Let There Be Light! http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light Paul Light, Professor at New York University's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, spent the past two years testing the assumptions he has used in his past work. In his new book, "The Search for Social Entrepreneurship," he addresses key questions: Do entrepreneurs always work alone? Do they really think differently from other high achievers? Are their ideas always radical? Can social entrepreneurs create opportunities for change where none exist? And do their organizations have to be new? daily 1 Let There Be Light! http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light http://www.socialedge.org/logo.png An Inventory of Assumptions http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/12/02/an-inventory-of-assumptions the four basic components of social entrepreneurship discussed earlier in this chapter: the entrepreneurs who pursue the change, the ideas for change itself, the opportunities to disrupt the prevailing equilibrium, and the organizations that house the effort.

Readers are forewarned that my list of assumptions emerged from my forays into the literature as I began my research on social entrepreneurship in 2005 and 2006. These assumptions were mostly drawn from the literature on social entrepreneurship, which was still struggling with basic definitions at the time. They were also collected from the 26 highly innovative Minnesota organizations profiled in my 1998 book, Sustaining Innovation, as well as my ongoing case studies of high-performing social benefit organizations (which is a term I use throughout my research out of respect for Drayton’s request that we stop using the word “nonprofit” to describe socially entrepreneurial activity). As such, the following discussion reflects a great deal of reading between the lines and no doubt misses many important nuances in the field.

Nevertheless, I was able to discern at least forty assumptions that underpin the debate about how to define social entrepreneurship. Making these assumptions more transparent can only advance the conversation about who does what, when, and where to change the social equilibrium. In turn, each assumption provides an opportunity for deeper research on what matters most to high-impact change.  Although I do not claim that there are the only assumptions about social entrepreneurship, they are the ones that most shaped my thinking about my exclusive approach to the term. ]]> 2008-12-02T01:25:00-08:00 2008-10-21T14:06:33-07:00 plight Making Assumptions http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/11/25/making-assumptions the conflict between inclusive and exclusive definitions. At least that is how the editors of the Stanford Social Innovation Review introduced the Martin and Osberg piece in 2007. Despite the focus on differences, both definitions share common ground, not the least of which is the notion that entrepreneurs can come in pairs such as Jeffrey Skoll and Pierre Omidyar of eBay fame.

More importantly, both definitions also leave considerable room for debate about just where to draw boundaries about who drives social entrepreneurship, what changing the equilibrium actually means, when it is most likely to occur, and where it is housed.  For one example, my 2006 definition of social entrepreneurs assumes that the entrepreneur is often plural, coming in pairs, teams, networks, alliances, or communities to create socially entrepreneurial ideas. For another example, my definition allows for the use of “old stuff in new ways” as one path to pattern-breaking change, while most definitions focus on new ideas and new organizations. Yet, even here, the definitions start with the same goal: to change the social equilibrium. ]]> 2008-11-25T01:20:00-08:00 2008-10-21T14:00:59-07:00 plight An Exclusive Definition http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/11/18/an-exclusive-definition
Writing in 2007 of the need to protect social entrepreneurship from being used to describe “all manner of socially beneficial activities,” Martin and Osberg made the case that inclusiveness could be a good thing: “If plenty of resources are pouring into the social sector, and if many causes that otherwise would not get sufficient funding now get support because they are regarded as social entrepreneurships, then it may be fine to have a loose definition.  We are inclined to argue, however, that this is a flawed assumption and a precarious stance.” 

As Martin and Osberg suggested, the concept of social entrepreneurship must be protected.  “If the promise is not fulfilled because too many ‘nonentrepreneurial’ efforts are included in the definition, then social entrepreneurship will fall into disrepute, and the kernel of true social entrepreneurship will be lost. Because of this danger, we believe that we need a much sharper definition of social entrepreneurship, one that enables us to determine the extent to which an activity is and is not ‘in the tent.’”  An exclusive definition would not only allow supporters to concentrate on building and strengthening a nascent field, it would protect social entrepreneurship against the “cynics” who already discount social innovation as a way to change the status quo.

