an innovator in the social sector.
While the social entrepreneur shares much in common with the commer-
cial entrepreneur1 (Smith and Barr, 2007; Chell, 2007; Austin et al., 2006;
Dees, 2001), there are also important differences between these two types of
entrepreneurs particularly in the type of opportunities exploited and the type
of value sought in the entrepreneurial process. The social entrepreneur tack-
les opportunities in the domain of social problems (such as hunger or poverty)
and measures achievement in terms of accomplishment of social value. Using
340
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
Social Entrepreneurship
innovation and resourcefulness, the social entrepreneur ultimately seeks to

better the human condition (Dees, Emerson, and Economy 2001). In some
cases, the social entrepreneur may also engage in the creation of economic
value. However, for the social entrepreneur, economic value is simply a
means to an end rather than an end itself (For an excellent discussion of
social and economic value in social entrepreneurship, see Austin, Gutierrez
and Ogliastri, 2006). As a result, the social entrepreneur leverages the inno-
vation of entrepreneurship but applies it for common good rather than for
individual gain.
Tracey and Phillips (2007) make the compelling argument that given
that the number of social entrepreneurial ventures is growing both in the
U.S. and abroad, and because these enterprises have their own unique set
of challenges to overcome, academic entrepreneurship programs should be
including the study of social entrepreneurship in their curricula. In support

of their argument, other researchers, policy makers and practitioners believe
that social entrepreneurship offers the potential for innovative solutions to
some of the world’s most difficult problems, like extreme poverty and hunger,
and that including the study of social entrepreneurship in our academic pro-
grams is both an appropriate and responsible undertaking. To that end, this
paper identifies concepts important to understanding the unique nature of
social entrepreneurial organizations, considers the use of grounded theory
as a method for encouraging the learning of these concepts, and provides a
live case example through which students have examined the fundamental
challenges of starting and managing a social enterprise.
UNIQUE FEATURES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL

ORGANIZATIONS
Because of the distinct focus of social entrepreneurial ventures on the

achievement of a social mission and their increasing numbers in the world
economy, educating students to issues unique to the social entrepreneurial
organization is essential to the organization’s success. Tracey and Phillips
(2007) identify four critical factors to which students must become familiar.
First and foremost, is the necessity to educate students to what social
ventures are and the extent to which they exist in today’s marketplace. The
notion that social entrepreneurial institutions, sometimes known as social
enterprises, utilize their resources to achieve social objectives makes them
distinct from other business ventures that students typically study. Instead of
economic success, students must understand that social entrepreneurial ven-
tures are primarily concerned with social value creation (Austin et al., 2006)
341
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
and measure “their success … by the extent to which they achieve ‘social
transformation”’ (Tracey and Phillips, 2007: 265).
Additionally, students need to know that the resources necessary to
achieve the organization’s social mission can come from many different
places, including philanthropic foundations, government subsidies, private
donations, and earned income (for-profit) activities. To that end, social ven-
tures take a variety of forms (Doherty and Thomson, 2006). Some may be
purely non-profit organizations, dependent totally on donations, grants, and
government funding. Others may be purely for-profit organizations which
serve social missions, funding their programs with sales of products and/or
services. Still others may be non-profits which supplement received grants
and donations with for-profit earned income streams. All fit the definition of
social entrepreneurial/social enterprises since all place a primary emphasis
on their social missions. However, they cannot focus on just achieving their
social missions. They often also direct their attention to achieving the eco-
nomic success necessary to meet their social objectives. This dual focus on
both social and economic missions is unique to the social entrepreneurial
venture, and termed “the double bottom line.” Finding the appropriate bal-
ance in working to meet both missions is essential for long-term success
and viability of the social entrepreneurial organization. Therefore, educating
students to the concept of multiple bottom lines is a necessary and essential
success factor for social enterprises.
Closely associated with both the concepts of multiple bottom lines and
the necessity to find sustainable funding are complex issues associated with
how social enterprises manage their dual identities. Particularly relevant to
those non-profits with earned income streams, social enterprises are often
caught between trying to maintain their identity as a non-profit while at the
same time working to increase revenues from their for-profit ventures. Con-
fusion as to what these organizations are, and what their objectives are, has
become muddied as the lines between non-profit and for-profit are interwo-
ven. Consequently, the varied forms of social entrepreneurial ventures lead to
both internal and external identity issues that the organizations must address,
as these factors may affect employee commitment and morale, and donor
funding among other things. Therefore, exposing students to managing these
identity issues is critical to the long-term success of the organization.
Finally, students must learn that social enterprises answer to multiple
stakeholders, as do other institutions. However, because of the social mission
of these social ventures, there is at least one additional group of stakeholders,
those who are impacted by the social mission of the organization. These con-
stituents not only increase the number of stakeholders of the organization, but
342
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
are often very dissimilar to other stakeholder groups to which the social
entrepreneurs must be accountable. As a result, social entrepreneurs must
possess a “distinctive set of competencies in order to create and manage”
the multitude of unique relationships associated with their diverse stakehold-
ers (Tracey and Phillips, 2007: 267). To that end, individuals involved with
social enterprises must demonstrate both an understanding of, and an ability
to communicate effectively with very distinct and disparate constituencies
and their unique needs and demands for the enterprise.
LEARNING THROUGH DOING: THE EFFICACY OF

GROUNDED LEARNING THEORY
Over the past two decades, educators and practitioners alike have called for
changes in business education curricula (e.g., Porter and McKibben, 1988;
Pfeffer and Fong, 2002). Many of their criticisms have been directly related
to the lack of experiential activities through which students could both learn
and practice concepts and skills necessary for business success. The Associ-
ation to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), which accred-
its business schools, recognized this deficiency, and ultimately changed its
accreditation standards to reflect a more experiential emphasis in learning.
As a result, there has been a substantial effort made by business schools to
identify ways to increase students’ opportunities to interact with business
concepts in a more significant way. More specifically, curriculum commit-
tees have attempted to identify and develop opportunities which finely tune
students’ skills, and help them develop a hands-on understanding of how
businesses function, ultimately making them more attractive to recruiters
(Barr and McNeilly, 2002). The use of experiential exercises has long been
a feature of many entrepreneurship programs, as this pedagogical approach
is seen as a “key component” of an entrepreneurial curriculum because of its
ability to “reflect a real-world environment” (cf., Greene, Katz, and Johan-
nisson, 2004; Kuratko, 2005). Additionally, these experiential activities have
provided opportunities for students to engage in learning in a significantly
different way from the typical “teacher-centered” classroom, predominated
by lecture, note-taking, and rote learning.
The lack of ‘hands-on’ opportunities was not the only criticism of busi-
ness school curricula, as business schools also faced condemnation for a
lack of consideration of ethics and stakeholders beyond stockholders. Busi-
ness schools were disparaged for educating “critters with lopsided brains,
icy hearts, and shrunken souls” (Leavitt, 1989: 39). Reinforced by the
343
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
highly public, ethical indiscretions of major businesses and their executives,

