Special Issue: Social Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy

2022, Vol. 5(2) 2 25­–244
Integrating Social ! The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Entrepreneurship sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/25151274211021999
Literature Through journals.sagepub.com/home/eex

Teaching

Angela E. Addae1 and

Cheryl Ellenwood2

Abstract
As boundaries between the business and social sectors dissolve, social entrepre-
neurship has emerged as a phenomenon that bridges two worlds previously divided.
Now, social entrepreneurs embrace market-based tools to address society’s greatest
challenges. Coinciding with the growth of the sector, students and researchers have
sought to understand development, growth strategies, and the practical challenges
related to social entrepreneurship. In turn, universities have bolstered social entre-
preneurship education by creating academic offerings that emphasize business, social
impact, and innovation. Still, social entrepreneurship education remains in its infancy.
Courses are as varied as the field itself, and instructors routinely rely on their
professional backgrounds and networks to develop curricula that explore the
field’s multifaceted character. Thus, social entrepreneurship courses are diverse
across disciplines, and the academic literature theorizing the phenomenon is similarly
emergent. As social entrepreneurship courses combine theoretical insights with
experiential learning in a myriad of ways, aligning theoretical insights with necessary
core competencies presents a challenge. To address this dilemma, we highlight the
importance of employing theory-driven concepts to develop core competencies in
social entrepreneurship students. In doing so, we review key threshold concepts in
the social entrepreneurship literature and suggest how instructors might link theo-
retical insights to practical skill sets.

1
School of Law, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
2
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
Corresponding Author:
Angela E. Addae, School of Law, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA.
Email: aaddae@uoregon.edu
2226 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

Keywords
social entrepreneurship, enterprise education, entrepreneurial competencies,
pedagogy

Introduction
Since Greg Dees’ (1998) illuminating work, the concept of social entrepreneur-
ship has garnered broad appeal from scholars, entrepreneurs, and students
across the globe. Not only has social entrepreneurship transformed the way
that business and social sectors intersect, but the potential to ‘do well’ while
also ‘doing good’ has captured the attention of socially-minded citizens seeking
to upend the status quo (Sullivan Mort et al., 2003). Social entrepreneurship
rewards innovation and creative market solutions that contribute to the greater
good—a characteristic that attracts changemakers from all sectors of society.
As a result, budding social entrepreneurship enthusiasts have turned to aca-
demic institutions to understand the emerging field (Tracey & Phillips, 2007). In
response, universities created degree programs, research centers, and specialty
concentrations that emphasize social entrepreneurship (Brock, 2008). Though
social entrepreneurship differs from traditional entrepreneurship, a significant
portion of social entrepreneurship programs are housed in business schools
(Wiley & Berry, 2015). Others can be found in schools of Education, Public
Administration, Social Work, International Service and Nonprofit
Management, among others (Mirabella & Eikenberry, 2017). Since social entre-
preneurship education spans multiple disciplines, social entrepreneurship
courses adopt a broad range of pedagogical approaches to theory, experiential
learning, and core competencies (Brock & Steiner, 2009). With little consensus
on the core elements of social entrepreneurship and with academic programs
gaining exponential traction, educators may struggle to keep abreast of the
rapidly evolving literature and resources (Short et al., 2009). Moreover, educa-
tors must balance their own subjective theoretical training and lens with student
needs for core competencies typically gained through practical training and
experiential learning. For example, social entrepreneurship pedagogy is deeply
rooted within the principles of respective academic disciplines: public affairs
programs often emphasize public goods and nonprofit social enterprises while
business schools emphasize profits and efficacy (Miller et al., 2012).
Due to the dynamic nature of social entrepreneurship, experiential learning is
an effective method in the delivery of social entrepreneurship education.
Instructors are encouraged to utilize project-based learning through tools such
as income generating projects (Chang et al., 2014b), design-thinking (Kickul
et al., 2018), and consultancy projects (Kickul et al., 2010). Experiential learning
allows students to convert immersive experiences into knowledge, encouraging
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 2273

them to diagnose problems and develop new ways of thinking (Holcomb

et al., 2009).
Alone, however, experiential learning is not enough. Many courses maintain
a central focus on the hands-on approaches of experiential learning, sometimes
at the expense of a robust theoretical foundation (Brock & Steiner, 2009). The
theoretical shortcomings within social entrepreneurship courses are complicated
by the fact that social entrepreneurship spans multiple disciplines, and no single
discipline claims authority over the field (Hota et al., 2019). Instead, individual
and discipline-specific research questions drive the theoretical frameworks
employed to understand social entrepreneurship dynamics, and the resulting
autonomy creates silos that inhibit broad integration into practice-oriented
courses.
Similarly, social entrepreneurship courses and syllabi remain inconsistent,
fragmented, and largely driven by discipline or instructor interests. As both
social entrepreneurship researchers and educators, we find ourselves grappling
with these issues in our own classrooms. Our experiences align with the findings
of Wiley and Berry (2015) and Mirabella and Eikenberry (2017) who comment
on the diversity of social entrepreneurship course syllabi, showing the breadth in
readings, approaches, and focus. For example, Brock and Steiner’s (2009)
review of 107 social entrepreneurship course syllabi yielded over 800 different
articles—though the syllabi contained an average of 12 articles per course.
Another challenge we identified is the distance between theory and the core
competencies necessary for student success in the field. Just as the theoretical
research is fragmented and cross-disciplinary, little consensus exists for the types
of skill development needed for success in the field of social entrepreneurship
(Miller et al., 2012). In short, as researchers and educators span interests, they
may find utility in the “crosswalk” we present.
Below, we reflect on our own training as both social entrepreneurship
researchers and educators in the fields of public management, law, and sociol-
ogy; and we bring unique disciplinary insights to our shared interests in social
entrepreneurship. We briefly discuss the literature describing the emergence and
current state of social entrepreneurship education. Next, we identify key
“threshold concepts” to shed light on how theory can complement experiential
learning to inform core competencies (Bolinger & Brown, 2015; Meyer & Land,
2005). Finally, we highlight exemplary approaches that speak to the ways in
which researchers and educators might link theory with practical skill sets.

