University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Fostering a social entrepreneurial mindset through non-degree-granting programs: a case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Fostering a social entrepreneurial mindset through non-degree-granting programs: a case study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Fostering a Social Entrepreneurial Mindset Through Non-Degree-Granting Programs:
A Case Study

Daisy Mengya Qiu
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation presented to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2023

© Copyright by Daisy Mengya Qiu 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Daisy Mengya Qiu certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Lawrence O. Picus
Dr. Anthony B. Maddox
Dr. Ruth H. Chung, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not a social entrepreneurship
program can effectively provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to develop and
lead successful social ventures, and if so, to further identify the key factors that contribute to a
successful social entrepreneurial program. The research questions guiding this study are: What
are the key factors that students identified as having contributed to the effectiveness of the XYZ
Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) program in improving their social
entrepreneurial competencies? What do students perceive as the significant limitations of the
XYZ -SEA program in helping them achieve their social entrepreneurial goals? How did the
students translate their social entrepreneurship knowledge and skills from the XYZ -SEA
program into their professional domains? In order to answer these questions, this case study
analyzed interview data from 18 alums of the XYZ-SEA program who graduated between 2013
and 2022. Data for this study included in-depth interviews and program curriculum. Findings
revealed that students gained personal growth from the social entrepreneurship program in terms
of skills improvement and knowledge expansion. Additionally, students identified that the
curriculum design, the program culture, and student body are all interplaying factors that impact
students’ learning process. It is important for social entrepreneurship researchers and education
practitioners to create a unified social entrepreneurial competency model in order to better
evaluate student learning outcomes and skill improvement.
Keywords: social entrepreneurship; social entrepreneurship education; program
evaluation and design; higher education.

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge all the people who inspired me to pursue this degree and
supported me throughout the process. Firstly, I would like to thank my parents who always value
learning and growth and who laid out sail plan for.

To my husband Howard- thank you for always supporting my dreams and encouraging
me to be the person who I want to be. You are my soulmate and best friend. Your feedback and
suggestions always mean so much to me.

To Dr. Ruth Chung -thank you for being my dissertation chair and supporting me through
the process, particularly during the time of my mother’s sickness. I am forever grateful that I had
you as a mentor on this journey.

To the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Larry Picus and Dr. Anthony Maddox
for dedicating your time and energy to this project and helping me expand my perspective of
myself and my research. I appreciate your knowledge, passion, and insight and mostly for
agreeing to share them with me on this journey.

Lastly, a big thanks to all my interview participants who shared their perspectives, views,
and life experiences with me.

Table of Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 2
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .......................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 7
Social Entrepreneurship: Origins, Definitions, Significance, and Measurement ....................... 7
Origins of Social Entrepreneurship ............................................................................................. 7
Common Traits for Social Entrepreneurs ................................................................................. 14
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 23
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 26
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 27
Study Participants ..................................................................................................................... 27
Data Collection and Instrumentation Procedures ..................................................................... 31
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 32

Limitations and Delimitations .................................................................................................. 33
Ethics ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 35
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 38
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 45
Finding 1: Social Entrepreneurship Defined as Balancing a Social Mission ........................... 48
and Commercial Success .......................................................................................................... 48
Finding 2: Effective Social Entrepreneurs Exhibit High Levels of Self-Efficacy and
Compassion ............................................................................................................................... 51
Finding 3: Core Social Entrepreneurial Competencies: The “Ability to Pivot” as Well as
Negotiation and Leadership Skills ............................................................................................ 53
Finding 4: Personal Development Significant Contributing Factor to Program Success ......... 56
Finding 5: Major Program Limitations Include Lack of Well-Established Alum Network and
Lack of Inclusive Program Content Lack of Alumni Network ................................................. 63
Finding 6: Transferring Skills into Professional Domains ....................................................... 66
Finding 7: Students Pursue Social Ventures in a Global Scale ................................................ 68
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 71
Implications for Policy Makers, Institutional Leaders, and Practitioners ................................. 78
Recommendations and Implementations .................................................................................. 79
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................... 82

Implications for Future Research .............................................................................................. 82
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 83
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 92
Appendix B: Informed Consent .................................................................................................... 94

List of Tables
Table 1 Countries of Student Population 29
Table 2 Participant Background Information Table 47
Table 3 XYZ-SEA Program Structure 57

List of Figures
Figure 1 EU Entrepreneurship Framework 20
Figure 2 Social Cognitive Theory 25
Figure 3 Age Group of Student Population 29
Figure 4 Education Attainment of Student Population 29
Figure 5 Social Cognitive Theory 77

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Social entrepreneurship education has received increased attention worldwide (Brock,
2008). Only a handful of institutions offered social entrepreneurship courses two decades ago.
Today, nearly all of the top-ranked universities and colleges across the globe have incorporated
some aspect of social entrepreneurship into their undergraduate and graduate curricula, in
addition to short-term social entrepreneurship programs offered by non-degree-granting course
providers (Worsham, 2012). Several factors have driven the increased recognition of the
importance of social entrepreneurship education. First, a social entrepreneurial mindset is an
essential competence for individuals to gain to cope with the sociocultural complexities and
uncertainties of the future world (McNally et al., 2020). Second, increasing social challenges
require individuals to deal with these issues more innovatively, ideally achieving a balance
between accomplishing social goals and realizing market-driven opportunities (Tracy & Phillips,
2007).
Despite increased academic focus on social entrepreneurship education, research on the
subject has yet to reach either its academic maturity and or widespread acceptance as a legitimate
area of study, like with general entrepreneurship. In my view, not enough attention has been paid
to determining how to teach social entrepreneurship concepts effectively. This is due to both a
lack of consensus on the definition of social entrepreneurship and lack of a universally
recognized social entrepreneurial competency model for social entrepreneurial programs to
measure educational outcomes (Short et al., 2009). Thus, this research aimed to identify effective
ways to foster a social entrepreneurial mindset, using the XYZ Social Entrepreneurship
Accelerator (XYZ-SEA), a short-term social entrepreneurship education program, as a case
study. I concluded that the XYZ-SEA program is an effective way to instill social entrepreneurial

2
skills and knowledge to individuals without prior knowledge in the area. By examining the
learning experiences of students in this program, I identified that the program’s curriculum
design, program culture, and construction of the student body have been important factors in
creating a conducive learning environment for students, and in turn, have improved their social
entrepreneurial intentions and self-efficacies.
Background of the Problem
Entrepreneurship remains one of the most debated topics in the academic domain due to
its interdisciplinary nature. Entrepreneurship originated as a business concept but also captures
elements from other fields of study, including economics, management, sociology, and
psychology. The most inclusive definition, proposed by Prince, Chapman, and Cassey (2021),
defines entrepreneurship as a process that combines individuals' manifest ability and desire, on
their own or in teams, to perceive and create new ideas and develop these new ideas for
validation. This working definition entails several core elements of entrepreneurial competence,
including opportunity-seeking, risk-bearing, organizing, and coordinating resources, problem
solving, innovation, and execution skills (Prince et al., 2021). Entrepreneurship has been seen as
a driving force of economic growth, and for developed, emerging, and developing economies
alike (Naude, 2011). Entrepreneurial activities contribute to economic growth through formation
of new business enterprises that create new job opportunities as well as increasing productivity
through innovation, resulting in growth of Gross Domestic Product (Audretsch, 2012).
Social entrepreneurship (SE) shares many characteristics with general entrepreneurship
including the ability to identify and seize new opportunities, the commitment and drive required
to pursue them, and an unflinching willingness to bear the inherent risks (Martin & Osberg,
2007). However, the fundamental element that differentiates social from general

3
entrepreneurship is the dual mission of social entrepreneurship, which is to achieve a social
welfare mission while maintaining commercial success (McNally et al., 2020). According to
Blenker et al. (2012), developing a social entrepreneurial mindset can help individuals better deal
with ambiguity and uncertainty in business scenarios, by equipping them with leadership,
teamwork, and problem-solving skills, and the ability to identify opportunities and execute on
strategies. More importantly, developing a social entrepreneurial mindset can improve
community awareness and enhance community-building, as individuals learn to think
innovatively about the solutions to social problems occurred in their everyday lives and
establishing a connection to the business world (Collins et al., 2004).
Scholars have concluded that a social entrepreneurial mindset is one that can be learned
and developed over time (Armin, 2015), and that one way to advance one's social entrepreneurial
mindset is in fact through education and training (as opposed to hands-on experience only).
However, to date, the question of how to teach social entrepreneurship effectively has yet to be
answered, or at least properly standardized or codified. This study sought to answer this question
by identifying the key factors that contribute to the success of a social entrepreneurship
education program.
Organizational Context
The XYZ Institute is a nonprofit organization that serves as a platform for the next
generation of social entrepreneurs, innovators, and leaders to build successful careers and
impactful lives. The Institute was founded in 2013 in Boulder, Colorado, and operates a
differentiated education model that partners with universities and organizations to design and
deliver various social entrepreneurship programs. It offers a Bachelor of Science in Social
Entrepreneurship in collaboration with Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida (Lynn

4
University, 2022), and short-term social entrepreneurship immersion programs for corporations.
For example, Ford Social Entrepreneurship Acceleration, a six-week virtual immersive program
funded by Ford Motor Company, empowers young individuals to transform their communities
(XYZ Institute, 2021).
The XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) is XYZ Institute’s most
established short-term program. Launched in 2013, the XYZ-SEA is an 18-week in-person
immersion program at the XYZ Institute main campus in Boulder. The program bears the
mission to cultivate impact-driven entrepreneurs through training to strengthen skills, access to a
global network that can elevate their ventures, and mentorship by a group of seasoned
professionals, venture capitalists, and enterprise executives. The program opens for enrollment
twice a year and recruits a maximum of 35 students for each cohort, with commencements in
August and March (XYZ Institute, 2021). All enrolled students must create a detailed business
plan for their social enterprises (some students already have ventures underway prior to joining
the program) to their mentors as part of a graduation assessment upon completing the program.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The goal of this study was to determine whether or not a social entrepreneurship program
can effectively provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to develop and lead
successful social ventures, and if so, to further identify the key factors that contribute to a
successful social entrepreneurial program. This study used the XYZ-SEA, a short-term social
entrepreneurship education program as a case study. The study took a qualitative methodology
approach and collected data through semi-structured interviews with 18 graduates (i.e., alums) of
the XYZ-SEA program between the graduation years of 2013 and 2022. The decision to use
interviews as a primary data collection strategy was because this research aimed to understand

5
how students perceived their learning experiences in the XYZ-SEA program in terms of skills
improvement and knowledge expansion. The qualitative approach was suitable for exploring
individuals’ experiences and understanding their views and perspectives. The research questions
for this study are listed below:
1. What are the key factors that students identified as having contributed to the effectiveness
of the XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) program in improving their
social entrepreneurial competencies?
2. What do students perceive as the significant limitations of the XYZ -SEA program in
helping them achieve their social entrepreneurial goals?
3. How did the students translate their social entrepreneurship knowledge and skills from
the XYZ -SEA program into their professional domains?
Importance of the Study
This study provided insights into how to teach social entrepreneurial concepts and
significant contributing factors to the effectiveness of a social entrepreneurship program.
Furthermore, despite increased attention to social entrepreneurship education, there is a scarcity
of documentation with regards to evaluating the impact of social entrepreneurship education on
an individual’s entrepreneurial intentions and social competency development (Lawrence,
Phillips, & Tracy, 2012). The results of this study filled the gap of identifying the effective ways
of fostering a social entrepreneurial mindset. The study revealed that the entrepreneurial
intentions and self-efficacies of students, students’ knowledge and skills, as well as the
backgrounds of instructors and learning environment are all important and interrelated factors
that impact the successful implementation of a social entrepreneurship education program.

6
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the study and provides
relevant context for the problem. Chapter Two reviews current literature covering the scope of
the study and the conceptual framework. Topics include the importance of entrepreneurship and
social entrepreneurship, defining entrepreneurial characteristics, evaluating the impact of social
entrepreneurship, and methods used to gain a social entrepreneurial mindset. Chapter Three
proposes the research design, including the methods for data collection and analysis. Participant
sampling strategy is also discussed, in addition to the limitations and credibility of the research.
Chapter Four presents six major findings of the study and analyzes the findings through the lens
of my theoretical framework. Chapter Five summarizes the findings, discusses implications, and
offers recommendations for future study.