the AACSB revised its accreditation standards to include an emphasis on
social responsibility and its importance in the business school curriculum
(AACSB, 2004). One method that business schools chose to address this
issue was through the development of service learning options for course
credit, which provided opportunities for students to actively engage in com-
munity service activities, and then reflect upon their experiences in those
projects. Research shows that service learning has three important outcomes:
students develop a greater awareness of social problems, students’ personal
values are affected, and students’ learning is enhanced as a result of their par-
ticipation in these experiential projects (Markus, Howard and King, 1993).
Social entrepreneurial ventures are necessarily tied to the communities in

which they operate, and therefore provide a laboratory for students to par-
ticipate in a variety of forms of service learning.

The efficacy of active learning opportunities (including service learning)
has been recognized in the study of grounded learning theory, which suggests
that students learn inductively when given the opportunity to engage with
the phenomenon of study (Schwarz, 1985; Corner et al., 2006). In this way,
grounded learning is conceptually similar to grounded theory (e.g., Glaser
and Strauss, 1967). Grounded learning is “learning by doing” (Schwarz,
1985), and is characterized by the following elements: a real-world experi-
ence, optimized transfer of learning across settings (classroom to real-world),
integration of theory and practice, and shifted responsibility and account-
ability for learning from teacher to student(s) (Mosca and Howard, 1997).
GROUNDED LEARNING AS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Edun LIVE on Campus

Much of the application of grounded learning in business classrooms has
focused on the use of cases as a learning tool in strategy classrooms. The
remainder of this paper will be used to describe a case which provides
the opportunity for students to experience grounded learning in a social
entrepreneurial context. The case, Edun LIVE on Campus, is a ‘living’ busi-
ness case, with ‘real-world’ business problems, concerns, and accountabil-
ity. It offers the opportunity for students to experience the unique features
of social ventures as identified by Tracey and Phillips (2007), while at the
same time experiencing the fundamentals of grounded learning. Addition-
ally, Edun LIVE on Campus introduces and connects students to real societal
problems, concerns and responsibility.
344
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
Background on Edun. Edun is a for-profit, socially conscious clothing busi-

ness focused on developing sustainable employment in poverty stricken
regions like sub-Saharan Africa (For additional information on Edun and
their social entrepreneurial approach, please see Smith and Barr, 2007).
Spurred by the goal to go beyond simply providing aid to the people of
African nations as governments and individuals have done for many decades,
Edun’s principals (rock star, Bono; his wife, Ali Hewson; and designer Rogan
Gregory) sought to identify and build opportunities for trade in the develop-
ing world. Particularly, Edun is focused on a micro-level approach to pro-
vide ongoing, sustainable employment in the garment industry. The potential
social impact of this entrepreneurial approach is substantiated in the empiri-
cal research that suggests that poverty will not be solved by capital intensive
(such as heavy manufacturing) or skill intensive sectors (such as informa-
tion technology). The argument is that the trickle down effects of economic
growth are too slow. That is, to immediately affect poverty, the focus must be
directed towards providing employment in labor intensive low skill sectors
such as garments (Kochhar et al., 2006).
As a social entrepreneurial venture, Edun is faced with the challenge of
balancing social and economic issues. To assist in making decisions that have
both social and economic ramifications, Edun developed a staged-decision
making process where social considerations preceded economic considera-
tions (Kemp-Griffin, 2007). The social considerations included the following
three questions: (1) Where do people need the business most? (2) Where are
workers paid and treated most fairly? (3) Where does the business help the
development of rural livelihoods? These criteria serve a screening function
in the decision making process and provide Edun with a smaller sub-set of
potential partners from which to make a selection decision (Beach, 1990).
Edun also wanted to develop a sustainable business model that other
companies could replicate, and to build the skill set of the African work-
ers. Clothing sold under the Edun label is high-end, designer-oriented, and
expensive. Made of all organic fibers, the market for the designs is small,
and the principals of the company realized that this product line was unlikely
to generate the necessary funds to fulfill the mission of the organization in
a long-term, sustainable way. Given that reality, the company executives
began to consider other markets, and other clothing options that might be
more suitable and successful for long-term viability. After several consid-
erations, the company decided to produce premium t-shirts under the Edun
LIVE label. By producing and selling premium t-shirts, Edun has been able
to provide fair wages, education, medical services, etc. to the African factory
workers manufacturing their products.
345
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
The production of t-shirts represented an opportunity for creating sustain-

able employment in sub-Saharan Africa for several reasons. First, compared
to high-end clothing, t-shirts offered a more significant opportunity for high
volume production. In this way, the workload was more consistent and larger.
Second, the production of t-shirts could be achieved with relatively low-
skilled labor, which allows for the inclusion of more workers in sub-Saharan
Africa. Finally, the production of t-shirts offered an opportunity to increase
employment through the entire supply chain creating a “grower-to-sower”
economic development solution.
Following the production of the t-shirts, the blank t-shirts could be printed
with whatever artwork or logo the consumers wanted to express on them.
Priced relatively inexpensively compared to their high end fashion brand,

the t-shirts represented a far larger overall market than high-end designer
clothing. One segment of that market, considered an important one, was