Literature Review
Conceptualizing Social Entrepreneurship
Prior to the broad emergence of social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs were
limited to nonprofit and for-profit entities as formal avenues for their work.
4228 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

However, the traditional organizational structures imposed constraints on

entrepreneurs seeking to pursue a social mission while generating profit (Dart,
2004). In general, for-profit organizations sought to maximize shareholder
wealth (Weisbrod, 1975), and nonprofit organizations1 refrained from redistrib-
uting profit for private gain (Hansmann, 1980). The limitations on social and
financial activities within the traditional for-profit and nonprofit sectors created
a ripe context for the emergence of hybrid enterprises. Social entrepreneurship
provides an alternative to entrepreneurs that wish to combine profit and social
purpose.
Conceptualizing social entrepreneurship in a manner that truly captures its
compounded character is difficult. Scholars routinely debate foundational prin-
ciples such as the definition of social entrepreneurship (Alvord et al., 2004;
Dacin et al., 2010; Dees, 1998; Seelos & Mair, 2005) and its fundamental dimen-
sions (Austin et al., 2006; Peredo & McLean, 2006; Weerawardena & Mort,
2006). Dees and Anderson (2006) organize social entrepreneurship within two
schools of thought: social enterprise and innovation. The social enterprise school
of thought is focused on organizing to generate profit or earned income while
also maintaining a social mission. The social innovation school of thought
emphasizes solving a social issue in an innovative or sustainable manner.
Withstanding a normative judgement on these schools, we contend that social
entrepreneurship consists of either for-profit, nonprofit, or hybrid organizations
with aims to incorporate profit-generating activities while providing social ben-
efits. As such, we adopt Kerlin’s (2006) definition, which conceptualizes social
entrepreneurship to include:

those organizations that fall along a continuum from profit-oriented businesses

engaged in socially beneficial activities . . . to dual-purpose businesses that mediate
profit goals with social objectives (hybrids) to nonprofit organizations engaged in
mission-supporting commercial activity (social purpose organizations). (p. 248)

This definition is broad yet highlights the distinctiveness of social entrepreneur-

ship. In conversations about the field and with experience teaching social entre-
preneurship, we recognize the value of embracing a definition that acknowledges
the blurring boundaries between sectors. This definition does not adopt or favor
a single for-profit or nonprofit lens, and it recognizes the potential of social
entrepreneurship in creating innovative solutions to social problems.

Social Entrepreneurship Education

The existing structure for social entrepreneurship education mirrors the lack of
cohesion across the literature. Despite the increased popularity of social entre-
preneurship programs, social entrepreneurship pedagogy varies by institution,
department, and even instructor (Miller et al., 2012; Mirabella & Eikenberry,
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 2295

2017; Wiley & Berry, 2015). The various approaches to social entrepreneurship
education also reflect the diversity of socially-oriented professions: social entre-
preneurship taught to aspiring practitioners or entrepreneurs differs from that
taught to aspiring public servants (Young & Grinsfelder, 2011). As a result of
these individualized approaches, social entrepreneurship education is expansive
but remains impacted by its characterization as fragmented and tailored. On one
hand, fragments serve as points of departure for a diverse range of inquiries,
thus expanding the relevance of social entrepreneurship across disciplines. On
the other hand, such incongruence precludes the advancement of concerted
dialogue rooted in baseline understandings of established doctrine.
Individualized approaches may serve individual interests and, perhaps, are ade-
quate for a small segment of social entrepreneurs, but the lack of cohesion yields
a clear gap across the field.
As educators and researchers, we assert that providing a solid foundation
from which students can develop a broad and critical understanding of social
entrepreneurship is necessary. Indeed, as instructors, we have struggled to create
syllabi that balance necessary experiential learning with theoretical training that
equips students with strong mental models appropriate for the challenges of
social entrepreneurship.

Experiential Learning as a Dominant Approach Within Social

Entrepreneurship Education
Social entrepreneurship experts have prepared teaching resources that respond
to unique needs within social entrepreneurship education (Weaver, 2020).
Scholars have partnered with Ashoka to create the Social Entrepreneurship
Education Resource Handbook (Brock & Kim, 2011) and Ashoka U’s
Curriculum and Teaching Resource Guide (AshokaU, 2011). The Ashoka teach-
ing resources are repositories of exemplary course syllabi, social enterprise direc-
tories, reading recommendations, and other digital media. Though the guides
are not exhaustive, the contents have a strong practical orientation. This imbal-
ance can minimize the importance of theoretical frameworks in understanding
formation, function, and evaluation within social entrepreneurship. Moreover,
the reliance on applied learning and practitioner engagement highlights an
ongoing challenge for social entrepreneurship teaching tools: the focus on indi-
vidual experiences may not fully address diverse classroom needs.
We are not alone in our critique of experiential learning in social entrepre-
neurship education. Zietsma and Tuck’s (2012) review of key pedagogical
resources draws a similar conclusion, finding that online pedagogical reposito-
ries primarily consist of digital interviews with social entrepreneurs. Though
such content is integral to the social entrepreneurship curriculum, standing
alone, it does not provide the substantive depth necessary to help students
understand the complex dynamics of social entrepreneurship.
6230 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

