ChapterPDF Available

Beyond intellectual property and rich infrastructure: A community service learning perspective on universities' supportive role towards social entrepreneurs


Abstract and Figures

Universities are considered as important actors in ecosystems supporting social entrepreneurs due to their resources and intellectual property, based on scientific research. Such a view is based on discussions drawing on evidence in Western economies, i.e. mainly North America and Europe. However, this view is irrelevant to many developing countries, where universities are confronted with limited resources, underdeveloped scientific research, and even minimal knowledge of entrepreneurship. In such contexts, it is unclear how universities can support social entrepreneurs. We use the theoretical lens of Community Service Learning to argue that universities can support the entrepreneurial ecosystem by leveraging the critical mass of their students, faculty and staff members, and thus do not necessarily need rich infrastructure or IP. Based on a qualitative research in Bolivia, we introduce 18 basic activities for students, faculty, staff members and the community to support the development of social entrepreneurship, since these activities do not require any exceptional resources nor fundamental research.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure!
A Community Service Learning perspective on the universities’ supportive role
towards social entrepreneurs
Abel Diaz Gonzalez, Nikolay Dentchev, Maria del Carmen Roman
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Authors’s pre-publication version
Cite as:
Diaz Gonzalez, A., Dentchev, N., & Roman Roig, M. (2020). Beyond IP and rich
infrastructure: A community service learing perspective on universities supportive
role towards social entrepreneurs. In Tsvetkova, Schmutzler De Uribe and Puh
(eds) Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Meet Innovation Systems: Synergies, Policy
Lessons and Overlooked Dimensions. Edward Elgar.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Universities are considered as important actors in ecosystems supporting social
entrepreneurs due to their resources and intellectual property, based on scientific
research. Such a view is based on discussions drawing on evidence in Western
economies, i.e. mainly North America and Europe. However, this view is irrelevant
to many developing countries, where universities are confronted with limited
resources, underdeveloped scientific research, and even minimal knowledge of
entrepreneurship. In such contexts, it is unclear how universities can support social
entrepreneurs. We use the theoretical lens of Community Service Learning to
argue that universities can support the entrepreneurial ecosystem by leveraging
the critical mass of their students, faculty and staff members, and thus do not
necessarily need rich infrastructure or IP. Based on a qualitative research in
Bolivia, we introduce 18 basic activities for students, faculty, staff members and
the community to support the development of social entrepreneurship, since these
activities do not require any exceptional resources nor fundamental research.
KEYWORDS: Ecosystems, Social Entrepreneurship, Community Service
Learning, Entrepreneurial University.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Social entrepreneurs are known for their contribution to resolve social and
environmental issues (Smith & Woodworth, 2012), while being innovative in the use
of available resources (Mair & Marti, 2006). These contributions are not easily realized.
Social entrepreneurs are quite creative with their solutions for social and
environmental issues, even though they face many challenges in their endeavours
(Mair, Robinson, & Hockerts, 2006). Typical challenges are the lack of financial
resources, scarce human capital, and limited access to support networks,
partnerships, and alliances (Montgomery, Dacin, & Dacin, 2012). Therefore,
ecosystems supportive to social entrepreneurs are helpful to improve their contribution
to society due to the interconnectedness of various actors (Alvord, Brown, & Letts,
2004; ). Among these actors, universities are highlighted as playing a rather central
role as hub and resource providers (Howard & Sharma, 2006; Smith & Woodworth,
2012; Malecki, 2018).
However, the role of universities in the supportive ecosystems of social entrepreneurs
(SEs) is predominantly illustrated with cases from developed countries in Europe and
North America. It is generally argued that universities provide support by means of
their modern facilities and access to financial resources (Kirby, 2006). In addition, the
generation of specialized knowledge based on scientific research is regarded as a
valuable university contribution to ecosystems (Etzkowitz, 2004). This refers to the so-
called Triple Helix (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000) and Quadruple Helix (Carayannis
& Campbell, 2010) of universities. However, such a Western view on the role of
universities in the ecosystem of SEs is difficult to adopt in many developing countries.
A vast majority of the universities in these countries are focusing on teaching, with
basic facilities, limited funding, and underdeveloped scientific research. There are also
developing countries where the knowledge of entrepreneurship is not at all established
among university professors, especially in cases with an outspoken communist or
authoritarian context. With this paper, we will argue that universities have a role to play
in the support of SEs, even if they have limited resources and lack intellectual property
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
based on academic research. The need to address this knowledge gap is well
expressed by Siegel & Wright (2015, p. 583):
“[T]he debate regarding universities and academic entrepreneurship has relied too
much on the researchthird mission nexus, with its narrow focus on university
industry links. This has arisen because of the undue narrow emphasis of academic
entrepreneurship on the transfer of scientists’ inventions from the laboratory to licences
and start-ups, particularly in relation to formal IP, such as patents and licences.”
We address the above knowledge gap by arguing that universities can always
leverage their students, staff and existing networks to support SEs, even when they
have scant resources, limited fundamental research, and even a certain ignorance of
entrepreneurship. We use the theoretical lens of Community Service Learning (CSL)
(Furco, 1996) to make this argument. To realize our objectives, we have conducted
an explorative case study research in Bolivia, using data from 21 semi-structured
interviews and 3 focus groups, complemented with secondary data and observations
in the cities of Santa Cruz, San Jose de Chiquitos, Tarija, La Paz, Cochabamba, and
Batallas. We aim at describing the various existing activities and we illustrate new
opportunities that universities could explore to contribute to the ecosystems in support
of SEs.
The remainder of this book chapter is divided into six sections. The first presents the
main challenges that SEs face and how ecosystems can help to resolve these
challenges. The second section introduces the theoretical framework of CSL. The third
section describes the methodology used for this study. The fourth presents an
overview of the background of Bolivia, i.e. the context of our study, while the fifth
section is dedicated to the results, discussing the current role and future opportunities
for Bolivian universities within the ecosystems in support to social entrepreneurs
through CSL. The sixth and final section presents the conclusions of this paper.