7
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Social entrepreneurship education has received increased attention worldwide and
scholarly studies related to the effective teaching of social entrepreneurship concepts have been
conducted in the recent three decades (Brock, 2008). This chapter summarizes studies on social
entrepreneurship education in three sections: 1) an overview of social entrepreneurship, 2)
defining social entrepreneurial competencies, and 3) fostering a social entrepreneurial mindset
through education.
Social Entrepreneurship: Origins, Definitions, Significance, and Measurement
Origins of Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship, as a subgroup of general entrepreneurship, is deemed to share
many commonalities with entrepreneurship (Martin & Osberg, 2007). The term entreprendre
was first created by the French economist Richard Cantillon in 1734 to indicate the general
undertaking of a business (Peneder, 2009). The motives for engaging in a business exchange and
providing goods and services to others, as well as undertaking risks and uncertainty associated
with the application of new production techniques, were driven merely by profit (Brown &
Clow, 2007). The French economist, Jean-Baptiste Say, defined entrepreneurship as a process of
discovering and meeting unexploited demand through more efficient reallocation of resources, in
which entrepreneurs were largely reduced to the managerial role responsible for combining the
factors of production to create a profit (Hebert & Link, 1982; Ricketts, 2006).
The managerial function of entrepreneurship was further explored by the English
economist, Alfred Marshall, in his book Principles of Economics. Marshall (1920) viewed
entrepreneurship as a process of combining labor and capital resources in production to earn a
profit, and in which entrepreneurs, as master engineers, constantly strive to optimize the

8
allocation of resources and maximize overall efficiency even in the face of uncertainty. Later
writers such as Casson et al. (2006) took a human capital approach to further define the
managerial functions of entrepreneurship as a collection of skills, including the ability to process
information to make decisions about business locations, forms of ownership, and resource
allocation.
Furthermore, several scholars identified the concept of innovation as the basis for
entrepreneurship. The Austrian economist, Joseph Schumpeter, defined innovation as an ability
to use resources in a novel way to create a product or new mode of production, thereby opening
new markets or even rearranging an entire industry. According to his definition, innovation is
characterized by two core elements: 1) the introduction of novelty to the system, and 2) the
creation of value (Schumpeter, 1934). This is an important contribution as this definition helps
distinguish innovation from the notion of invention, by the core condition of whether or not an
invention can generate value. Invention refers to an act of creating or designing something new
without necessarily creating value, but innovation can instead be construed as a transformative
process from an innovative idea into a new product.
Finally, some scholars argued that the creation of a new business entity should be seen as
a criterion for the definition of entrepreneurship. Lazear (2005) differentiated entrepreneurs from
self-employed professionals by defining an entrepreneur as someone who establishes a business
of their own, by spotting and combining a variety of skills and people. Danu and Cuervo-Cazurra
(2014) took a legalistic view to define entrepreneurship as the creation of new businesses, i.e., a
stable collection of individuals who coordinate their efforts and skills to generate new value-
added economic activity. According to their views, entrepreneurship is restricted to those who
establish a new business because the start-up of a new business is the purest manifestation of

9
establishing novel combinations (Peneder, 2009). More importantly, the building and
subsequent expansion of organizations are deemed to be an important signal of entrepreneurial
success (Schumpeter, 1934). Consequently, many research studies on entrepreneurship focus on
only startups and new venture creation.
In short, entrepreneurship is built on innovation and defined as the process to pursue for-
profit opportunities through creation of a new product or service (Javis, 2016). Entrepreneurs are
essentially individuals with the compound effect of an innovator, capitalist, and managerial
functions (Peneder, 2009). With entrepreneurship expanding into the social context, the term
social entrepreneurship (expanded upon below) has also made its way into both everyday life and
as an academic field of study.
Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship
The term social entrepreneurship was coined in 1972 by Bill Drayton, founder of the
international nonprofit Ashoka, to describe a growing trend of entrepreneurs pursuing market-
based opportunities to address unresolved yet pressing social and environmental issues (Bacq,
2021). The early definition underlines an important element of social entrepreneurship: the
pursuit of a social mission. Greg Dees (2011), the father of social entrepreneurship education and
the founder of the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE) at Duke
University, defined social entrepreneurship as the process of recognizing and resourcefully
pursuing market opportunities to create social value. Unlike business entrepreneurship, which
aspires to explore the market opportunity and transform it through innovation to generate profits
(Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014), social entrepreneurship aspires to solve societal and environmental
problems through innovation using market-driven approaches (Bacq & Janssen, 2011).
Thompson (2002) considered social entrepreneurship as the phenomenon of applying business

10
expertise and marketing skills in the nonprofit sector, whereas Dees and Anderson (2003) saw
social entrepreneurship as an innovative activity with a social objective across all sectors.
By examining all the definitions of social entrepreneurship, we can synthesize the core
elements of social entrepreneurship. First, the dual mission of social entrepreneurship is to create
social value and generate profit (Zadek & Thake, 1997). Social entrepreneurs commercialize
innovation to create profit as the means to realize their social goals (Dees, 2003). Second, social
ventures are believed to emerge to primarily serve an underserved, neglected, or disadvantaged
population that lacks the financial means or political power to achieve the transformative
benefits on its own (Phillips et al., 2015). Therefore, social entrepreneurship begins with
identifying opportunities that could be beneficial to a population that lacks the ability to achieve
those benefits or meet the social needs that governments and other commercial businesses fail to
provide. Third, social entrepreneurship, like general entrepreneurship, is built on innovation.
Social entrepreneurship promotes social change through innovation, which means either creating
something new to fill in the identified unmet social gaps or coordinating resources in a novel
way to address social problems (Austin, et al., 2006). Black and Janssen (2011, p.37) offered an
inclusive definition that captures all the core elements of social entrepreneurship, defining it as
“the process of identifying, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities aiming at social value
creation using commercial market-based activities and the use of a wide range of resources”.
It is important to distinguish social entrepreneurship from social activism. Martin and
Osberg (2007) argued that social activists attempt to create change through indirect action by
influencing others, but social entrepreneurs identify a social problem and approach it with a
direct, innovative solution. Successful activism can yield substantial improvements to existing
systems, but the strategic nature of the action is distinct in its emphasis on influence rather than

11
on direct action. In addition, social entrepreneurship is not equivalent to philanthropy.
Philanthropic organizations are dependent on continuous steams of charitable funding and
individuals’ goodwill, but social entrepreneurship seeks to grow business in a sustainable manner
without consistent outside investment (Dedrick, 2018).
Significance of Social Entrepreneurship
As the author of How to Change the World, David Bornstein (2003, p.4), who specializes
in social innovation research says, “what business entrepreneurs are to the economy, social
entrepreneurs are to social change”. Social entrepreneurship has been seen as a strong force to
promote innovation, inspire change, and stimulate economic growth through the creation of job
opportunities (Naude, 2010). According to Santos (2012), the existence of social-focused
ventures helps to boost innovation and devise more sustainable solutions to key social problems.
Social entrepreneurship inspires positive social change by engaging individuals from all sectors,
including governmental and non-governmental organizations, in solving pressing social
problems, thus creating a more inclusive and just society (Maniam et al., 2018). According to
Ashoka, the world largest community for social entrepreneurs, more than half of the members in
its network of social entrepreneurs have impacted national legislation within five years of the
inception of their social ventures (Santos, 2012). Moreover, social entrepreneurship creates
business opportunities for people who have been left out of the economic mainstream. Rather
than capture some form of economic value for themselves, social entrepreneurs seek to increase
the skills and utility of individuals or entire groups in their respective pursuits, focusing more on
the vitality of the entire collective economic system (Santos, 2012).
Johnson (2021) outlined what he considers to be the most common types of social
entrepreneurship: community social entrepreneurship, transformational social entrepreneurship,

12
and global social entrepreneurship. Community social entrepreneurial activity primarily focuses
on serving the social needs of a community within a small geographical area. An example is
Kenya Women Finance Trust (KWFT). KWFT is one of the oldest and most widely used
microfinance institutions in Kenya and was licensed to operate by the Central Bank of Kenya in
2010 (KWFT, 2023). The institution offers financial solutions to local African females with no
access to banking (Nega & Schneider, 2013). Current programs at the institution vary in nature.
Some examples include providing loans to subsistence farmers to purchase a cow, providing
water-filtration systems, and educating female students on microfinance. Another example is the
Impact Investing Fund, created by the nonprofit organization, Living Cities, and the Kauffman
Foundation, which helps close the gap in racial wealth distribution in New York state by
providing African American entrepreneurs access to capital to grow their businesses (Gaskin &
Duckett, 2020). The fund has helped increase the diversity of the businesses founded by African
American entrepreneurs, and in turn encourages more entrepreneurs of color to pursue
entrepreneurial activities (Gaskin & Duckett, 2020).
Transformational social entrepreneurship prioritizes social well-being over traditional
business needs and reinvests profits into the business to facilitate the further expansion of social
services at a national scale. This type of social entrepreneurship is usually supported by national
governments, as well as large corporations and foundations that choose to use their power for
social good (Johnson, 2021). Goodwill Industries International, a national nonprofit organization
founded in Boston in 1912, employed poor residents to work with donated goods, reinvesting all
profits into job training programs and employment placement services (Gibbons, 2015).
Global social entrepreneurship aims to change social systems to meet global social needs.
These organizations are usually tied to a particular widespread cause such as education or public

13
health, and work with other social ventures to make it happen (Johnson, 2021). Ashoka, founded
by Bill Drayton in 1980, is a successful example of how social entrepreneurship projects impact
worldwide. Ashoka builds and cultivates a worldwide community of changemakers to initiate
and implement large scale and positive change. According to Ashoka, 82% of over 4,000 social
entrepreneurs in the Ashoka community have had their innovation replicated in other
geographies, result in benefits to over three million people (Ashoka, 2022).
Measuring Performance of Social Entrepreneurship
There is a growing consensus that adoption of performance measurement tools is
particularly important to social entrepreneurs for two main reasons: intentionality and
accountability (Crucke & Decramer, 20116). Social entrepreneurs intend to project positive
social impact rather than merely delivering it incidentally, and they are accountable for the
impact they seek. Thus, measuring the performance of social entrepreneurs will help them as
well as the broader public to understand how much social impact their ventures generate and
how they further increase social impact over time (Thorpe, 2017).
According to Dees (2001), the performances of social entrepreneurship and business
entrepreneurship should be measured differently. Business entrepreneurs can use tangible
indicators, such as financial figures, market share, and customer satisfaction to measure the
success of their entrepreneurial endeavors, but the performance of social entrepreneurship can be
difficult to measure due to the challenges of nonquantifiability, multicausality, temporal
dimensions, and perceptive differences in the social impact created (Austin et al., 2006). Zhang
and Swanson (2013) argued that the performance of social entrepreneurship can be measured
simultaneously in terms of social and economic objectives due its dual focus on business profit
and achieving a social mission. Stevens, Moray, and Bruneel (2015) built on the approach and

14
developed the conceptual framework for measuring social impact in terms of changes in social
goals, values, and identities. Based on their framework, Crucke and Decramer (2016) developed
a comprehensive five-dimensional framework to measure the performance of social
entrepreneurship through economic, environmental, community, human, and governmental lens.
This framework is believed to be a standardized measurement instrument in evaluating the
performance of social entrepreneurship because it takes into consideration inputs, activities, and
outputs of a social venture (Pfeifer et al., 2020).
In conclusion, the concept of social entrepreneurship stems from general
entrepreneurship, which describes risk-bearing individuals who through innovation establish
business entities and the creation of economic value. However, social entrepreneurship differs
from general entrepreneurship in terms of its dual focus on business profit and the creation of
social impact. That is, social entrepreneurship describes the process by which individuals
commercialize innovation to create profit as the means to realize their social goals (Dees, 2003).
Social entrepreneurship has been a driving force to promote innovation, inspire change, and
stimulate economic growth through the creation of job opportunities (Naude, 2010).
Additionally, social entrepreneurs have proven the ability to devise sustainable solutions to key
social problems, in local, national, and international settings. As social entrepreneurship grows
across different industries, it is important that we recognize the unique competencies of social
entrepreneurs.
Common Traits for Social Entrepreneurs
Key Traits for Entrepreneurs
Social entrepreneurs are believed to carry many core entrepreneurial characteristics,
including an exceptional ability to see and seize upon new opportunities, the commitment and

15
drive required to pursue them, and an unflinching willingness to bear the inherent risks (Martin
& Osberg, 2007). The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter argued that uncertainty and the
risk-bearing function are the core characteristics of entrepreneurs (Peneder, 2009), differentiating
them from other individuals that operate in a business setting. In Schumpeter’s view, the source
of uncertainty that underlies entrepreneurial pursuits is the endogenous equilibrium-disturbing
nature of entrepreneurship (Grebel, 2007). Entrepreneurship as a dynamic process carries out
new allocations of resources in production, which will inevitably disrupt the economic
equilibrium, and in turn creates manifold economic, psychological, and social barriers. To be
able to deal with these barriers, entrepreneurs require an innovative, problem-solving stance and
strong leadership and decision-making skills to manage disequilibria (Schumpeter, 1950).
The Austrian economist Carl Menger (1871), from a behavioral perspective, considered
the opportunity-seeking nature of entrepreneurs as a defining characteristic. He explained that
entrepreneurs specialize in risk-bearing due to their skills in recognizing and locating
unexploited profit opportunities, which are the outcomes of their skills in processing information
and making judgments under conditions of fundamental uncertainty (Menger, 1871). Israel
Kirzner described the entrepreneurial opportunity-seeking nature as an instinctive reaction,
which rests on the differential ability to notice gainful opportunities without deliberate research
(Endres & Woods, 2006). Under his definition, opportunity alertness is not an intentional act but
a habitual response that builds on education and experience (Peneder, 2009).
Key Traits for Social Entrepreneurs
In addition to risk-bearing, opportunity-seeking and innovative characteristics, social
entrepreneurs are believed to show strong compassion and prosocial motivation as their key
traits. In fact, compassion is also recognized as a key motivational source of social