These deficiencies—the focus on individual anecdotes and the lack of substan-

tive theoretical depth—lie at the center of Zietsma and Tuck’s (2012) critique:

In many instances, social entrepreneurship courses, and the pedagogical materials

that support them, have focused on the experiences of individual founders and the
many positive results associated with the start-up of new social enterprises. Most
courses feature guest speakers that are involved in the day-to-day doing of social
entrepreneurship. Many courses feature service-learning opportunities that involve
students in social enterprise work. It all feels very good—overwhelmingly positive
and exciting. (p. 514)

Similarly, because a majority of social entrepreneurship courses are offered in

business schools (Mirabella & Young, 2012), the practice-based pedagogies of
business schools steer the learning models and course materials adopted by
instructors (Brock & Steiner, 2009). For example, books designed for practi-
tioners are among the most widely used, and instructors rely on case studies and
service-learning opportunities to meet course objectives (p. 17). Mirabella and
Eikenberry (2017) affirm the prominence of case studies, cautioning that though
the case method is appropriate for graduate-level courses, “the use of cases as
empirical evidence for the generalizability of the efficacy of social entrepreneur-
ship is dubious” (p. 739).
Still, practice-centered tools for social entrepreneurship students have recog-
nized benefits (Worsham & Dees, 2012). No two social enterprises are the same,
so students benefit from maximum exposure to different types of social ventures.
Guest speakers, recorded interviews, documentaries, site visits, case studies, and
service-learning opportunities are all integral to understanding social entrepre-
neurship. Numerous studies document the breadth of experiential learning
among social entrepreneurship courses, emphasizing its importance as a peda-
gogical approach (Chang et al., 2014a; Gundlach & Zivnuska, 2010).
However, exclusive reliance or over-reliance on experiential education can
result in less diverse knowledge that can be difficult to transfer and apply in
different contexts (Fiet, 2001; Holcomb et al., 2009; Lant et al., 1992). Indeed,
programs rarely mention “understanding context and applying theory”
or “critical thinking” among stated objectives (Mirabella & Eikenberry, 2017,
p. 737). Yet, the ability to navigate market forces alongside social outcomes
requires complex critical thinking skills embedded with opportunity recognition,
innovativeness, and resourcefulness (Peredo & McLean, 2006). When pedagog-
ical resources fall short, this shortcoming is a major impediment to serving the
knowledge needs of students, and it hinders their ability to develop their own
social entrepreneurial approaches.
Teaching theory helps students understand the future consequences of their
decisions (Fiet, 2001). By using theory-based concepts to teach core competen-
cies, students develop the cognitive skills to apply deductive analyses across
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 2317

contexts—particularly as critical decisions regarding sector choice, resource

management, and governance have real-world consequences (Child et al.,
2015). This generalizability is essential, as core competencies can vary based
on organizational type and a practitioner’s role within an organization (Miller
et al., 2012). Understanding the theoretical explanations for outcomes allows
students to transcend different social entrepreneurial contexts (Fiet, 2001). As
the field of social entrepreneurship transitions into adolescence, its educational
tools should include an increased focus on theoretical principles that promote
understanding, development, and critique of social ventures across a variety of
circumstances.
The appeal for a comprehensive approach to social entrepreneurship educa-
tion is not novel. For example, Pache and Chowdhury (2012) combine theoret-
ical and practical insights to explore competing institutional logics. They suggest
that, to understand social entrepreneurship, students must first understand the
challenges of bridging the social-welfare logic, the commercial logic, and the
public-sector logic. Only then can students develop innovative strategies for
successful social business pursuits. Similarly, Kickul et al. (2010) recommend
a dual theoretical-practical approach to social entrepreneurship education:

[D]esigning a social entrepreneurship course should be based at least, on a prep-

aration exercise, followed by a field experience. The former enables students to
have a theoretical basis on social entrepreneurship related concepts, while the latter
requires going into the field and experimenting with the previously learned knowl-
edge to gain new perspectives from practical experience. In the case of social entre-
preneurship education, the preparation exercise includes concepts and theories and
is all the more crucial given the complexity of social entrepreneurial activity.
(p. 655)

Students must be equipped to develop their own assessment for approaching

social entrepreneurship in ways that are appropriate for their goals and with
consideration of resource availability, political constraints, and environmental
or institutional challenges. Ultimately, rather than teaching students “for” social
entrepreneurship—that is, exclusively using practice-based experiential learning
to teach core skills—educators should teach students “about” social entrepre-
neurship by highlighting how theoretical issues evolve into material, unique
challenges within social entrepreneurship (Aadland & Aaboen, 2020, p. 713).
As the aforementioned syllabi reviews have shown, educators often over-
emphasize the use of practical exercises to equip students with the necessary
competencies “for” social entrepreneurship. However, deploying
traditional techniques to establish conceptual knowledge “about” social
entrepreneurship is substantially valuable for holistic student development
(Pache & Chowdhury, 2012).
8232 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