Before elaborating on the main argument of our paper - i.e. universities can support
social entrepreneurs without specific resources, research or even knowledge about
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
entrepreneurship - one needs to first understand the main challenges of SEs, and
hence grasp the potential roles of other ecosystem actors. SEs are confronted by a
different type of challenges depending on their context, goals, and sector of
activity (Mair & Martí, 2006). In Table 1, we summarize the main challenges faced by
SEs as discussed in the relevant literature:
Type of challenge
Authors discussing it in the literature
Mission and strategy
Lack of orientation, mission drift, difficulties to formulate
sustainable short- and long-term strategy, inadequate legal
Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Certo
& Miller, 2008; Dees, 1998; Honig, 1998; Mair,
Robinson, & Hockerts, 2006; : Martin & Osber,
Education and competences
Lack of managerial and financial knowledge; difficulties
when matching mission and values; strong and specific
competencies needed to achieve social impact
Certo & Miller, 2008; G. Dees, 2007; Letaifa,
2016; Volkmann, Tokarski, & Ernst, 2008;
Webb, Kistruck, Ireland, & Ketchen, 2010;
Wincent et al., 2016
Funding and resource attraction
Difficulties to manage and achieve financial sustainability;
complex ways to access to capital; challenges of attracting
investment; complex efforts to access financial services
Bloom & Dees, 2008; Letaifa, 2016; Roundy,
2017; Shaw & Carter, 2007; Wincent et al.,
Human resources:
Selection and engagement of people with the right profile;
relying on volunteers; challenges to compete with market
rates in terms of salaries
Dees, 2012; Letaifa, 2016; Roundy, 2017;
Sharir & Lerner, 2006; Totterman & Sten, 2005
Evaluation and performance
Difficulties to establish/determine performance indicators
and impact on social or environmental projects; social
return on investment is often subjective
(Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003; Autio et al.,
Table 1: Challenges for social entrepreneurs
The first challenge is related to SEs mission and strategy. Having a clear social
mission is a central attribute for SEs (Austin et al., 2006). Drift in their social orientation
is one of the most important concerns, since some SEs tend to lose the focus of their
social mission upon the maturity of their organization (Wronka, 2013). This concern is
also related to subsequent strategic choices related to income generation (profit), or
the transitioning to hybridity (parallel profit and non-profit activities or only adopting a
non-profit type of organization).
The second challenge is related to the educational background and the competences
of SEs. SEs often lack managerial and business skills (Dees, 2007), as they often
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
have not benefited from a business-related education. Some SEs do not even have
post-secondary education. Lacking business-related skills, or even formal education
in some cases, represents a barrier for the daily business activities and for the strategic
development of social enterprises (Mair et al., 2006).
Funding and the attraction of resources are among the main obstacles for SEs. They
are constantly looking to capture the stakeholder’s interest and trust to gain the
support needed to scale up their social venture (Shaw & Carter, 2007). Moreover, their
social missions are often seen as opposed to the creation of economic value and
profitability (Mair & Martí, 2006). In addition to this, access to finances (venture capital,
investment funds, banks or investors) requires competences and time effort that are
often not feasible for SEs (Casson & Della Giusta, 2007).
The attraction of qualified human resources is the next challenge for SEs, presented
in Table 1 above. Social entrepreneurs often cannot afford to pay competitive salaries
to their employees (Sharir & Lerner, 2006), and hence they most likely may not attract
the employees with the best profiles from the perspective of competences. In addition,
it appears difficult to attract people with the right profile that share the same values,
ideas, vision, and are able to create social connections and alliances based on limited
resources (Volkmann et al., 2008). Moreover, SEs often rely on volunteers whose
commitment and availability can fluctuate over time (Sharir & Lerner, 2006).
The last challenge discussed in the literature is the performance evaluation of SEs. It
is barely based on economic indicators, while social impact measurement is complex,
subjective and in practice insufficiently adopted (Mair & Martí, 2006). Consequently,
SEs have no clear stimuli to improve their performance and increase their social
impact. It is also difficult for them to communicate the added value of their venture
convincingly to their stakeholders.
Keeping in mind these five sets of challenges, it is important to mention that the
success (or failure) of SEs does not only rely on their own activity, but also on their
environment composed by other entrepreneurs, supportive organizations, policies,
funders and other relevant stakeholders within their ecosystem (Roundy, 2017).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are based on the connection of multiple actors with
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
complementary knowledge and assets, which all together lead to better business
activity (Autio, Kenney, Mustar, Siegel, & Wright, 2014; Roundy, 2017). Thanks to the
variety of actors, entrepreneurial ecosystems provide (a) access to different type of
resources, (b) qualified human capital, (c) linkages between organizations, (d)
institutional robustness to promote adequate demand for specific goods and services,
(e) political willingness and (f) collective action and high levels of social capital
(Biggeri, Testi, & Bellucci, 2017; Goyal, Sergi, & Jaiswal, 2016; Letaifa, 2016).
Universities have been highlighted as a key player in entrepreneurial ecosystems
because of their knowledge and assets (Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Benneworth, 2019).
Moreover, the role of universities in entrepreneurial ecosystems is noteworthy as they
typically interact with stakeholders such as government organizations, public and
private sector actors (e.g. banks, NGOs, labour unions, industrial associations, SMEs
and MNEs) (Spigel & Harrison, 2018). After all, neither the above-mentioned
challenges of SEs nor the general networking role of universities presuppose
abundant resources or fundamental research. We will further use the theoretical
framework of CSL to develop our argument that universities can provide tremendous
support based only on the critical mass of students and faculty.
In higher education, Community Service Learning is a pedagogic strategy aimed at
offering students the opportunity to work with local community groups in resolving their
real social challenges (Jones, Warner, & Kiser, 2010). In doing so, students are
confronted with the needs of communities, which gives them the opportunity to reflect
upon and resolve the rather challenging social issues that they face (Furco, 1996).
In the words of Ejiwale and Posey (2008, p. 3), CSL is presented as an “opportunity
for students to develop their leadership skills, discover talents and gain meaningful
personal insights. This is achieved by applying theoretical learning content (from
courses) during a practical experience, characterized by incorporated social
engagement (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). The activities organized within CSL are based
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
on the expertise, contacts, and connections of faculty, university administration, and
staff, with the objective to pursue social goals (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000).
Thus, students are assigned to work on different tasks within their community, where
a task can vary depending on the content of the class and the desired learning
outcome, through either direct or indirect contact with the groups within the targeted
community (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). CSL focuses on personal growth and the
transformation of its participants, where values such as trust, mutual dependence,
reciprocity, self- confidence, and justice are placed at the core of the learning process
(Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Depending on the approach and the strategies, CSL
initiatives can be organized through curricular or extra-curricular activities or a
combination of both (Brower, 2011). When the activities are organized in an
extracurricular way, the engagement of the participants occurs mainly through
voluntarism and is not limited to students only, but is open to the whole academic
community (Furco, 1996). On the other hand, when CSL initiatives are part of the
curricula, activities are credit-bearing educational experiences, i.e. mostly compulsory
for the students (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Both, learning approaches provide
meaningful learning experiences while serving the community through available
university assets (Jones et al., 2010), which are mainly related to the willingness of
students, faculty, and staff to provide support.
For students, CSL offers the opportunity to confront real-life situations by applying
theories and concepts studied in the courses and thereby achieving a higher degree
of social awareness and commitment. For professors, these strategies create valuable
partnerships with their communities that could potentially open up new possibilities for
projects and collaborations. Furthermore, they motivate students to be more engaged
and committed to the course and the further learning of the subject. For the community
in general, CSL provides additional human resources that work on their own
challenges, while having a continued exchange of knowledge via students and
feedback from university experts (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Some examples of
CSL programs in developing countries are related to homeless and indigenous groups,
minorities and vulnerable communities. Students contribute by proposing alternative
solutions to recurrent problems related to food, health, employment, shelter, and
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
education (Jones et al., 2010). Overall, a CSL perspective makes it clear that
universities do not need to access to extraordinary resources and fundamental
research to support the community.
