' Academy oí Management Learning & Education, 2012, Vol. 11, No. 3. 479-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.20U.0018A Blended Value Framework forEducating the Next Cadre ofSocial EntrepreneursJILL KICKULNew York UniversityCHRISTINE JANSSEN-SELVADURAIFordham UniversityMARK D. GRIFFITHSMiami UniversityWe adopt a blended value framework with implications for how business schools andeducators can design, implement, and measure social entrepreneurship programs. Theframework stresses both social and economic value creation and presents a uniqueopporfuniiy and environmeni for business schools and their faculty to teach coursesfocused on the theory and practical skills needed to educate future social entrepreneurs.We advance a conceptual model that considers intrauniversity resources and activities,as well as partnerships with the greater social entrepreneurship community. We outlinefoundational pedagogical themes from both social entrepreneurship andentrepreneurship education that can enhance students' social entrepreneurship self-efficacy. Finally, we present recommendations for implementing the blended valueframework with a focus on how educators can develop initiatives inside and outside theirschools and universities.The future for social entrepreneurship aboundswith possibilities and innovations to effectivelyaddress and potentially solve some of society'smost intractable problems: health, education, eco-nomic development, poverty, water, energy, envi-ronment, food/nutrition, technology, and agricul-ture. It will often be the current and future socialentrepreneurs who rise to the challenge and usetheir abilities to recognize opportunities and mo-bilize others to take collective action. Additionally,social entrepreneurs whose environments are typ-ically resource constrained tend to engage in \"bri-colage\" behavior (Baker & Nelson, 2005). Bricolagebehavior is a set of actions driven by social entre-preneurs' search for existing and often scarce re-sources that can be combined or recombined toWe would like to thank Guest Editor Thomas Lawrence and twoanonymous reviewers for their helpful recommendations andcomments. We would also like to thank Research AssistantBryan Matis as well as our students, who continually inspire uswith their social ideas and innovations as they address many ofsociety's most pressing problems.479create novel and interesting solutions that affecttheir respective markets. Bricolage notions of mak-ing do and using whatever is on hand links with afundamental social shift toward developing smart,sustainable projects that are integral to socialchange. Bricolage enables these entrepreneurs touse creative approaches to attract and distributeresources, identify overserved or unserved marketsegments, and offer products and services that aresimpler, less costly, and \"good enough\"—all char-acteristics of catalytic innovators (Christensen,Baumann, Ruggles, & Sadtler, 2006). Moreover, it isoften the social entrepreneur who encourages aheightened sense of accountability within the in-dividuals and communities they serve, and insti-gates the outcomes and impact that are created(Dees & Anderson, 2003).To date, relatively little attention has been paidto understanding the role that entrepreneurshipeducation has had on influencing future social en-trepreneurship activity through adopting new cur-ricula and pedagogical innovations that assist stu-Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.480Academy of Management Learning & EducationSeptember/Í will often be the current and futuresocial entrepreneurs who rise to thechallenge and use their abilities torecognize opportunities and mobilizeothers to take collective action.dents in mobilizing resources and capabilities toinitiate, develop, and grow their operations to ad-dress the complexity and scale of social problems.Social entrepreneurship as a multidisciplinaryfield presents a unique opportunity and environ-ment for business schools and their faculty to con-tribute to academic research and teach coursesfocused on both theoretical frameworks and prac-tical skills on a holistic level. With over 500 profes-sors teaching or researching social entrepreneur-ship, and 148 institutions globally integratingaspects of social entrepreneurship within a widearray of programs (Ashoka & Brock, 2011), the fieldis gaining momentum in both universities andother educational programs (e.g., Ashoka, EchoingGreen, StartingBloc).Our work here introduces a conceptual model fordesigning and implementing social entrepreneur-ship education programs within a business schoolto reach across and outside of the university formaximum impact at both the student and societallevels (see Figure 1). The model outlines founda-tional pedagogical themes from both social entre-preneurship and entrepreneurship education andrecognizes the contributions of intrauniversity re-sources and activities, as well as external partner-ships to support the framework. This blendedvalue framework was adopted from the social en-trepreneurship practitioner field with the proposi-tion that \"value\" balances both economic and so-cial benefits (Emerson, 2003). That is, just asentrepreneurs can create and transform whole in-dustries, social entrepreneurs act as the changeagents for society, seizing opportunities othersPedagogical Themes of Social Entrepreneurship EducationFinancialSustainabilityOpportunityRecognitionFinancialPerformance>i 0)ï^ <-* 1/1(I) — niSocial EntrepreneurshipSelf-Efficacy- Identify innovative solutions to social problems- Inspire others to embrace vision & values- Identify multiple & varied sources of funding- Develop a business model for sustainability- Identify means of scaling deep & wide- Implement social solutions in a timely manner- Measure the social impact of the endeavorFIGURE 1Proposed Conceptual Model for Designing and Implementing Social EntrepreneurshipEducation Program2012Kickul, Janssen-Selvadurai, and Griffiths481miss in order to improve systems, inventing anddisseminating new approaches, advancing sus-tainable solutions that address some of society'smost pressing problems, and creating long-termsystemic change.[JJust as entrepreneurs can create andtransiorm whole industries, socialentrepreneurs act as the change agentsior society, seizing opportunities othersmtiss in order to improve systems,inventing and disseminating newapproaches, advancing sustainablesolutions that address some oí society'smost pressing problems, and creatinglong-term systemic change.Next, we illustrate how the integrated themesbased on the blended value framework can en-hance students' social entrepreneurship self-efficacy in creating their ventures. Finally, we sug-gest how a social entrepreneurship program basedon a blended value framework should be imple-mented and assessed to demonstrate its impactover time.We lay the foundation for this blended valueapproach to curriculum and pedagogical develop-ment by first introducing four core themes of socialentrepreneurship education paired with four corethemes of entrepreneurship education (as shownat the top of Figure 1).PAIRING PEDAGOGICAL THEMES OF SOCIALENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION WITHPEDAGOGICAL THEMES OFENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATIONital, growing sustainable and scalable businesses,and measuring financial performance. The pri-mary pedagogical themes of entrepreneurship ed-ucation in our model include opportunity recogni-tion, business models, growth strategies, andfinancial performance.Because managing commercial and social enter-prises have many parallels (Austin, Stevenson, &Wei-Skillern, 2006), we have paired the specificthemes to demonstrate the value added whenthere is cross-fertilization between the social andeconomic issues related to social entrepreneur-ship. Each pairing is designed to illustrate theneed for a blended value approach to social entre-preneurial education.Pairing 1: Social Innovation andOpportunity RecognitionSocial InnovationIt is rare to find complex, adaptive, social problemsthat do not require collaboration among key stake-holders from nonprofit, public, and private sectors.Unfortunately, intellectual capital in academiatends to be produced, taught, and disseminatedonly within the isolated silos of individual schools,disciplines, or programs. Effective performance ina shared world where public-private