16
entrepreneurship (Yitshaki et al., 2022). Honig (2022) categorized compassion into two types:
self-compassion, which is associated with intimate personal experiences of suffering and
encompasses a desire to alleviate the distress of others based on common humanity, mental
distance and mindfulness; and other-regarding compassion, which is associated with value
structures and social awareness and is based on a desire to help the less fortunate. Through the
analysis of real-life stories of 27 Israeli social entrepreneurs, Honig concluded that both types of
compassion can lead to prosocial action (Kropp et al., 2022). Furthermore, social entrepreneurs
demonstrate a driving passion for social cause and focus less on profit. Social entrepreneurs
create revenue and profit not for the purpose of increasing personal wealth, but rather view profit
as a resource to support their social mission (Wessel, 2004).
In summary, the common traits for social entrepreneurs can be summarized below into
six categories: 1) an unwavering belief in the innate capacity of all people to contribute
meaningfully to economic and social development; 2) a passion to implement their ideas in the
form of creating a product or service; 3) an innovative and problem-solving stance toward a
social problem; 4) a willingness to undertake risk that others would not dare; 5) an ability to
identify problems created by change as an opportunity to transform society; and 6) a practical
vision driven by their ideas of what will work to improve people’s lives (Hartigan, 2020). As
important as social entrepreneurship is to social change, social entrepreneurship in education is
equally important to nurturing and shaping social entrepreneurial competencies and intentions to
create social ventures (Pfeifer et al., 20114).
Teaching a Social Entrepreneurial Mindset through Education
Importance of Teaching a Social Entrepreneurial Mindset

17
Blenker et al. (2012) labeled a social entrepreneurial mindset as daily practice, which
means that a social entrepreneurial mindset can apply to all walks of life. Developing a social
entrepreneurial mindset through training and education can benefit students in a number of ways.
First, students can develop their ability to identify social problems or opportunities and
determine potential solutions. Second, students can learn to identify potential value creation both
in economic and social terms. Third, students can cultivate their emotional intelligence to better
deal with ambiguity and uncertainty in life. Fourth, a social entrepreneurial education can nurture
a strong sense of self-efficacy and teamwork towards achieving a common social goal (Blenker
et al., 2012).
In addition to these benefits, fostering a social entrepreneurial mindset can help
individuals create more social awareness about their communities and encourage individuals to
take on more responsibility to tackle societal issues with an innovative approach (Collins et al.,
2004). Whether or not individuals decide to become social entrepreneurs in the future, anyone
who has received social entrepreneurial training is likely to possess more diversified skills and
are more prepared to enter the labor market, as compared to students who have not received such
training (Lazear, 2005).
Social Entrepreneurial Mindset is a Learnable Ability
The social entrepreneurial mindset is a cognitive phenomenon that includes the unique
combination of aptitudes and traits that result in the ability of individuals to recognize social
opportunities and engage in social entrepreneurial activities that ultimately result in the creation
of social value (Gunzel-Jensen et al., 2017). Some scholars argue that people are born with a
social entrepreneurial mindset (Dweck, 2006), while others believe that a social entrepreneurial
mindset can be obtained through education and training (Armin, 2015). Cope (2005) noted

18
central to social entrepreneurship is the role of learning. Learning requires a suitable
environment and social construct. Rae (2005) noted that social entrepreneurs could gain more
insights into their own experiences and skills through their interactions with their entrepreneurial
environment, their peers, and mentors.
Barr (2009) conducted a study that offers a practice-oriented, year-long social
entrepreneurship program to master’s degree, PhD, and MBA students from different universities
over a 14-year period. Barr and his colleague measured the effectiveness of the program through
a pre- and post-course survey; the survey results showed that students who completed the
program exhibited improvements, including the ability to identify the market opportunities,
identify the resources needed to succeed in a particular industry, and identify business
opportunities and threats within a competitive environment. The results concluded that it is more
efficient for people to develop core elements of a social entrepreneurial mindset through
instruction (Mansfield et al., 1978). Students who obtain the skills critical for social
entrepreneurs through education and training can better recognize their market opportunities and
manage their social ventures, which in turn improve their potential for success (Johnson et al.,
2013).
Social Entrepreneurial Competencies
They are multiple ways to define social entrepreneurial competencies. Miller et al.
(2012) surveyed 150 social entrepreneurs in the U.S. and discovered the five top-ranked
competencies that define a successful social entrepreneur: 1) problem-solving skills, 2) a strong
sense of altruism, 3) effective team building, 4) capital or financial management, 5) the ability to
lead and develop others, and 6) the ability to communicate to customers, suppliers, and other
stakeholders. Orhei et al. (2015) took a different approach and constructed a social

19
entrepreneurial competency model consisting of four interrelated dimensions: 1) cognitive
competence (management and leadership skills, creativity, the ability to identify social needs), 2)
functional competence (organizational skills, working with others, self-management, project
management, proactiveness, and risk-taking), 3) social competence (self-confidence, taking
initiatives, perseverance, consistency, future-oriented, and the ability to deal with change), 4) and
meta competence (ability to solve social problems). Built on Orhei’s model, Karminder and
Sharma (2018) constructed a social competency model that include five core elements: 1)
prosocial missions and a strong sense of altruism, 2) acuteness to social needs, 3) problem-
solving skills, 4) the ability to innovate, and 5) the ability to deal with disruption.
It is important to note that a social entrepreneurial competency model is context
dependent. Different models are developed based on the data from different countries; the three
models above were constructed in United States, Romania, and India, respectively. Therefore, a
social entrepreneurial competency model may vary in regions. A list of metrics used to evaluate
the performance of social entrepreneurship may differ in different cultural, social, economic, and
political contexts (Marjerison et al., 2021).
Measuring Social Entrepreneurial Competencies
While there is a consensus that a social entrepreneurial mindset can be developed through
education and training, how to measure the educational outcomes of social entrepreneurship
programs unfortunately are not clear (Guritno et al., 2019). One way to measure the educational
outcomes is by tracking the improvements of specific social entrepreneurial competencies by
applying a general entrepreneurship competency framework. One of the entrepreneurial
competency models typically used for measurement is the Entrepreneurship Competency
Framework (EntreComp) developed in 2006 by the European Commission. See Figure 1 below.

20
The European Commission included an entrepreneurial mindset as one of the eight key
competencies necessary for a knowledge-based society and later developed the Entrepreneurship
Competency Framework (EntreComp) as a reference for any initiative aiming to foster an
entrepreneurial mindset. The framework entails three interrelated and interconnected competency
areas: Ideas and opportunities, Resources and Into Action. Each of the areas is made up of five
key competencies, which altogether constitute the building blocks of entrepreneurship as a core
competence (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). The entreComp is useful in evaluating and assessing the
educational outcomes of a social entrepreneurship program and determining whether the
program is effective in developing an individual’s social entrepreneurial competencies and
improve their entrepreneurial self-efficacies (Izquierdo & Buyens, 2008).\
Figure 1
EU Entrepreneurship Framework

21
Methods of Teaching a Social Entrepreneurial Mindset
There are two major identified approaches in teaching a social entrepreneurial mindset.
The service-learning approach has been the more frequently used method. It stems from the
educational philosophy of John Dewey (Pepin, 2012). Service-learning is described as an
approach that combined elements of internships, practice, and volunteer activities (Kenworthy-
U’Ren et al., 2006). Steinke and Fitch (2007) defined the service-learning approach as an
organized educational experience that meets the needs of the community and fulfills learning
objectives. Jenny Janus, a professor teaching at Stanford University’s Social Entrepreneurship
program, surveyed over 200 teachers who taught social entrepreneurial education and found
service-learning is a very useful instructional method because it provided a space for students to
validate their hypotheses and conduct experiments about their ideas (Janus, 2015). Also, service-
learning bridges the gap between theory and practice, by sharing experiential wisdom about the
daily work of social entrepreneurship. For example, a group of Stanford University
undergraduate students worked with Lateefah Simon, the former executive director and board
chair for the Center for Young Women’s Development (CYWD), in 2015, to develop a needs
assessment for underprivileged young girls of color in San Francisco. The students conducted
extensive demographic research, including interviewing 12 young women who had benefited
from CYWD’s programming, and spent an afternoon with girls in juvenile hall to learn from
them about their paths into the criminal justice system and the types of services they wish existed
to help others like them stay out of trouble. Students who participated in the service-learning
experience had the opportunity to apply what they have learned in class to support the work of
CYWD. By working with the former executive director and board member, students learned

22
what daily work looks like for a social entrepreneur and what challenges social entrepreneurs are
likely to face (Social Entrepreneurs in Residence at Stanford, 2015)
Effectuation is the other frequently used approach in social entrepreneurship education.
Developed by Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011), the concept of effectuation represents a
practical and hands-on approach to teaching through entrepreneurship. The effectuation process
is described as an iterative course of decision making and active commitment to value creation.
For instance, students begin a new social venture process with the general aspiration to create
social change, but as they make decisions and observe the results of other alternatives, they
might utilize the new information to change course (Hossain, 2020). The benefits of the
effectuation approach include: 1) students learn to develop their ability to make judgmental
decisions under conditions of uncertainty through simulation of real-life scenarios and 2)
students learn to be risk takers while analyzing alternatives and selecting the option with the
most optimal result (Neck and Greene, 2011).
Challenges in Teaching a Social Entrepreneurial Mindset
Laffler (2009) noted that a challenge for the educators involved in social entrepreneurship
education is that even teachers who teach social entrepreneurial concepts in school have
uncertainties regarding what a social entrepreneurial mindset entails. Fullan (2007) noted that the
majority of entrepreneurial education programs fail due to the lack of incentives for change and
institutions that strive to block new curricula and teaching approaches from entering the
classroom. Wiseman (2014) argued that the lack of a universally recognized social
entrepreneurial competency model makes it difficult for teachers to develop and implement
social entrepreneurship curricula, let alone evaluate its effectiveness.

23
Elmore (1996) has given some general recommendations based on previous major
failures in educational reform, which can be applied to social entrepreneurial education. First,
strong normative structures in entrepreneurial education for good teaching, evaluation,
monitoring, inspection, and feedback to teachers need to be established by multiple levels of
authority external to schools and universities. Second, small groups of teachers consisting of
both committed and skeptical teachers need to be established. These groups need to be given
strong encouragement, support, time to focus, and access to special knowledge. Leffler (2014)
noted that discussions among schoolteachers, principals, policymakers, and other stakeholders
around entrepreneurial education help identify concerns and problems. Third, teachers need to be
allowed to iteratively learn by doing in their classrooms and by observing in other teachers’
classrooms, finding, and honing an approach to entrepreneurial education that fits their own
context. A compelling reason to change practice also needs to be present, such as strong
evidence for significant improvements in student learning (Skolverket, 2011).
In short, social entrepreneurship is both a mindset and set of skills that can be learned
from education and training. Service-learning and effectuation have been seen as two common
approaches to teaching social entrepreneurial concepts. However, measurement of social
entrepreneurial competencies still needs improvement and standardization. There is a lack of a
unified social entrepreneurial competency model available for teachers to evaluate the
effectiveness of their programs and student learning outcomes.
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I present my theoretical framework, which serves as the foundation for my
study. A conceptual framework is a “system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs and
theories that supports and informs your research” (Maxwell, 2007, p. 33). Bandura’s social

24
cognitive theory guided my research design regarding what type of data to collect and why
(Maxwell, 2007, p.33). I chose the social cognitive theory because it helped me understand how
to best construct a conducive learning environment for students.
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) states that learning occurs in a social context with a
dynamic and reciprocal interaction of cognitive, environmental, and behavioral factors (Denler,
2006). See Graph 2 below. According to Bandura (1977), observation and imitation are two
important learning outcomes, but observational learning could not take place unless cognitive
processes were at work. The cognitive process means that individuals possess a self-evaluative
system that allows them to identify model behavior and then determine whether the observed
behavior is imitated (Bayron, 2013). While considering the social environment in which
individuals perform the behavior, the theory postulates that individuals' past experiences,
motivations, perceived self-efficacy, and self-regulation all influence their cognitive processes of
deciding whether behavioral actions will occur and how they occur (Bandura, 2001).
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) can be used as a conceptual framework to assess the
effectiveness of social entrepreneurship programs. I used the SCT theoretical model to test two
hypotheses about the XYZ Social entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA). The first hypothesis
is that students’ interactions with their peers, mentors and faculties enhanced their learning
experiences and improved both their entrepreneurial intentions and self-efficacies. The second
hypothesis is that the XYZ-SEA program provided students with knowledge and skills required
to lead a successful career in social entrepreneurship.

25
Figure 2
Social Cognitive Theory

Definitions
Entrepreneurship refers to an act that combines the manifest ability and desire of
individuals, on their own or in teams, to perceive and create new ideas, and to develop their new
ideas for validation. This is the primary definition that will be used as the basis for this study
(Prince, Chapman & Cassey, 2021).
Social Entrepreneurship is the process of identifying, evaluating, and exploiting
opportunities aiming at social value creation through the commercialization of market-based
activities and the use of a wide range of resources (Bacq & Janssen, 2011).

