English   Danish

2013/2014  KAN-OI05  Entrepreneurship as Social Creativity

English Title
Entrepreneurship as Social Creativity

Course information
Language English
Exam ECTS 7.5 ECTS
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 - MPP
Main academic disciplines
  • Innovation and entrepreneurship
Last updated on 13-08-2013
Learning objectives
The aim of this course is to enable students to:

-Demonstrate an ability to understand and analyze the social entrepreneurial process.
- Use course theories to identify the elements that need to be considered to develop and
strengthen entrepreneurial initiatives aiming at social change.
- Explain and defend a position on issues concerning the social entrepreneurship process
in situations that are yet unsettled by research.
- Use the theoretical perspectives discussed in the course as a means of
deciding questions involved in social entrepreneurial initiatives
Examination
Examination:
Examination form Oral exam based on written product

In order to participate in the oral exam, the written product must be handed in before the oral exam; by the set deadline. The grade is based on an overall assessment of the written product and the individual oral performance.
Individual or group exam Group exam, max. 5 students in the group
The oral exam is individual. If the project is written individually, it must be of max. 10 pages.
Size of written product Max. 15 pages
Assignment type Project
Duration
Written product to be submitted on specified date and time.
20 min. per student, including examiners' discussion of grade, and informing plus explaining the grade
Preparation time No preparation
Grading scale 7-step scale
Examiner(s) Internal examiner and second internal examiner
Exam period Spring Term
Make-up exam/re-exam
Same examination form as the ordinary exam
If a student is ill during the regular oral exam he/she will be able to re-use the project at the make-up exam. If the student was ill during the writing of the project and did not contribute to the 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 project (confer advice from the examiner) and hand it in on a new deadline specified by the secretariat.
Course content and structure

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
Expected literature

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
MacMillan.
- 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:
1360-1380.
- 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.”
3
Last updated on 13-08-2013