Utilizing Theory-Based Threshold Concepts to Facilitate

Competency Development
With education ‘about’ social entrepreneurship in mind, we propose that edu-
cators adopt an integrated approach that discusses the theoretical underpinnings
of social entrepreneurship alongside the practical engagement of experiential
learning. We suggest that instructors orient course objectives to embrace
theory-based threshold concepts, utilizing both traditional and experiential
learning to advance student outcomes (Meyer & Land, 2005). Because many
experiential learning opportunities arise out of convenience or access, emphasis
on key threshold concepts creates field-level benchmarks that provide theoret-
ical substance to practical skill development. In this view, instructors are
encouraged to adopt an iterative approach, where theory drives experiential
learning experiences and experiential learning experiences drive theoretical
dialogue.
As we reflect on our understanding of the field and our respective training in
public management, sociology, and law, we identify four key threshold concepts
that broadly encompass ongoing theoretical debates and are pertinent to com-
petencies necessary for student success: (1) conceptualization and formation; (2)
governance; (3) resource access; and (4) legitimacy and accountability.
Recognizing threshold concepts as “conceptual gateways” or “portals” that
offer understanding into a new field (Meyer & Land, 2005, p. 373), we review
four threshold concepts that serve as an introduction to the multifaceted dimen-
sions of social entrepreneurship. In particular, they act as points of departure for
understanding the challenges of social entrepreneurship and its critical decision-
making points.

Conceptualization and Formation

Whether an initiative is considered ‘social entrepreneurship’ is a source of strin-
gent debate. As stated above, we view social entrepreneurship as encompassing
organizations that combine commercial activity with social objectives (Kerlin,
2006). Though the precise definition of ‘social entrepreneurship’ lacks consen-
sus, researchers agree that social enterprises form on an organizational contin-
uum with traditional for-profit and nonprofit forms at the poles (Battilana &
Lee, 2014; Galaskiewicz & Barringer, 2012). To further complicate matters,
social entrepreneurial endeavors are not consistently described as ‘social enter-
prises’—they have adopted synonymous labels such as ‘social ventures,’ ‘non-
profit enterprises,’ ‘social purpose businesses,’ and several others (Defourny &
Nyssens 2012). The adoption of commercialized activities by nonprofit organ-
izations and the renewed emphasis on social responsibility by for-profit organ-
izations also blur the boundaries between traditional organizations and social
enterprises (Young, 2012). Nonetheless, scholars attempting to define social
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 2339

enterprises agree that the organizations embrace both commercial and social
goals—oftentimes referred to as the ‘double bottom line’ (Kickul et al., 2010;
Reiser, 2013).
Given these unique organizational attributes and goals to combine purpose
and profit, there are practical challenges related to both the conceptualization
and formation of social enterprises. The absence of an agreed-upon conceptu-
alization of ‘social enterprise’ forces scholars and practitioners to rely upon self-
identification—disrupting the potential for consistency across disciplines and
within the field (Light, 2008). The lack of consensus also inhibits other elements
of practical and methodological value, such as a comprehensive database of
organizations (but see Weaver’s Social Enterprise Directory2 for an exception).
Despite the challenges of conceptualization, a potential solution has emerged:
legal forms that allow organizations to formally designate their status as a social
enterprise. In light of the ‘middle ground’ occupied by social enterprises, dozens of
states have enacted statutes that enable social enterprises to formally incorporate
as ‘benefit’ or ‘social purpose’ entities (Manesh, 2019). These hybrid forms include
benefit corporations, low-profit limited liability companies (L3Cs), social purpose
corporations, and benefit LLCs (collectively, hereinafter “benefit forms”).
Though the benefit forms vary by state, the premise is the same: organizations
designate a social purpose, and they acknowledge that they will consider stake-
holders other than shareholders (e.g., employees, suppliers, customers, environ-
ment, community, etc.). Many states also require organizations to submit a
benefit report detailing its social and environmental impact (Alexander, 2018).
Decisions regarding sector choice also have wide-ranging consequences.
Because the governing statutes for benefit forms are permissive in nature,
social enterprises have broad discretion in choosing between traditional for-
profit and nonprofit forms and the newly established benefit forms
(Alexander, 2018). The value of benefit forms is uncertain, and traditional
for-profit and nonprofit forms each have incentives and disincentives that
should be narrowly tailored to organizational goals. For example, the for-
profit sector may accommodate social business, and courts are likely deferential
to business operational decisions that advance a social mission (Manesh, 2019;
Stout, 2012). On the other hand, the new benefit forms offer clarification for
conceptual boundaries related to social enterprises (Ball, 2016). Without delib-
erate consideration of sector choice, a social enterprise’s legal form can turn on
capricious factors such as funding resources, human capital, or stakeholder
influence (Addae, 2018).
Understanding the theoretical backdrop of social entrepreneurship concep-
tualization and formation has tremendous implications for student competen-
cies. First, a social enterprise’s organizational identity is inherently convoluted–
complicating the entrepreneur’s ability to “sell and/or market the organization,”
“manage strategy development,” and “create/evaluate the feasibility and imple-
mentation of a business plan” (Miller et al., 2012). Secondly, sector determines
234
10 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

if–and to what extent–social entrepreneurs may pursue dual social and commer-
cial goals. By introducing students to theoretical concepts related to formal
sector selection, instructors enhance students’ capacity to “create a significant
social impact” and “challenge traditional ways of thinking,”–core competencies
necessary for success in social entrepreneurship (Miller et al., 2012). Essentially,
conceptualization and formation theories provide students with the ability to
identify the point on the continuum that would best align with their social and
profit goals.