To highlight the objective of this book chapter i.e. arguing that universities can
contribute within the ecosystem in support of SEs without ample resources and
fundamental research we have chosen the context of Bolivia. Bolivian universities
are predominantly teaching-oriented, working with limited resources and basic
infrastructure, while technology transfer between universities and entrepreneurship is
still in its infancy (Gottwald, Buch, & Giesecke, 2012). We have adopted a qualitative
research method (Eisenhardt, 1989) to study the Bolivian context of universities, their
interaction with SEs and the other actors in the ecosystem. Our study is based on 21
in-depth, semi-structured interviews and 3 focus groups, collected and held in Bolivia
during four non-consecutive weeks in different months between December 2017 and
December 2018.
The following cities in Bolivia were selected for our study: Santa Cruz de la Sierra, La
Paz, Cochabamba, San Jose de Chiquitos, Batallas, and Tarija. According to the local
knowledge of our contacts in Bolivia, these locations were a good setting for the study
because of the presence of one (or several) universities, the presence of SEs and
other relevant supportive organizations of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. After
discussions with various professors and university staff members from Bolivia, we
aimed at interviewing respondents with various backgrounds. An overview of the
interviews and focus groups can be found in Table 2 below.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Table 2: List of respondents
Respondents in the data collection included SEs, regular entrepreneurs,
representatives from public institutions, incubators, funding organizations, technical
and vocational education institutions and universities. We used two different interview
protocols (see Appendix 1) for our study: one was designed for individual
entrepreneurs, and another used for supportive organizations (viz. universities, NGOs,
incubators, networks, government). Several versions of the interview protocol were
discussed in advance with 9 different scholars in Belgium and Bolivia in order to select
the most appropriate structure and questions.
Sector / type of
University professor
Santa Cruz
University professor
La Paz
University professor
University professor
Santa Cruz
University professor
Technical / vocational trainer
University professor
La Paz
Consulting company
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Head of government
San Jose de
Incubator - private
Santa Cruz
Head of Network
International network
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Executive Member
Professional Network
Santa Cruz
Professional Network
Santa Cruz
Social Enterprise
Santa Cruz
Social Enterprise
Santa Cruz
Social Enterprise
Social Enterprise
Santa Cruz
Team - Government Division
Team Incubator
Incubator - public
24 FG3
Team - University Network /
Student association
Academia La Paz
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
As a measure of construct validity (Brink, 1993), participants were informed about the
purpose of the study and given the opportunity to ask questions during interviews. This
resulted in a better understanding of the phenomenon of study and improved the trust
relationship between researchers and respondents. This step was especially relevant
when approaching SEs living in extreme poverty, as they are not used to participating
in any type of scientific study. Interviews were recorded and further transcribed to
increase the reliability of the study (Brink, 1993). During the analysis of the research,
all information was coded and organized (Braun, Clarke, Hayfield, & Terry, 2018).
Using a methodological triangulation (Golafshani, 2003), we combined primary data
collection (i.e. interviews and focus group discussions) with more than 70 documents
obtained during our visit to Bolivia in combination with participant observations
(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The secondary data sources included brochures,
university reports, events material, promotional material, information from companies
and organizations, different types of campaigns and project materials. This
triangulation method reduces the potential bias and allows the researcher to acquire
in-depth knowledge of the context and enhances the reliability of the results.
Another triangulation tactic was the organization of events in which entrepreneurs and
other ecosystem actors took part. In collaboration with the Catholic University of
Bolivia (UCB) in Cochabamba and Tarija, we co-organized (1) two open lectures with
approximately 90 attendees each of students, social and conventional entrepreneurs,
(2) the entrepreneurship fair “Yo Emprendo Tarija” with the participation of more than
60 local entrepreneurs and 600 attendees and (3) a group mobility with 9 MSc and 2
PhD students from Belgium, which took place in Tarija with more than 100 local social,
student and conventional entrepreneurs in December 2018. Throughout all these
activities, we observed the various roles that local universities were capable of
adopting and saw several opportunities for them to continue supporting these types of
interventions and activities.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
In 2005, the victory of the “Movement for Socialism” lead Bolivia to adopt political,
social and economic reforms (Querejazu, Zavaleta, & Mendizabal, 2014), with a major
impact on entrepreneurship. With the approval of the new constitution in 2009, the
country was re-organized under the “plural economy model”, characterised by state
(state-owned companies); private (private businesses); cooperative (cooperatives and
formal associations) and community economies, in which a vast majority of the
country’s workforce is located by means of peasant, community, artisan and
indigenous organisations (Galway, Corbett, & Zeng, 2012). In practice, these reforms
left the country with an environment that is somewhat demotivating to entrepreneurs.
An indication for this are the inadequate enterprise laws, the consecutive waves of
nationalization, and the outspoken socialist views of the country’s leadership.
Bolivia is rich in natural resources, such as fertile lands, bountiful minerals, water and
forest (Querejazu et al., 2014). The government actively seeks to generate profits out
of the natural gas reserves, as this, along with other natural resources, has always
been and is a significant part of the Bolivian economy (Mares, Hartley, & Medlock,
2008). These natural resources become relevant when formulating the development
strategies for the country. In spite of these rich veins of natural resources, it is being
argued that Bolivia suffers from poor governance and inadequate institutional policies
(cf. Kaplan, 2006).
In the field of higher education, there are 15 public universities across the country
grouped in the CEUB University System (Comité Ejecutivo de la Universidad
Boliviana), which serves the majority of the university students in the country. There
are also several private universities with a teaching orientation present in the country,
where the main source of funding is the tuition fees from students and other activities
organized through executive education. Both types of university lack fundamental
research capacities and established technology transfer offices and procedures
(Rodriguez Ostria & Weise Vargas, 2006).
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
All public universities have offices dedicated to managing social engagement (DISU)
or Extension Offices (DIGEU), which have as purview the developing of the strategies
for engaging the university with industry, government, and society at large. At the
private level, the General Regulation of Private Universities (RGUP) requires private
universities to develop extension activities, community engagement, and promotion of
local culture (Rodriguez Ostria & Weise Vargas, 2006). These policies force
universities to establish and maintain links with their local communities, especially in
a country where there is clear fragmentation and where there are many inequalities
among the population (Galway et al., 2012). The disparity in ethnics, socio-economic
situation, and geographical location show a fractured country where the majority of the
population is indigenous (Anderson, Honig and Peredo, 2006).
Overall, the Bolivian context is quite relevant to our study. The research tradition in
this context is rather scant, as universities are not endowed with many resources.
Moreover, the entrepreneurial climate and knowledge is not particularly stimulated due
to the political context of the country. In Bolivia, SEs address the primary needs of
individuals and communities, related to their survival (Gaiger, Nyssens, & Wanderley,
2019). In this country, we can count SEs among the peasant, community, artisan
associations and cooperatives, as they are ultimately driving social change (Querejazu
et al., 2014).
Following the analysis of the collected data, we hereby present an overview of the role
of universities within the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Bolivia. We will show the main
challenges that universities face to support SEs, as it confirms the relevance of the
setting with respect to the knowledge-gap identified universities with limited IP
generation, scarce resources and even general ignorance of entrepreneurship.