Martin and Osberg took an important step toward this sharper definition by focusing on the social equilibrium. According to Martin and Osberg’s definition, social entrepreneurship starts with “an unfortunate but stable equilibrium that causes the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity;” engages an individual “who brings to bear on this situation his or her inspiration, direct action, creativity, courage, and fortitude;” and ends with the ultimate “establishment of a new stable equilibrium that secures permanent benefit for the targeted group and society at large.”

Defined as such, social entrepreneurship involves a target (the status quo), an actor (an individual or a pair with inspiration, courage, and so forth), and an outcome (a new stable equilibrium that secures permanent benefits). It also involves an idea for changing the status quo, an opportunity for taking action, and an organization.

Martin and Osberg drew upon Joseph Schumpeter’s 1934 description of business entrepreneurship as a form of “creative destruction” that permanently disturbs the prevailing economic equilibrium. As such, it provides more depth to the search for a more precise definition of change. But Martin and Osberg’s definition still leaves plenty of room for further debate about what kinds of activities actually constitute social entrepreneurship, a debate that Martin and Osberg addressed in their notion that social services and activism can coexist with social entrepreneurship in hybrid forms. ]]> 2008-11-18T01:10:00-08:00 2008-10-21T13:54:33-07:00 plight An Inclusive Definition http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/11/11/an-inclusive-definition the question is not whether social entrepreneurs exist—that much is certain in the most cursory sampling of the Ashoka and Echoing Green fellowship winners from recent years, most notably Muhammad Yunus.

Rather, the question is whether the field is too exclusive for its own good. By defining social entrepreneurship more by the characteristics of the individual entrepreneurs who forge social value through their work, I wrote that “the field may have excluded large numbers of individuals and entities that are equally deserving of the support, networking, and training now reserved for individuals who meet both the current definitional tests of a social entrepreneur and the ever-growing list of exemplars.”

Hence, my 2006 definition of social entrepreneurship was more inclusive. As I wrote, social entrepreneurship is an effort by an individual, group, network, organization, or alliance of organizations that seeks sustainable, large-scale change through pattern-breaking ideas in what governments, nonprofits, and businesses do to address significant social problems.

Between 2006 and 2008, I shortened the definition to focus more precisely on efforts to solve intractable social problems through pattern-breaking change, thereby reserving the question about who acts as an entrepreneur and where entrepreneurial activity occurs for further research.

My old definition focused on the kind of systemic change that Martin and Osberg highlighted as essential for creating a new social equilibrium. But I also embraced a set of underlying assumptions that increased my definition’s inclusiveness, most notably the notion that entrepreneurs do not always invent alone. Instead, social entrepreneurship can come from small groups or teams of individuals, from organizations, networks, or even communities that band together to create pattern-breaking change. By challenging the notion that socially entrepreneurial activity is the product of a 24/7 entrepreneur who perseveres against the odds, my old definition provided a bigger tent for social entrepreneurship.

My 2006 definition also embraced the possibility that the quantity of socially entrepreneurial activities varies across individuals and organizations, meaning that organizations might be somewhat or moderately socially entrepreneurial, while still meeting a more traditional charitable mission. My definition also focused on the notion that some individuals and organizations might even stop their socially entrepreneurial activities to concentrate on strengthening their operations or because of stall points, funding crises, or leadership transitions.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, given the field’s focus on a relatively small number of social entrepreneurs, my definition provoked intense reactions within the field, especially given my assumption that social entrepreneurs might not be as rare as imagined. In questioning the “cult of personality” that surrounds charismatic entrepreneurs, I had implied that individuals were somehow unimportant to social entrepreneurship.

My more inclusive view of social entrepreneurship almost certainly reflects my bias as an educator. As I have argued before, the amount of social entrepreneurship can be increased by supporting more potential entrepreneurs as they cross over to actual engagement.
This is the core belief at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, which houses the Catherine B. Reynolds graduate and undergraduate fellows program on social entrepreneurship. The effort is based on the belief that social entrepreneurs can be identified early in their careers and given the skills and coaching to engage in socially entrepreneurial activity as soon as possible. Some will start new ventures, others will join entrepreneurial organizations, and still others will engage whole communities in the search for change. ]]> 2008-11-11T01:05:00-08:00 2008-10-21T13:43:34-07:00 plight Exploring Definitions http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/11/04/exploring-definitions
Thus the challenge is no longer in specifying the goal of social entrepreneurship but in thickening the understanding about who (the entrepreneur), what (the idea), when (the opportunity), and where (the organization) shape the effort to both disturb and replace the social equilibrium.