26
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE) refers to an individual’s confidence in their ability to
successfully perform entrepreneurial roles and tasks (Chen, Greene et. al.,1998; De Noble, Jung
et.al., 1999).
Conclusion
Entrepreneurship is considered one of the core competencies necessary for the
sustainability of a knowledge-based society (Bacigalupo et al., 2006). However, to solve societal
issues, both at the community and global scale, social entrepreneurship is needed more than ever.
Social entrepreneurship can benefit the world and society in a way that promotes positive
institutional and social change, while also sustaining itself through economic success. Social
demands of the world have changed drastically over the last two decades and will continue to
change in the foreseeable future. Today’s students thus need to possess social entrepreneurial
skills to help sustain their own futures. Skills such as complex problem solving, risk-bearing, and
identifying opportunities, as well as innovation with a strong sense of social awareness, will help
students achieve a high level of mental and emotional stability. Social entrepreneurial skills are
not innate but can be obtained through education and training. With effective education and
training programs, individuals can develop self-efficacies and intentions in addition to gaining
the knowledge and skills required for leading a successful career as a social entrepreneur.
Unfortunately, very few studies so far have investigated how to effectively teach social
entrepreneurship concepts. Many programs have primarily focused on entrepreneurship with
only a handful of them offering social entrepreneurship courses and concentrations. There is a
need for developing a unified social competency model that can help evaluate a program’s
effectiveness and students’ educational outcomes.

27
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter outlines the qualitative approach that was used for this study. The
instrumentation and data collection procedures were informed by the qualitative nature of this
study. This study examined the ways to effectively teach social entrepreneurial concepts.
Specifically, I identified significant contributing factors to the success of a social
entrepreneurship program. Additionally, I investigated how students gained the skills and
knowledge from a social entrepreneurship program and successfully applied them to their
professional domains. This qualitative research study is guided by the following research
questions:
1. What are the key factors that students identify as having contributed to the effectiveness
of the XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) program in improving their
social entrepreneurial competencies?
2. What do students perceive as the significant limitations of the XYZ -SEA program in
helping them achieve their social entrepreneurial goals?
3. How did the students translate their social entrepreneurship knowledge and skills from
the XYZ -SEA program into their professional domains?
Study Participants
The focus of this study was to understand the experiences and perceptions of graduates in
the XYZ-SEA program, so the methodological approach for the study was qualitative research,
and the qualitative research methods used were primarily in-depth interviews and organizational
document analysis. The population of this study is 294 graduates (i.e., alums) who completed the
XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) program between 2013 and 2022. Below
is an overview of the population:

28
The alums come from 69 countries, with the United States being the most represented
(69%). Graduates from Latin American countries, including Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Brazil,
Argentina, and Venezuela, account for 25% of the population followed by 4.5% from China and
2.1% from India. 2.5% of the population comes from African countries including Libya, Kenya,
Uganda, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, and the remaining less than 1% from European countries
including Poland, Spain, Netherlands, France, and Germany (XYZ Alumni Database, 2021). The
details of student population are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Countries of Origin of Student Population between 2013 and 2022

Country of Origin No of Graduates Percentage
United States 202 69%
Latin America (Mexico, Peru, Colombia,
Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela)
74

25%
China 13 4.5%
India 6 2.1%
Africa (Libya, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa,
and Zimbabwe)
7 2.5%
Europe (Poland, Spain, Netherlands, France,
and Germany)
2 1 %

The median age of the alum population when they graduated from the XYZ-SEA
program was 28 years old. 35.4% of the alums were 25 years old or younger, 45.1% between the
ages of 26 and 40, and 19.5% aged 41 or older (see Figure 3). 41.5% of the alums had a college
degree prior to enrollment in the XYZ-SEA program, 28.1% had advanced degrees, including
master's or doctoral degrees, while 27.6% had high school diplomas as their highest educational

29
attainment (see Figure 4). In addition, 58.3% of the alums are male, 41.1% are female, and 0.6%
selected “other” as their gender (XYZ Alumni Database, 2022).
Figure 3
Age Group of Student Population

Figure 4
Education Attainment of Student Population

A purposeful sampling strategy was employed in selecting interview participants, as it
could accurately capture the homogeneity and heterogeneity in the perceptions of average
Figure 3
Figure 4

30
members of the population. The rationale for purposeful sample selection is to draw conclusions
that represent the entire range of variations while establishing comparisons to illustrate the
reasons for differences between individuals (Maxwell, 2013). The specific criteria for purposeful
sample selection include:
Criterion 1: The selected interview participants must work in a full-time capacity, either
building their own enterprises or being employed as full-time professionals. The rationale for this
criterion is that one of the research questions explores how the XYZ-SEA graduates translate
their knowledge and skills gained from the program and apply them into their professional
domains. Their current and previous professional experiences are a key source of data to offer
valuable insights and answer the research question.
Criterion 2: The selected interview participants must come from different sociocultural
backgrounds. The rationale for this criterion is that participants from different backgrounds and
countries might have different standards for judging the effectiveness and limitations of the
XYZ-SEA program, which answer the other two research questions.
I reached out to 294 alums by email and 18 of them participated in my research. I had one
round of interview with each before reaching the saturation of data. Saturation is defined as the
point at which the data collection process no longer offers any new or relevant data (Baker,
2012). The sample of 18 participants included: 1) two participants from the United States; 2) six
participants from the African continents including Kenya, Rwanda, and Namibia; 3) six
participants from China and two from India and Israel, respectively; 4) one participant from
Russia and one participant from Ukraine; 5) one participant from Nepal. The ages of all
participants fall into the range between 22 and 34 years old. The majority of participants
graduated with a bachelor’s degree, with only three having a high school diploma.

31
Data Collection and Instrumentation Procedures
This qualitative research study collected data through in-depth interviews because it
allowed me as a researcher to gain insights into the participants’ perspectives and views about
the social entrepreneurship program, and their motivations for launching their social ventures.
Interviews
Since the interview participants were based in different locations, all the interviews were
conducted online via Zoom video conferencing. Each participant was interviewed only once, and
each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. All interview participants were contacted
through email and signed the interview consent sheet when scheduling the interview. The
interviews were conducted primarily in English, with two interviews being conducted in Chinese
with two participants from China. This is mainly because English is not their first language, and
they felt that they could better articulate their views in Chinese.
A semi-structured interview format was used because it helped specify certain key
questions in relation to the research questions while offering interviewers flexibility to determine
when it was appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth (Patton, 2002). All the
interviewees were asked the same 12 open-ended questions, which represented the structured
section of the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each interview started with demographic
data, such as which year they graduated from the XYZ-SEA program, where they are working
now, and the nature of their current work and when they started their current position. The
remaining interview questions revolved around three key themes: a) participants’ self-efficacy
and their entrepreneurial intentions; b) their perceptions of the XYZ-SEA program in terms of
curriculum design, program culture and diversity of the student body; and c) applications of the
entrepreneurial skills and knowledge they gained from the XYZ-SEA program to their

32
professional domains. All interviews were conducted via the Zoom video calls with audio
recorded at the same time. While the interviews took place, I also took notes with my writing
pad. All interviews were transcribed and the transcription and my notes from interviews were
together used for data analysis.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is a process of cleaning, transforming, and modeling the purposefully
collected data into useful and meaningful information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study
focused on qualitative data analysis that involves the classification and interpretation of linguistic
materials (Flick, 2014). Data from interview transcripts were included in this qualitative study.
The process of data analysis in this research began with me documenting thoughts and
initial conclusions about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions.
Then I identified initial categories based on reading the transcripts and created a list of priori
codes aligned with the conceptual framework, literature review, and research questions. I then
wrote codes alongside the transcripts and revised the list of categories by aggregating priori
codes within each category. As I analyzed each respondent’s transcript, I continued to condense
and streamline codes into categories that gave me insights into my research questions. Finally, I
identified the pattern codes and overarching themes that emerged from the findings in relation to
the conceptual framework and research questions, and categorized them into six categories:
• SE Definition: balance of social mission and commercial success
• Entrepreneurial Intentions: compassion
• Entrepreneurial Skills: negotiation, leadership, pivot and adapt.
• Program Culture: warm, supportive, community.
• Curriculum Design: practical, solid, provide space for practice.

33
• Applications in skills: mindset changing, dealing with failure.
During the analysis process, I also analyzed the program’s curriculum, vision, and
mission statements. These documents provided insight into whether or not the program was
effective in teaching a social entrepreneurial mindset and how effective it was in terms of
improving students’ skills and knowledge in social entrepreneurship.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Limitations are an unavoidable condition in any research study and can result from the
study method, design, or approach, sampling selection, uncontrollable variables, and faulty
measurements (Nenty, 2009). One limitation was the access to the alum group of the XYZ
Institute. According to the Institute’s database, 294 students graduated from the XYZ Social
Entrepreneurship Accelerator program between 2013 and 2022. I obtained the contact list of 294
alums from the XYZ Institute’s alumni office and reached out to each person several times by
email, but only a small number of alums responded. I believe a key reason for the low response
rate was that the emails on the contact list for over half of the alums were the XYZ student email
addresses, which many students stopped using after their graduation. In the end, I selected 18
alums from 10 countries across three continents for my interview, which I believed were
representative of the program’s student population in terms of age, education level and cultural
backgrounds. Ideally, I would like to have interviewed alums from European and South
American countries.
Delimitations
Delimitations are defined as the self-imposed boundaries of the research study, based on
the researcher’s decision of what to focus (Nenty, 2009). This research study focused on

34
understanding the students’ learning experiences in a social entrepreneurship program and their
perceptions of successful practices in fostering a social entrepreneurial mindset. To this end, I
delimitated the study by narrowing the focus of the interview question to alum’s perceptions of
the XYZ-SEA program. The choice of the conceptual framework was another way to delimitate
the study. Additionally, the social cognitive theory limits the discussions only to the influences
of environment, behaviors, and self-efficacy on instilling a social entrepreneurial mindset.
Ethics
Ensuring credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research involves conducting the
investigation in an ethical manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Choices in research design,
sample selection, data collection and analysis, and building research relationships all involve
ethical and political considerations and are always subject to scrutiny (Maxwell, 2003). To
ensure all the research choices were ethically and politically appropriate, I identified the codes of
ethics in the education research field by checking with the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB), and then strictly followed the codes and guidelines regarding
the protection of the rights and well-being of the interview participants in this study.
I also established an equal and transparent relationship with my interview participants to
make sure that they felt respected, well-informed, and protected from potential risks and harm
during the study. I provided an informed consent form that discloses all the relevant information
on my research, including the purpose of study, the length, and the format of the interview, and
disclosed any potential conflicts of interest to help participants make an informed decision on
whether or not they wanted to participate (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). In the informed consent
form, I stated that this is an independent study from which I do not financially benefit and that
my research is not a commissioned study from the XYZ Institute. I also promised the interview

35
participants complete voluntariness, meaning that they decided to take part in my research study
under no compulsion or financial incentives, and could withdraw from my research at any time.
In addition to the consent form, at the start of each interview, I requested and received
permission from each participant to record the interview (both video and voice). I provided each
participant with a transcript of the interview to allow them to make sure that I did not change or
distort any of their words. Most importantly, I ensured that each participants’ confidentiality was
protected through the utilization of pseudonyms in the dissertation rather than their real names.
With regards to data collected from the interview participants, I stored the interview recordings
and transcripts in a password-protected computer, and I have not shared any of the data with
anyone without the consent of the participants.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness for qualitative research means that the analytical results are consistent
with the data collected. Credibility deals with the questions of how well the research findings
match reality and how congruent the findings are with reality. Trustworthiness might be
straightforward, but credibility for qualitative research will depend on the purpose and
circumstances of the research (Maxwell, 2013). The reality of qualitative research is not a single
objective, but rather a dynamic, holistic, and multidimensional interpretation of a phenomenon
(Merriam &Tisdell, 2016). In order to maximize the creditability and trustworthiness of the
research, I have employed several strategies in terms of data collection and analysis.
The collection of qualitative data is interpretive by nature (Merriam, 2009). During data
collection, a researcher makes the decision of what data to collect and how to interpret it. All of
these decisions are influenced by the researcher’s personal experiences and understandings. In
order to avoid personal biases, Miles, Huberman and Saldaña (2014) suggest checking for

36
possible researcher effects on data. Therefore, the first thing that was addressed before the data
collection was my positionality. Positionality refers to where one stands within the social
structure of society, which is especially relevant in relation to the “politics of knowledge
construction” (as cited in Merriam et al., 2001, p. 1). Researchers, especially in complex and
multicultural environments, must consider their own position in relation to their respondents and
the setting of data collection (Throne, 2012). In my study, it was imperative that I maintained an
open-minded, rational, and impartial attitude towards the personal experiences shared by all
participants, to not impair credibility of my research and findings.
Also, I collected rich and descriptive data that reflected the complexity of my study and
“allowed readers to make decisions regarding transferability” (Merriam, 1988). In order to
accumulate this rich data, I exhausted the range of purposeful sampling and collected descriptive
data from a diverse and relevant sample relating to my research topic. I conducted 18 different
interviews with the XYZ-SEA graduates who graduated over the span of ten years with a diverse
range of social-cultural backgrounds. Each interview was between 60 and 90 minutes with the
same 15 questions asked. Patton (1990) asserted that “validity, meaningfulness, and insights
generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information-richness of the cases
selected and the observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with sample size” (p.
185). In this way, my data provided a rich and deep data set for which I had abundance of data to
analyze.
Additionally, I established a rigorous coding process. I have manually transcribed 18
interviews and recorded summary data in an Excel table. The table provided an overall
assessment of the data collected and helped with a quick interpretation of the data. Then I
identified initial categories based on reading the transcripts and created a list of priori codes

37
aligned with the conceptual framework, literature review, and research questions. I then wrote
codes alongside the transcripts and revised the list of categories by aggregating priori codes
within each category. As I analyzed the table of data, I continued to condense and streamline
codes into categories that gave me insights into my research questions. Finally, I identified the
pattern codes and overarching themes that emerged from the findings in relation to the
conceptual framework and research questions and categorized them into six categories.
In terms of research triangulation, I used both my reflective notes and analytic notes to
support the reliability of the research conclusions. Creswell (2009) explains that data analysis is
an ongoing process that requires continual reflection, and returning to, and revising analytic
questions. In this regard, I used reflective notes to document my thoughts and perceived biases
throughout the interview process. In addition to reflective notes, I wrote analytic memos
throughout the coding process, which recorded findings that stood out to me, repeated themes
and comments I wasn’t expecting to hear, or fresh perspectives on the program curriculum. I also
wrote about what personal data was disclosed to me and how that might have played a role in the
interpretation of data. These notes provided a different perspective to support my identified
research themes.
I engaged in peer review and debriefing with my dissertation chair, for an external check
of the research process (Creswell, 2003). During this debrief, we reviewed the data I had
collected and my interpretations of the data for multiple meanings and methodology (Creswell,
2003). Moreover, I sent all the interview transcripts to my interview participants for member
checking to make sure all the quotes and themes were accurately recorded.