Governance
Governance, or “the set of relationships between a company’s management, its
board, its shareholders and other stakeholders,” is an important mechanism
within social entrepreneurship (OECD, 2015, p. 9). Governance determines
the structure through which an organization’s goals are established, the means
for attaining those goals, and the beneficiaries of the organization’s activities.
Traditionally, in corporate governance, a firm’s shareholders are its ultimate
beneficiaries (Mason et al., 2007). However, when a corporation is viewed as a
social institution, its beneficiaries are its identified stakeholders–external parties
who are affected by the organization’s activities (Parkinson, 2003).
Social enterprise governance is complex because of the diverse nature of
social enterprises and the need to balance competing interests. The amalgam-
ation of varying legal forms, projects, partnerships, and alliances poses further
challenges for social enterprise governance. As it stands, social enterprises are
not governed based upon their hybrid nature—a defining characteristic—but
rather they are governed based upon their individual organizational structures
(Low, 2006). In efforts to adequately capture social entrepreneurship’s compet-
ing objectives and relationships, scholars have borrowed from corporate gover-
nance models and voluntary sector governance models to suggest approaches
for social entrepreneurship governance. Though scholars have not reached a
consensus regarding the appropriate form of social enterprise governance, stake-
holder models, stewardship models, neo-institutional models, and democratic
models all have practical implications for social enterprise governance (Low,
2006; Mason et al., 2007).
Confusion regarding social enterprise governance presents a major threat to
the sector (Young, 2012). This issue is exacerbated by the numerous forms of
social enterprises, with each type affected differently by push-pull factors that
detract from their desired balance. No form of organizational governance for
social enterprise is ideal, and “every form of social enterprise is subject to
tensions that can lead to long term instability of mission, organizational viabil-
ity, or organizational form” (Young, 2012, p. 41). Informed with the trade-offs
of governance models, especially as it relates to broader theoretical insights,
students can move nimbly from a sector’s governance constraints and into an
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 235
11

analysis where they are equipped to determine which type of governance aligns
best with the organization’s goals.

Resource Access
Resource access is another defining feature of social entrepreneurship. Social
enterprises, like other organizational forms, must find resources in order to
secure their survival. However, the hybrid nature of social entrepreneurship
presents unique resource challenges due to the need to balance logics
(Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache & Santos, 2010), span categories
(Zuckerman, 1999), and overcome additional obstacles related to hybrid orga-
nizing (Haigh & Hoffman, 2014). Social enterprises must effectively appeal to
different audiences. The difficulty in this delicate balance of a hybrid organiza-
tional form cannot be overstated. Despite these challenges, the nature of hybrid
organizing offers innovative resource opportunities. For example, by offering a
combination of revenue-generating activities with a social purpose, social enter-
prises can pursue diverse funding opportunities in various sectors (Doherty et al.,
2014; Zahra et al., 2009). For social enterprises, their blended organizational
features can be thought of as tools to supplement funding and other resources.
Because traditional organizations are limited by narrow revenue streams,
detailed attention to decisions regarding formation and governance are critical
to accessing funding opportunities. Thus, when considering social entrepreneur-
ship or the broader question of organizational survival, one must ask which
models of organizational forms and governance are better equipped to survive
(Yunus, 2003). This question becomes critical in periods of uncertainty. For
example, the for-profit social enterprise might attract more socially-motivated
resources in an economic recession whereas a nonprofit social enterprise might
focus on revenue-generating activities in changing administrations or times of
reduced public funding (Young, 2012).
Theoretical understandings of access to resources– and how it intersects with
notions of formation and governance– are essential as students navigate social
entrepreneurial pursuits of purpose and profit. These theoretical foundations
can enhance students’ core competencies related to “management of financial
capital,” “identification, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities,” and
“creative use of minimal resources” (Miller et al., 2012). Thus, instructors
should incorporate funding theory to inform students about the resources avail-
able for different organizational forms and the challenges associated with
acquiring the resources necessary for survival.

Legitimacy and Accountability

Duality lies at the core of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs aim to
think ‘outside the box,’ and their work does not neatly fit into a category
236
12 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