Further, we discuss how higher education institutions (HEIs) mobilize their critical
mass (students and staff) in support of SEs.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
6.1 Main challenges of Bolivian HEIs to support social entrepreneurs
Firstly, it is important to discuss the challenge Bolivian HEIs face to provide
entrepreneurial training (Lekhanya, 2016). Several universities have programs in
Business and Management Sciences (both at undergraduate and graduate level),
where entrepreneurship is being taught. Yet, their current curriculum is deemed
insufficient to provide students with the proper knowledge and tools to develop their
entrepreneurial ventures. Different studies also mention that in developing countries,
such as Bolivia, universities lack ready mentors who can coach new start-ups of staff
and students (Ozgen & Baron, 2007). Our findings reveal that this lack of qualified
mentorship and adequate knowledge of entrepreneurship in Bolivian universities
constitutes an important challenge:
P9: There is not sufficient qualified human capital to accompany nascent entrepreneurs in the
launch of their businesses at universities.
P10: Salaries and incentives to become an entrepreneur are low and not competitive. While
this is important for some students, they also need to be motivated to take the risk of not
becoming employees but entrepreneurs.
Scientific research in the field of entrepreneurship represents the second challenge
that our study has revealed. Only few universities in the country are conducting
scientific research on topics related to entrepreneurship, viz. the Catholic University of
Bolivia and Universidad Mayor de San Simon. This is not surprising, as we find the
overall research skills in Bolivia to be subminimal in general, since most universities
are only now starting to developing entrepreneurship programs. This challenge can be
illustrated with the following quotes:
P5: We find only a few academics involved in research on Social Entrepreneurship in the
country. I don’t know if we can talk about publications, but they are doing some efforts.
P18: We need more innovation to address multiple issues and challenges from our city. There
are several problems here such as transport, health, environmental, etc, and I think this should
be the departing point from universities to collaborate with the government to develop
fundamental research that could be translated into real solutions for our society. Social
Entrepreneurship can become a solution for many of these problems.
The third challenge is related to the overall insufficient integration of basic
entrepreneurship in the curricula. While universities within the entrepreneurial
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
ecosystem are expected to stimulate training opportunities for social entrepreneurs
(Roberts & Eesley, 2011), some of our respondents voice a concern in this regard:
P13: Universities are immersed in their own issues, and sometimes they should think more
about the importance of giving the right education and life tools for their students to succeed.
This is not only coming from the inside of academia, but from the collaboration with companies
or businesses.
P2: Universities nowadays have a very important role within the ecosystem. This is the moment
to officially stablish in all universities a course on entrepreneurship, not only focusing on
profitability and businesses, but also on the social aspect, such as social entrepreneurship.
In general, the challenges mentioned above confirm that Bolivian universities are only
just beginning to generate scientific research and entrepreneurship. Despite this
shortcoming, Bolivian universities have developed various activities in support of
social enterprises, which we will discuss below.
6.2 CSL perspective in support of social entrepreneurs
We present the activities that universities deploy in support of social entrepreneurs, by
focusing on the three main actors in CSL: Students, Faculty and Staff and the
community itself (cf. Table 3).
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
CSL Actors
Select and attend courses in which compulsory assignments are
dedicated to supporting social entrepreneurship;
Promote their experiences in CSL activities (advantages, outcomes) to
engage fellow students;
Establishing students’ organizations to support CSL initiatives;
Submit their best practices to student competitions and awards, to
raise more awareness on the importance of CSL projects in support of
community needs;
Use social media and other means of communication (Facebook,
Instagram, WhatsApp, Student blogs) to publicize the projects in the
community, attract more volunteers and promote results and
Volunteer in local events (university level, community level) to support
all different CSL initiatives.
University Staff and Faculty
Establishing an internal formal committee to lead and develop a CSL
framework program at university;
Engage faculty members to update/adapt the curriculum to include
CSL activities;
Organize meetings with students and faculty to reflect upon the
experiences of CSL existing activities;
Participate in conferences and other events related to CSL (national
and international level);
Establish networks of collaboration with local government and
relevant actors of the entrepreneurial ecosystem to create or
strengthen CSL initiatives;
Actively promote and publicize existing CSL programs and results;
Participate in grants or project proposals, involving all different actors
(students, faculty, and community) in activities related to CSL.
Identify local leaders to work with the university (faculty and students)
to design intervention actions through CSL programs;
Participate at different workshops, meetings, and events organized by
the university to discuss and reflect on CSL programs and
Propose their own business and social projects to be subject of
intervention through CSL activities;
Be reciprocal with students; engage them as much as possible in their
community life and activities (Fairs, social events, talks) to create long
term commitment and trust among all different stakeholders;
Provide timely feedback to university members and faculty about their
experience with students, CSL approach and how to further improve
the intervention.
Table 3: CSL lens on HEIs activities in support of SEs
These various activities are discussed in the subsections below.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
6.2.1 Students
Business programs at HEIs in Bolivia (at undergraduate and graduate level) with
compulsory assignments could be used to provide specific support to SEs by means
of business advice, product development, market research and/or marketing
communications support. These student class assignments (compulsory, credit-
bearing) are one of the more prominent opportunities for universities in Bolivia to
support SEs. Assignments can adopt many different forms (reports, essays,
presentations) based on case studies and day-to-day business analysis of local SEs.
The faculty will set the objectives of these assignments at strengthening the social
entrepreneurial project and impact, by using the input of students, their knowledge and
involvement, as available resources during this intervention. Some professors have
also reflected on the importance of using the classroom as a space where students
can debate the different strategies that could address social issues, especially as they
accompany SEs’ initiatives in specific hands-off support. These findings are in
alignment with recent studies on social entrepreneurship (Biggeri et al., 2017) and
have been expressed as follows by our respondents:
P7: Our students need to see other realities beyond poverty and unemployment. They need to
learn how to tackle these problems. We need to incorporate more this subject of social
entrepreneurship not only in the curriculum but also on the level of research to have more
impact on local policies and agenda.
FG1: Universities should also teach in their entrepreneurship courses about resilience,
responsibility and social commitment. This will further lead students to think more responsible
while creating their business and becoming social entrepreneurs.
Students could contribute beyond their direct support of SEs during CSL activities:
they could also advocate CSL initiatives to other students, friends and family,
irrespective of their academic involvement. Students could stimulate the use of
conventional and new technologies (i.e. conventional and social media channels) to
communicate their involvement in CSL programs. Communication increases the
chance that other stakeholders will recognize the needs and offer support to SEs.
Finally, students could volunteer in different activities dedicated to supporting SEs and
their broader ecosystem. This has been observed as a practice where students are
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
eager to participate in different fairs, events and other activities organized locally, and
dedicated to promoting projects of SEs, their projects and activities.
6.2.2 University: faculty and staff
With the use of CSL activities in support of SEs, faculty members are encouraging
students to use and apply the knowledge disseminated in their courses. Moreover,
CSL can be utilized by faculty members to conduct research: by collecting relevant
data from their own cases they could realise scientific publications.