38
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the ways to effectively teach social
entrepreneurial concepts. 18 graduates of the XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator program
from 10 countries across three continents shared their learning experiences in the program, as
well as their views and perspectives on social entrepreneurship. Data was collected through
semi-structured interviews and the analysis of the XYZ Institute’s program curriculum and its
vision and mission statements. The process of data analysis was guided by my conceptual
framework and research questions.

45
Chapter Four: Findings
This dissertation aimed to examine the effectiveness of social entrepreneurship programs
and explore and effective ways to teach social entrepreneurial concepts that enabled students that
lead successful careers as social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, this study explored how students
translated the skills and knowledge that they gained from social entrepreneurship programs into
their professional domains. The data collected and findings of this study addressed the following
research questions:
1. What are the key factors that students identify as having contributed to the effectiveness
of the XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) program in improving their
social entrepreneurial competencies?
2. What do students perceive as significant limitations of the XYZ-SEA program in helping
them achieve their social entrepreneurial goals?
3. How did the students translate their social entrepreneurship knowledge and skills from
the XYZ-SEA program into their professional domains?
This qualitative study is based on individual interviews with 18 XYZ-SEA program
alums who graduated from the XYZ Institute between 2013 and 2022. Pseudonyms were used to
provide confidentiality to the participants. The table below (Table 1) outlines my sample of
alums. It includes pertinent information about their nationality, age, gender, graduation year,
educational background, and years of experience in social entrepreneurship prior to joining the
program, as well as their prior exposure to entrepreneurial training programs. Participants’
educational backgrounds and nationalities were essential in determining the effectiveness of the
XYZ-SEA program. Additionally, prior training in entrepreneurship provided insight into their
desired program outcomes.

46
Overall, through data analysis, I concluded that the social entrepreneurship program was
helpful to students who wanted to pursue careers as social entrepreneurs since it provided the
skills and knowledge needed to build their social enterprises. Findings showed a consensus
among participants regarding the significant contributing factors to program effectiveness.
However, the perception of program effectiveness was dependent on whether or not the
participants had prior training in entrepreneurship. Participants who previously had no training in
entrepreneurship found the program was tremendously useful to their careers relative to other
participants that had prior entrepreneurial training.
In general, seven major findings emerged from this study: 1) a social entrepreneurship is
defined as the balance between fulfilling a social mission and achieving commercial success; 2)
effective social entrepreneurs exhibit a high level of both self-efficacy and compassion; 3) core
social entrepreneurial competencies include the “ability to pivot” as well as negotiation and
leadership skills; 4) personal development was a significant contributing factor to program
success; 5) major program limitations include lack of a well-established alum network and lack
of inclusive program content; 6) participants have applied skills and knowledge learned from the
entrepreneurship program to their professional domains; and 7) participants have pursued social
ventures at a global scale.

47
Table 2
Participant Background Information Table

Nationality Participant Age Gender
Highest
Educationa
l Level
Graduation
Year
Still
Pursuing
Social
Entrepreneu
rship (Y/N)

Social
Venture
based
Attended
Entrepreneursh
ip Program
before (Y/N)
1 Kenya Omin 22 M
High
School
2020 Y Kenya N
2 Rwanda Amani 30 M College 2021 Y Rwanda N
3 Israel Andy 24 M College 2020 N N
4 Ukraine Anna 24 F College 2016 Y Ukraine N
5 China April 26 F Master 2022 N N
6 China Xin 26 F College 2022 N N
7 China Laura 27 F College 2017 N N
8
United
States
Mark 28 M Master 2013 N N
9 Nepal Nish 30 M College 2019 Y
United
States
Y
10 India Preeti 32 F Master 2021 Y India N
11 Namibia Sam 23 M College 2019 Y Namibia N
12 Russia Valerie 30 F College 2020 N N
13 China Di 34 F College 2020 Y
United
States
N
14 China Fan 30 F College 2019 N Y
15 China Rui 20 F
High
school
2021 Y Mexico N
16
United
States
Katie 30 F College 2018 N Y
17 China Melody 32 F College 2021 N N
18 Kenya Yuri 22 M
High
School
2020 Y Kenya N

48
Finding 1: Social Entrepreneurship Defined as Balancing a Social Mission
and Commercial Success
Balance Between Achieving Social and Business Success
The study participants shared several different definitions of social entrepreneurship. As
an example of one of the simpler definitions, according to Katie from Chicago (2015 cohort),
“The primary goal of social entrepreneurship is to make a meaningful impact with your
innovation.” In a more expanded definition, Omin from Kenya (2020 cohort) believes that the
priority of social entrepreneurship is to achieve its social mission, but the ability to generate
profit to sustain the social mission is a core competency. Most participants agreed that what
makes social entrepreneurship different from other types of entrepreneurships is the balance
between achieving a social mission and commercial success. Perhaps one of the most balanced
definitions was by Nish from the 2019 cohort, who said, “social entrepreneurship, in my opinion,
is any form of work or business idea that brings a connection between delivering a social good
while also achieving commercial success”. While the two goals are not mutually exclusive, it can
be challenging to create a self-sustaining business to strike the balance, especially because many
social missions are not directly tied to selling goods or services for a profit. On the other hand,
generating profits from selling goods and services in order to fund a social mission requires
discipline. According to Omin, “it is not easy to keep the balance; in fact, it is very hard. Saying
no to business revenues but only focusing on social goals requires a high level of ethical
standards and a strong belief in the social mission”.
In general, participants’ definitions of social entrepreneurship were consistent with the
early findings in my literature review. According to Dees (2003), social entrepreneurs pursued
profit as the means to realize their social goals. They aspired to solve societal and environmental

49
problems through market-driven innovation (Bacq & Janssen, 2011). As a result of the unique
nature of social entrepreneurship, the measuring metric of the success of social ventures is no
longer the profit but the impact (Austin et al., 2006). Anna from Ukraine (2016 cohort), who
founded a high school for orphans in Russia, stated, “the way that I measure or quantify the
success is not how much money I have made but the number of orphans I have helped gain a
path to receiving a university education and the impact of university education on their future
lives”.
A successful and sustainable business model is integral to effecting desirable social
change. Preeti, the participant from India and the founder of the Lal Sakhi Foundation, focuses
on reproductive hygiene, described:
Period poverty is such a big issue in India. According to the Indian government’s
statistics, more than 65% of women use homemade cloth, rags, or dry leaves for their
period, which causes several gynecological diseases. To address the issue, the national
government in India has been heavily promoting sanitary napkins over the last five
years. Sanitary napkins are hygienic, but they are only one-time use, and women will
have to pay a recurring cost every month if they decide to use them. From a government
standpoint, it is a viable source for state income, but for many rural and tribal women
it is a financial burden. In 2020, we [Lal Sakhi Foundation] began to promote the use
of menstrual cups among rural and tribal women in India to save costs and educate
women about reproductive healthcare. Unlike sanitary napkins, menstrual cups are
washable and can be reused. It is believed that a cup can last for ten years before women
purchase a new one.

50
Preeti described the importance of winning government support as a steppingstone to promoting
menstrual cups nationally and educating women about reproductive hygiene in India. However,
to do that, she would need to come up with a successful business model to convince the
government:
We must come up with a business model that works for the community, that works for
us and that works for the government as well so that we can build a policy, we can work
on that one policy and sustain that.
The Importance of Financial Independence
Moreover, several participants identified achieving financial independence as one of the
key differences between philanthropy and social entrepreneurship. Unlike philanthropy, which is
conducted primarily by nonprofit organizations that are funded by donations, social
entrepreneurships are acknowledged to be financially independent business ventures. Financial
independence is typically achieved though providing a commercially viable product or service
that addresses social needs and generates sustainable funds to support the operations of the social
venture.
Summary
According to my findings, social entrepreneurship is grounded in general
entrepreneurship but with its distinctive elements. Most participants agreed that a critical element
of social entrepreneurship is striking the balance between achieving a social mission and
commercial success, differentiating social entrepreneurship from other forms of entrepreneurial
activities. While both social-oriented missions and commercial ventures are motivated by
delivering goods or services to solve a need, commercial entrepreneurs tend to be purely
motivated to explore the market opportunity and transform it through innovation to generate

51
more profits (Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014). In contrast, social entrepreneurs aspire to solve
societal problems through innovation using market-driven approaches (Bacq & Janssen, 2011).
Social entrepreneurs see business success as a means to initiate social change and achieve social
goals. Furthermore, social entrepreneurship outcomes are measured differently from other types
of business models. Most businesses use indicators such as revenue, profit, and market share to
measure success, and while these are also elements in sustaining a social entrepreneurship, the
ultimate measures of success are specific achievements towards predetermined social goals.
Finding 2: Effective Social Entrepreneurs Exhibit High Levels of Self-Efficacy and
Compassion
Compassion
Study participants consistently identified two qualities that successful social
entrepreneurs possess: high levels of self-efficacy and compassion. The majority of the
participants recognized compassion as a key reason social entrepreneurs decided to start their
ventures in the first place. April, a participant from China (2021 cohort), said that “compassion is
what leads people to social entrepreneurship… What drives and sustains social change is a kind
heart”. According to Yitshaki (2022), compassion can be categorized into two types: “self-
compassion” and “other-regarding compassion”. Self-compassion is associated with intimate
personal experiences of suffering and encompasses a desire to alleviate the distress of others
based on shared humanity. In contrast, other-regarding compassion is associated with value
structures and social awareness and is based on a desire to help the less fortunate (Yitshaki et al.,
2022).
Amani, a participant from Rwanda (2021 cohort), acknowledged that his early social
entrepreneurial intentions were primarily derived from self-compassion for his emotional and

52
psychological suffering. As a child who grew up under the Rwanda Genocide and is still
traumatized by the experience, he exhibits an extraordinary passion for the welfare of ethnic
minorities in the African continent, which motivated him to build up his first social venture in
2013 to focus on providing primary education to refugee children. On the other hand, Nish (2019
cohort) comes from a prestigious family in Nepal but is concerned with the living conditions of
local families. He started his own tea business in 2015 to help local farmers promote their teas
and used the money to reinvest in educating the children of these farmers. He concluded his
interview by saying, “I wanted to say the most important quality for social entrepreneurs is
compassion because they [social entrepreneurs] can feel what people need, especially the
marginalized or underserved population, and are empathetic to important issues in the world”.
A High Level of Self-Efficacy
Because of the general desire to alleviate others’ suffering and help the less privileged,
social entrepreneurs aspire to undertake activities and processes to identify social problems and
provide innovative solutions (Austin et al., 2006). Self-efficacy is associated with people’s belief
in their ability to perform the activities and processes necessary to succeed (Bandura, 1997).
Among the nine out of 18 participants that are still running their own social ventures, each
attributed their social entrepreneurial success to a high level of self-efficacy, meaning they have
strong conviction in their social mission, execution abilities, ability to implement social change
despite limited resources. Mark, the participant from the 2020 Cohort, called successful social
entrepreneurs “idealists with action”:
There are a lot of social issues that many people feel uncomfortable or unfair, but only
a handful of people go the extra mile to find the cause of the problem and take action to
change it.

