English   Danish

2011/2012  KAN-OI05  Entrepreneurship as Social Creativity

English Title
Entrepreneurship as Social Creativity

Course Information

Language English
Point 7,5 ECTS (225 SAT)
Type Mandatory
Level Full Degree Master
Duration One Semester
Course Period Spring
Time Table Please see course schedule at e-Campus
Study Board
Study Board for MSc of Social Science
Course Coordinator
  • Ester Barinaga - Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy
Main Category of the Course
  • Innovation and entrepreneurship
Last updated on 29 maj 2012
Learning Objectives
The aim of this course is to enable students to:

Demonstrate an ability to understand and analyze the social entrepreneurial process.
- Use sociological theories to identify the elements that need to be considered to develop and
strengthen entrepreneurial initiatives aiming at social change.
- Persuasively explain and defend a position on issues concerning the social entrepreneurship process
in situations that are yet unsettled by research.
- Demonstrate an understanding of the theoretical perspectives discussed in the course as a means of
deciding questions involved in social entrepreneurial initiatives
Oral exam based on mini-project
Assessment Oral with Written Assignment
Marking Scale 7-step scale
Censorship Internal examiners
Exam Period Spring Term
Aids Without preparation
Duration 20 Minutes
The exam is an individual oral examination (20 minutes per student including votation) based on a mini-project. The mini-project must be written in groups of max. 5 students (max. 15 pages) or individually (max. 10 pages).

If a student is ill during the regular oral exam he/she will be able to re-use the mini-project at the make-up exam. If the student was ill during the writing of the mini-project and did not contribute to the mini-project, the make-up exam can be written individually or in groups (provided that other students are taking the make-up exam). If the student did not pass the regular exam, he/she must revise the mini-project (confer advice from the examiner) and hand it in on a new deadline specified by the secretariat.
Prerequisites for Attending the Exam
In order to achieve the grade of 12, the student must fulfill the following criteria:

• Demonstrate knowledge of entrepreneurship beyond the limited image provided by reference to business start-up and owner-manager identities.
• Demonstrate knowledge of the role and function of entrepreneurship in innovation processes
• Identify and analyze the nature of value-creation needs in various arenas of society, including the arena of business
• Identify and describe how parallels between art, science and business may become productive when it comes to initiating and organizing innovation processes
• Understand and analyze the contextual conditions of innovation and entrepreneurship in various milieus (art, science, business).
• Identify and understand how skills and methods used in these various contexts can be utilized as organizational innovation and entrepreneurships skills

Course Content

Social entrepreneurship is acquiring the proportions of a world-wide movement. From micro-finance
intiatives to youth houses, fair trade soaps and community-based art initiatives. There is however no
agreement on the definition nor on the nature of the phenomenon that is being called “social
entrepreneurship.” Yet, the increase of the discussion and the variety of initiatives do all have one thing
in common: a will to achieve social change. The core of this course is social change through the parallel
notion of social creativity. That is, we will look at entrepreneurship as a particular form of social
creativity, a creativity aiming at social change.
Some of the questions that we will explore throughout the course are: How should we think when
designing initiatives aiming at social change? In what instances does a market rationality serve us better
than a communitarian one? What conceptual and practical tools can lead to improving the lives of
people and the health of our communities? What entrepreneurial strategies have been successful in
achieving social change?
In sum, we will be looking at rationalities, strategies and tools aiming at social change. In these
discussions, we will be mobilizing intellectual tools from various sociological approaches:
- social capital approach
- frame analysis approach
- governmentality studies approach
- actor-network theory approach

Teaching Methods
There are 3 types of student work to be conducted during class time:

1. Responsibility for presenting a text
2. Responsibility for discussing a text
3. Oral presentation of mini-project
1. & 2. Responsibility for presen2ng and discussing a text

All students will be assigned a text from the syllabus to present or discuss in the relevant class. This will
be done in pairs, so that for each reading there are at least two persons debating it. The first person will
focus on presenting the argument and main points of the text, whereas the second person will focus on
highlighting the most striking in the text, connecting it to previous class discussions, and raising one or
two questions for debate.

3. Oral presenta2on of mini‐project
The group’s presentation of final project should include:
1. A description of the entrepreneurial idea at hand and the particular aspect being addressed.
2. An analysis of the case presented that uses the theories seen throughout the course.

Teaching methods
The course will combine a variety of methods, ranging from traditional lectures, case studies, study
visits, readings, group presentations and the mini-project

Please note that the litterature is guiding.

Mair, Johanna & Ignasi Martí. 2006. “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation,
prediction, and delight.” Journal of World Business, 41: 36-44.
- Light, Paul. 2009. “Social entrepreneurship revisited.” Stanford Social Innovation Review.
- Barinaga, Ester. forthcoming. “Overcoming inertia: The social question in social entrepreneurship.”
In Daniel Hjorth (ed.) Handbook on Organisational Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
- Hjorth, D. and Bjerke, B. 2009. “Public entrepreneurship: moving from social/consumer to public/
citizen.” In Hjorth, D. and Steyaert, C. (eds.) The Politics and Aesthetics of Entrepreneurship.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Chapter 5.
- Hockerts, K. N. 2006. “Chapter 10: Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Social Purpose Business
Ventures.” In J. Mair, J. Robertson, & K. N. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1: Palgrave
- Emerson, J. 2003. “The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and Financial Returns.”
California Management Review, 45(4): 35-51.
- Mark Granovetter, 1973, “The strength of weak ties.” American Journal of Sociology, 78:
- Pierre Bourdieu, 1986, “The Forms of Capital.” In John G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory
and Research in the Sociology of Education, New York, Greenwald Press, pp. 241-258.
- Robert Putnam and Kristin Goss, 2004, Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in
Contemporary Society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ch.: Introduction, pp. 3-20.
- Law, John.1992. “Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and
Heterogeneity.” Systems Practice, 5(4): 379-393.
- Latour, Bruno. 1991. “Technology is society made durable”, in J. law (ed.) A sociology of Monsters.
Essays on Power, technology and Domination. Sociological Review Monograph 38. London: Routledge.
‐ Snow, D.A. et al, 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micro-mobilization, and Movements
Participation” American Sociological Review, 51(4):464-481
- Benford and Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An overview and
assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611-639.
- John Kania & Mark Kramer. 2011. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review.
- Rose, Nicolas & Peter Miller, 1992, “Political power beyond the State: problematics of
government” British Journal of Sociology, 43(2): 173-205.
- Rankin, Katherine N. 2002. “Social capital, microfinance, and the politics of development.”
Feminist Economics, 8(1):1-24.
- Tania Murray Li, 2007. “Governmentality.” Anthropologica, 49(2):275-281.
- Villadsen. 2011???. “Governmentality.” Key concepts in critical management studies, pp.125-129.

Teaching Cases:
- Hockerts, Kai. 2004. “Mobility CarSharing (A & B)” INSEAD Case, Fontainebleau.
- Sjöblom and Wijkström, 2010. “Fryshuset.”
- Barinaga, 2010. “Voices of the Suburbs (A)”
- Barinaga, 2011. “Voices of the Suburbs (B)”
- Barinaga, 2011. “Introducing microfinance in Sweden to work with vulnerable groups.”