Our findings suggest that universities could also leverage their own resources to offer
consultancy services to the private sector and the government. Examples of university
consultancy services are: consulting on business planning, tax returns, and legal
management by specialized academics who also understand the value of the
sustainability principle and the rationale of a business model with social impact
(Cohen, 2006). Our findings suggest that in all cities studied, there is a demand for
such consulting services:
P15: We need sometimes some special skills that we can only find at universities. They
should exploit more their consultancy services to support the growth of our city and expand
the creation of businesses in certain types of areas, for instance, tourism.
P11: We have already requested some support from the university to offer technical assistance
in projects. We benefit from external aid and, our farmers, don’t have the knowledge to deal
with complex applications and grants request, and this is where the university can collaborate
with them. Also, to support them when we receive the resources for machinery or for raw
material. We definitely need to collaborate with universities in that sense.
In the Bolivian context, especially in La Paz and in Tarija, incubators represent a
strategic partner to carry out university CSL programs and activities to support local
entrepreneurs. Universities could contribute to social and economic development by
integrating their services and resources with local incubators (Bruneel, Ratinho,
Clarysse, & Groen, 2012; Roberts & Eesley, 2011). Our findings suggest that
interactions between universities and incubators could be further exploited by
converging students’ efforts, the needs of entrepreneurs and the incubators’ programs
and activities:
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
FG2: We are an incubator funded by the government. One of our most important key partners
is the university, as they surround us with different activities (complementary) most of them
being events and fairs. However, we have been in conversations to develop more structural
cooperation for the technical assistance to our entrepreneurs and to strengthen our cooperation
to support the innovation and knowledge transfer within our projects.
P5: We (Universities) participate as jury members of some of the competitions for a local
incubator. However, we also can participate in the coaching of entrepreneurs and other
activities of the program.
Concrete ways of intensifying university-incubator interactions is to involve the faculty
in the decision-making processes of these incubators (advisory boards, the board of
directors), but also by launching joint initiatives such as contests, hackathons,
promotional events, fairs, and consolidating the different programs to guide and coach
social enterprises jointly.
6.2.3 The community
The community is often seen as a beneficiary of the CSL initiatives (Furco, 1996).
They benefit from these interventions by gaining alternative insights into their
community issues. In this sense, SEs obtain from students not only innovative ideas
and reflections on their business approach but also get an opportunity to integrate
solutions with the involvement of several stakeholders from academia and the broader
ecosystem. Universities and the community could find new connections, open
alternative spaces for discussion, connect in new and alternative ways through
students and their proposals, and bring in new resources through the involvement of
other stakeholders in the CSL. These stakeholders are government institutions, NGOs
(national and international), training centres, other entrepreneurs and financial
In the Bolivian context, local government plays an important role in dynamizing the
connections between the university and the community. As discussed in the literature,
governments can play a significant role in accelerating (or hindering) the development
of social enterprises through their policies, political environment, incentives, subsidies,
and grants, among other mechanisms (Cohen, 2006). Developing countries have to
deal with barriers of low income, feeble technology and exploitation of the underskilled
workforce, which triggers the informal economy (Prahalad & Hart, 1999). In the case
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
of Bolivia, more than 85% of businesses are said to belong to the informal sector. To
diminish this, appropriate government policies should be established to stimulate the
economy, offer more incentives and develop an appropriate business environment
(Galway et al., 2012). Our findings suggest that currently in Bolivia both the public and
private sectors generally tend to work in isolation and/or their efforts to cooperate are
not self-evident.
P15: There are low or inexistent incentives from the central government to support the launch
of new businesses. We have learned for, example, from CAINCO, a program that is executed
in Latin America oriented to support the development of entrepreneurship, with technical
assistance, calls, coaching, etc. We don’t have something like this in the country.
P7: In our ecosystem, we don’t have a local policy, nor a single officer in the local government
(or the in the state government) that is talking or leading the conversation on entrepreneurship
or innovation.
In this respect, this study emphasizes the impact that universities could have in the
decision-making process of the government by adopting new policies and by
implementing more practical programs to foster the entrepreneurial culture within the
local ecosystem.
We have observed that in cities such as Tarija and La Paz, the local governments
have the willingness to collaborate with universities to support SEs (through
workshops, training, coaching, fairs, and events). These programs and initiatives could
be further improved upon by involving more faculty and students. Several of the
interviewees pointed out the importance of networking activities and recognized it as
one of the most influential aspects of the social entrepreneurial development process.
In this sense, all the participants agreed that networking creates access to new funding
opportunities, business development, sales, and visibility in the Bolivian society. The
need for networking is well illustrated in the following quotes:
P18: Social networking is one of the most important aspects. Without working in your network,
the appearance of the society becomes really hard. If you want to work with the government,
you need to know people from the government; if you want to work with the businessmen, you
need to know people from private companies.
P12: I think networking is the most important thing. I have seen, several times, social
entrepreneurs, who could, maybe, have more competences or originality than us, but if they do
not have the right connections that are needed to all type of entrepreneurship, they will not get
very far.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Universities are the usual suspects to coordinate and intensify such networking
activities due to their contacts with various stakeholders, irrespective of resource
availability and research orientation.
Our study shows that Bolivian universities play an important role in the supportive
ecosystem of SEs, despite their limited resources, scant fundamental research, and
even inadequate understanding of entrepreneurship. To fulfil that role, universities can
rely on their basic infrastructure and the critical mass of students, faculty and staff
With the involvement of these in the community, universities can create a supportive
environment in the SE ecosystem. Using the theoretical lens of CSL, we have
discussed 18 different activities on three levels (students, faculty & staff and the
community) while indicating that no major resources nor fundamental research are
required to implement them. Our findings are arguably relevant to other contexts,
including Western countries, where universities could substantially increase their
impact on social and conventional entrepreneurship by leveraging students, faculty
and staff. We also argue that future research at entrepreneurial universities should
reach beyond the traditional IP-based technology transfer.
Alvord, S. H., Brown, D., & Letts, C. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
40(3), 260282.
Anderson, R. W., Honig, B., & Peredo, A. M. (2006). Communities in the global
economy: Where social and indigenous entrepreneurship meet. In D. Hjorth &
C. Steyaert (Eds), Entrepreneurship as social change: A third new movements
in entrepreneurship book (pp. 56-78). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105123.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial
entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 30(1), 122.
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial
innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.
Biggeri, M., Testi, E., & Bellucci, M. (2017). Enabling ecosystems for social
enterprises and social innovation: A capability approach perspective. Journal of
Human Development and Capabilities, 18(2), 299–306.
Bloom, P. N., & Dees, G. (2008). Cultivate your Ecosystem. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 6(1), 4753.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2018). Thematic analysis. In P.
Liamputtong (Ed) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp.
2-17). Singapore: Springer.
Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher
education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-239
Brink, H. (1993). Validity and reliability in qualitative research. Curationis, 16(2), 35
Brower, H. H. (2011). Sustainable development through service learning: A
pedagogical framework and case example in a third world context. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 10(1), 5876.
Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of business
incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services
across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110121.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and
quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to
each other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Development, 1(1), 4169.