college students.
Edun LIVE on Campus. Edun LIVE on Campus is a social entrepreneurial
partnership between Edun and a Midwestern university, whose mission is
to sell t-shirts to the college student market and beyond to help alleviate
poverty through sustainable employment in sub-Saharan Africa (for more
information, please see www.edunliveoncampus.com).The partnership was
created in a series of meetings between Edun’s CEO and the Director of
the Social Entrepreneurship program at the university. The partnership has
provided mutually beneficial outcomes of penetrating the college market
for Edun and providing educational opportunities for hands-on practical
experiences by students in the practice of social entrepreneurship for the
university, which is the focus of this paper. It is to these experiences that we
now turn our attention.
As students returned to campus in the fall of 2006, Edun LIVE on Campus
was simply an idea. Within the domain of entrepreneurship, one of the major
areas of inquiry is the exploitation of the idea (e.g., Shane and Venkataraman,
2000). However, according to Bill Drayton, founder of Ashoka and funder of
hundreds of social entrepreneurs, “There is nothing more powerful than an
idea in the hands of a social entrepreneur” (c.f. Bornstein, 2004). As evidence
of this statement, over a four month period in that fall of 2006, a group of
fifteen students assisted by a faculty advisor, took an idea and turned it into
a reality. The reality was the creation of a t-shirt business which used shirts
produced by Edun LIVE through fair trade practices in sub-Saharan Africa.
As such, the students engaged in the real life experience of launching and
developing a social venture from scratch. The initial goals of the experience
were four-fold: (1) to acquire the human capital resources to pursue Edun
346
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
LIVE on Campus; (2) to develop a business plan to launch the business;

(3) to launch the business itself as a proof of concept of the prototypical
model that could be expanded to other campuses; and (4) to gain approval
from the Edun executive team to move forward with the roll out to other
campuses.
While the idea for Edun LIVE on Campus represented a potential social
entrepreneurial opportunity, it lacked the individuals needed to turn the idea
into a reality. As the new academic year began, the idea for Edun LIVE
on Campus was presented informally by the faculty advisor to a couple of
students. Now, it was up to the students to acquire the human capital to
exploit the opportunity.
The acquisition of resources, including the human capital of the founding

team, is one of the greatest challenges facing entrepreneurs (Brush, Greene
and Hart, 2001). The students began by using their social networks to reach
out to others whom they knew. They used listservs and FaceBook to commu-
nicate the idea. They also talked to several professors to identify potential
team members. In the early stages, the initial members accepted anyone
willing to help. Over time, the team developed into a total of fifteen students
representing several different majors and colleges across the university. The
majority of students, including the president of the team, were business
school students. As human resources were acquired, the team began identi-
fying roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for the team members.
A second important goal was to develop a business plan to launch the
business. Two sub-groups of students were formed to build the business
plan. The business plan was not only for the launch of the pilot program
at this school, but would also be used by the Edun executives to assess the
feasibility of the college market business model. While the development of
business plans is common in entrepreneurship curriculum, the experience in
the development of this plan was less common given its social focus, and
the fact that its development coincided with the launch of the business itself.
As such, the development of the plan and the development of the business
were intertwined allowing for testing of assumptions and feedback on various
strategies. In addition, this plan was different than commercial business plans
because it was primarily focused on the delivery of social value rather than
economic value. The plan needed to be economically viable for the purpose
of sustainability but it also had to focus on the primary mission of social
value. In this way, the students gained first hand experience in managing a
double-bottom line.
Another important goal of the experience was the actual launch of the
social entrepreneurial business of Edun LIVE on Campus. To launch the
347
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
business, the students were involved in every aspect of starting a business.

From an internal perspective, this began with the identification of the human
resources. It also included developing all of the processes and procedures of
the organization from processing an order to developing a financial report-
ing system. From an external perspective, the launch involved identifying,
selecting and contracting with a screen printer. It included marketing the
social venture to students, faculty and businesses. This was done through
many low cost radical marketing techniques including spray chalk, Face-
Book and coffee meetings.
One of the critical issues was to raise awareness on campus about how
Edun LIVE on Campus was offering more than just a t-shirt but also the social
value of economic development in Africa. To raise awareness, the students

created an originally designed, socially conscious t-shirt. On the front of the
shirt, it read, “I Know Who Made My Shirt, Do You?” The purpose of this
message was to initiate a conversation about the social issues of extreme
poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and of some of the unethical practices in
the garment industry such as child labor. The back of the shirt told of the
socially entrepreneurial solution of Edun LIVE, arranged in the shape of
the continent of Africa, to address these problems. The project and t-shirt
were also featured in the student newspaper and resulted in the theme of the
program “Changing the world, one t-shirt at a time.”
Edun LIVE on Campus as Grounded Learning. As identified earlier in this
paper, grounded learning is made up of four basic elements: (1) offering real
world experience, (2) increasing learning transfer, (3) integrating theory and
practice, and (4) shifting learning responsibility more directly to students.
The following highlights how the Edun LIVE on Campus case addresses each
of these factors. (It should be noted that while this discussion highlights the
start-up of this business venture, a subsequent team of students is continuing
to run this business venture, and therefore, the opportunities for learning
among multiple teams of students into the future are possible.)
Offering real world experience. While cases are useful for simulating real
world experience, Edun LIVE on Campus was and continues to be a real
world experience. Every aspect of the program – from the development of the
team to conference calls and the board meeting with the Edun executives –
has been a real world experience. This element of the project got students out
of the hypothetical world and into the real world where their decisions had
and will continue to have significant impact and consequences. The success
or failure of Edun LIVE on Campus has relied upon the efforts of the student
launch team. If a successful pilot program could develop an effective business
348
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
model, then the social venture could be replicated at hundreds of campuses.