collaborationplays an increasingly important role requires in-depth learning to develop frameworks and habitsof collaboration as well as the knowledge andskills to manage it. In response to this need, thedemand for guidance and training for individualsin public-private collaboration is growing expo-nentially (Keegan, 2010; Natsios, 2009).As Tracey and Phillips (2007) point out, socialentrepreneurs often face a larger number and morediverse set of stakeholders, including communityleaders, government agencies, policy makers andfoundations, as well as other entrepreneurs andnonprofits who collaborate and share resources forcollective social impact. Therefore, social innova-tions are often developed by a variety of contribu-tors because they are addressing a widespreadpublic issue. Societal problems and inequitiesneed to be viewed as opportunities in and of them-selves, and the innovation required to addressthese issues may not be true innovation per se.Rather, it is about utilizing existing models, pro-cesses, systems, products, or services in new waysthat can result in cost-effective, progressive solu-tions that have a significant impact on alarge scale.The pedagogical themes of social entrepreneur-ship education are based upon the foundations ofsocial innovation, financial sustainability, scal-ability, and social impact. The traditional busi-ness-focused entrepreneurship curriculum is a vitalcomponent in educating future social entrepre-neurs because, irrespective of whether a socialenterprise is for profit, it must be managed as abusiness. Future social entrepreneurs must obtainthe necessary skills to manage an enterprise fromidea generation through exit strategy. Some ofthese business skills include identifying opportu-nities, conducting feasibility analyses, developingappropriate business and financial models, under-standing risk management, managing human cap-482Academy of Management Learning & EducationSeptemberOpportunity RecognitionOpporfuniiy recogniiion has been defined as \"thematch between an unfulfilled market need and asolution that satisfies fhe need\" (Rice & ColarelliO'Connor, 2001: 96), but if is arguably more thanidentifying the gap between the current and idealstate of affairs. It is a mind-sef, a mental process,and a recurring part of the entire innovation andvalue creation process, not just a one-time epiph-any (Unknown, 2009; Rice & Colarelli O'Connor,2001). The process includes rigorous research onfhe marketplace and underserved segments, cus-tomer wants and desires, the economic climate,advances in technology and so on, and then iden-tifying and addressing unmet needs to capitalizeon the imbalance by introducing innovative prod-ucts or services. Having an open mind, observinghuman behavior, recognizing pain points, or evencreating new products or services that peopledid not know they needed is at the heart of con-temporary innovation. Students should be lookingfor problems that are prevalent and persistent insociety, whether it is tied to poverty, sanitation,health care, education, or the environment to namea few. The more disruptive and value driven theinnovation is, the greater the impact and thepayoff.Additional opportunities lie in leveraging exist-ing partnerships, vendor and distributor relation-ships, successful service models, and the like, andapplying these strengths to an untapped or under-served market. Given the larger and more diverseset of stakeholders faced by the social entrepre-neur, opportunity recognition in this field is amuch more complex and integrated evaluation ofthe product or service needed, and often the meansof delivery that must be put in place. Hence, value-added social innovation requires a comprehensiveapproach to opportunity recognition.Until recently, there was no universally ac-cepted or proven model or method to guide en-trepreneurs in identifying lucrative business op-portunities; however, Lumpkin, Hills, andShrader (2004) have proposed a model that dem-onstrates that opportunity recognition is essen-tially a creative process. Since this process is apersonal extraction of reality that takes place inthe minds of individuals (Unknown, 2009), it isdifficult fo teach in a classroom. For this reason,students should be encouraged fo observe hu-man behavior and circumstances in the field—whether in their local communities or halfwayaround the globe.There are inequities and problems everywhere,but perceived opportunities are dependent uponthe observer and their personal experiences andvalues that have been influenced by their environ-ment, culture, education, and so on. Favorablebusiness opportunities are typically those thatpresent lucrative financial returns, whereas oppor-tunities in the social sphere are about fulfillingbasic needs. Both situations create value for theend user, but their underlying purpose and goalsare different. Being able to understand and appre-ciate both perspectives enables social entrepre-neurs to turn problems into opportunities and cre-ativity into profitable businesses.Pairing 2: Financial Sustainability andBusiness ModelsFinancial SustainabilityFinancial sustainability refers to the extent a so-cial venture can self-fund its operations in the longrun. A majority of social entrepreneurs rely on do-nations, volunteers, grants, and a variety of giftedresources to initially launch and expand their so-cial ventures. However, these types of resourceswill likely not be available indefinitely, so it is theentrepreneur's responsibility fo identify alterna-tive sources of funding. Students need to put theirtheory of change into action and develop a busi-ness model (Seelos & Mair, 2004) that enables theorganization to become self-sufficient. Since socialenterprises are a hybrid of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, they have two equally impor-tant objectives. They must generate sufficient cashflow while keeping their social mission and pur-pose a priority.Social entrepreneurs employ a variety of busi-ness models. Although contemporary social entre-preneurship methodology is frequently credited tothe West (particularly the United States and theUnited Kingdom), nonprofit organizations, microfi-nance agencies, and other sustainable businessmodels have been developed and utilized aroundthe world for centuries. In particular, social entre-preneurship ventures in developing countries havesome of the most sustainable and scalable entre-preneurial efforts (cf. Terjesen, 2007; Langman,2005; Austin, Bermudez, & Escobar, 2002).Business ModelsAccording to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010:14), abusiness model \"describes fhe rationale of how anorganization creates, delivers, and capturesvalue.\" Business models explain not only how tomonetize an idea and generate sustainable reve-nue, but also the evolution and exchange of value2012Kickul Janssen-Selvadurai, and Griffiths483as well. Business models are typically discussedin new venture creation courses, where tried-and-true models are introduced. New models, however,are emerging more frequently, and studentsshould be encouraged to be forward thinking indeveloping new business models rather than rely-ing on traditional models that can quickly losetheir value and effectiveness in a fast-changing,technology-driven economy. Examples of contem-porary models include \"freemium\" models, open-source business models, and multisided platformmodels, and new tools such as the business modelcanvas can help students develop new and bettermodels that consider changes in social behaviorsand rapid advances in technology (Osterwalder &Pigneur, 2010). Companies such as Groupon andLivingSocial were both recently launched utilizingnewly crafted models and are changing the wayconsumers shop, communicate, and live becausethey leverage the conveniences of the Internet, so-cial media/networking and smart phones to serveconsumer demands and lifestyles.Recent developments also include the appear-ance of philanthropic venture capital funds, whichare designed to help ensure the financial sustain-ability of the social entrepreneurs they nurture. Aleading example is the Norwegian philanthropicventure capital firm, Ferd Social Entrepreneurs(FSE). With a capital base of 2.6 million euros an-nually, FSE focuses on social entrepreneurs withthe goal of creating a professional self-sustainingorganization that continues to operate without di-rect involvement or funds