Casson, M., & Della Giusta, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and social capital:
Analysing the impact of social networks on entrepreneurial activity from a
rational action perspective. International Small Business Journal, 25(3), 220
Certo, S. T., & Miller, T. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts.
Business Horizons, 51(4), 267–271.
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 15(1), 114.
Dees, G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Stanford University
Working Paper. Sanford, California. Retrieved from
Dees, G. (2007). Taking social entrepreneurs seriously. Transaction Social Science
and Modern Society, 44(3), 24–31.
Dees, J. G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of
social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 321334.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases:
Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 2532.
Ejiwale, J., & Posey, D. (2008). Enhancing leadership skills through service learning.
Proceedings from: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)
Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International
Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national
systems and ‘“mode 2”’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In
B. Taylor (Ed), Expanding boundaries: Serving and learning (pp.2-6).
Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service.
Gaiger, L. I., Nyssens, M., & Wanderley, F. (2019). Social enterprise in Latin
America:Theory, models and practice. New York: Routledge.
Galway, L. P., Corbett, K. K., & Zeng, L. (2012). Where are the NGOs and why? The
distribution of health and development NGOs in Bolivia. Globalization and
Health, 8(38), 113.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.
The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597607.
Gottwald, J., Buch, F., & Giesecke, K. (2012). Understanding the role of universities
in technology transfer in the renewable energy sector in Bolivia. Management of
Environmental Quality, 23(3), 291–299.
Goyal, S., Sergi, B. S., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2016). Understanding the challenges and
strategic actions of social entrepreneurship at base of the pyramid. Management
Decision, 54(2), 418440.
Honig, B. (1998). What determines success? Examining the human, financial, and
social capital of Jamaican microentrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,
13(5), 371394.
Howard, J. & Sharma, A. (2006) Universities’ third mission: Communities
engagement. Business/Higher Education Round Table, B-Hert Position Paper
Jones, A. L., Warner, B., & Kiser, P. M. (2010). Service-Learning & Social
Entrepreneurship : Finding the Common Ground. Partnerships: A Journal of
Service Learning & Civic Engagement, 1(2) 1–15.
Kaplan, S. (2006). Making democracy work in Bolivia. Orbis, 50(3), 501517.
Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599
Lekhanya, L. M. (2016). The role of universities in promoting social entrepreneurship
in South Africa. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 4(3), 6771.
Letaifa, S. Ben. (2016). How social entrepreneurship emerges, develops and
internationalises during political and economic transitions. European Journal of
International Management, 10(4), 455.
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of
explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 3644.
Mair, J., Robinson, J., & Hockerts, K. (2006). Introduction. In Mair, J., Robinson, J., &
Hockerts, K. (Eds) Social Entrepreneurship (113). New York: Palgrave
Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography
Compass, 12(3),121.
Mares, D. R., Hartley, P. R., & Medlock, K. B. (2008). Energy security in a context of
hyper-social mobilization: Insights from Bolivia.Working paper series: The global
energy market: comprenhensive strategies to meet geopolitical and financial
risk: Rice University. Retrieved from
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition.
Stanford Social Innovation Review 5(2), 29-39
Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social
entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business
Ethics, 111(3), 375388.
Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social sources of information in opportunity
recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums.
Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 174192.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Prahalad, C., & Hart, S. (1999). Strategies for the bottom of the pyramid: creating
sustainable development.Working paper, University of Michigan and University
of North Carolina ]. Retrieved from
Querejazu, V., Zavaleta, D., & Mendizabal, J. (2014). Bolivia’ s entrepreneurship
profile: The trade-off between growth and entrepreneurial activity rates. GEM
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Global Reports.
Roberts, E. B. & Eesley, C. E (2011). Entrepreneurial Impact: The Role of MIT.
Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 7(12), 1149.
Rodriguez Ostria, G., & Weise Vargas, C. (2006). Educacion superior universitaria
en Bolivia. Estudio Nacional UNESCO IESALC, 1-204.
Roundy, P. (2017). Social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems.
International Journal of Social Economics, 44(9), 1252-1267.
Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., & Benneworth, P. (2019). Is the entrepreneurial university
also regionally engaged? Analysing the influence of university’s structural
configuration on third mission performance. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 141, 206218.
Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by
individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 620.
Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and
empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418434.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink?
British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582595.
Smith, I. H., & Woodworth, W. P. (2012). Developing social entrepreneurs and social
innovators: A social identity. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
11(3), 390407.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 151168.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Totterman, H., & Sten, J. (2005). Business incubation and social capital.
International Small Business Journal, 23(5), 487–511.
Vogelgesang, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community
service and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
7(1), 2534.
Volkmann, C., Tokarski, K. O., & Ernst, K. (2008). Social Entrepreneurship and
Social Business: An introduction and discussion with case studies. Wiesbaden:
Webb, J. W., Kistruck, G. M., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2010). The
entrepreneurship process in base of the pyramid markets: The case of
multinational enterprise/nongovernment organization alliances.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(3), 555581.
Wronka, M. (2013). Analyzing the success of social enterprises: critical success
factors perspective. Proceedings from: Management, Knowledge and Learning
International Conference, (1), 593605. Zadar, Croatia.
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Appendix 1
Background information
1) Tell me about yourself (studies, family situation (kids, married, siblings)
profession, etc.)
2. Can you describe your day-to-day routine?
Business model of the (social) entrepreneur how does it work?
1) What product/service is being provided?
2) To whom?
3) How many customers have been served?
4) Where are you providing your products/services?
5) What are the major costs of your activity (materials, labour,…)?
6) How is your activity funded?
7) Do you consider yourself as an entrepreneur?
8) Is there an entrepreneurial culture in (city name)?
Supportive needs of (social) entrepreneurs
9) What are the main problems of your business activity?
10) What type of support do you need as an entrepreneur (financial, networking,
legal, coaching)?
11) What are the organisations or people in Bolivia (San José, Santa Cruz,
Cochabamba, Tarija, La Paz, etc.)?
12) Are you part of a network or a group? Can you describe how that works?
13) What is the role of Universities in support of Social Entrepreneurs?
Beyond IP and rich infrastructure! A Community Service Learning perspective
on the universities’ supportive role towards social entrepreneurs
Organization profile
1. Can you describe the mission of your organization? (association, NGO,
government, training, financing, education, other?)
2. Describe your organization: legal status, years of operation, founders, capital, top
management, board of director (if applicable) and other relevant information
about the management of the organization.
Relationship with Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
3. Is there a culture for entrepreneurship in (city) ? What is the most relevant activity
for entrepreneurs in (city)?.
4. What is your relationship with entrepreneurship / entrepreneurs in the your city ?
5. Policy environment for social entrepreneurs:
a) What is the role of the government in supporting entrepreneurship: programs,
needs, or constraints?
b) What is your perception of the policy environment: ease to create new
businesses, taxes, incentives, regulations, grants, other programs?
c) Are there any other institutions or organizations having an influence on the
organization’s environment?