53
Laura, the China coordinator of the XYZ-SEA program and the alumna of the 2017 cohort,
shared her observations about many successful social entrepreneurs, including her peers,
mentors, and fellow faculty members at the XYZ Institute. She found that one quality they all
had in common was the attitude of “always looking for a better solution”. She said, “they are not
completely satisfied with the status quo and are constantly motivated to search for a better
solution no matter what it takes”.
Summary
My findings indicated that social entrepreneurs were generally less concerned with
creating economic value or personal status but more about providing public goods and solving
social problems. Their social entrepreneurial intentions can be understood as expressions of
compassion (Engle et al., 2010). Furthermore, observations of successful social entrepreneurs
showed that they all held a firm conviction of their social goals and demonstrated strong
execution. Martin and Osberg (2007) described social entrepreneurs as those who identify “a
stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering of
a segment of humanity that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve any
transformative benefit on its own” (p. 35). Social entrepreneurs thus aspire to correct this
imbalance and enhance the well-being of the target group, or society as a whole (André & Pache,
2016).
Finding 3: Core Social Entrepreneurial Competencies: The “Ability to Pivot” as Well as
Negotiation and Leadership Skills
Ability to Pivot
With regards to social entrepreneurial competencies, participants collectively articulated
that a central core competency of social entrepreneurs is “the ability to pivot”. Valerie, a

54
participant from Ukraine who works for a social venture in San Francisco supporting women’s
mental health, said, “their ability to test and pivot is such an important skill for social
entrepreneurs because we [social entrepreneurs] all are so passionate about our ideas that
sometimes we lose our sight. We [social entrepreneurs] need to learn not to fall in love with your
ideas but keep testing and modifying until it is working”. The ability to pivot also involved the
mindset of developing “a healthy relationship with failure”. Omin from Kenya (2020 cohort) saw
entrepreneurship as a virtuous cycle of “failing, pivoting, and failing again, and finally getting
everything right”. “You need to develop a healthy relationship with failure, always accepting
your mistakes and embracing a new change,” Omin added.
Negotiation Skills
Most of the 18 participants said that negotiation skills were one of the most important
competencies for being a successful social entrepreneur, and interestingly, most also equated
negotiation skills with the ability to pitch and market their ventures' products and services. Rui, a
recent graduate from China, described negotiation skills as the most important skill set for social
entrepreneurs to gain, "How do you package yourself? How do you market yourself? These
affect how customers and investors position your social ventures". Additionally, participants
from African countries considered negotiation skills as more than the skills to pitch and market
and entailed the ability to build and manage relationships with local and state governments. Sam,
a participant from Namibia (2019 cohort), explained the "Culture of Relationship" in his country,
"Namibia is not a country like the United States with well-established rules and regulations. The
country has its own way of operating. If you were an entrepreneur, the first thing you need to do
is to build some connections with local or state officials. Without connections, you are not able
to do anything".

55
Yuri, a participant from Kenya (2020 cohort) who hosts an education radio program felt
the same way. "My radio program would be gone if one of our investors were not from the state
government". Preeti, a participant from India (2021 cohort), also acknowledged that being a
former senior officer at the state government opened many doors for her social ventures.
Leadership skills
Not surprisingly, nearly all 18 participants said that leadership skills were important to
successfully operating a social venture, and most defined leadership skills as a combination of
communication, management, and resources allocation abilities. Andy, a participant from Israel
(2020 cohort) defined leadership skills as the ability to run a company, to understand the
business operation, build something new, and to inspire colleagues to strive towards a common
goal. Yuri, the participant from Kenya (2020 cohort) understood leadership skills in a different
way:
Social enterprises are not easy to build. There are so many obstacles that people face
while doing so. The essence of leadership skills, in my opinion, is to bring a positive
influence on society and in your team to inspire people and win followers to join your
cause to achieve something great.

Summary
Consistent with Miller et al (2012)’s survey results of 150 social entrepreneurs in the U.S,
my findings identified the three top-ranked competencies that define successful social
entrepreneurs including: 1) the ability to pivot and adapt to new change; 2) negotiation skills,
which entailed skills in marketing, pitching and positioning social ventures’ goods and services,
as well as the ability to manage communications with customers, suppliers and other

56
stakeholders such as local and state governments; and 3) the ability to lead, inspire and develop
others.
Finding 4: Personal Development Significant Contributing Factor to Program Success
17 out of 18 study participants rated their experiences with XYZ Social Entrepreneurship
Accelerator Program (XYZ-SEA) as positive. These participants attributed their positive
experiences mainly to the program's mission, which is to cultivate confident, courageous,
compassionate, future social leaders by developing their core social entrepreneurial
competencies. Eric, the CEO of the XYZ Institute, called the XYZ-SEA program "one of a
kind," Because unlike traditional entrepreneurship programs, whose criterion for measuring
student success is how much money ventures have raised, the XYZ-SEA program measures its
success through individual development and growth. "I believe what defines a successful social
entrepreneur is not how much money you make or how large scale your venture is but a
collection of good qualities that naturally draw people to you," Eric said. Fan, a participant from
Shanghai (2019 cohort), said that the program experience was meaningful and had completely
transformed her life. "I certainly have seen a transformation of myself. I always wanted to try
something new but dare not to try. However, the XYZ Institute gave me the platform and
opportunity to be the person I always wanted". Laura, the XYZ-SEA program's China
coordinator and from the 2017 cohort, appreciated everything she learned from the XYZ Institute
and swore to always uphold the Institute's core value of "Protect Your Courage". "Like my
mentors and instructors at the XYZ Institute, I will do my best to help others and protect their
courage," Laura said.
Participants consistently mentioned three aspects about the program that contributed to
their personal growth: curriculum design, program culture, and the diverse student body.

57
Curriculum Design
The XYZ-SEA curriculum was developed by examining best practices in social
entrepreneurship and aimed to provide social entrepreneurs with the skills, habits, and processes
contributing to their long-term success. When asked to rate the strength of the program
curriculum, 16 out of 18 participants in this study gave a full five marks. Several participants
remarked on the curriculum as "practical", "well-designed," and "good integration of theory and
practice". Table 2 below outlines the curriculum structure of the XYZ-SEA Program. The core
units consist of Transformative Entrepreneurship, Transformative Action, and Lab. Students
must take all three units as a collective cohort and attend biweekly meetings with their assigned
mentors. During the program's final week, students work as teams to showcase their skills and
knowledge by presenting their social venture ideas to a group of investors, instructors, peers, and
mentors. There was a consensus among participants in this study that the XYZ-SEA program
was designed in a way that enables students to master both soft and hard skills while laying a
solid theoretical foundation in social entrepreneurship. Participants categorized hard skills as
financial and business management skills, and soft skills as emotional resilience, communication,
networking, and leadership skills.
Table 3
XYZ-SEA Program Structure
All students
Core Units
Transformative Entrepreneurship

Developing hard skills
Transformative Action Developing soft skills
Lab
Application: apply practical business skills to your
own venture
Biweekly Mentoring (1:1)

58
Students choose the track for their venture pitch
Summit
For Profit Track Nonprofit Track
Meet with Investors
Business pitch and deck presentation
Grant Proposal
Meet with philanthropists and government
representatives
Cited from 2023 Student Handbook
Transformative Entrepreneurship (TE). This unit is intended to teach students hard
business and financial management skills. Thus, the unit covered the entire process of building a
social venture from scratch, including validating business models, raising funds, and building a
team, as well as basic accounting and finance knowledge. April, a participant from China (2021
cohort), said that the curriculum section on Validating Business Models provided early-stage
social entrepreneurs with "a clear methodology and roadmap" for identifying the foundational
assumptions underpinning their ventures. The coursework also helped students determine when
they should design experiments to validate those core assumptions and whether they could
validate through customer discovery, rapid prototyping, and/or customer validation. On the other
hand, the section of Funder Readiness helped social entrepreneurs test their cost assumptions,
develop a fundraising plan (for both nonprofit and for-profit ventures), master the art of
negotiations and closing the deal, and measure impact metrics to garner further funder
support. Team Building taught social entrepreneurs how to create and sustain an effective team
that can transform industries while assessing themselves as leaders, build an organizational
structure that best suits the needs of the venture, define team culture, and design a structured
hiring process.
Most of the participants in this study found that the TE unit was helpful because it
provided social entrepreneurs with a series of practical tools to analyze their social venture at
each stage and design solutions to common problems that arise. Early-stage social entrepreneurs

59
mainly saw the unit as a manual for designing and building social ventures. Melody, a participant
from Hong Kong (2021 cohort), described her course experience as "transformational". "I did not
come from a business background or go to business school. So, this course was more like a crash
course that gave me a comprehensive overview of entrepreneurship and how to build up your
social venture systematically". Anna, a participant from Ukraine (2016 cohort), particularly
enjoyed learning different entrepreneurial theories in the TE course. She said, "I found Lean
Testing Theory was instrumental. This theory helps me figure out what is the most important to
prioritize. I have applied this theory to managing my NGO venture as well as to my personal
life".
However, two participants thought the content of TE was "generic" and "basic" due to
their previous training in business entrepreneurship. Katie, a participant from Chicago (2015
cohort), had attended a semester-long business entrepreneurship boot camp while she was
studying at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. She said, "it [The XYZ-SEA program]
felt more rudimentary and basic for me. It was not as helpful because I already knew a lot of the
content and concepts. But overall, it was still solid content". Fan, a participant from Shanghai
(2019 cohort), felt that the content was "generic". Fan previously attended several business
incubator programs in Sydney, Australia, and hoped the XYZ-SEA program would be more
targeted to experienced social entrepreneurs, "It touched upon a bit of everything. But I had
hoped the program could go more in depth on specific areas”.
Transformative Action (TA). This unit is focused on developing students’ soft skills,
such as emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence in this course was defined as a
combination of positive psychology, transforming fragility to resilience, and moving from
stagnation to creation. The unit was developed based on the principles of “transformative

60
action,” a series of new methods of solving societal problems by looking beyond traditional
methods of social change. It was conducted as a both a self-reflective and interactive course,
guiding students to overcome key challenges faced during the social entrepreneurial process and
in the social change sector.
Overall, the participants in this study found the unit "unconventional". Andy, a
participant from Israel (2020 cohort), admitted that he had never experienced a classroom like
this, "I come from a culture where teachers are like God. Students are told what to do without
question. But in the TA class, students and instructors were treated as equals. Both students and
teachers were open and sincere, exchanging personal stories, and exposing their vulnerabilities to
others". This equal student-teacher relationship set a solid foundation for developing trust and
stronger connections. Laura, a participant from China (2017 cohort), shared her first TA class
experience, "it was everyone's first class. Nobody said anything. My instructor started first by
sharing her childhood experience. It was not something you expected. It was painful and very
personal. But somehow, we connected after that class. I became much more comfortable to open
up myself and share my thoughts with others". However, other participants felt that the course
was too much to handle. Anna, the participant from Ukraine (2016 cohort), said she struggled
with the course participation, "I did very well in all courses except this course. I'm not a person
who can articulate feelings well. People ask you: how do you feel? I needed to tell how I feel,
but I really didn’t know. I cannot explain that. If they asked me to explain it in 10 sentences, I
could barely get two out".
Lab. While the TE and TA units focused on developing hard and soft skills, the Lab was
a place where students could apply the business knowledge and skills they learned from TE and
TA courses to building their social ventures. Nish, the participant from Nepal (2019 cohort),

61
continued to build his US-Nepal Tea Project while attending the program. He said the Lab course
provided a safe space to test his new ideas and refine his hypothesis, using his newly gained
skills and knowledge. The other practical benefit of the Lab unit was the open physical space.
“You did not work in a vacuum by yourself; you work with your cohorts. If I cannot figure out
anything, I can easily walk over to the other peer’s desk and ask him or her for advice.”
Program Culture
All the study participants described the program culture as supportive. Participants felt
support from peers, mentors, and the Institute, which motivated them to give back to the
community by becoming a mentor for future cohorts. Amani, a participant from Rwanda (2021
cohort), joined the program during the COVID pandemic when all the courses were conducted
online. “I had no idea how to access the course online. By the way, we did not have access to the
Internet in our village”. In a week, he received a huge package from the XYZ Institute that
contained hard copies of all course materials and several books on social entrepreneurship, plus a
brand-new laptop with a built-in wireless connection. Amani later received a letter from the CEO
inviting him to rejoin the program in 2023 when the in-person sessions resumed. “They did not
have to do that,” said Amani who got emotional when sharing the experience, “but it touched my
heart, and I feel supported by a community that shows care to people with difficulties”. Amani
said he not only had access to the materials but also had access to the instructional team. The
faculty and administrative team helped him through the entire program to make sure he
understood the materials and also scheduled a bi-weekly call to check in. Anna, a participant
from Ukraine (2016 cohort) also found the mentorship in this program extremely useful and
valuable:

62
I loved all the group sessions, group classes, especially the mentorship… There were
two mentors and they had different roles. One mentor was more a little bit like an
emotional support type of mentor, helping you to make sense of what are you doing
and where you're at, where your head is at, how are you developing your soft skills, et
cetera. The other mentor was supposed to help you with your ventures, where to find
resources and who to talk to. My mentors shared a lot of her own connections with
me, which helped me tremendously in expanding my NGO.
Rui, a participant from China (2022 cohort), built deep connections with her two mentors. One of
her mentors, who specializes in team coaching, gave her much advice on team building and
developing leadership skills. The other mentor was a seasoned entrepreneur with over ten years
of social entrepreneurial experience. “She gave me a lot of venture guidance and career advice,”
Rui said. Nish, a participant from Nepal (2019 cohort) enjoyed being supported and liked to
support others as well.
I was already four years in the business and some of these people were just
scratching the surface of getting into the business. They were literally in their idea
phase while I was already in their revenue making phase, so I was able to guide them
throughout their journey and in the business process. So, it really gave me the
experience of being able to mentor students as well and really lead them to what this
journey looks like. So, it was a very different experience, but something that I
wouldn't trade for anything else.
Diverse Student Population
All participants cited the diverse student population as one of the key reasons that
brought them to the program. On average, each cohort had students representing 10 to 15