from FSE. That is, thedevelopment of a mature organization that is ro-bust against fundamental changes. To accomplishthis, FSE contributes to a social venture's develop-ment by providing not only funds, but also assis-tance in building basic structures and organiza-tional elements. These include establishing aprofessional board, building reporting systems,crafting agreements, identifying potential incomestreams, and developing indicators for social im-pact measurement; in short, developing the inte-grated business model necessary for futureviability.Pairing 3: Scalability and Growth StrategiesScalabilityA related issue to financial sustainability is scal-ability, which is the speed and ease with which asystem can be expanded (Bradach, 2003). The mo-tivating idea for the scalability of social venturesis demonstrated in the paraphrasing of the oldadage \"we must learn not just to teach a man tofish, but to revolutionize the fishing industry\"(Drayton, 2002). Scaling an operation is importantto commercial entrepreneurs as well, but socialentrepreneurs often do not think broadly enoughabout the potential impact they can have. Whilesmall steps and small solutions can have a signif-icant impact on a community, having the mind-setand a strategy to replicate efforts more globally isimperative because a greater percentage of theworld's population will benefit from the socialinnovation.Domain-driven development institutions, includ-ing the Aspen Network of Development Entrepre-neurs (ANDE), Ashoka, The Bridgespan Group,Acumen Fund, and the Skoll Foundation give so-cial entrepreneurs an opportunity to expand in ar-eas such as education, agriculture, healthcare,and renewable energy by providing access tofunding, experts, and data. As more social entre-preneurs recognize the support networks availableto them, the more likely they will be to think andact on a grander scale. Doing so will further vali-date their role and value in the marketplace whencompared to commercial businesses that aremostly concerned about profits or stock prices in-stead of value creation on a truly global scale.The challenge that students face when develop-ing a strategy to scale their social innovation ishow to spread successful social innovations intimely, effective, and appropriate ways. Four di-mensions that outline the potential benefits, risks,and costs of doing so should be emphasized inteaching students this topic: (1) Impact: Do youhave anything worth scaling out? (2) Need: Is theresignificant unmet or poorly met need elsewhere?(3) Organization: Do you have sufficient organiza-tional resources, support, and stability? (4) Timing:Is this a particularly good time for exploring scaleseriously? (Bloom & Chatterji, 2009). Taylor, Dees,and Emerson (2002) offer several ways and meth-ods for \"scaling deep\" (i.e., achieving greater im-pact in home community or market) and \"scalingout\" (i.e., disseminating principles, creating learn-ing networks, or packaging or selling programs).They also offer a 4-step process for decidingwhether and how to scale: (1) Define the socialenterprise considering scaling and determine itsreplicability; (2) Assess the opportunity; (3) Eval-uate the social enterprise's readiness, and; (4)formulate a scaling-up strategy that fits with theoverall mission of the social firm. These keyquestions should be integral to teaching scal-ability issues within a social entrepreneurshipcurriculum.484Academy oí Management Learning & EducationSeptemberGrowth SirafegiesEven before a business has launched, growth andexit strategies need to be clearly defined andstructured, keeping in mind that growth meansdifferent things to different entrepreneurs. Somewant to build multimillion dollar enterprises,while others are satisfied running small—or evensolo—operations. Growth can be deeper penetra-tion into existing markets, or expansion into addi-tional markets, or the provision of new goods andservices. Regardless, having a clearly definedgrowth strategy guides decision making at everystep. For example, at what point do you hire yourfirst employee? Do you need multiple outlets orchannels to distribute your product or service? Areyou able to serve everyone in your addressablemarket with the current structure? What resourcesneed to be expended to access new markets orsuppliers or vendors? Do you have sufficient cap-ital to do so or must new resources be tapped? Theanswers to these questions depend upon a prede-termined growth strategy.From a social enterprise perspective, some en-trepreneurs simply want to help an underservedcommunity access clean water or education, whileothers have a desire to eradicate poverty world-wide. Exposing students to the various levels anddefinitions of success demonstrate that conserva-tive growth strategies are just as prevalent ashigh-growth strategies. Nonetheless, social entre-preneurs must be encouraged to build businessesthat are both scalable and sustainable becausethose are the businesses that will attract funding,supporters, new customers, public relations oppor-tunities, and ultimately, will have a greater socialimpact.While encouraging students about ways to growtheir social enterprise and as they attract the at-tention of new employees, government, and inves-tors who want to help build the business, a discus-sion on \"mission drift\" should be emphasized. Thedrift may seem small or the difference in prioritiesbetween the outside stakeholders and the employ-ees and management team may seem inconse-quential; however, it is often these small differ-ences in perspectives that can stifle or sidetrack asocial enterprise's growth. In addition, the organi-zation's culture and identity that is linked to themission may change, placing the social enterprisein a vulnerable situation as it tries to achieve itssocial goals while being financially sustainable.For instance, new hires and employees may be-come confused over time as management andfunders place more focus on growth and lose sightof the immediate social needs and problems of thecommunity. While it may be short-sighted to as-sume that all will agree on the same priorities ofthe social enterprise, having open conversationswith all stakeholders (inside and outside the firm)at the early stages is imperative. Governancemechanisms, if designed and adapted appropri-ately to the organization's needs, can help socialenterprises navigate through growth successfully.At its core, scalability in social entrepreneurshipis about developing the business, deepening com-munity relationships, possibly expanding to otherplaces, all with the goal of creating greater impact.The ability to create value in this process centerson basic issues and problems arising from rapidgrowth. In particular, how can rapid growth beachieved without experiencing limitations or bot-tlenecks? The pairing of scalability with growthhighlights the importance of evaluating organiza-tional and economic feasibility from the outset.Pairing 4: Social Impact andFinancial PerformanceSocial ImpactThe true value of a social enterprise is its positiveimpact on society. Unlike commercial enterprisesthat are profit driven, the success of social ven-tures is determined by how their efforts and out-comes improve individual's lives and their commu-nities. Social entrepreneurs often have difficultyidentifying a precise and measurable indicatorthat accurately represents the amount of socialreturn generated by their ventures (Trelstad, 2008).For years, there has been a massive, unfilled gapin the world of social enterprise for clear, objective,measurable, and cross-comparable metrics on thepositive social and environmental returns (Kramer,2005; Paton, 2003; Poister, 2003). Increasingly, orga-nizations are pressured from funders to account fortheir social returns.Fortunately, there are now a number of ways tomeasure and communicate the value of a socialenterprise's social impact. For example, Tuan(2008) outlines eight integrated approaches on howto monetize a firm's social value. More recently,McKinsey and Company, in partnership with theFoundation Center and New York University'sStern School of Business, has established Tooisand Resources for Assessing Social Impact (TRASI),an interactive on-line database that provides toolsand resources for measuring social value creation.The user-friendly website provides approaches toassessing social impact, strategies for creatingand conducting