In order to assure intellectual value and practical relevance, it is crucial to define the domain in a felicitous way. One of the key elements of Stevenson’s statement above is the qualifying phrase “properly conceived.” One of his arguments is that a critical step forward for the entrepreneurship field was framing the field in a way that raised challenging intellectual questions and attracted academics from multiple disciplines interested in exploring the characteristics of entrepreneurial firms? We need a similar framing in the field of social entrepreneurship. We will argue that the best way of framing this new field lies at the intersection of the two dominant schools of practice and thought: the Social Enterprise School and the Social Innovation School. In an important sense, there is no right answer about which school should have claim to the term “social entrepreneurship.” As we will demonstrate, both schools are grounded in legitimate understandings of “entrepreneurship,” and each has a strong and thoughtful group of proponents. Both of them respond to a general sense that we need fresh ideas about tackling social problems.
انت في: / / Framing A theory of Social Entrepreneurship Building on Two Schools of Practice and Thought