accessible to audiences. However, the duality embedded within the social entre-
preneurship sector creates challenges for legitimacy and accountability within
the field (Dart, 2004). Legitimacy is the perception that an entity is desirable or
appropriate because it subscribes to social norms (Suchman, 1995), and audi-
ences weigh legitimacy based upon adherence to those societal standards (Hsu &
Hannan, 2005). Moreover, though audiences hold organizations accountable to
pre-existing standards, it is the deviance from such standards that result in
innovation–a key feature of social entrepreneurship.
Social entrepreneurship scholars address this issue by considering alternative
forms of legitimacy. For example, legitimacy may be garnered from what is
actually produced (pragmatic legitimacy), whether activities are conducted as
they should be (moral legitimacy), or the standards upon which activities are
based (cognitive legitimacy) (Mason et al., 2007). Legitimacy may also be built
into formal organizational structures (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Battilana &
Lee, 2014). As the boundaries between social mission and profit generation
become increasingly blurred, formal organizational structures help orient exter-
nal audiences (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012; Mair et al., 2012). When compared to
traditional organizations, social enterprises may ultimately fail the ‘Goldilocks’
test: they may be viewed as not ‘commercial enough’ or not ‘social enough,’
leaving audiences confused and distrustful when they cannot validate social
enterprises’ claims of authenticity (Galaskiewicz & Barringer, 2012). With des-
ignated organizational structures, audiences can rely on formal categorizations
to assign cognizable traits and attributes, thereby bestowing legitimacy upon
social enterprises (Hsu et al., 2009). By doing so, audiences eventually can mea-
sure legitimacy with the appropriate social entrepreneurship barometer.
That social enterprises occupy the ‘gray area’ between two sectors also com-
plicates accountability and assessment. Just as with governance and legitimacy,
the social entrepreneurship sector lacks general guidelines for accountability.
Outside of the hybrid legal forms, accountability for social enterprises is
housed in the practices of the traditional for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
For-profit organizations are accountable to shareholders, and shareholders
measure success by the amount of profit generated (Mason et al., 2007).
Nonprofit organizations are accountable to donors and constituents, and
donors assess the social impact (Ben-Ner & Van Hoomissen, 1994). The
newly-established benefit forms introduced accountability measures such as
annual reporting and third party assessments of social impact (Ball, 2016).
Though attractive on its face, the value of reporting requirements and third-
party assessments for social enterprises is less clear. For example, self-reporting
understates organizational critiques, and third-party standards do not uniformly
apply to social enterprises across industries (Alexander, 2018).
Understanding the theory related to legitimacy and accountability is essential
for student competency development. Legitimacy and accountability have sig-
nificant practical implications, and mastery of these concepts encourages
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 237
13

effective communication with patrons, funders, and other stakeholders. Similarly,

understanding diverse accountability measures fortifies student’s capacity to ade-
quately measure relevant outcomes–both social and profit. Ultimately, students
equipped with theoretical insights about legitimacy and accountability broadly
are able to understand why some cases fail and why others succeed, positioning
them to delicately balance social or profit-generating goals.
In this section, we offered key threshold concepts drawn from major theo-
retical debates within the social entrepreneurship literature. The four threshold
concepts we have organized serve as brief introductions, instead of exhaustive
summaries or literature reviews, to core insights gleaned from scholarship and
theory. These four threshold concepts represent fundamental principles neces-
sary in understanding both theoretical contributions and practical skills in rela-
tion to (1) conceptualization and formation; (2) governance; (3) resource access;
and (4) legitimacy and accountability.

Threshold concepts Relevant core competencies

Conceptualization • Selling and/or marketing the organization

and formation • Evaluating business plans
• Identifying social needs and creating social impact
• Developing an innovative mindset
Governance • Navigating traditional and hybrid organizational forms
• Aligning governance structures with organizational needs
and outcomes
Resource access • Evaluating and adopting creative and efficient use of
resources
• Assessing opportunities and aligning resources with social
needs
Legitimacy and accountability • Communicating social contributions to stakeholder
audiences
• Balancing external and internal competing interests

In the next section, we elaborate on an approach to integrate theoretical

concepts within the classroom alongside practical knowledge and experiential
learning activities.

Implementing Theoretical Integration in Social

Entrepreneurship Education
With a strong theoretical lens, students learn to view the wins and losses of
organizations as outcomes of field-level dynamics rather than as unique to
238
14 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

specific contexts. By understanding practical examples through a theoretical

framework, students engage in in-depth analyses of organizational strategy,
function, and decision-making. Theoretical foundations empower future entre-
preneurs and enable students to situate the experiences of individual entrepre-
neurs within the broader context of the social entrepreneurship sector. Indeed,
Mirabella and Eikenberry (2017) comment in their review of social entrepre-
neurship courses and syllabi, that “Analyzing theory as it relates to practice was
less of a focus. Most courses reflected a practical approach to program devel-
opment” (p. 391). As such, we encourage educators to integrate their applied
and practical focus of social entrepreneurship with theoretical understandings.
This approach is particularly beneficial regarding the shortcomings of tradition-
al methods of pursuing social purpose and profit, and the benefits and chal-
lenges of social entrepreneurial endeavors.
Integrated theoretical approaches will differ by level, with introductory
courses examining elementary principles and advanced courses engaging in com-
plex analyses. Nonetheless, Weaver (2020) offers an exemplary syllabus that
establishes an epistemological foundation for social entrepreneurship alongside
experiential learning activities. For example, Weaver utilizes academic research
to introduce the concept of social entrepreneurship, its history, and major cri-
tiques. As students matriculate throughout the course, academic texts on topics
such as “opportunity identification” and “business planning” complement expe-
riential learning activities (p. 20). Moreover, Weaver (2020) published a list of
core academic readings that has immense pedagogical benefits. First, this
resource can assist instructors in identifying academic literature that align
with course objectives and competency development. Second, by drawing
from a central body of academic literature, students adopt a common language
with which they can interact with colleagues across sectors.
Of course, an integrated approach to social entrepreneurship education may
be influenced by external paradigms. For example, the integrated structure can
be aptly applied to discipline-specific contexts. Wiley and Berry (2015) identify
core topic areas relevant to public affairs programs, and the authors gather
academic texts that explore social entrepreneurship through a public adminis-
tration lens. Other educators have compiled resources for teaching social entre-
preneurship in discipline-specific contexts such as nonprofit studies (Ashcraft,
2008) and public health (Martin et al., 2016), as well as institution-specific
contexts such as historically Black colleges and universities (Johnson, 2018).
Moreover, a competencies approach such as Miller et al. (2012) can also be
useful within interdisciplinary classrooms and programs. For example, Miller
et al. (2012) evaluates competencies deemed important by social entrepreneur-
ship practitioners and compares them to a sample of social entrepreneurship
courses. Their research seeks to inquire about the extent to which educators and
practitioners align with respect to course emphasis and the practical needs of
students and social entrepreneurs. One valuable resource stemming from this
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 239
15