6. What are the principal obstacles in the local market for your organization?
7. Do you consider there is sufficient and qualified human capital to stimulate
entrepreneurship / support entrepreneurs? If not, what type of profiles are
8. Infrastructure: what is your perception (electricity, telecommunications internet,
water, gas and transport)?.
9. Can you please describe the business environment for your organization?
(competitors, supply chain, informal competition, and other relevant aspects.)
10. Support:
a) What type of support is available to entrepreneurs in the city: networking,
training, mentorship, coaching, legal, funding?
b) Who provides this support?
11. What do you consider is further needed to stimulate entrepreneurship in this city?
12. Who are the relevant entrepreneurs / entrepreneurial organisations in this city ?
13. What is the role of Universities in support of social entrepreneurs?
... In line with the above, universities in developing countries, even in the presence of low resources for R&D and entrepreneurship, address social problems through other mechanisms that allow them to apply their knowledge for the benefit of society (Alpizar and Dentchev, 2017;Gonzalez et al., 2020;Roncancio-Marin et al., 2022), from one of the participants: ...
Purpose: Despite growing scholarly interest in academic entrepreneurship (AE) few studies have examined its non-commercial aspects and how it contributes to meeting grand societal challenges. One explanation for this may be the continuing focus of AE on intellectual property commercialization. This paper aims to address this knowledge gap by uncovering how universities can contribute to promoting non-commercial forms of AE. Design/methodology/approach: This paper uses the human capital theoretical lens to make its argument and applies it to data obtained from exploratory qualitative research (55 semi-structured interviews and nine focus groups) in the developing countries of Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador. Findings: Universities can promote different forms of non-commercial AE even in the absence of sophisticated resources for innovation, through the stimulation of the specific human capital of the university community resulting from activities where they help others. Originality/value: This paper proposes a general framework for advancing theory development in AE and its non-commercial forms, based on data obtained in uncharted territories for AE.
... The supportive role that universities have in the ecosystem for SEs is mainly due to their neutral position and natural interconnectedness with other relevant actors (Diaz Gonzalez, Dentchev, & Roman Roig, 2020;. Moreover, the relevant literature elaborates on how universities engage in the resolution of complex social and environmental issues by using the support and involvement of their students, faculty, and staff. ...
Full-text available
This paper investigates the role that universities play in supporting social entrepreneurs (SEs) across their ecosystem. Adopting the Resource-Based View (RBV) approach, we argue that universities attract, mobilise and deploy multiple resources that benefit SEs through four main mechanisms (i.e. teaching, research, outreach and development of partnerships). We use a qualitative approach of 62 semi-structured interviews and 8 focus groups in Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia. Our contribution shows that employing different resources and engaging in supportive activities of universities towards SEs, facilitate the development of university capabilities, such as an increased reputation, development of leadership skills for students and staff, as well as wider access to ecosystem resources that support other university activities related to teaching, research and community outreach. The role that partnerships play in the development of these capabilities is fundamental, thanks to the different strategic alliances and mobilisation of resources between universities and other actors whilst supporting SEs. This study contributes to our understanding of the role universities can play to intensify the nature of supportive ecosystems for SEs. This contribution is relevant not only to academics but also to practitioners, as this will shed light on the building, development, and scaling of a supportive ecosystem for SEs. Keywords: Universities, Resource-Based View, Social Entrepreneurs, Ecosystems.
... In other words, SEs scaling is a collective effort and depends on its embeddedness in the local community, in local ecosystems, and in local institutional logics. Further research could investigate the dynamics between the SEs and various actors in the ecosystem (Dentchev, 2020) such as network organizations (Roundy, 2017) and universities (Diaz Gonzalez, Dentchev & del Carmen Roman Roig, 2020), influencing the scaling phenomenon. ...
Purpose: This literature review aims to answer the calls for further exploration of scaling challenges and opportunities for social entrepreneurs (SEs). We address the scaling issue of social entrepreneurship through the theoretical lens of sustainable business models. Methodology: This paper investigates, on a multilevel approach, 340 journal articles published in one of the 20 peer-reviewed journals in management, entrepreneurship, CSR, organizational behavior, and nonprofit. It also considers influential articles due to their relatively high citation count (i.e., more than 150 times) outside of those selected journals. This paper furthermore analyses in-depth 32 scaling articles. Findings: This study positions the topics of social entrepreneurship over the last decades, together with the six types of scaling strategies: scaling up, scaling down, scaling across, scaling deep, scaling out, and diversification. It also discusses 15 challenges related to the scaling efforts by SEs. It furthermore elaborates on potential leads for research and practice regarding scaling social impact. Social Implications: There are many pathways for SEs to increase their impact on society, even though it remains quite challenging to achieve for most. Understanding what possibilities or limitations apply to individual SEs is but a first step in developing the full potential of social entrepreneurship. Originality: This paper approaches scaling from three complementary levels of analysis, i.e., individual, organizational, and institutional. Thus we provide more clarity and a nuanced perspective on past and future research regarding scaling challenges and opportunities. Keywords: Social impact; scaling; sustainable business models; social entrepreneur; multilevel; literature review
Full-text available
Purpose – SEs often face various challenges whereby they rely on the support of others to realize their objectives. In this context, ecosystem thinking is very helpful to understand how various stakeholders can assist SEs. The goal of this paper is to develop a classification of the different types of support that third parties can provide to SEs. Design/methodology/approach – We have developed the arguments in this paper based on a literature review of 258 articles on ecosystem thinking and social entrepreneurship. Articles have been retrieved from the Web of Science database, using as search parameters on the one hand publications in top journals, and on the other articles with more than 60 citations. In addition, we have received recommendations for relevant good-quality articles following a snowball procedure. Findings – This paper contributes by distinguishing three support categories for SEs - fuel, hardware and DNA – based on what we know from ecosystem thinking. This paper elaborates on the building blocks of each support category, points at the relevant actors, and discusses the interrelatedness across support categories. Originality/value – Social enterprise theories have elaborated on the various challenges that SEs face. Lack of resources, lack of staff, lack of professional management, underdeveloped networks and mission drift are seen as the most pressing. Although the relevant literature does rightly point out the indispensable support of others, it does so without differentiating between the kinds of support that can help SEs increase their social impact. This paper offers to remedy this by creating three separate support categories: fuel, hardware and DNA. Research limitations/implications – The three support categories are developed by building on predominantly ecosystem literature. Our study implies that the scalability of SEs’ social impact does not only depend on their strengths, but also on how well they are supported. Practical implications – The three support categories are complementary to the strengths of individual SEs. SEs can therefore start with what they have, and then gradually expand their support structure by surrounding themselves with stakeholders that can assist them with fuel, infrastructure and DNA. Keywords: Ecosystems, social entrepreneurship, support, literature review, sustainability
Full-text available
There is an increasing interest in the analysis of how universities should maximise their specific regional contribution alongside their traditional teaching and research goals. However, due to the institutional heterogeneity it is necessary to understand the process by which universities create regional benefits, specifically through their third mission outputs. To cover this gap, this paper investigates the extent to which internal institutional configurations affect the production of these benefits on the UK Higher Education sector. It focuses on four elements of the universities’ structural configuration (steering core, administrative machinery, internal coupling and academic heartland) in different university models: the entrepreneurial university and the (regional) engaged university model.