63
countries. Fan, a participant from China, called her cohort in 2019 a “United Nations,” with
students representing 35 countries. Valarie, a participant from Russia, said that her cohort in
2020 came from 15 different countries across five continents, and she was “really excited about
meeting social entrepreneurs from all over the world”. Andy, a participant from Israel (2020
cohort), found the diversity in the student population most valuable because diversity in the
student population often resulted in diversity of thoughts. Because participants came from
different countries with different cultures and life experiences, they exhibited a broad spectrum
of perspectives on how people from different backgrounds deal with the same issue differently.
Sam, a participant from Namibia (2019 cohort) found that interacting with people with diverse
backgrounds made him more knowledgeable and open-minded because “they will give examples
of how things are done in their countries and different technologies they use”.
Summary
My study findings showed that the majority of participants credited the program’s
success to the institutional mission and values. The mission of focusing on personal development
deeply influenced the program culture, curriculum construction, and student body composition.
While the program curriculum helped students gain both hard and soft skills and provided a
space to testify new ideas, the supportive program culture brought social entrepreneurs across the
globe to the XYZ Institute, forming a close-knit community.
Finding 5: Major Program Limitations Include Lack of Well-Established Alum Network
and Lack of Inclusive Program Content Lack of Alumni Network
Despite the positive aspects of the XYZ-SEA program, participants in this study also
identified areas for improvement. Nearly all the participants expressed the desire for a better-
established alumni network. For example, Yuri, a participant from Kenya (2020cohort), was

64
initially attracted to the program because of its diverse student body. “I was hoping to connect
with other social entrepreneurs in the African continent through the program,” he said, “but the
alum support has been very disappointing since I graduated”. According to the participants in
this study, the current alum service included a monthly alum newsletter and a graduate survey at
the end of each year intended to track alums’ professional progress, but no efforts to connect
alums and no means to reach out to other alums.
Additionally, Laura, the current staff member at the XYZ Institute, claimed that all
graduates would still have their access to all course materials, master classes, and other resources
after their graduation. But Xin, the participant from China who graduated in 2022, said that “My
ID and passwords expired after I completed. I contacted the alumni office several times to
retrieve my login details, but they never responded”. Mark, a participant from California (2013
cohort) described his definition of a strong alumni network: “it needs to be a solid and well-
organized group that offers opportunities regularly in the areas like professional development,
regional and global social gathering, career inspiration, and institutional funding support”. When
asked if this is what they wanted, nearly all the study participants agreed.
Lack of Inclusive Program Content
The XYZ-SEA was branded as a global program that cultivated students from over 80
countries to become aspiring social entrepreneurial leaders. While the student population was
diverse, the program content was not as inclusive as expected. Several African participants
expressed that the program content and resources weren’t too applicable to the African context.
Sam, a participant from Rwanda (2019 cohort), noted that the selected theories and practices
introduced in the XYZ-SEA program were only applicable to the US context. For example, the
Lean Business Canvas, the core theoretical framework for the course Transformative

65
Entrepreneurship, was premised on the business environment in the US. However, doing
business in Africa would involve dealing with different obstacles, ranging from limited financing
options to shortage of skilled labor to government corruption. Therefore, when the instructors
introduced the framework and allowed students to apply it to their own social ventures, Sam
found that it was nearly impossible to apply to his own business venture. “Most industries in the
US were highly regulated with well-defined business practices and repercussions for violating
these practices, but not in Africa,” he said.
Not only the program content but also the experience of mentors was also not as diverse
as study participants hoped. Yuri, a participant from Kenya (2020 cohort) shared his frustration
with mentors, “my mentors were all American. Some of the solutions that I was designing were
for Kenya. It was difficult for them to relate to certain challenges that I was trying to address
because they haven't been exposed to them”. Preeti, a participant from India (2021 cohort)
connected with a mentor from India and the mentor had no experience in entrepreneurship, “he
[the mentor] had no connections with social organizations, no idea about nonprofit organizations.
He was essentially useless for what I needed him for”.
Summary
The lack of a well-established alum network and the limited applicability of the program
content were two major limitations identified in the study findings. Several participants were
initially drawn to the program for the diversity in student population and the professional
experiences of faculty members but were disappointed with both. If the XYZ-SEA program was
intended to prepare African students to successfully access Africa’s significant economic
opportunities and become social entrepreneurs, the program would need to teach students the
business models and strategies specific to those African market.

66
Finding 6: Transferring Skills into Professional Domains
About half of the participants in this study continued with the social entrepreneurial path
after graduation, while the other half chose to work in established organizations, including both
public and private sectors. Despite the varying nature of their professional requirements, all
participants in this study stated that they had applied the skills and knowledge gained from the
XYZ-SEA program into their professional domains. For example, Valerie, a participant from
Russia (2018 cohort), said that the program taught her the lean business canvas and the ability to
test, pivot and adapt, and she applied them to designing her career path:
Unfortunately, I did not end up running my own social enterprise in that field that I
was hoping to, but I used what I learned at the XYZ Institute to support my career
progress. I used the Lean Business Canvas to quickly figure out my strengths and
weaknesses, and where I wanted to be, then pivoted my social entrepreneurial
career to an independent consulting role to work on an area that I had worked
before. Then I took my entrepreneurship skills and my professional skills and
turned it into a private consultancy that really was a lifesaver for me during the
COVID years.
Katie, a participant from Chicago (2015 cohort) who currently works in a chief of staff
role at a private company, stated that the most valuable skill she gained from XYZ-SEA was no
longer being afraid of rejection. There was an activity in the program that was intended to train
students' resilience to rejection. Students needed to go out into the world on their own and
purposefully get rejected by making some random requests to strangers. Katie said, "It was a
challenging task…I used to be oddly shy, so it was even harder. But I did it, and I was pushed
out of my comfort zone". Katie said the activity planted a seed of a growth mindset in her mind:

67
rejection was a steppingstone to getting closer to success. The revelation was important to her,
especially in her current role. "Dealing with rejections from customers, executive management,
and investors is part of her daily life. Whenever I am frustrated, I will repeat the revelation,
which helps me always look on the bright side of rejections."
Nish, the founder of Nepal Tea House in New York, believed that the key thing he
learned from his mentors and advisors was balance, which was a crucial skill for social
entrepreneurs to gain. "I was used to being really driven down towards the social impact side of
things," he said, "then I get an advice from my mentors and advisors that you are really focusing
too much on the social side. You need to focus on the financial numbers too, and balancing that,
because without the business side, the social side is not sustainable. So now I am checking both
perspectives: social cause and financial motives".
Mark, a participant from California (2013 cohort), named two important skills he learned
from the program: time management and goal setting:
That was the first time that anyone had ever sat me down and said, "every Sunday, you
need to pick three things that you want to get done this week. Schedule out your week
in advance and figure out how that adds up into a bigger plan." And then you practice
it for a whole semester. And that's extremely valuable. And having someone keeping
you accountable to that, I don't think many people actually do that. And I still do that
to this day. I still have six months to one-year goals. And those translate into activities.
And every Sunday I still fill out my calendar for the week. There's been periods where
I haven't been so disciplined and periods where I have, but right now I'm still doing it.
And I remember gaining that skill and practicing that skill at the XYZ Institute.

68
April, a participant from China (2022 cohort) and a current master’s student in Business
Studies, said that she learned how to pitch in the XYZ-SEA program:
It was a great lesson led by a famous salesperson from Slovenia and he is still one of
the greatest salesmen I have encountered. He told us the most important thing of
pitching your ideas, service or product is to help your customers understand what they
want. Not all customers know what they want and sometimes as a seller you need to
educate your customers.
April said that whenever she needs to design a marketing campaign for her internship or craft a
business pitch for her course, the first thing she would need was to figure out what customers
wanted.
Summary
Effective learning requires context through application and experience (Dewey 1956;
Wessel& Godshalk, 2004). The findings in this study indicated that the XYZ-SEA program
provided students with the skills, knowledge, and experience to be more effective in their social
entrepreneurial pursuits or traditional professional paths. Which skills or knowledge would be
applied and how it would be applied would depend on each participant’s professional needs and
career stage.
Finding 7: Students Pursue Social Ventures in a Global Scale
Nine of the eighteen research participants stated in interviews that they chose to pursue
careers as social entrepreneurs after completing the XYZ-SEA program and seven of these nine
participants have continued to operate their social ventures they created within the program.
Among these seven participants, four chose to set up their social ventures in their home countries
to better serve their local communities. For instance, Yuri (Cohort 2020) from Kenya joined the

69
program with a vision of cultivating the next generation of business leaders by instilling business
entrepreneurial knowledge to local high school students through live radio shows. He later
created his business education channel and recorded the first batch of radio content. He returned
to his home country Kenya in 2020 and has been managing the channel since then. The channel
recently reached 2,000 subscribers. Amani (Cohort 2021) from Rwanda joined the program with
a venture idea of creating an elementary school curriculum for his local school districts that
focuses on teaching genocide history. By the time he completed the XYZ-SEA program, he was
able to launch the curriculum online. He set up his nonprofit education organization in Kigali,
the capital city of Rwanda, and has partnered with Kigali’s school districts to implement his
curriculum since 2021. The curriculum has been widely used, reaching over 3,000 elementary
school students by early 2023.
Interestingly, among these seven international participants, two of them chose to set up
their social ventures in the United States even though the ventures primarily serve the
populations in their own countries. Nish (Cohort 2019) from Nepal created his “Nepal Tea
Project” during his attendance in the XYZ-SEA program, to promote the Nepalese tea culture by
removing the middleman and directly connecting local tea farmers to tea wholesalers overseas.
He explained his choice of setting up the office in New York rather than his hometown
Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, as a “strategic decision” because “the majority of my
[venture’s] investors and customers are based in the United States”. When asked whether or not
he had any plans to move back his venture to Nepal, he said that he already created an education
foundation in Nepal in parallel with his venture in the United States, to help reinvest the funds
earned through the Nepal Tea Project in educating the children of local tea farmers. Di (cohort
2020) from China also chose to set up her social venture in the United States, although most of

70
her clients are from mainland China. She said that setting up the venture in the United States
would help her stay connected with the latest industrial trends. Di operates a life-coaching
business in San Francisco that provides individual counseling services to Chinese students and
professionals. Di said that the Bay area offers a lot of resources for the life coaching industry that
she could not find in other places. “Life coaching is emerging in China but still there are not
many resources available…. Staying in San Francisco keeps me engaged with all kinds of
learning opportunities and new industrial changes. Also, the city has a lot of social
entrepreneurial communities and offers a lot of business resources that I can easily tap into...”
Rui (cohort 2022) from China is the only participant who set up the social venture in the country
other than her home country and the United States. Rui and her partners she met through the
XYZ-SEA program built a social venture in Mexico that provides consulting service on
renewable energy to small and medium businesses in the region. She decided to pursue social
entrepreneurship in Mexico mainly because of her academic interests in renewable energy
development in Latin America. Rui majored in environmental science and energy studies at the
University of Virginia and hoped to put her knowledge into practice.
The social ventures that participants presented are quite diverse in terms of their
ventures’ geographical locations, target audiences and areas of focus, which raises an important
question of what criteria the program should use to determine the global breadth of the
curriculum. If the program were to use students’ countries of origin as the main criterion for
designing the cultural breadth of the curriculum, it would make sense that the curriculum focuses
more on the domestic context of social entrepreneurship. However, if the program were to design
a curriculum that takes into account the cultural nuances of both international and domestic
students as well as aims to cultivate future social entrepreneurial leaders who can make an

71
impact at a global scale, then the curriculum should incorporate more international context. It is
potentially problematic that the program is branded as an international program and recruits a
wide variety of international students but teaches social entrepreneurial concepts that are only
applicable to the US context. My speculation is that the decision to brand the program as an
international focused is a business strategy to differentiate itself from other social entrepreneurial
programs.
Summary
The findings in this study indicate that a half of participants from the XYZ-SEA program have
chosen the careers of social entrepreneurs and they have pursued their careers at a global scale. It
asks an important question of what basis the program uses to determine the focus of the program
curriculum.
Conclusion
According to Gregory Dees (2001), entrepreneurs are a homogeneous group that is
innovative, opportunity-driven, resourceful, and able to create value and foster change. Overall,
my research findings revealed that social entrepreneurs generally are on a mission to improve the
world and desire to learn the business practices that will enable to build successful social
ventures. Social entrepreneurs measure their success not by profit or monetary gain but by the
added social value they create. There are core qualities that set social entrepreneurs apart from
well-intentioned individuals and organizations, including: 1) A high level of compassion and
desire to alleviate the distress of others based on a shared humanity, which often leads
individuals to pursue social entrepreneurship. 2) An unwavering belief and a driving passion to
implement ideas in the form of a new approach. 3) A healthy dose of impatience and
unwillingness to wait for solutions to happen by themselves. While their missions may vary,

72
social and more traditional business entrepreneurs share many core competencies: the ability to
pivot and adapt to changes; negotiation skills, including relationships with key stakeholders; and
leadership skills, including the ability to inspire a team.
The findings in this study demonstrated that participants gained personal growth through
the social entrepreneurship program in terms of skills improvement and knowledge expansion.
Evidence showed that participants could apply the gained knowledge and skills to their social
entrepreneurial pursuit, as well as to more traditional career paths, which some chose following
completion of the program. The curriculum, the culture, and the student body were three core
elements determining the program's success. While the participants’ feedback about the XYZ-
SEA program was overall positive, two areas for improvement that participants identified
included a more established alum network and more inclusive program content. Lastly, the
program needs to redefine its future direction because the program leans towards the domestic
content, but the participants have created social ventures at a global scale that primarily serve
international audiences.