research is a list of social entrepreneurship competencies, prioritized by rank and

from practitioners in various sectors. Results point to 10 core competencies that
can easily integrate into theoretical concepts.
For example, our threshold concept organized around Resource Access is a
central discussion within social entrepreneurship theory. Miller et al. (2012) iden-
tify the management of financial capital, the creative use of minimal resources, as
well as the identification, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities as three
core competencies deemed essential for practitioners. All three competencies can
be discussed in readings related to Resource Access and can be further explored
within specific contexts such as case studies. This approach offers a much-needed
mental model for practitioners to incorporate theory and becomes particularly
valuable when framing specific social entrepreneurship challenges.
With diverse theoretical tools in hand, students apply an objective lens
that equips them with problem-solving skills necessary to advance the social entre-
preneurship sector; they are positioned to identify common pitfalls within social
ventures; and they can adapt and apply best practices in new contexts.

Conclusion
Social entrepreneurship is a dynamic, rapidly evolving discipline. Social entre-
preneurship education is at the forefront of preparing aspiring social entrepre-
neurs to enact transformative social change. We encourage educators to adopt a
renewed emphasis on the value of theory-based pedagogies in social entrepre-
neurship courses. Though experiential learning is a key component of social
entrepreneurship education, instructors should not underestimate the role of
theory-driven threshold concepts in developing core competencies applicable
across multiple sectors of social entrepreneurship. As educators and students
embrace core principles, we better position the social entrepreneurship sector to
benefit from the diverse tools offered by its members.

Author’s Note
Cheryl Ellenwood is now affiliated to Center for Native American Research and
Collaborations, Institute for Research & Education to Advance Community Health,
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
240
16 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

ORCID iD
Angela E. Addae https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4736-5870

Notes
1. Though there are many types of ‘nonprofit organizations,’ here, the term ‘nonprofit
organizations’ refers to public charities as designated under Section 501(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code.
2. Rasheeda Weaver’s Social Enterprise Directory houses over 1,050 social enterprises. It
is unique in that it is a crowd-sourced database offering practical benefits for research-
ers and recruiters. However it is not an exhaustive directory of SEs in the U.S. https://
socialenterprisedirectory.com/

References
Aadland, T., & Aaboen, L. (2020). An entrepreneurship education taxonomy based on
authenticity. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(5), 711–728.
Addae, A. E. (2018). Pathways to sector selection: A conceptual framework for social
enterprises. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(3), 349–365.
Alexander, F. H. (2018). Benefit corporation law and governance: Pursuing profit with
purpose. Berrett-Koehler.
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurs and societal
transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282.
Ashcraft, R. (2008). Teaching entrepreneurship outside of business schools. In G. E.
Shockley (Ed.), Non-market entrepreneurship: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 28–
48). Edward Elgar.
AshokaU. (2011). AshokaU’s curriculum and teaching resource guide.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneur-
ship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Ball, A. S. (2016). Social enterprise governance. University of Pennsylvania Journal of
Business Law, 18(4), 919–984.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of
commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53,
1419–1440.
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from
the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
Ben-Ner, A., & Van Hoomissen, T. (1994). The governance of nonprofit organizations:
Law and public policy. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 4(4), 393–414.
Bolinger, A., & Brown, K. (2015). Entrepreneurial failure as a threshold concept: The
effects of student experiences. Journal of Management Education, 39, 452–475.
Brock, D. (2008). Social entrepreneurship teaching handbook. https://ssrn.com/abstract=
1344412
Brock, D., & Kim, M. (2011). Social entrepreneurship education resource handbook.
Ashoka U.
Brock, D., & Steiner, S. (2009). Social entrepreneurship education: Is it achieving the
desired aims. SSRN Working Paper Series. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1344419
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 241
17

Chang, J., Benamraoui, A., & Rieple, A. (2014a). Learning-by-doing as an approach to

teaching social entrepreneurship. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
51(5), 459–471.
Chang, J., Benamraoui, A., & Rieple, A. (2014b). Stimulating learning about social
entrepreneurship through income generation projects. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 20(5), 417–437.
Child, C., Witesman, E., & Braudt, D. (2015). Sector choice: How fair trade entrepre-
neurs choose between nonprofit and for-profit forms. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 44(4), 832–851.
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t
need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.
Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership,
14(4), 411–424.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. https://centers.fuqua.duke.
edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_
MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf
Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship:
Building on two schools of practice and thought. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.),
Research on social entrepreneurship: Understanding and contributing to an emerging
field. Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
(ARNOVA) (Vol. 1, pp. 39–66).
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2012). Conceptions of social enterprise in Europe: A com-
parative perspective with the United States. In B. Gidron & Y. Hasenfeld (Eds.),
Social enterprises (pp. 71–90). Palgrave Macmillan.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.
Fiet, J. (2001). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16(2), 101–117.
Galaskiewicz, J., & Barringer, S. (2012). Social enterprises and social categories. In B.
Gidron & Y. Hasenfeld. (Eds.), Social enterprises: An organizational perspective (pp.
47–70). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gundlach, M. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2010). An experiential learning approach to teaching
social entrepreneurship, triple bottom line, and sustainability. American Journal of
Business Education, 3(1), 19–28.
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustain-
able business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134.
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2014). The new heretics: Hybrid organizations and the
challenges they present to corporate sustainability. Organization & Environment, 27(3),
223–241.
Hansmann, H. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 835–901.
Holcomb, T. R., Ireland, R. D., Holmes, R. M., Jr., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Architecture of
entrepreneurial learning: Exploring the link among heuristics, knowledge, and action.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(1), 167–192.
Hota, P., Subramanian, B., & Narayanamurthy, G. (2019). Mapping the intellectual
structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal
of Business Ethics, 166(1), 89–114.
242
18 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