Some definitions are more inclusive, while others are more exclusive. The choice of one or the other has obvious implications for researchers, not the least of which is the estimated amount of social entrepreneurship at any given point in time. Those who use inclusive definitions invariably find more social entrepreneurship in more places than those who use exclusive definitions, thereby creating a deep inventory of examples, while those who use exclusive definitions find fewer entrepreneurs and less socially-entrepreneurial activity than those who use inclusive definitions, thereby reducing the inventory of success stories to a very familiar few that almost always seem to win the national awards. ]]> 2008-11-04T01:25:00-08:00 2008-10-21T13:35:27-07:00 plight Combining Components http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/10/28/combining-components
Some strategies emphasize the entrepreneur’s dispositions and traits, while others focus on the context created by organization, and still others emphasis ideas and opportunities as central ingredients that are shaped and noticed by entrepreneurs and organizations.   

As we shall also see, the key to success may be in assembling the four components together to take advantage of a specific opportunity, develop a particular idea, use an entrepreneur’s special skills, or focus energy within an organization.

As such, creating social entrepreneurship may be very much like solving a jigsaw puzzle. Some will start at the corners, others at the center, and still others with a color. But it is unlikely that the puzzle can be solved without some combination of all approaches, especially as the number of pieces increase. ]]> 2008-10-28T00:00:00-07:00 2008-10-21T13:28:20-07:00 plight Organizations http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/10/21/organizations Organizations are the fourth component of social entrepreneurship, but were often an afterthought in the definitions I read.  Indeed, many definitions focused on organization and management as adversaries of change. 

Jane Wei-Skillern, James E. Austin, and Howard Stevenson took a neutral stance about organizations and social entrepreneurship in 2005.  Writing about the opportunity, people, capital, and context involved in creating social value, the three authors noted the importance of organizational alignment in achieving results: 

Remaining attuned to how contextual changes can affect the opportunity and the human- and financial-resource environment causing the need for realignment is a critical skill for the social entrepreneur.  Furthermore, practitioners should remain cognizant of a unique characteristic of the operating context, namely, that the societal demand for social-value creation is enormous.  This creates a plethora of opportunities for social entrepreneurs and a concomitant ever-present temptation to address more and more of them.

Although organizations impose clear operating constraints, they also provide essential capacity.  As Wei-Skillern and her colleagues continued, the challenge is to determine how much the organization can achieve with limited resources: “Seeking to address a very broad set of issues with very limited human and financial resources may actually result in low social impact because the organization’s resources are spread too thin.” Simply put, organizations cannot be ignored as a component of successful social entrepreneurship and a potential source of failure.

    Wei-Skillern and her coauthors clearly understood the point—their 19 page article in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice used the word “organization” or “organizations” 127 times, and the words “entrepreneur” or “entrepreneurs” 109.  ]]> 2008-10-21T00:00:00-07:00 2008-10-21T09:34:57-07:00 plight Opportunities http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/10/14/opportunities Opportunities are the third component of social entrepreneurship, and were at the center of most, but not all of the definitions I reviewed over the past two years.  Viewed as a moment of possibility, opportunities are sometimes taken as a Peter Pan phenomenon—that is, if you believe you can fly, you will fly. 

Writing in 1998, Dees offered a very difference view.  Like Drayton, Dees reserved a significant role for the entrepreneur as the starting point of change.  However, Dees also argued that a powerful vision is not enough to create disequilibrium. Opportunities must be identified and exploited. Indeed, entrepreneurs are defined in part by their ability to recognize and “relentlessly” pursue new opportunities. “Where others see problems, social entrepreneurs see opportunity,” he wrote. “They are not simply driven by the perception of a social need or by their compassion. Rather they have a vision of how to achieve improvement and they are determined to make their vision work. They are persistent.”

Opportunities also provide resources and the potential for collaboration, which leads to Dees’ notion that social entrepreneurs work around the obstacles embedded in an opportunity.