However, if it did not work, then the model would likely not be pursued in
other locations. As a result, there were significant consequences not only for
Edun but also for the delivering of sustainable economic development for
the people of sub-Saharan Africa. The program also enabled students to get
into the real world issues of building a team, developing an organizational
structure and process, designing a business plan, addressing contingencies,
and interacting with executives. In these ways, the program provided an
opportunity for first-hand experience with entrepreneurial issues.
In terms of social entrepreneurship education, the program provided
students with the opportunity to build a real world business solution that
contributes to reducing extreme poverty. Ongoing interaction between the

students and the executives at Edun provided the chance for the students
to both understand and contribute to the ongoing adaptation of the social

entrepreneurship venture model. Issues of cost-related concerns and deliv-
ery times were balanced with the need to produce product in Africa in order
to achieve the ultimate social mission of the organization. The processes of
sales and marketing included the promotion of the mission of the organi-
zation, not just the product itself. In each of these cases, the students were
personally involved in dealing with real-world issues involving actual com-
pany executives and actual customers while learning about the existence and
nature of social entrepreneurial ventures.
Increasing learning transfer. In the Edun LIVE on Campus project, the trans-
fer of learning was increased by the real time, real world development of
the business and by interaction with the different forms of resources needed
to support a social entrepreneurial venture. Over the course of the project,
students found themselves in many situations that they would face in the real
world (Mosca and Howard, 1997). For example, in an effort to sell premium
priced t-shirts, students were confronted with the issue of selling a product
based upon social rather than financial issues. This process required the stu-
dents to become more knowledgeable of the social issues being addressed
and resulted in greater social awareness being communicated to potential
customers.
Beyond feedback from customers, the students received ongoing feedback
from the faculty advisor and interacted with different stakeholders, including
Edun executives and the seed investor who provided the initial seed capi-
tal to the launch the project. In this way, the students gained not only an
understanding of the motivations of additional stakeholders who supported
the launch of the venture for social reasons but also a keen understanding
349
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
of the need to become self-sufficient through an earned income strategy.

Thus, the students began to understand the challenges and complexities of
managing the double bottom line and gained a first hand view of why an
increasing number of non-profit organizations are engaging in social enter-
prises to develop commercial activities. In each of these situations, students
needed to be responsive and gain first hand knowledge about addressing the
issues of multiple stakeholders while managing a double bottom line of a
social venture.
Integrating theory and practice. In this project, students were required to

draw upon the theoretical knowledge gained in a multitude of courses.
Through Edun LIVE on Campus, the students had the opportunity to begin
to experiment with these theories and see first hand issues of management
(leadership, organizational processes, and motivational issues); marketing

(consumer decision, promotion of the product, post-sale service, and supply
chain decisions); entrepreneurship (team formation, opportunity exploita-
tion, dynamic environment) and many other disciplines. In addition, stu-
dents were required to think across disciplinary and functional silos to craft
creative solutions in the face of real world constraints.
To facilitate student learning and knowledge transfer, individual and
group meetings were held on a regular basis with the faculty advisor to
discuss salient issues related to both social entrepreneurship and the execu-
tion of the business. Similar to toggling back and forth between theory and
data in grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), these meetings provided
stimuli for the iterative process of students moving back and forth between
the theory and practice of social entrepreneurship as they attempted to build a
sustainable organization. This approach is also consistent with Gowin’s Vee
heuristic in which “students need help to recognize: (1) what events or objects
they are observing, (2) what concepts they already know that relate to these
events or objects, and (3) what records are worth noting” (Novak and Gowin,
1984: 6). As such, the interaction of students and faculty facilitated the ongo-
ing process of knowledge construction. It also allowed students to reflect on
their decisions and actions, an important component of service learning.
The project also provided an opportunity for the students to learn first-
hand about the unique aspects of social entrepreneurship such as the devel-
opment of a social impact theory in which they began to elaborate, recognize
and understand the interrelated processes that lead to the delivery of social
value (Guclu, Dees and Anderson, 2003). As the project progressed, the stu-
dents became involved in developing a strategy for the scaling of the social
impact. This learning will be further complemented in the future through
350
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
first hand trips to Africa where the students will begin to engage in the
challenging process of measuring social returns.
Shifting learning responsibility more directly to the students. The final ele-
ment of grounded learning addresses a shift in the relationship between
the faculty and student. This shift often results in positive interdependence
between the faculty and the student and increased personal accountability
by the student. In the current example, the faculty advisor and the students
engaged directly in an interdependent relationship. The students relied on
the faculty member to interact with Edun and to provide guidance especially
on strategic issues as they developed the business and the business plan. This
interdependence occurred over the course of hundreds of telephone calls and

dozens of meetings between the advisor and students. However, the ultimate
responsibility for the development of both the plan and the business rested
with the students. In many cases, this required the students to engage in a
process of discovery in the pursuit of knowledge when they lacked informa-
tion. In other cases, this resulted in peer-to-peer learning as students with
knowledge in one area shared it with students lacking such knowledge.
The shifting of responsibilities also provided the chance for students to
learn first hand the management of the dual identities of social ventures. To
illustrate, the students were placed in charge of pricing of orders. In this
way, the students were forced to make decisions on a case by case basis of
how much to charge each customer. In the process, the students had to begin
making trade-offs between economic and social considerations. Was it more
important to provide the lowest possible price to try to secure the order or
was it more important to be profitable to keep the project sustainable? The
students not only took responsibility for the financial aspects of the business
but also wrestled with the tensions created by the integration of the economic
and social dimensions of a social venture.
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
We have identified the ways that learning should occur within the context
of the Edun LIVE on Campus case, however, it is more difficult to measure
whether or not learning actually occurred. To determine whether or not the
fundamental elements of grounded learning theory were achieved, we asked
the student participants in the project to provide feedback to us in written
form through the use of a questionnaire of open-ended questions relating to
their perceptions of what they learned about social entrepreneurship from
351
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
the Edun LIVE on Campus experience. Specifically, we asked about their