Hsu, G., & Hannan, H. (2005). Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization
Science, 16(5), 474–490.
€ & Hannan, M. T. (2009). Multiple category memberships in mar-
Hsu, G., Koçak, O.,
kets: An integrative theory and two empirical tests. American Sociological Review,
74(1), 150–169.
Johnson, A. N. (2018). Teaching social entrepreneurship at HBCUs. CreateSpace.
Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding
and learning from the differences. Voluntas, 17(3), 247–263.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L., Mitra, P., & Berçot, L. (2018). Designing with purpose:
Advocating innovation, impact, sustainability, and scale in social entrepreneurship
education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(2), 205–221.
Kickul, J., Griffiths, M., & Bacq, S. (2010). The boundary-less classroom: Extending
social innovation and impact learning to the field. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 17(4), 652–663.
Lant, T., Milliken, F., & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpre-
tation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration. Strategic
Management Journal, 13(8), 585–608.
Light, P. (2008). The search for social entrepreneurship. Brookings Institution Press.
Low, C. (2006). A framework for the governance of social enterprise. International
Journal of Social Economics, 33(5-6), 376–385.
Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social
entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 353–373.
Manesh, M. (2019). Introducing the totally unnecessary benefit LLC. North Carolina
Law Review, 97, 603–672.
Martin, W. M., Mazzeo, J., & Lemon, B. (2016). Teaching public health professionals
entrepreneurship: An integrated approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 24(2),
193–207.
Mason, C., Kirkbride, J., & Bryde, D. (2007). From stakeholders to institutions: The
changing face of social enterprise governance theory. Management Decision, 45(2),
284–301.
Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2):
Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learn-
ing. Higher Education, 49, 373–388.
Miller, T. L, Wesley, C., & Williams, D. E. (2012). Educating the minds of caring hearts:
Comparing the views of practitioners and educators on the importance of social
entrepreneurship competencies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11,
349–370.
Mirabella, R. M., & Eikenberry, A. M. (2017). The missing “social” in social enterprise
education in the United States. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 23(2), 729–748.
Mirabella, R. M., & Young, D. R. (2012). The development of education for social
entrepreneurship and nonprofit management: Diverging or converging paths?
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23, 43–57.
OECD. (2015). G20/OECD principles of corporate governance. OECD Publishing. http://
doi.org/10.1787/9789264236882-en
Pache, A., & Chowdhury, I. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded
entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy
of Management Learning and Education, 11(3), 494–510.
Addae and
Addae and Ellenwood
Ellenwood 243
19

Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organi-
zational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management
Review, 35(3), 455–476.
Parkinson, J. (2003). Models of the company and the employment relationship. British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 481–509.
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the
concept. Journal of World Business, 41, 56–65.
Reiser, D. (2013). Theorizing forms for social enterprise. Emory Law Journal, 62,
681–739.
Salamzadeh, A., Azimi, M., & Kirby, D. (2013). Social entrepreneurship education in
higher education: Insights from a developing country. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(1), 17–34.
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to
serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship:
Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2),
161–194.
Stout, L. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms invest-
ors, corporations, and the public. Berrett-Koehler.
Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Sullivan Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship:
Towards conceptualisation, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 8(1), 76–88.
Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2007). The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepre-
neurs: A postscript to rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(2), 264–271.
Weaver, R. L. (2020). Using experiential education to teach social enterprise and entrepre-
neurship: A teaching guide. Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action.
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multi-
dimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1975). Toward a theory of the voluntary non-profit in a three-sector
economy. In E. Phelps (Ed.), Altruism, morality and economic theory (pp. 171–196).
Russell Sage.
Wiley, K. K., & Berry, F. (2015). Teaching social entrepreneurship in public affairs
programs: A review of social entrepreneurship courses in the top 30 U. S. public
administration and affairs programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(3),
381–400.
Worsham, E., & Dees, J. G. (2012). Reflections and insights on teaching social entrepre-
neurship: An interview with Greg Dees. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 11(3), 442–452.
Young, D. (2012). The state of theory and research on social enterprises. In B. Gidron &
Y. Hasenfeld (Eds.), Social enterprises: An organizational perspective (pp. 19–46).
Palgrave MacMillan.
Young, D., & Grinsfelder, M. (2011). Social entrepreneurship and the financing of third
sector organizations. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(4), 543–567.
244
20 Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education and
and Pedagogy
Pedagogy 5(2)
0(0)

Yunus, M. (2003). Banking to the poor: Microlending and the battle against world poverty.
Public Affairs.
Zahra, S., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J. (2009). A typology of social
entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.
Zietsma, C., & Tuck, R. (2012). First, do no harm: Evaluating resources for teaching
social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(3),
512–517.
Zuckerman, E. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy
discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.