an assessment, and ready-to-usetools for measuring social change (see http://trasi.2012Kickul, Janssen-Selvadurai, and Griffiths485foundationcenter.org/). The database comprisesmore than 150 distinct evaluation approaches for arange of social enterprises, social investors, foun-dations, NGOs, and microfinance organizations.Before an evaluation technique is uploaded, it isreviewed by a team of university and practitionerexperts to assess its appropriateness. They deter-mine the scope of the tool or resource, its credibil-ity, and the staff or stakeholder involvement re-quired for its use. The website also has a series ofvideos on social impact assessment created bythought leaders that serve to provide a broaderperspective of social value creation and measure-ment.Fortunately, there are now a number ofways to measure and communicate thevalue of a social entrepreneur's socialimpact.Social impact cannot be achieved unless its pre-requisites are in place and have been mastered.The organization must be professionally organizedand operated; clear objectives, goals, and mile-stones must be established; and progress towardtheir achievement must be monitored. In manycases, the best means for operationalizing theprogress of the organization is by measuring anobjective proxy. For many entrepreneurial firmsthis can be financial performance.Financial PerformanceMost business school students are required to takebasic accounting and finance courses, includingmanagerial accounting and financial statementanalysis, to learn the necessary skills and knowl-edge to develop and interpret key financial state-ments of any business. Although social entrepre-neurs by definition are not motivated to maximizeprofits like most for-profit organizations, they needto manage cash flows and know how to optimallyleverage the capital they do have to maximizesocial impact.Not unlike measuring success and growth, thereare different levels and ways of measuring finan-cial performance. Regardless of whether a busi-ness is for-profit or not-for-profit, financial perfor-mance must be measured for legal, funding,reporting, and operational purposes. Textbooks ac-companied by lectures, cases, and consulting proj-ects are the most widely used techniques utilizedto teach these development and analytic skills.But, more crucial is the emphasis on why finan-cial statements are important to the providers ofcapital and why the entrepreneur should care. Aprime example of teaching students how socialentrepreneurship and financial performance areinterrelated is a course offered at ColumbiaBusiness School entitled \"Finance and Sustain-ability\" (please see http://hausercenter.org/iri/about/ri-curriculum/courses-and-syllabi). The course,which is taught predominantly with case studies,in-class discussions, and guest speakers, examineshow finance can be used to promote sustainabilityin the following areas: (1) Capital Markets—to ad-dress environmental issues; (2) Commercial Bank-ing—to create sustainable economic development;(3) Project Finance—to reduce poverty and createinfrastructure development, and; (4) InvestmentManagement—to promote renewable energy, toimprove corporate governance in public compa-nies, and to finance social entrepreneurs.Financial performance and social impact are ofutmost importance to those who fund social ven-tures (e.g., impact investors). Although there aremultiple measures of both impact and financialperformance to assess an organization's doublebottom line, the essential point is the need to rec-ognize their role in the blended value framework.While we have broken the analysis down intofour convenient pairings to show the links betweenthe pedagogical themes of social entrepreneurshipeducation and the typical entrepreneurship curric-ulum, it is clear that these pairings are four parts ofa necessarily integrated whole. Value added willonly be achieved when a social enterprise,whether for profit or not, is operated as a profes-sional business. A vast array of necessary skillsmust be mastered to manage an enterprise fromidea generation through exit strategy, and our pro-posed blended value approach optimizes the like-lihood of a social entrepreneur's success.UTILIZING INTRAUNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITYRESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE BLENDEDVALUE APPROACHIntrauniversity ResourcesAs society's problems become increasingly com-plex, the development of possible solutions andrelated business entities often resides outside thecompetency of the traditional business school.Other programs and disciplines including publicpolicy, law, medicine, education, and the arts haveperspectives and ideas on how new curricula andpedagogy can be adopted to assist students asthey confront issues of sustainability. Social entre-486Academy of Management Learning & EducafionSeptemberpreneurship has been labeled as a \"meta-profes-sion\" (Light, 2008), and therefore, by definition,should be cross-university in nature.The strength and impact of a social entrepre-neurship education program depends largely onits access to quality university resources and suc-cessful communication among key constituents.While social entrepreneurship programs are moreoften than not developed and offered in businessschools or colleges focused on public policy andsocial issues, other schools or departments (e.g.,law, liberal arts, media and communications, andthe sciences) can and should be linked to socialenterprise efforts, as each provides differing re-sources and perspectives on social issues and howthey can—or should—be addressed.Possibly one of the best examples of intraschoolcollaboration in this field can be found at NewYork University (NYU). Students in the Stern Schoolof Business, the School of Law, the Tisch School ofthe Arts, the Wagner School of Public Service, theGallatin School of Individualized Study, and theSchool of Continuing and Professional Studies allhave access to several graduate and undergradu-ate courses in social entrepreneurship, philan-thropy, and corporate social responsibility (http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/listings/).In addition. New York University's Catherine B.Reynolds Program for Social Entrepreneurship(www.nyu.edu/reynolds) hosts guest speaker se-ries, one-on-one coaching sessions, fellowship pro-grams, retreats, forums, and more for aspiring so-cial entrepreneurs—much of which is facilitatedby faculty and administrators from various de-partments and disciplines throughout the univer-sity. They regularly invite expert advisers andthought leaders with practical experience in thesocial enterprise movement to create awarenessand engage students in experiential-learning oppor-tunities (www.stern.nyu.edu/AcademicPrograms/FullTime/CareerOpportunities/CareerPaths/SocialEnterprise/index.htm). Other academic institu-tions, including Columbia University, Cornell Uni-versity, and York University offer noteworthy so-cial enterprise courses across multiple schools inaddition to supporting extracurricular programs.To provide students with hands-on experiencesin social entrepreneurship, several schools withinNew York University collaborate on consultingprojects and field studies. In one program at NYU'sStern School of Business, graduate students part-ner with the boards or executive committees ofhigh-profile, nonprofit organizations to execute aproject that complements the organization's so-cially minded mission, allowing students access toreal-world mentors while concurrently making ameaningful social contribution (www.stern.nyu.edu/AcademicPrograms/FuUTime/CareerOpportunities/CareerPaths/SocialEnterprise/index.htm). A similarprogram exists for students in other New York Uni-versity graduate programs who are paired with topconsulting firms that advise prominent New York-based social organizations such as the William J.Clinton Foundation Economic Opportunity Initia-tive, the Coalition for the Homeless, EchoingGreen, and the Lower East Side ImprovementDistrict. Upon graduation, many students assumeleadership and even board positions at some of theorganizations with which they partnered duringtheir studies (www.nyu.edu/reynolds/grad/l l_html/broadnax.html).University research support centers should alsobe included in such initiatives, as they are privy toavailable research grants, scholarships, and otherfunding opportunities, and they have experiencein