prior knowledge of social entrepreneurship, the skills that they developed
or enhanced as a function of working on the project, their perceptions of
their own learning in comparison to a more ‘typical’ classroom setting, and
their perceived benefits of this experience. The students’ comments indicate
overall, that their participation in the live case of Edun LIVE on Campus was
both positive and productive in terms of their own learning. The quotes from
students associated with the project (see Table 1) are reflective of some of
the knowledge, skills, and key insights that they have taken away from this
Table 1. Selected questions asked and representative student comments received upon com-
pletion of the Edun LIVE on Campus (ELOC) project.
1. What did you know about social entrepreneurship before you became involved with
ELOC?
• Honestly, before I became a part of the ELOC team, I didn’t even know that a thing
called social entrepreneurship existed. I had never heard of Edun or any other
similar initiatives whose goals were directed toward delivering social value. I came
onto the Edun team with a blank slate.
• I knew what social entrepreneurship was but had never seen an example of it. I have
intuitively understood it for many years and its basic premise is the reason I got into
fundraising 9 years ago. Until last year, however, I never had a label for it.
2. Why did you become involved in ELOC?
• I chose to become a part of the ELOC team because I wanted to direct my time and
energy toward a cause that really mattered - that really made a difference. Being a
single person often times seems like you cannot make a serious impact on the world,
but I felt with being a part of ELOC I could finally make a difference through the
way in which I chose to spend my time and efforts.
• I joined ELOC because of the potential it has to make a big difference. Other
projects I have been involved in similar to this have lacked serious financial backing
and/or vision. This seemed to have both. Since I’m not a full-time student, I didn’t
seek out any other student organizations.
• I studied abroad in India two summers ago and witnessed the extreme poverty
firsthand. I was extremely overwhelmed. As soon as I got back to Miami I heard
about ELOC and was amazed by the business concept. I knew it was the perfect way
for me to help.
3. What skills, if any, did you develop or enhance as a result of participating in ELOC?
What are some examples?
• I enjoy the benefits of not only helping out a great cause, but also being involved in
a real world company as a college student. It is awesome to be able to get real world
experience as a college student and put the practices we are taught in class to action.
Being taught about entrepreneurship just does not compare to actually being
352
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
Table 1. (Continued)
involved in an entrepreneurial start up. They tell you that being an entrepreneur has
its up days and its down days, but you honestly can’t even imagine what that could
feel like until you actually experience it.
• I struggled to be part of the sales team but it stretched my gifts and talents to help
me improve my sales skills.
• I enhanced my skill of working with different people (i.e. — students, faculty,
celebrities, international citizens) and of thinking through all details of a project. I
also sharpened my ability to be self-motivated.
• Before ELOC, I had very limited knowledge of business ideas and practices;
however, now, I have a very broad understanding of almost all business concepts. In
addition to the business skills I developed as a result of ELOC, my leadership and

management skills have also improved. Being in charge of a 30 member team has
taught me how to manage people as individuals and work with each individual to see
what the best way to work with each other is. Getting used to managing people on a
one-on-one basis is a very important skill that I continue to develop every day. The
last skills I have enhanced as a result of ELOC are my creative vision and flexibility.
Before, I was very focused on minute details and things very in the moment. Now, I
have visions for where I want to be and can be more flexible in getting to where that
vision is. I don’t have such a hard time with trying to cover every detail to the point
that I miss the big picture. I am always looking for ways to improve and strengthen
the organization instead of being so focused in on minute details.
4. How would you compare learning through ELOC to learning in a typical classroom
setting?
• Learning through ELOC compared to a typical classroom is a completely different
world. Ideas and concepts taught in a classroom can only be communicated to a
certain extent compared to getting actual hands on experience through a real world
company. Business practices such as marketing is so much different when you are
actually trying to responses as opposed to reading out of a text book or through
simulations. Also, I remember in one of my first entrepreneurship classes, my
professor said that in entrepreneurial start ups the lows can be very low and the
highs can be extraordinarily high; however, it wasn’t until I was actually placed in
the setting that I understood that. Things are constantly changing and you really just
have to learn to roll with the punches and feel thankful when you do get those great
high days.
• I learned more about starting one’s own business through ELOC than I have through
all of my entrepreneurship classes combined. The hands on experience is worth so
much more than reading about cases in a classroom setting.
• There’s nothing like having direct responsibility for something to realize how "real"
the need for knowing what you’re doing is. ELOC sort of forces people to learn
because if you don’t, the organization tanks.
5. What do you know about social entrepreneurship after your involvement in ELOC?
• The most important thing I know about social entrepreneurship as a result of my
involvement with ELOC is that these social ventures really do make a difference in
353
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
Table 1. (Continued)
the areas that we are trying to help improve. It is amazing to see these locally owned
factories in Africa get the business and have the employment opportunities they
deserve. It is amazing to know that there are people who care enough about social
change over the bottom line. It is incredible to know that this idea of social
entrepreneurship can work and make an actual long term change.
• I learned that there are many models of social entrepreneurship out there and that
the challenge is to remember that it does not always have to be a for-profit business
model. I also learned that start-up organizations may do well to have an objective
source to guide its development because many times the people doing the actual
work get so embroiled in the specifics of running the business that some of the more
strategic things may get delayed.

• I’ve learned that starting a business is so much more than a big idea. ELOC has
helped me experience different roadblocks when it comes to business and it has
really helped me develop my creative and strategic thinking skills.

• I now know that social entrepreneurship is not just charity work. It is a successful
business that helps improve the lives of others.
6. How do you think that your participation in ELOC will affect your future career
choice?
• After participating in ELOC, I think it is going to be hard for me to participate in
any other activities (including a job or career) that does not have the kind of social
drive and mission that ELOC does. I don’t know if I can ever justify spending hours
on end of my time working for something that doesn’t have a significant cause or
mission. I realize that opportunities like working with ELOC don’t come along very
often, but I know there are plenty of companies and organizations out there with the
same intent and drive and I intend on finding those and dedicating myself to them as
my years go on.
• It has already prepared me for my internship this summer. It helps me understand
the material I’m learning in my classes more fully and I hope that it will continue to
help me in the future.
experience. Additionally, it is clear from their comments that the students’

awareness of the social issues addressed by this social enterprise was raised,
and a greater understanding of the power of social enterprise was developed.
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
As evidenced by the fact that entrepreneurship courses are taught at nearly

every AACSB accredited school and over 1,400 post-secondary schools
(Katz, 2003), the explosive growth in entrepreneurship education programs
is unquestioned. While traditional approaches to entrepreneurship education
have much to contribute, the rapid emergence of social entrepreneurship has
354
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
been relatively neglected in the entrepreneurship education literature to date.