Social entrepreneurs do not let their own limited resources keep them from pursuing their visions. They are skilled at doing more with less and at attracting resources from others. They use scarce resources efficiently, and they leverage their limited resources by drawing in partners and collaborating with others. They explore all resource options, from pure philanthropy to the commercial methods of the business sector. They are not bound by sector norms or traditions. They develop resource strategies that are likely to support and reinforce their social missions. They take calculated risks and manage the downside, so as to reduce the harm that will result from failure. They understand the risk tolerances of their stakeholders and use this to spread the risk to those who are better prepared to accept it.

For Dees, social value is always the ultimate goal. It is why social entrepreneurs pursue opportunities in the first place, learn and adapt as they proceed, and act boldly without regard to resources. And it is why they are called to action in the first place. Nevertheless, they could not act without the ability to recognize opportunity when it arises. ]]> 2008-10-14T00:00:00-07:00 2008-09-22T12:43:03-07:00 plight Ideas http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/10/07/ideas Ideas are the second component of social entrepreneurship, and are also found in all of the definitions I have collected.  Comparing business and social entrepreneurship in 2007, Martin and Osberg argued that the critical difference between the two is the “value proposition.” Unlike business entrepreneurs who focus on serving markets that can afford a new product or serve, social entrepreneurs seek no profit for their investors or themselves: 

Instead, the social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of large-scale, transformational benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of society or to society at large.  Unlike the entrepreneurial value proposition that assumes a market that can pay for innovation, and may even provide substantial upside for investors, the social entrepreneur’s value proposition targets an under,, neglected, or highly disadvantaged population that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve the transformational benefits on their own.

Entrepreneurs clearly play a significant role in transformational change, but only when they are absolutely committed to the idea.  Indeed, writing in 2003, Martin warned the social benefit sector to avoid “heroic leadership trap.” “Take-charge leadership misapplied not only fails to inspire and engage, it produces passivity and alienation.

And this is true not only in the for-profit and government sectors. When nonprofit leaders assume ‘heroic’ responsibility for making critical choices, when their reaction to problems is to go it alone, work harder, and do more—with no collaboration or sharing of leadership—their ‘heroism’ is often their undoing.” ]]> 2008-10-07T03:05:00-07:00 2008-09-22T12:38:34-07:00 plight The Four Components of Social Entrepreneurship http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/09/30/the-four-components-of-social-entrepreneurship
  • Entrepreneurs
  • Ideas
  • Opportunities
  • Organizations. 

These four components not only help organization the rapidly growing literatures on business entrepreneurship, they clarify the search for strategies that might help entrepreneurs develop and launch better ideas, discover opportunities, and create more creative organizations. 
There is plenty of evidence that social entrepreneurship involves more than an entrepreneur and a pattern-breaking idea.  The only problem, if it is a problem at all is that the field as a whole has yet to decide which components matter most, or how individual dispositions vary with organizational context.

Entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs are the first component of social entrepreneurship, and can be found in every definition I have read.  However, some definitions give entrepreneurs greater prominence than others.  Although Drayton argues that there is no entrepreneur without a powerful, system-changing idea that seeks widespread impact, there is no chance of success without the talent, creativity, and entrepreneurial intent of the individual.  As he wrote in 2005, “these people are compelled to change the whole society.  From childhood, an entrepreneur intuitively seeks out an area of interest, for example, health, and then begins the long search for an idea that will be his or her vehicle for leaving a scratch on history.”   

This focus on entrepreneurs inevitably leads the search for traits and characteristics that might these gifted individuals from the rest of society.  According to Drayton, “entrepreneurs are easy to spot long before they have made their mark.  They are married to their vision—and will stick with it for decades if needed.  They are equally focused on the ‘how to’ questions.  They ask themselves: How do I get from here to my goal fifteen years from now?  How do the pieces fit together?  How do I solve this and the next problem?”  Thus does the “democratic revolution” occur.

Drayton’s entrepreneurs also show deeper qualities:

What qualities define an effective social entrepreneur?  First, the person must be creative in both goal setting and problem solving.  Second—and this is the toughest screen—is entrepreneurial quality.  This is not leadership, or the ability to administer, or the ability to get things done.  The driving force here is the fact that such a person is emotionally, deeply committed to making change throughout the whole of society.  Once one understands that this commitment itself is the driving force, then everything else follows.  The final quality essential to success as a social entrepreneur is ethical fiber.  People will not make significant changes in their lives if they do not trust the person asking them to do so. 
]]> 2008-09-30T03:10:00-07:00 2008-09-22T11:32:53-07:00 plight Social enterprise? http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/09/23/social-enterprise social enterprise.  For many years, the terms were used interchangeably to describe revenue-generating activity on behalf of a social mission. 