establishing partnerships with nonprofits orother academic institutions with similar researchand teaching agendas.By leveraging the strengths of various depart-ments or schools, a more well-rounded curriculumcan be developed, resulting in graduates well pre-pared for social entrepreneurship careers.Social Entrepreneurship Community ResourcesThe amount and variety of partnership opportuni-ties for academe is virtually endless and includespractitioners, government agencies, nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs), public and privateorganizations, microfinance funds, and other so-cial enterprises. These nonuniversity resources arepart of the ecosystem that enables social entrepre-neurship educators to broaden and deepen stu-dents' experiences that are essential in identifyingand developing social ventures that are sustain-able and have a far-reaching impact on individu-als, families, and society. Moreover, the externalpartnerships provide students with access to prac-tical experiences, established organizations withadditional resources, mentors and advisers, andpotential funding. Collectively, these partnershipshave the strength and capability to facilitate socialchange on local, national, and global scales.Several academic social entrepreneurship ini-tiatives already collaborate with their local com-munities to maximize the educational value andsocial impact of their programs. This practical ap-proach to social enterprise education is employedby some of the nation's top business schools. Forexample, the Wharton-Netter Center CommunityPartnership program at the University of Pennsyl-vania connects students with experiential oppor-2012Kickul, Janssen-Selvadurai, and Griffiths487tunities to address community challenges at localnonprofit organizations and high schools as a com-ponent of \"Community Problem Solving\" courses(www.wharton.upenn.edu/socialimpact/wharfon-netter-center-community). To demonstrate theWharton School's long-term commitment fo bothestablishing and maintaining these important co-curricular partnerships with the community, it hasalso created a student-loan forgiveness fund avail-able to ifs MBA graduates who continue to dedi-cate themselves fo careers in social enterprise(www.wharton.upenn.edu/socialimpact/bendheim-loan-forgiveness-fund.cfm).In addition to local community-based partner-ships, there is a variety of national and interna-tional organizations with which universities cancollaborate to give students access to real-worldexperiences and the opportunity fo build networksand skill sets. We provide a few brief examplesbelow of partnering opportunities with govern-ment agencies, NGOs, social enterprises, and mi-crofinancing organizations.Governmenf AgenciesIn the United States, fhe Small Business Adminis-tration (SBA; www.sba.gov) is the premier agencyfor supporting small business owners and entre-preneurs. They provide educafion, resources, andaccess to secured loans to support new businessgeneration on local, state, and national levels.Nevertheless, the SBA has yet to make a concertedeffort to seek out and support social entrepreneursor students. However, fhe Washington DC-basedconsulting group. Social Enterprise Associates, en-courages aspiring social entrepreneurs to applyfor SBA guarantees on loans, as the number ofavailable guarantees has increased in the wake offhe recent financial crisis (www.socialenterprise.net/assefs/files/SmBusLoans.pdf). There is muchmore that can and needs to be done at all levels ofgovernment to educate and support aspiring socialentrepreneurs. Wölk (2007: 118) argues that \"gov-ernmenf currently lacks a comprehensive and stra-tegic approach for collaborating with social entre-preneurs,\" although he does acknowledge several\"isolated\" cases of government collaborating withbusinesses fo address social issues.JVongovernmeniai Organizations (NGOs)NGOs generally aim fo be independent, small-scale change agents with the goal of having awide-ranging impact from their grassroots efforts.Many partner with universities to provide studentswith employment, internship, or volunteer oppor-tunities to gain experience. These experiences of-ten inspire students to build supporting social en-terprises, multiplying the original NGOs' impact.Partnering with NGOs gives students a direct linkto working on life-changing projects that teachthem nof only about advocacy, fund raising, be-coming change agents, opportunity recognition,and so on, but also enables them to see the worldthrough a different lens based on practical experi-ences—the type of impact no classroom canduplicate.Social EnterprisesAs the field of social entrepreneurship continues toattract attention and interest, more organizationsare evolving fo provide aspiring social entrepre-neurs with the resources needed to affect socialchange by supporting new entrants fo fhe market.Established social enterprises can benefit fromgroups such as the Social Enterprise Alliance (SEA;www.se-alliance.org/member-spotlight), which co-ordinates regular educational and networkingevents for nonprofit business practitioners includ-ing social enterprises, corporations, lenders, edu-cators, and service providers. Social Enterprize Al-liance proactively advertises its members'businesses to cultivate partnerships, attract cli-ents, and identify sources of capital. Others in-clude Ashoka, ANDE, Echoing Green, and the SkollFoundation.Microfinance OrganizationsIncreasing interest in investing in social initiativeshas led to fhe creation of many microfinancingorganizations that support a specific cause(s).Some of the lending organizations that have had asignificant impact in recent years include theGrameen Foundation (www.grameenfoundation.org), Kiva (www.kiva.org). Acción (www.accion.org). United Prosperity (www.unitedprosperity.org).Lend for Peace (www.lendforpeace.org), Micro-Place (www.microplace.com), and Foundation forInternational Community Assistance (FINCA;www.finca.org). Each fund has its own investmentcriteria and area(s) of interest, but collectivelytheir purpose is fhe same—investing smallamounts of money in projects that can have a largeimpact. Partnering wifh any of these organizationsprovides students fhe opportunity to understandhow to generate a substantial global impact with asmall investment.Af Fordham University's Gabelli School of Busi-ness, the Fair Trade and Microfinance Consul-fancy Project pairs undergraduate students with a488Academy of Management Learning & EducationSeptemberfaculty member and a graduate student consultantto run an on-campus business that sells fair-tradejewelry and gifts made in Kenya. A portion of theannual profits are used to issue microloans togroups of impoverished AIDS widows looking tocreate businesses in Kenya, with the understand-ing that timely repayment will allow additionallending within the borrower's community. Stu-dents enrolled in this course also have the oppor-tunity to visit the business's artisan partners andmicroloan borrowers in an educational exercisethat actively involves running a social businesswhile directly engaging in microfinance ventures(www.unprme.org/reports/PRMEreport52411 .pdf).THE ROLE OF THE BLENDED VALUEAPPROACH IN ENHANCING SOCIALENTREPRENEURSHIP SELF-EFFICACYscaling deep and wide; (6) Implementing socialsolutions in a timely manner; and (7) Measuringthe social impact of the endeavor. Employing ablended value approach to a program that incor-porates the economic and social issues relevant toeducation and training will be integral to enhanc-ing a student's self-efficacy and thereby creating avibrant pipeline of confident, aspiring socialentrepreneurs.RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EDUCATORSBy integrating the foundational pedagogicalthemes from both social entrepreneurship and en-trepreneurship education, along with a supportiveinfrastructure and partnerships throughout theuniversity and the greater social entrepreneurshipcommunity, we enhance students' social entrepre-neurship self-efficacy in the creation and launch oftheir ventures. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy mayplay an important role in uncovering the essentialskills needed throughout the various stages of newventure development. Self-efficacy is defined (Ban-dura, 1997) as people's judgments of their capabil-ities to organize and execute courses of actionsrequired to attain designated types of perfor-mance. It is concerned not with the skills one has,but with one's judgments of what one can do withwhatever skills one possesses.We believe that many of the pedagogical themesemphasized in a program along with the develop-ment of supportive resources within and outsidethe university can enhance a student's social en-trepreneurship self-efficacy. Theory indicates thattargeted education can play an important role indeveloping levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1992).Thus, providing guidance along each of the so-cial entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship ped-agogical themes can potentially play an impor-tant role in developing social entrepreneurshipself-efficacy.Consistent with our pedagogical themes, the fol-lowing social entrepreneurship self-efficacy be-haviors should be focused on: (1) Identifying inno-vative solutions to social problems; (2) Inspiringothers to embrace the vision and values of thesocial enterprise; (3) Identifying multiple and var-ied sources of funding; (4) Developing a businessmodel for sustainability; (5) Identifying means ofWhile the majority of our essay has focused on the\"what\" in terms of social entrepreneurship andcollaborative opportunities to strengthen the edu-cational component, we now offer suggestions on\"how\" social entrepreneurship can become an in-tegral component of a curriculum. Careful atten-tion should be given to the location and contextwherein the social entrepreneurship program andcurriculum is being implemented. In developingeconomies, teaching about social innovation,scale, and impact may all be influenced by so-cially, culturally, environmentally, and economi-cally sustainable business practices within thespecific country. Anderson and Markides (2007)identify four issues that can have an influence oneach of our pedagogical themes and how educa-tors teach social entrepreneurship based on thesethemes. These include (1) How affordable the so-cial innovation is to the customers in the market(e.g., aspiring social entrepreneurs should con-sider affordability and pricing in developing theirsustainability strategy); (2) How acceptable the so-cial product or service is (e.g., innovation shouldbe adapted to the unique needs of customers orsocial impact may not be realized); (3) How avail-able the product or service is (e.g., social entrepre-neurs should be resourceful about distributing ordelivering products and services to the most iso-lated communities, especially when they are look-ing to scale to different regions of the country); and(4) How aware customers are about the social in-novation (e.g., since many customers in developingeconomies are not reachable by conventional mar-keting, building awareness can challenge the so-cial enterprise's ability to scale, as well as theimpact they can achieve within the community).Our following recommendations are at the pro-gram level with a focus on how educators candevelop initiatives inside and outside their schoolsand universities. Just as social entrepreneurs en-counter issues of social innovation, scale, and im-pact, educators must also find ways to addressthese same concepts within their programs. In Ta-ble 1, we present recommendations for implement-2012Kickul, Janssen-Selvadurai, and Griííiths489TABLE 1Recommendations for Educators: Implementing a Blended Value FrameworkComponent of Model and Blended Value ApproachRecommendationsfor EducatorsSituated learningapproachMultidisciplinaiyapproachAids inDevelopment of:Pedagogical Themes ofSocial Entrepreneurship andEntrepreneurship EducationPrimary Partnership/Utilization of:' Social EntrepreneurshipCommunity Resources• Intrauniversity ResourcesExamples• SE Consulting Projects• Site Visits/Field Trips• Social Entrepreneurship, Innovation andImpact Practicums (e.g., ISIS)• Co-creation of Courses• Social Venture Competitions• Speaker Series/Forums• Social Entrepreneurship and InnovationIncubator• Pre- and Postcourse Assessments• Ouantitative and Qualitative Surveys• Analysis of Course Data• Analysis of External Practitioner and/orCommunity Engagements• Focus Groups with Learners, Facultyand PractitionersMeasuring studentlearning' Social EntrepreneurshipSelf-Efficacying a blended value framework following the gen-eral model depicted in Figure 1. We discuss therole of situated learning, the adoption of a multi-disciplinary approach, and the role of measuringstudent learning to assess a social entrepreneur-ship program's impact and effectiveness.The Role of Situated LearningGrounded in the fact that entrepreneurial knowl-edge is often tacit and difficult to transfer intotraditional classrooms, experiential learning hasbeen incorporated in many entrepreneurship edu-cation programs and used in many different forms,including collaborating with practicing entrepre-neurs and field trips (Kuratko, 2005). Evidence ofthe importance of experiential learning in socialentrepreneurship education has been reported byBrock and Steiner (2009) through the analysis of 107social entrepreneurship syllabi in the UnitedStates and abroad. They found that \"seventy-fivepercent of faculty teaching social entrepreneur-ship are assigning service/experiential learningprojects to give students hands-on experience,with a significant portion of the overall coursegrade attributed to the project (approximately30%)\" (Brock & Steiner, 2009: 17).More recently and similar to experiential learn-ing, situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) viewslearning as a transaction between the person andthe social environment. Events in situated learningoccur through the person's experience in the socialenvironment or \"communities of practice\" thathave norms, tools, and traditions of practice. Theidea stresses \"practice\" and \"community\" equally.Knowledge is seen as the practical capability fordoing and making. Meaning is the construction ofa social unit that shares a stake in a commonsituation. As such, learning is the capability forincreased participation in communally experi-enced situations; a dual affair of constructing iden-tity and constructing understanding (Lave &Wenger, 1991). Thus, learning is a process of be-coming a member of the community through activeengagement and participation.Given the variety and complexity of problemsthat social entrepreneurs encounter and then at-tempt to find sustainable solutions for, educatorsshould immerse aspiring social entrepreneurs inan environment that approximates, as closely aspossible, the context in which their new ideas andbehaviors will be applied. As mentioned by Traceyand Phillips (2007: 269), one way to give studentsexperience working with a social enterprise butalso integrate them with such communities ofpractices \". . . is to organize social enterprise con-sulting projects for groups of interested students,where students are required to act as consultantsto a new social venture.\" Benefits of such consul-tancy projects are numerous, including direct ex-perience with a social venture and new insightsinto social impact consultancy.To prepare students for the challenges they willencounter in the social sector, educators shouldconsider designing a social entrepreneurshipcourse based (at least in part) on a preparationexercise, which is then followed by the field expe-rience. The former provides students with a strong490Academy of Management Learning & EducationSeptembertheoretical basis on social entrepreneurship con-cepts, while the latter requires going into the fieldand experimenting with the previously learnedknowledge to gain new perspectives from practicalexperience. Indeed, the hybrid and ambiguous na-ture of social entrepreneurship-focused companiescharacterized by a double or triple bottom lineimplies that innovative social entrepreneurs haveto manage the challenges typically linked to en-trepreneurial activity while striving to achieve so-cial outcomes.An example of incorporating situated learning isNew York University's International Social ImpactStudies (ISIS) course, which is open to qualifiedstudents from different fields of study. The course'sgoal is to provide a socially relevant academicexperience that combines classroom curriculumwith hands-on learning to gain in-depth insightsinto economic and social value creation in the de-veloping world. Students learn to think strategi-cally and act opportunistically with a socially con-scious business mind-set. Through