The increase in both academic and practitioner interest in the topic of social
entrepreneurship offers the opportunity for entrepreneurship programs to
expand coursework and pedagogical approaches that embrace the nuances
of this important activity. To ignore the growing number of social ventures
worldwide and in our educational programs is not in the best interest of
our students, nor these organizations. Therefore, identifying ways to bring
the concept of social entrepreneurship into our classrooms is essential. The
case of Edun LIVE on Campus is an illustration of how entrepreneurship
programs can make a social venture come alive for students, and teach prin-
ciples of social entrepreneurship at the same time. Using grounded learning
as the underlying theory, this example provides some initial evidence of

how students learn through their day-to-day involvement in this experiential
activity.
As suggested by student participants, the experiential learning in this case
complemented their learning in the classroom. These complementary ben-
efits may be due, in part, to a pedagogical approach to social entrepreneur-
ship education that draws on experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984). In
Kolb’s model, the process of experiential learning occurs through the learn-
ing modes of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract concep-
tualization and active experimentation. By providing opportunities for both
concrete experiences and active experimentation, the ‘live case’ approach
allowed students to gain knowledge about social entrepreneurship through
their transformation of experience. Recognizing that students each have a
dominant learning style (Kolb, 1984), future research could begin to under-
stand how live cases may be more or less useful to the experiential learning of
a student depending on their learning style. Future research could also extend
the boundaries of explanatory theories as developed through grounded learn-
ing to more operational theories as suggested by grounded action (Simmons
and Gregory, 2003).
Research in the domain of entrepreneurship has found evidence that edu-
cational programs increase the intentions of students by increasing their per-
ceived desirability and feasibility (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). In the case
of social entrepreneurship education, it may well be that an increase in inten-
tions may be constrained more by feasibility than be desirability. Some ini-
tial research on the attractiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities found that
social impact was one of the most desirable attributes of an entrepreneurial
opportunity among undergraduate entrepreneurship students (Smith, Kickul
and Wilson, forthcoming). Despite the perceived desirability of these types
of opportunities that focus on the creation of social value, many students who
355
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
launch ventures generally focus more on economic rather than social value
creation. One possible way to reduce the potential gap between perceived
desirability and action may be through the use of experiential learning simi-
lar to the presented case. Through participation in real-world social ventures,
students may recognize that social ventures are possible and may increase
their perceived feasibility of launching such ventures. Given the exploratory
nature of this discussion, one important direction for future research on social
entrepreneurship education is to begin to disentangle the issues of perceived
desirability and feasibility.
The experiential approach to social entrepreneurship education may well
serve a number of important functions both now and in the future. First, the
grounded learning generated by the live case we presented may allow stu-
dents to understand that social entrepreneurship “often creates social value
through both the end product and the processes” (Dees, 1994). In the case
of Edun LIVE on Campus, the creation of social value occurred not only
through the economic development in sub-Saharan Africa but also as social
value created in the education of the students who launched the venture. As
such, the creation and development of the project provided a hands-on expe-
rience that is consistent with AACSB suggestions and represents a promising
direction for understanding the nuances of social entrepreneurship. The pro-
gram has also provided a promising new market of college students for Edun
LIVE products. The ongoing partnership between Edun and the university
has continued to develop. Beyond the visit to campus, Edun executives have
participated in dozens of phone calls and hundreds of e-mails with members
of the university. This past summer, the lead student from Edun LIVE on
Camus was selected for an internship in Dublin, Ireland at Edun LIVE’s
headquarters. Edun has also sought out the participation of university per-
sonnel for key strategic alliance meetings with retailers, distributors and
consulting firms.
Looking forward, social ventures, like the one described, provide a poten-
tial opportunity for students to understand the “scaling up” of social impact.
Social entrepreneurship is about finding ways to address ongoing social
issues and about affecting systematic change of both attitudes and behaviors
on a much wider scale (Bornstein, 2004). Scaling up is the process of expand-
ing social innovations to maximize the social value to better address the social
problem or need (Dees, Anderson and Wei-Skillern, 2002). An activity like
the Edun LIVE on Campus has the ability to have long-term social impact
through expansion to other college campuses.2 This may constitute a very
unique characteristic of social entrepreneurship, which, as opposed to tra-
ditional entrepreneurship, is not so much concerned with competition and
356
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
intellectual property issues. Indeed, the potential of replication is often con-

sidered as an important criterion to evaluate the quality of a social venture
idea, because the more nascent social entrepreneurs copy and enhance ideas
such as the current project, the more social value is generated and more
possibilities of learning are opened. By developing and expanding hands-on
social enterprises to other universities, the social value of grounded learning
and economic development can be replicated at campuses all over the world.
Another future direction for both pedagogy and research in social
entrepreneurship education is to create an opportunity for students to become
involved in raising capital for social ventures. While the capital market for
commercial entrepreneurial ventures is relatively more developed, the capital
markets for social ventures are still emerging. While some work on the types
of funding sources for social ventures exists (e.g., Dees, 1996), the chang-
ing landscape requires increased attention to this important issue for both
prospective funders and prospective social entrepreneurs. For example, the
advent of venture philanthropy whereby venture capital-like approaches are
used in the initial and continued funding of social ventures raises some inter-
esting questions about the desirability and effectiveness of these approaches
to funding social ventures (Sievers, 2001). One way for students to gain a
better understanding of these issues is through engaging them in the pro-
cess of raising capital, setting milestones and reporting on progress. At a
minimum, the integration of social venture financial markets represents an
important educational and research opportunity, one that may be increas-
ingly understood through hands-on engagement with participants in these
markets.
A final direction for future research raised by this case is the issue of mea-
surement of impact. For our purposes, we will highlight two issues associ-
ated with the measurement of impact – the impact of student learning and the
impact to a wider range of stakeholders. Given the pedagogical focus of this
paper, the measurement of impact was primarily focused on student learning.
As presented in Table 1, the experiential learning approach of Edun LIVE
on Campus provided a useful means of learning about social entrepreneur-
ship. These results are consistent with findings from McMullan and Boberg
(1991) who found experiential approaches were considered more effective
than classroom based approaches to teaching entrepreneurship. While this
is a promising first step, the results of this study must be considered in light
of the limitations of the small sample size of students and the subjective
nature of the qualitative data gathered from the students. Future research
on the measurement of student learning could draw from increasingly more
sophisticated methodologies and data analysis. For example, Storey (2000)
357
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
presents a series of six different approaches to the monitoring and evaluation

of impact in the entrepreneurship domain culminating in the use of statisti-
cal techniques and use of random panels. These same approaches offer great
promise to the measurement of impact of student learning.
Beyond the issue of methodology, future research on the measurement of
impact could invoke a much broader stakeholder approach and focus more
directly on ethical issues of social entrepreneurial ventures. As defined by
Freeman (1984: 46), “a stakeholder in an organization is any group or indi-
vidual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s
objectives.” Moving beyond the stakeholders of the student participants, a
stakeholder analysis of the measurement of impact could include a much
wider range of individuals and organizations. For example, in the case of