Much as social entrepreneurship might benefit from social enterprise, social entrepreneurship has a different aim. Whereas social entrepreneurship seeks tipping points for innovation and change, social enterprise seeks profits for reinvestment and growth. 

As Dees wrote of the confusion in 2003, “far too many people still think of social entrepreneurship in terms of nonprofits generating earned income.  This is a dangerously narrow view.  It shifts attention away from the ultimate goal of any self-respecting social entrepreneur, namely social impact, and focuses it on one particular method of generating resources.  Earned income is only a means to a social end, and it is not always the best means.” 

This debate now seems settled, although Janelle A. Kirlin reported in 2006 that the two terms are stilled used inter-changeably in Europe. 

Many other debates remain open, however.  Once again, Low’s analysis is well worth reading as a cautionary tale for the future of social entrepreneurship:

Why does entrepreneurship as an academic field receive so much attention but so little respect? Is it because entrepreneurship researchers are not smart enough? Or like the subject they study, are they too action-oriented to commit to scholarly demands? Does the problem lie with a larger academy that is parochial, conservative, and overly critical? Or is it simply that the field is still too young?

The right answer is "none of the above." I believe the correct answer lies in the nature of the phenomenon. The strong student interest in entrepreneurship is in turn driven by fundamental changes in the business environment. Mega-trends such as the development of new information technologies, genetics, globalization, and accelerated financial markets have increased the need for speed, innovation, and collaboration. As a consequence, the determinants of business success and the opportunities for start-ups have changed. In the "new" economy, there is an increased need for "entrepreneurial" thinking that is fast, flexible, opportunity-driven, and creative with respect to the acquisition of resources and the management of risk.
And herein lies both the opportunity and the potential pitfall for entrepreneurship as an academic field. The opportunity is to provide models and concepts to explain and facilitate commerce in the new economy. The potential pitfall is that this task is too broad and unfocused to be achievable.

    This call to evidence  applies to social entrepreneurship, as well.  And this call cannot be answered without a much deeper inquiry about the basic assumptions that propel the field forward. ]]> 2008-09-23T03:15:00-07:00 2008-09-22T11:28:00-07:00 plight A Basic Agreement http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/09/16/a-basic-agreement
As such, the term is very much like leadership, which James Phills calls “everything and nothing.” Writing in 2005, he argued that this “mythical and mysterious” term is like a Rorschach test: “It can be whatever we want it to be, and that is part of its popular appeal. But at the same time, this conceptual ambiguity contributes to leadership’s status as one of the most fragmented and disappointing bodies of research and knowledge in the field of management.”

The same appears to hold true for the study of social entrepreneurship. In 2006, for example, Jay Weerawardena and Gillian Sullivan Mort offered an inventory of at least 20 different definitions used in past research on social entrepreneurship. Noting the field’s brief, fragmented history, the two authors concluded that researchers have yet to produce an evidence-based theoretical framework of what matters and does not matter to successful social entrepreneurship.

Notwithstanding this frustration, there is general consensus on the goal of social entrepreneurship. Having invented the term in the early 1980s, William Drayton has long argued that social entrepreneurship involves “large-scale systemic social change.” According to Drayton, systemic change comes from individuals with a powerful, new system-changing idea; creativity in goal setting and problem solving; a driving ambition to achieve impact; total absorption in their work, “in sickness and in health”; the desire to change an entire system; and ethical fiber. As Drayton so eloquently summarized his definition in 2005, social entrepreneurs seek nothing less than a new world:

The job of the social entrepreneur is to recognize when a part of society is not working and to solve the problem by changing the system, spreading solutions, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps. Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish or to teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry. Identifying and solving large-scale social problems requires social entrepreneurs because only entrepreneurs have the committed vision and inexhaustible determination to persist until they have transformed an entire system.

Drayton’s focus on systemic change has been echoed by leading scholars such as J. Gregory Dees. Writing in 1998, Dees defined social entrepreneurship as the production of social value by individuals with:

—a mission to create and sustain social value, as change agents in the social sector;
—the relentless pursuit of new opportunities to serve that mission;
—a commitment to a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning;
—the readiness to act boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand;
—heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.

