The Search for Social Entrepreneurship

1. Declaring Assumptions

1 Despite enormous enthusiasm for social entrepreneurship among a new generation of change makers, the field of social entrepreneurship is not yet a field per se. It does not have paths to tenure for its young professors , a growing inventory of quantitative data for its researchers, or a guaranteed source of private or government funding for its institutions. Its elder scholars are anything but elderly, or at least they or we think we are not, and its younger scholars have to balance their interest in social entrepreneurship against work in more respected fields. Moreover, the field relies on case studies and storytelling for most of its findings, has few nationally recognized journals for its articles, and is still fighting to build a reputation for rigorous analysis. Not surprising, it is not clear that promising scholars will receive academic acclaim for their work. There are no awards for the best article or book of the year, few chaired professorships that might offer the financial protection for full-time focus, and little clamor for more research from social entrepreneurs themselves. There are hopeful exceptions to this portrait, however. Several national foundations continue to invest heavily in research: Ashoka is creating intersections between research and practice, the Skoll Foundation continues to invite researchers to its annual world forum on social entrepreneurship, and scholars are still producing important insights for future validation. But for now, social entrepreneurship research is more a part-time commitment than a full-time pursuit. CHAPTER ONE DECLARING ASSUMPTIONS 01 5211-0 ch1 7/13/08 6:52 PM Page 1 Indeed, as a field of inquiry, the study of social entrepreneurship is barely past its infancy. As such, it resembles the early years of the study of business entrepreneurship. Despite its growth over the past three decades, one of the field’s leading scholars, Murray Low, described the field in 2001 as a “catchall” for scholars who cannot agree on basic definitions . Comparing the definitions he found in major journals on business entrepreneurship, Low reported that the search for common themes nearly drove him mad. Our best efforts resulted in a six by twenty matrix, where one axis listed major subjects (new ventures, venture capital/angels, entrepreneurs , corporate venturing, small/family business, and “other”), and the other axis listed primary focus such as decision making, performance, gender geography, etc. . . . However, the most interesting finding was that we needed a 120-cell matrix to classify a total of 131 articles. While a more parsimonious classification scheme might have been possible, it seems clear that the boundaries of our field remain vague.1 This diversity has its advantages. “One can argue in favor of a field that is inclusive and eclectic,” Low concluded. “In many ways, the broad range of subjects is the strength of our field. The primary criterion for becoming an entrepreneurship researcher is passion for the subject, not adherence to a paradigm. However, this inclusiveness and eclecticism is not free of cost.”2 If entrepreneurship wants to grow up into a legitimate academic field, it must be more disciplined. Scott Shane reached the same conclusion in 2006: “Despite the high level of entrepreneurial activity in the world economy, and a corresponding focus of business schools on teaching in this area, scholarly research in entrepreneurship remains quite limited. Although the number of researchers who have investigated this phenomenon has increased in recent years, the quality of their theoretical and empirical contributions has been relatively poor, with few studies meeting the standards of leading academic journals.”3 These frustrations reflect enduring differences across the academic disciplines . Economists tend to define entrepreneurship as a sweeping 2 DECLARING ASSUMPTIONS 1. Low (2001, p. 20). 2. Low (2001, p. 20). 3. Shane (2006, p. 155). 01 5211-0 ch1 7/13/08 6:52 PM Page 2 change in the prevailing economic equilibrium; political scientists tend to view it as part of the agenda-setting process that determines who gets what, when, where, and how from government; psychologists tend to look for evidence of basic motivations for achievement, autonomy, and affiliation; historians look for the seeds of broad social movements that have deep links to long-standing social and political injustice; and anthropologists search for social customs that might explain broad cultural patterns of innovation. Can geneticists be far behind in finding a DNA marker of entrepreneurial intent? A BASIC AGREEMENT Because the field of social entrepreneurship is so young, it...