Edun LIVE on Campus, a stakeholder analysis may include the measure-
ment of impact on such entities as the individuals and the factories of sub-
Saharan Africa, the executives from Edun, the students who purchase the
t-shirts as consumers to name a few. Such an approach begins to drill down
into the complexities of measuring the social impact of the organization
(Kramer, 2005). This approach offers an additional opportunity for both stu-
dent learning and a broader understanding of the role of context in the social
entrepreneurial process (Austin et al., 2006).
In addition, a stakeholder view may also raise some of the ethical issues
associated with social entrepreneurship.3 While research about the ethical
issues associated with commercial entrepreneurship continues to emerge
(e.g., Hannafey, 2003; Fisscher, Frenkel, Lurie and Nijhof, 2005), much less
attention has been focused on ethical issues and the potential ‘dark side’
of social entrepreneurship (Zahra, et al., forthcoming). Using an ethical
stakeholder lens, numerous questions emerge about the both the benefits and
costs of social entrepreneurship to the full range of people and organizations
affected by the venture. Rather than starting do novo, research agendas in
areas such as fair trade (Moore, 2004) may be instructive and fruitful avenues
to inform this line of inquiry.
As Edun LIVE on Campus has continued to evolve, important issues
such as the compensation of students involved in running the social venture
have been raised.4 In the case of Edun LIVE on Campus, the management
of these ethical issues will be addressed in collaboration with the exec-
utive student team of Edun LIVE on Campus, faculty administrators and
donors. As such, involvement in ethical issues about social entrepreneurship
represents another opportunity for both additional examples of experiential
learning and increased scholarly research. In sum, the use of an experiential
learning approach to social entrepreneurship provides several benefits as a
358
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
pedagogical approach and provides many avenues for future research includ-
ing the scaling, the measurement of impact and the ethical issues related to
social entrepreneurship.
CONCLUSION
The current paper addresses the emerging opportunity in entrepreneurship

education to focus on understanding some of the unique issues in the area of
social entrepreneurship education. With the growth of social enterprises and
social entrepreneurship academic programs, it is appropriate for programs
to develop courses and alternative pedagogical approaches that provide the

opportunity to engage students in finding innovative solutions to social prob-
lems. The Edun LIVE on Campus student-run social venture is one example
of how the tools of social entrepreneurship can be used to contribute to help
alleviate extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. This innovative approach to
management education offers a real-life educational experience to students in
the practice of social entrepreneurship, through the use of grounded learning
theory, and provides a template of a social entrepreneurship model that can
be used in entrepreneurship education to address other pressing social prob-
lems. Such an approach may also allow for the mutually enriching process
of closer integration of theory and the practice of social entrepreneurship.
Opportunities to develop social ventures in educational settings are endless,
as are the learning capacities of highly motivated and engaged students.
Social entrepreneurship may constitute a particularly favorable environment
to raise motivation, commitment, and learning through action.
ENDNOTES
1 Both commercial and social entrepreneurs are engaged in the discovery and exploita-
tion of opportunities, the marshalling of resources and the development of founding
teams and networks to develop the venture.
2 The program has recently been expanded to two other universities in the United States.
There are ongoing conversations with more than 20 colleges and universities about
adoption of Edun LIVE on Campus.
3 We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this important issue.
4 At the founding of Edun LIVE on Campus, students joined the project as a co-curricular
activity and received no course credit or compensation. As specific academic deliver-
ables have been identified, students have earned academic credit for specific aspects
359
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
of the project. Graphic designers have been ‘compensated’ for their work with a per
design donation made to an identified charity. Direct financial compensation to team
members has recently been approved based on discussions with the executive team of
Edun LIVE on Campus, academic personnel and donors of the start-up capital.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2004). Ethics Education in Busi-

ness Schools, St. Louis, MO: AACSB.
Austin, J., Gutierrez, R. and Ogliastri, E. (2006). Effective Management of Social Enter-
prises: Lessons from Businesses and Civil Society in Iberoamerica, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneur-
ship: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (31): 1–22.
Barr, T. and McNeilly, K. (2002). The Value of Students’ Classroom Experiences from the
Eyes of the Recruiter: Information, Implications and Recommendations for Marketing
Educators. Journal of Marketing Education, (24): 168–173.
Beach, L. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts,
Chichester: Wiley.
Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new
ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brush, C., Greene, P. and Hart, M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The
challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, (15):
64–80.
Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship. International Small Business
Journal, (25): 5–26.
Corner, P., Bowden, S. Clark, Collins, E. Gibb, J. Kearins, K. and Pavlovich, K. (2006).
Grounded Learning from a Strategy Case Competition. Journal of Management Edu-
cation, (30): 431–454.
Dees, G. (1994). Social Enterprise: Private Initiatives for the Common Good. Harvard
Business School 9-395-116, November 30.
Dees, G. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from
http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_sedef.pdf
Dees, G. (1996). Sources of financing for new nonprofit ventures. Harvard Business School
9-391-097, July 9.
Dees, G., Anderson, B. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2003). Pathways to social impact: Strategies
for scaling out successful social innovations. Duke University, CASE Working Paper
Series.
Dees, G., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social
entrepreneurs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Doherty, B. and Thompson, J. (2006). The diverse world of social enterprise. International
Journal of Social Economics, (33): 361–375.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Fisscher, O., Frenkel, D., Lurie, Y. and Nijhof, A. (2005). Stretching the frontiers: Exploring
the relationships between entrepreneurship and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, (60):
207–209.
360
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Harper

Collins.
Greene, P. G., Katz, J. A. and Johannisson, B. (2004). From the guest co-editors. Academy
of Management Learning and Education, (3): 238–241.
Guclu, A., Dees, G. and Anderson, B. (2002). The process of social entrepreneurship:
Creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit. Duke University, CASE Working
Paper Series.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Hannafey, F. (2003). Entrepreneurship and ethics: A literature review. Journal of Business
Ethics, (46): 99–110.
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education. Journal of Business Venturing, (18): 283–300.
Kemp-Griffin, C. (2007). Trade not aid: Reducing poverty through sustainable business.
Presented as part of Social Entrepreneurship Lecture Series, Miami University.
Kochhar, K., Kumar, U. Rajan, R., Subramanian, A. and Tokatlidis, I. (2006). India’s pattern
of development. What happened? What follows? Journal of Monetary Economics, 53:

981–1019.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and develop-
ment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kramer, M. (2005). Measuring innovation: Evaluation in the field of social entrepreneurship
(Skoll Foundation).
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends,
and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (29): 577–597.
Leavitt, H. (1989). Educating our MBAs: On teaching what we haven’t taught. California
Management Review, (31), 38–50.
Markus, G., Howard, J. and King, D. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom
instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, (15): 410–419.
McMullan, C. and Boberg, A. (1991). The relative effectiveness of projects in teaching
entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, (9): 14–24.
Moore, G. (2004). The Fair Trade movement: Parameters, issues and future research.
Journal of Business Ethics, (53): 73–86.
Mosca, J. and Howard, L. (1997). Grounded learning: Breathing life into business education.
Journal of Education for Business, (73): 90–94.
Novak, J. and Gowin, B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003). Entrepreneurship education: Influencing stu-
dents’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (28):
129–144.
Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. T. (2006). The end of business schools? Less success than meets
the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, (1): 78–95.
Porter, L. and McKibben, L. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or
thrust in the 21st century, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of Management Review, (25): 217–226.
Shinn, S. (2006). The dimensions of peace. BizEd, May/June, 24–31.
361
March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023
Sievers, B. (2001). If pigs had wings: The appeals and limits of venture philanthropy.
Presented to Waldemar A. Nielsen Issues in Philanthropy Seminar, Georgetown Uni-
versity.
Simmons, O. and Gregory, T. (2003). Grounded action: Achieving optimal and sustainable
change. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
4: Art. 27, http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-03/3-03simmonsgregory-
e.htm
Smith, B. and Barr, T. (2007). Reducing poverty through social entrepreneurship: The Case
of Edun. In C. Wankel & J. Stoner (eds.), Innovative Approaches to Reducing Poverty,
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Smith, B., Kickul, J. and Wilson, F. (forthcoming) Entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation: A
discrete choice analysis of economic and social opportunity attributes. In K. Hockerts,
J. Mair and J. Robinson (eds.), Values and Opportunities in Social Entrepreneurship.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Storey, D. (2000). Six steps to heaven: Evaluating impact of public policies to support
small business in developed economies. In Sexton, D. and Landstrom, H. (eds.), The

Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, pp. 176–193.
Schwarz, R. (1985). Grounded learning experiences: Treating the classroom as an organi-
zation. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, (11): 16–29.
Thompson, J. and Doherty, B. (2006). The diverse world of social enterprise. International
Journal of Social Economics, (33): 361–375.
Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2007). The distinctive challenge of education social
entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship edu-
cation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, (6): 264–271.
Zahra, S., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. and Schulman. J. (forthcoming). Social
Entrepreneurship: Domain, contributions and ethical dilemmas, Journal of Business
Venturing.
362

Smith Et Al 2008 JEC - Social Eship Grounded Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smith Et Al 2008 JEC - Social Eship Grounded Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 12, 2009 10:14 WSPC/108-JEC 00023

Journal of Enterprising Culture

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A GROUNDED LEARNING

TERRI FELDMAN BARR

The value of the inclusion of social entrepreneurship in entrepreneurship education

Keywords: Social entrepreneurship education.

In 2004, a special issue of the Academy of Management Learning and

Brett R. Smith et al.

academic programs focused on entrepreneurship, this special issue reflected

and entrepreneurship education limited to the study of for-profit business

(SOCIAL) ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION

An entrepreneur is generally conceived of as an innovator looking for oppor-

innovation and resourcefulness, the social entrepreneur ultimately seeks to

including the study of social entrepreneurship in their curricula. In support

UNIQUE FEATURES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL

Because of the distinct focus of social entrepreneurial ventures on the

Brett R. Smith et al.

LEARNING THROUGH DOING: THE EFFICACY OF

Brett R. Smith et al.

highly public, ethical indiscretions of major businesses and their executives,

Social entrepreneurial ventures are necessarily tied to the communities in

ticipate in a variety of forms of service learning.

GROUNDED LEARNING AS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Edun LIVE on Campus

Background on Edun. Edun is a for-profit, socially conscious clothing busi-

Brett R. Smith et al.

The production of t-shirts represented an opportunity for creating sustain-

Priced relatively inexpensively compared to their high end fashion brand,

clothing. One segment of that market, considered an important one, was

LIVE on Campus; (2) to develop a business plan to launch the business;

The acquisition of resources, including the human capital of the founding

Brett R. Smith et al.

business, the students were involved in every aspect of starting a business.

value of economic development in Africa. To raise awareness, the students

model, then the social venture could be replicated at hundreds of campuses.

contributes to reducing extreme poverty. Ongoing interaction between the

to both understand and contribute to the ongoing adaptation of the social

Brett R. Smith et al.

of the need to become self-sufficient through an earned income strategy.

Integrating theory and practice. In this project, students were required to

(leadership, organizational processes, and motivational issues); marketing

interdependence occurred over the course of hundreds of telephone calls and

EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Brett R. Smith et al.

the Edun LIVE on Campus experience. Specifically, we asked about their

addition to the business skills I developed as a result of ELOC, my leadership and

Brett R. Smith et al.

strategic things may get delayed.

really helped me develop my creative and strategic thinking skills.

experience. Additionally, it is clear from their comments that the students’

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

As evidenced by the fact that entrepreneurship courses are taught at nearly

been relatively neglected in the entrepreneurship education literature to date.

as the underlying theory, this example provides some initial evidence of

Brett R. Smith et al.

intellectual property issues. Indeed, the potential of replication is often con-

Brett R. Smith et al.

presents a series of six different approaches to the monitoring and evaluation

wider range of individuals and organizations. For example, in the case of

The current paper addresses the emerging opportunity in entrepreneurship

to develop courses and alternative pedagogical approaches that provide the

Brett R. Smith et al.