In turn, Dees’ focus on sustaining social change underpins what Roger Martin and Sally Osberg labeled a “new, stable social equilibrium” in 2007, while Dees’ list of key entrepreneurial behaviors fits Martin and Osberg’s inventory of the personal characteristics needed to persevere. There may still be strong disagreements about the underlying assumptions about social entrepreneurship, but not about its basic goal. ]]> 2008-09-16T10:10:52-07:00 2008-09-16T10:10:52-07:00 plight The Search for Entrepreneurship http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/09/09/the-search-for-entrepreneurship
There are hopeful exceptions to this portrait, however.  Several national foundations continue to invest heavily in research, Ashoka is creating intersections between research and practice, the Skoll Foundation continues to invite researchers to its annual world forum on social entrepreneurship, and scholars are still producing important insights for future validation.  But for now, social entrepreneurship research is more a part-time commitment than a full-time pursuit.

Indeed, as a field of inquiry, the study of social entrepreneurship is barely past its infancy.  As such, it resembles the early years in the study of business entrepreneurship. Despite its growth over the past three decades, one of the field’s leading scholars, Murray Low, described the field in 2001 as a “catchall” for scholars who cannot agree on basic definitions.  Comparing the definitions he found in major journals on business entrepreneurship, Low reported that the search for common themes nearly drove him “mad.”

"Our best efforts resulted in a six by twenty matrix, where one axis listed major subjects (new ventures, venture capital/angels, entrepreneurs, corporate venturing, small/family business, and “other”), and the other axis listed primary focus such as decision making, performance, gender geography, etc….However, the most interesting finding was that we needed a 120-cell matrix to classify a total of 131 articles. While a more parsimonious classification scheme might have been possible, it seems clear that the boundaries of our field remain vague."

This diversity has its advantages.  “One can argue in favor of a field that is inclusive and eclectic,” Low concluded.  “In many ways, the broad range of subjects is the strength of our field. The primary criterion for becoming an entrepreneurship researcher is passion for the subject, not adherence to a paradigm.  However, this inclusiveness and eclecticism is not free of cost.”  If entrepreneurship wants to grow up into a legitimate academic field, it must be more disciplined. 

Scott A. Shane reached the same conclusion in 2006: “Despite the high level of entrepreneurial activity in the world economy, and a corresponding focus of business schools on teaching in this area, scholarly research in entrepreneurship remains quite limited. Although the number of researchers who have investigated this phenomenon has increased in recent years, the quality of their theoretical and empirical contributions has been relatively poor, with few studies meeting the standards of leading academic journals.”

These frustrations reflect enduring differences across the academic disciplines.  Economists tend to define entrepreneurship as a sweeping change in the prevailing economic equilibrium; political scientists tend to view it as part of the agenda-setting process that determines who gets what, when, where, and how from government; psychologists tend to look for evidence of basic motivations for achievement, autonomy, and affiliation; historians look for the seeds of broad social movements that have deep links to long-standing social and political injustice; and anthropologists search for social customs that might explain broad cultural patterns of innovation. Can geneticists be far behind in finding a DNA marker of entrepreneurial intent? ]]> 2008-09-09T11:10:23-07:00 2008-09-09T11:10:23-07:00 plight Social Entrepreneurship What is above this post? http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2008/09/02/what-is-above-this-post The Search for Social Entrepreneurship. He writes: "Social entrepreneurship has become one of the most popular terms in circulation today, but do we really know what it means?  The answer, which I cover in my new book, is yes and no." Read on! ]]> 2008-09-02T00:00:00-07:00 2008-09-09T11:03:23-07:00 Social Edge What is below this post? http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/let-there-be-light/archive/2006/08/22/what-is-below-this-post below, Paul C. Light, Professor at New York University's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, writes about his search for social entrepreneurs --who they might be, where they might be found, what they do. His research was funded by the Skoll Foundation and this paper was written for "Research on Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging Field," a forthcoming volume published by ARNOVA and funded by the UPS Foundation. ]]> 2006-08-22T00:00:00-07:00 2008-09-09T10:48:28-07:00 Social Edge