Full-text available
This paper reviews the literature, concepts, and operationalizations of the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Despite some interest at the national level, entrepreneurship is understood to take place in localities or, at most, regions, drawing on local resources, institutions, and networks. Bibliometric evidence shows that usage of the term entrepreneurial ecosystem has overtaken other concepts, such as environments for entrepreneurship, which also highlight the mechanisms, institutions, networks, and cultures that support entrepreneurs.This review addresses several specific topics: the choice of scale, universities as ecosystem hubs, and how such ecosystems evolve. This is followed by suggestions toward an agenda for future research, placing particular attention on methodologies.
Full-text available
Entrepreneurial ecosystems have emerged as a popular concept within entrepreneurship policy and practitioner communities. Specifically, they are seen as a regional economic development strategy based around creating supportive environments that foster innovative startups. However, existing research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has been largely typological and atheoretical and has not yet explored how they influence the entrepreneurship process. This paper critically examines the relationships between ecosystems and other existing bodies of work such as clusters and regional innovation systems. Drawing on this background, the paper suggests that a process-based view of ecosystems provides a better framework to understand their role in supporting new venture creation. This framework is used to explain the evolution and transformation of entrepreneurial ecosystems and to create a typology of different ecosystem structures.
Full-text available
Social entrepreneurship can help to reduce socio-economic problems facing many countries including South Africa. Also it can be used as a strategic tool in building social cohesion in country. This paper aimed to examine the role of Universities in promoting social entrepreneurship in South Africa. The study also look assess the support that universities are providing to social entrepreneurship and to evaluate the extend of the support. The paper also analyses most strategies used by South African universities to help the development of social entrepreneurship. Mix approaches of qualitative and quantitative techniques were employed for data collection. The primary data was collected from six universities in South Africa where two comprehensive universities, two universities of Technologies from KwaZulu -Natal province and two comprehensive universities in Gauteng province were chosen for sample for this study. The sample consisted of 40 respondents made up of deans of faculties, heads of departments, and director of social entrepreneurship and head of social entrepreneurship department respectively according to structure of each university. Combination of structured qualitative and five –point Likert scale questionnaire were emailed to the respondents to complete. The results reveal that most of respondents are not involved in social entrepreneurship activities, or any entrepreneurship development programs. The findings also indicate that some respondents they had no clue about social entrepreneurship that their universities are involved in. the study was limited by exploratory nature. Therefore, generalization must be done with care. Further research should aim to target large sample and include other academic staff rather than focusing only on the deans and heads of departments.
In the absence of a widely accepted and common definition of social enterprise (SE), a large research project, the “International Comparative Social Enterprise Models” (ICSEM) Project, was carried out over a five-year period; it involved more than 200 researchers from 55 countries and relied on bottom-up approaches to capture the SE phenomenon. This strategy made it possible to take into account and give legitimacy to locally embedded approaches, thus resulting in an analysis encompassing a wide diversity of social enterprises, while simultaneously allowing for the identification of major SE models to delineate the field on common grounds at the international level. These SE models reveal or confirm an overall trend towards new ways of sharing the responsibility for the common good in today’s economies and societies. We tend to consider as good news the fact that social enterprises actually stem from all parts of the economy. Indeed, societies are facing many and complex challenges at all levels, from the local to the global level, and the diversity of SE models and their internal variety are a sign of a broadly shared willingness to develop appropriate—although sometimes embryonic—responses to these challenges, on the basis of innovative economic/business models driven by a social mission. In spite of their weaknesses, social enterprises may be seen as advocates for and vehicles of the general interest across the whole economy. Of course, the debate about privatisation, deregulation and globalised market competition—all factors that may hinder efforts in the search for the common good–has to be addressed as well. The second of a series of four ICSEM books, Social Enterprise in Latin America will serve as a key reference and resource for teachers, researchers, students, experts, policy makers, journalists and other categories of people who want to acquire a broad understanding of the phenomena of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship as they emerge and develop across the world.
Research is defined by the Australian Research Council as “the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies, inventions and understandings”. Research is thus the foundation for knowledge. It produces evidence and informs actions that can provide wider benefit to a society. The knowledge that researchers cultivate from a piece of research can be adopted for social and health programs that can improve the health and well-being of the individuals, their communities and the societies in which they live. As we have witnessed in all corners of the globe, research has become an endeavor that most of us in the health and social sciences cannot avoid. This Handbook is conceived to provide the foundation to readers who wish to embark on a research project in order to form knowledge that they need. The Handbook comprises four main sections: Traditional research methods sciences; Innovative research methods; Doing cross-cultural research; and Sensitive research methodology and approach. This Handbook attests to the diversity and richness of research methods in the health and social sciences. It will benefit many readers, particularly students and researchers who undertake research in health and social science areas. It is also valuable for the training needs of postgraduate students who wish to undertake research in cross-cultural settings, with special groups of people, as it provides essential knowledge not only on the methods of data collection but also salient issues that they need to know if they wish to succeed in their research endeavors.
The aim of this policy brief is to present policy suggestions in order to create an enabling ecosystem for social enterprises (SEs) and promote their social innovation capacities. These suggestions have been built by adopting the Sustainable Human Development paradigm and a Capability Approach perspective. Therefore, the present policy brief focuses on the concepts of social innovation, SEs, and enabling ecosystem, while also drawing on the find- ings of the EU7FP EFESEIIS project.1 The EFESEIIS project has analysed how SEs relate to, and co-evolve with, the ecosystem in which they are set, and how they contribute to Sustainable Human Development via social innovation. The research was based on a mixed-methods approach including interviews and focus groups with 164 SE stakeholders, a survey of 850 SEs in 11 EU countries,2 and behavioural experiments with SE decision-makers. The research found that ecosystems can both hinder and enable SEs in achieving their objectives and, more generally, in fostering social innovation and Sustain- able Human Development. The present policy brief is structured as follows: the second section discusses the relationships between SEs and social innovation; Section 3 then introduces the main fea- tures of an enabling ecosystem that can help promote an SE’s social innovation capacities; Section 4 summarizes the key policy challenges in creating an enabling ecosystem for SEs and fostering their social innovation capacities; and the final section offers direct policy advice on how to create and support an enabling ecosystem.
Social entrepreneurship transforms communities and brings significant changes to poor and marginalised groups. However, the social process of leveraging local and global resources and scaling local initiatives to global projects needs to be better understood. This paper describes how social entrepreneurship emerges, develops and scales by using a longitudinal analysis. The study relies on qualitative data and allows comprehension of how social value is created and how social entrepreneurs mobilise an ecosystem with a diversity of actors. The findings highlight the ecosystemic vision combining top-down and bottom-up structures, the importance of social embeddedness, the social roles enacted to fulfil certain activities and the need for co-creation with end-users. The discussion provides four theoretical and managerial propositions that identify how social entrepreneurial ecosystems can be scalable and sustainable. Finally the conclusion suggests a new research agenda.