their 2-weekfieldwork in India or Colombia, students gain ex-posure to a partnering firm's innovative model foraddressing their respective social issues, as wellas to other stakeholders in the field (e.g., custom-ers, suppliers, government) to provide an addi-tional lens and perspective into the complexity ofmaking scalable progress in implementing newsolutions.Before embarking on their work and during thetime in the field, students learn about the eco-nomic, political, and cultural context specific to thecountry through lectures and case studies. Multi-disciplinary student teams work with the firms todevelop and deliver innovative solutions to meetimmediate needs. At the onset, teams develop aletter of agreement with their social enterprisepartner to document the proposed scope of work ofthe project. The letter of agreement includes a (a)summary of problem definition; (b) project objec-tives (to the extent possible, these objectivesshould be expressed as expected outputs or, pref-erably, outcomes rather than activities); (c) key re-search question(s), proposed analysis to answereach question, and the data required for this anal-ysis; (d) proposed approach/methodology (majoractivities and timeline); (e) brief description of theintended content and format of the deliverable(s);and (f) projected resource requirements (e.g., un-derstandings about access to people and informa-tion, handling of expenses, availability of logisticssupport from the client). This letter of agreementand final project deliverables facilitate the sharingof knowledge and best practices within the com-munity and sector as they are shared with thepartner, class, and other leaders in the social en-trepreneurship program.The Adoption of a Multidisciplinary ApproachAs society's problems become increasingly com-plex, comprehensive solutions will reside outsidethe traditional business school. Other programsand disciplines, such as public policy, law, medi-cine, education, and the arts offer differing per-spectives and ideas on how new curriculum andpedagogy can be adopted. That is, social entrepre-neurship may be best understood as a collabora-tive effort that can be undertaken by a variety ofprofessional disciplines and fields that would fol-low the lifecycle and growth of a social enterprise.Engaging cross-campus faculty in how theirbackground and experience can be applied to so-cial entrepreneurship-related themes leads to theinvolvement of experienced leaders in the field—social entrepreneurs, investors, and philanthro-pists—to discuss and debate emerging conceptsand themes in social entrepreneurship education.Multidisciplinary courses can be developedwherein students work on domain-driven develop-ment projects to improve the economic and socialwell-being in the community across a variety ofhuman indicators (e.g., education, housing, healthcare, and renewable energy) and thereby foster acommunity of learning among students and fac-ulty, as well as the local and greater population.Partnerships would be created with domain-driven development institutions, including ANDE,Bridgespan Group, E + Co, Acumen Fund, and theSkoll Foundation. For example, in a social enter-prise development course, multidisciplinary teamscan partner with such organizations and other lo-cal social enterprises that have an organizationalneed or problem that can use outside expertise.These may include the development of the socialenterprise's strategy, funding or scaling issues, orthe evaluation of their programs or initiatives inthe sector. Each team, depending on their projectscope, must conduct a preliminary assessment ofthe social enterprise's social impact theory andecosystem from the perspective of multiple com-munity, investor, and community stakeholders whohave different backgrounds, training, and experi-ence (collected through websites, blogs, annualreports, and interviews). For an excellent readingand example of assisting students to develop anecosystem map, see Bloom and Dees (2008). Boththe social impact theory and ecosystem mappingexercise give students the opportunity to view howvarious and diverse stakeholders relate to the mis-sion, its resource strategy, and business model, as2012Kickul, Janssen-Selvadurai, and Griffiths491well as their own contribution in helping the socialenterprise achieve its desired impact.Additional support for students involved in so-cial venture business plan competitions alongwith other initiatives (e.g., the Changemaker In-stitute, Ashoka) can be developed through men-torships with community leaders and a specialpurpose social innovation incubator dedicated toseed-stage and development-stage social enter-prises. Over time, the social outcomes, sustain-ability, and impact can be assessed, providingstrong arguments for additional university-or-ganization partnerships to focus on strategiccommunity development within the region andbeyond, rather than relying solely on philan-thropic activities.A multidisciplinary focus forces the integrationof social innovation and change across the univer-sity and into the community so that the commit-ment to bringing new solutions to societal chal-lenges through innovation and entrepreneurshippermeates every corner of the university. This com-mitment would enrich the student body, faculty,and staff by helping to visualize and realize theirimpact not only through their solutions andthought leadership, but also through the strategiesthe university can deploy to support and scalesolutions that foster long-term engagement andrenewal.Measuring Student Learning: ImpactA final recommendation is the issue of impactmeasurement. For our purposes, we will high-light two issues—the impact on student learningand the impact on a wider range of stakeholders(e.g., university community). The measurement ofstudent learning should draw from increasinglymore sophisticated methodologies and dataanalysis. For example. Storey (2000) presents aseries of six different approaches to the monitor-ing and evaluation of impact in the entrepre-neurship domain, culminating in the use of sta-tistical techniques and the use of random panels.These same approaches offer great promise tothe measurement of student learning impact,particularly as it can be customized to assessself-efficacy and the long-term outcomes and im-pact of the creation of student-led social ven-tures highlighted earlier.More specifically, as we measure student learn-ing and outcomes, we must acknowledge that theassessment process of student learning should beformative, summative, and reflective. That is, itshould determine the program's success againststated objectives and be informative of ongoingenhancements, augmentations, and replications ofthe program. The design should offer a range ofevaluation methods to accurately measure the ex-tent to which the program has been effectivelyimplemented, to demonstrate both the quanfifafivebreadth as well as the qualitative depth of impact,and to reveal institutional and school changes in-cluding new program innovations, dissemination,and replication. Evaluation tools include, butare not limited to pre- and postcourse assess-ments; quantitative and qualitative surveys; anal-ysis of course data; assessment of experiential-learning projects; analysis of external practitioneror community of practice quantity and quality ofengagement; focus groups with learners, faculty,and practitioners; and alumni interviews. Usingthese tools, assessment can track over the short-and long term both the effective execution of socialentrepreneurship program activities and the corre-sponding change in student, faculty, and practitio-ner awareness, knowledge, interaction, capacity,and behavior.Finally, we also recommend that students' ca-reer motivations and progress be tracked overtime. Many students may initially pursue moretraditional corporate careers and later migratetoward social intrapreneurship careers or posi-tions in social enterprises or nonprofits. Never-theless, as aspiring social entrepreneurs and in-novators develop new and sustainable modelsfor social impact, we must consider how our ed-ucational programs and courses influence theshort- and long-term outcomes of a student'slearning and development at individual, commu-nity, and societal levels. As educators, weshould be able to articulate the necessary aswell as the evolving skills, experiences, and cre-dentials that students need to move into thisemerging field.CONCLUDING THOUGHTSThe field of social entrepreneurship creates aunique opportunity to integrate, challenge, anddebate many traditional entrepreneurship as-sumptions in an effort to develop a cogent andunifying educational paradigm. As the field con-tinues to mature, we look forward to seeing howsocial entrepreneurs mobilize and utilize exist-ing resources to \"catalyze\" innovations that ad-dress societal problems. The idea of creatingpositive social outcomes is rooted in the socialentrepreneurship literature and has recently re-ceived greater attention among academic andclinical entrepreneurship researchers and edu-cators. While the creation of new and innovative492Academy of Management Learning & EducationSeptembersocial entrepreneurship firms is crucial to ad-dressing some of society's most pressing socialproblems, we believe there is also a substantialneed for educating the next cadre of social en-trepreneurs about the foundational multidimen-sional concepts of social ventures. If is aboutintense collaboration both inside and outsidethe walls of academe. A crucial starting pointis the model presented in Figure 1 and the adop-tion or implementation of a blended value frame-work shown in Table 1. In doing so, we are ableto give our students the essential resources, net-works, and education fo act as change agents forthemselves and fheir communifies, thereby al-lowing them to invent new, profitable, and sus-tainable solutions to change society for thebetter.neurship. Burmingham, UK: Senate Hall Academic Pub-lishing.Drayton, W. 2002. The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneur-ial and competitive as business. California ManagementReview, 44: 120-132.Emerson, J. 2003. The blended value proposition: Integratingsocial and financial returns. California Management He-view, 45: 35-51.Keegan, M. J. 2010. Leading the global partnership initiative:Insights from Ambassador Elizabeth Frawlley Bagley. Busi-ness of Government, Spring: 33-36.Kramer, M. 2005. Measuring innovation: Evaluation in the fieldof social entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: Skoll Foundationand FSG Social Impact Advisors.Kuratko, D. F. 2005. The emergency of entrepreneurship educa-tion: Development, trends and challenges. Entrepreneur-ship; Theory and Practice, 29: 577-597.Langman, L. 2005. From virtual public spheres to global justice:A critical theory of internetworked social movements. Soci-ological Theory, 23: 42-74.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated ¡earning: Legitimate pe-ripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Light, P. 2008. The search for social entrepreneurship. Washing-ton, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Lumpkin, G. T., Hills, G. E., & Shrader, R. C. 2004. Opportunityrecognition. Entrepreneurship: The way ahead. New York:Routledge.Natsios, A. S. 2009. Public/private alliances transform aid. Stan-ford Social Innovation fleview. Fall: 42-47.Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. 2010. Business model generation.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Paton, R. 2003. Managing and measuring social enterprises.London: Sage Publications.Poister, T. H. 2003. Measuring performance in public and non-pro/it organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Rice, M., & Colarelli O'Connor, G. 2001. Opportunity recogni-tion and breakthrough innovation in large establishedfirms. California Management fleview, 43, winter: 95-116.Seelos, C, & Mair, J. 2004. Sociai entrepreneurship: The contri-bution of individual entrepreneurs to sustainable develop-ment. IESE Working Paper: 553.Storey, D. J. 2000. Six steps to heaven: Evaluating the impact ofpublic policies to support small businesses in developedeconomies. In D. L Sexton & H. Lanstrom, (Eds.), Handbookof entrepreneurship. Oxford: Blackwells.Taylor, M., Dees, G., & Emerson, J. 2002. The question of scale:Finding an appropriate strategy for building on your suc-cess. In G. Dees, J. Emerson, & P. Economy, (Eds.), Strategictools for social entrepreneurs: Enhancing the performanceof your enterprising nonprofit. Wiley.Terjesen, S. 2007. Building a better rat trap: Technological inno-vation, human capital and the Irula. Entrepreneurship The-ory and Practice, 31: 953-963.Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge ofeducating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoin-der to the special issue on entrepreneurship education.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6:264-271.REFERENCESAnderson, J., & Markides, C. 2007. Strategic innovation at thebase of pyramid. Sloan Management Review, 49: 83-88.Ashoka, U., & Brock, D. 2011. Sociai entrepreneurship educationresource handhoofc. Ashoka U, the University Division ofAshoka: Innovators for the Public.Austin, J. A., Bermudez, W., & Escobar, G. 2002. IPQDERAC.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Product no.303501.Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social andcommercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? En-trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 1-22 .Baker, T., & Nelson, R. 2005. Creating something out of nothing:Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage.Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 329-366.Bandura, A. 1992. Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In R. Schwartzer, (Ed.), Self-efficacy:Thought control of action: 3-38. Washington, DC: Hemi-sphere.Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of controL NewYork: Freeman. Barefoot College. Available at: www.barefootcollege.org. Accessed on July 31, 2011.Bloom, P. N., & Chatterji, A. K. 2009. Scaling social entrepreneur-ial impact. California Management Review, 51: 114-133.Bloom, P. N., & Dees, G. 2008. Cultivate your ecosystem. StanfordSocial Innovation Review, Winter: 46-53.Bradach, J. L. 2003. Going to scale: The challenge of replicatingsocial programs. Stanford Social Innovation Review,Spring: 19-25.Brock, D., & Steiner, S. 2009. Social entrepreneurship education:Is it achieving the desired aims? Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract = 1344419 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1344419.Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M.December 2006. Disruptive innovation for social change.Harvard Business Review, 84: 94-101.Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. 2003. For-profit social ventures. InM. L. Kourilsky & W. B. Walstad, (Eds.), Social Entrepre-2012Kickul Janssen-Selvadurai, and Griffiths493Trelstad, B. 2008. Simple measures for social enterprise, inno-vations, 3: 105-118.Tuan, M. 2008, December. Measuring and/or estimating socialvalue creation: Insights into eight integrated cost ap-proaches. Bill and Melinda Gates Eoundation.Unknown. 2009. Recognizing opportunities. In innovator's tooJ-kit: 10 practical strategies to help you deveiop and imple-ment innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pub-lishing Corporation.Wölk, A. 2007, December. The small business economy for datayear 2006: A report to the president. Retrieved from: www.archive.sba.gov/advo/research/sbecon2007.pdf. Accessedon August 15, 2011.Christine lanssen-Selvaduraiis director of the Entrepreneur-ship Program in the GabelliSchool of Business at EordhamUniversity, as well as co-director of the Center for Entre-preneurship. She obtained herPhD from New York University.Her research interests include entrepreneurial learning,women entrepreneurs, and social entrepreneurship.Jill Kickul is the director of theprogram in social entrepreneur-ship in the Berkley Center forEntrepreneurship and Innova-tion at New York UniversityStern School of Business. Sheobtained her PhD from NorthernIllinois University in industrial/organizational psychology. Her research interests includesocial entrepreneurship, impact investing, and measuringsocial impact.Mark D. Griffiths is the Jack An-derson Professor of Einance atMiami Univeresity's EarmerSchool of Business. ProfessorGriffiths obtained his PhD(Finance) from the RichardIvey School of Business at theUniversity of Western Ontarioin Canada. He investigates issues in money market micro-structure, financial risk management and entrepreneurship.Copyright of Academy of Management Learning & Education is the property of Academy of Management andits content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.