73
Chapter Five: Discussion
This study examined the effectiveness of a social entrepreneurship program and
identified effective methods of teaching social entrepreneurship concepts. It also explored the
skills and knowledge that students gained from the program and successfully applied to their
professional domains. In an effort to understand this topic, the research questions guiding this
study were as follows:
1. What are the key factors that students identify as having contributed to the effectiveness
of the XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) program in improving their
social entrepreneurial competencies?
2. What do students perceive as the significant limitations of the XYZ -SEA program in
helping them achieve their social entrepreneurial goals?
3. How did the students translate their social entrepreneurship knowledge and skills from
the XYZ -SEA program into their professional domains?
The data collected for this study were from semi-structured interviews with students who
had completed the XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) program at the XYZ
Institute between 2013 and 2022. The XYZ-SEA Program is a18-week in-person immersion
program that trains social entrepreneurial leaders by developing their entrepreneurial and
leadership skills. The program was launched in 2013 and is designed and delivered by a
nonprofit organization, the XYZ Institute, based in Boulder, Colorado. I used purposeful
sampling to choose 18 interview participants from 10 countries across three continents. Each
interview was between 60 and 90 minutes and was focused on the students’ learning experiences
with the XYZ-SEA program, including what each student found effective or not effective about
the program. I used pseudonyms for all participants for confidentiality and privacy purposes. All

74
interviews were recorded and then transcribed. The transcriptions were then coded using the
Delve qualitative coding tool and Microsoft Excel.
This chapter aims to respond to the research questions and discuss findings using
Bandura’s social cognitive theory as a conceptual framework. This chapter will also discuss
study implications, recommendations and implementations, limitations of the study, and ideas for
future research.
Summary of Findings
The participants claimed that they gained personal growth through the XYZ-SEA
Program in terms of skills improvement and knowledge expansion. These study findings
confirmed Cope’s (2005) view of learning being a central role in social entrepreneurship and
Mansfield et al.’s (1978) conclusion that instruction is a more effective and efficient way for
individuals to develop their social entrepreneurial competencies. The study results also support
the conclusions of Barr et al.’s (2009) research on evaluating the effectiveness of social
entrepreneurship programs. Barr et al.’s study surveyed hundreds of students who completed a
two-semester social entrepreneurship program over 14 years. Barr and his colleagues measured
the program's effectiveness through a pre-and post-course survey, and the survey results showed
that students who completed the program exhibited significant improvements in various abilities,
including the ability to identify market opportunities, coordinate resources, and effectively lead a
team.
Specifically, the participants in this study identified three aspects of the program that
contributed to their personal growth: practical curriculum design, supportive program culture,
and a diverse student body. 16 out of 18 interview participants described the program curriculum
as “practical.” In addition to teaching entrepreneurial theories and practical tools to design social

75
ventures, the program also provided a safe space for social entrepreneurs to validate, pivot and
refine their ideas. These findings are consistent with Sarasvathy and Venkataraman’s (2011)
effectuation approach to teaching social entrepreneurial concepts. The approach describes
entrepreneurship as an iterative process of decision making and active commitment to seeking
optimal results in the creation of new value. Social entrepreneurs make decisions while
observing the results of different alternatives and utilizing the new information provided through
the instruction to change course (Hossain, 2020). The benefits of the effectuation approach are:
1) the participants were found to have developed their ability to make judgmental decisions
under conditions of uncertainty through simulation of real-life scenarios, and 2) the participants
learned to be risk-taking while analyzing alternatives and selecting the option with the most
optimal result (Neck and Greene, 2011).
This study also found that participants believed the social entrepreneurship program’s
culture and a diverse student body helped them achieve their learning goals. Seven out of 18
participants shared specific stories of how the program culture and the diverse student body
contributed to a positive learning experience. This finding is consistent with Rae’s (2005) view
on the benefits of social entrepreneurship programs. These programs intend to create a diverse
community that allow social entrepreneurs to gain more insights into their own experiences and
skills through their interactions with their entrepreneurial environment, their peers, and mentors
(Rae, 2005).
Furthermore, participants in this study identified a few abilities as core social
competencies, including high levels of self-efficacy and compassion, the ability to pivot,
business management, negotiation, and leadership skills, which are consistent with Karminder
and Sharma (2018)’s social competency model. The model identified three main constituents of a

76
social entrepreneurial mindset: 1) prosocial missions and a strong sense of altruism, 2) acuteness
to social needs, and 3) the ability to innovate and deal with disruption. All these skills are critical
for social entrepreneurs to recognize their social opportunities and launch their ventures. The
XYZ-SEA program taught students these entrepreneurial skills, increasing their potential for
success, even when faced with extremely challenging conditions (Johnson et al., 2013).
Finally, the study findings showed that participants had translated the skills and
knowledge they gained from the XYZ-SEA program into their professional domains. Five out of
18 participants shared specific examples from their experiences to demonstrate that the program
helped improve their self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and behaviors in their professional
pursuits.
However, all participants expressed the desire to build a well-established alum network.
They discussed and reflected on the importance of having a strong alum network as an extension
of the program’s supportive culture. The participants also said that it was important to build a
comprehensive curriculum taking in consideration case studies from all over the world. In
particular, African participants wanted the program curriculum to reflect African-specific facts
and examples, and desired faculty and mentors with more diversified experiences in order to help
them navigate sociocultural-specific challenges and design more practical solutions.
Theoretical Framework and Social Entrepreneurship Education Program
This section examines the data through the framework of social cognitive theory. Within
the framework, this study seeks to understand what factors are conducive or prohibitive to
students achieving their learning goals, and how to construct a better learning experience within
a social entrepreneurship program.

77
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) states that learning occurs in a social context with a
dynamic and reciprocal interaction of cognitive, environmental, and behavioral factors, in which
cognitive factors include knowledge, expectations and attitudes; environmental factors include
social norms, access to community, and influence on others; and behavioral factors include
skills, practice and self-efficacy (Denler, 2006) (Graph 1). In accordance with this theory, the
majority of participants believed that the curriculum (cognitive and behavioral factors), the
program’s mission and culture (environmental factors), and student body (behavioral factors)
built on each other, collectively improved their learning outcomes. Specifically, all participants
highlighted the importance of the program’s mission of focusing on developing individuals and
how the mission supports the construction of the program and students’ learning goals.
Figure 5
Social Cognitive Theory

78
Implications for Policy Makers, Institutional Leaders, and Practitioners
The data gathered from this study hold implications for policymakers, institutional
leaders, and education practitioners. This research offered new perspectives for evaluating the
program effectiveness of social entrepreneurship programs. Policymakers and institutional
leaders are responsible for ensuring that future leaders can address regional and global social
issues with innovative solutions. This is even more true for populations of the least developing
countries and under-served communities. As the author of How to Change the World, David
Bornstein (2003, p.4), who specializes in social innovation research, says, “what business
entrepreneurs are to the economy, social entrepreneurs are to social change”. Social
entrepreneurship leads to social change by providing solutions to social problems in a local,
national, and international context (Naude, 2010). Policymakers and institutional leaders should
acknowledge the importance of social entrepreneurship and participate in developing a social
entrepreneurial mindset among students. Policymakers and institutional leaders can allocate
funding and resources to develop additional social entrepreneurship programs or incorporate the
social entrepreneurial mindset into a regular school or college curriculum.
This study identified several useful practices for education practitioners, which can aid
and influence the success of social entrepreneurship programs. Education practitioners can
encourage their schools or institutions to participate in the development of a social
entrepreneurship program or social entrepreneurship curricula as a means for their organizations
to prepare students with skills and a mindset for future social challenges. Developing a social
entrepreneurial mindset through training and education programs can benefit students in the
following ways: 1) by developing students’ ability to identify issues in society and locate
opportunities to solve those issues, 2) by improving students’ skills in value creation in both

79
economic and social terms, 3) cultivating students’ emotional intelligence to deal with ambiguity
and uncertainty in life, and 4) nurturing a strong sense of team-efficacy, especially working with
interdisciplinary teams to realize a common goal (Blenker et al., 2012). Institutions of higher
education, as well as K-12 schools are identified as spaces to create change agents and future
social leaders.
Recommendations and Implementations
This section offers recommendations and implementation steps for the XYZ Institute’s
executive management team, faculty, mentors, and administrative groups involved with creating
and implementing the XYZ-SEA program, and for senior-level college leaders or administrators
who are currently building, or are looking to build, a social entrepreneurship program at their
campuses. These recommendations aim to help improve the students’ learning experiences and
understand the role of social entrepreneurship education programs in fostering social awareness
and leadership skills within a higher education setting.
Recommendation 1
The XYZ Institute should build an alum network that can effectively engage alums and
foster a stronger sense of community. The alums officers should reach out to all alums and factor
in their opinions to determine the primary goals and purposes of the alums network, which will
help to determine the type of events or activities that are likely to be organized. The alums office
should also create a database that is regularly updated with alums' contact information,
graduation years, current location, employment status, and progression of their social ventures.
Moreover, the alums office should promote the network through social media, email, and other
channels to encourage alums to join and participate in events. Last but not least, the alums office
and the leadership team should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the network and make

80
changes and improvements, based on annual surveys and regularly soliciting feedback from
alums.
Recommendation 2
As the XYZ Institute is branded as a global institute and has intentionally assembled each
cohort with students from different cultural backgrounds, the Institute should consider
diversifying its faculty by recruiting academic staff with diverse cultural backgrounds and global
professional experiences.
Recommendation 3
The XYZ Institute could create a more personalized curriculum that allows students to
design their own academic paths based on their learning needs. The enrollment office could
categorize students based on their knowledge in entrepreneurship and the maturity of their
ventures, and then guide students to choose the courses and electives that meet their
entrepreneurial needs. The XYZ Institute could also offer students and alums the opportunity to
co-develop the curriculum to ensure that it accurately addresses both students’ learning needs
and current industry trends. Lastly, the XYZ Institute should review the curriculum periodically
to ensure that it aligns with the Institute’s mission and vision and current industry standards and
trends, and reflects the latest technological advancements, teaching methodologies, and global
development. The review process should involve feedback from industry experts, educators, and
students to ensure that the curriculum is relevant, inclusive, and effective.

81
Current Curriculum Map
All students
Core
Units
Transformative Entrepreneurship
Transformative Action
Lab (learning practical business skills and work on your own venture)
Biweekly Mentoring (1:1)
Summit Meet Investors and Customers

Suggested Curriculum Map
Student
Level
Ideation Seed Stage Early Stage Growth
Stage
Expansion
Stage
Consolidation
Stage
Core Units Transformative Entrepreneurship
Transformative Action
Electives ● Developing
innovative ideas for
entrepreneurship
● How to validate
your startup ideas
● From Idea to Impact
● Seek funding for your
venture
● Seek funding for your
venture II
● Build a dynamic culture
and leadership structure

Regional
Study
● Students can focus on a region to study its entrepreneurial development, business and
social climate and state policies on entrepreneurship
Leadership Training + Biweekly Mentoring (1:1)
Lab Work on your own venture
Summit Meet Investors and Customers

82

Limitations of the Study
This study has potential limitations. First, this study had a relatively small sample size,
which was limited to 18 out of 294 graduates of only one social entrepreneurship program at the
XYZ Institute. The information gathered from this sample size was extrapolated to generalize
about other social entrepreneurship programs. Second, the number of U.S. participants is
relatively small since half of the program’s students are from the United States. Third, the study
only interviewed graduates but did not consider current students' or faculty members' views and
perspectives. Additionally, the study results were collected by one field researcher, limiting the
depth and breadth of data collected during interviews. The presence of at least one more
researcher would help better capture the entire interview scope as it happened. Finally,
evaluating students' learning outcomes and program performance was difficult without a
universally recognized social entrepreneurial competency model in place. The research
conclusions were drawn based on individual experiences.
Implications for Future Research
Future researchers who seek to understand the effectiveness of social entrepreneurship
programs should also consider the views and perspectives of current students, instructors,
mentors, institutional leaders, and other stakeholders, as they are important in shaping a student's
learning process. Recognizing the views of these additional parties will also help broaden the
scope of understanding. Furthermore, this study was limited by the lack of a unified social
entrepreneurial competency model to evaluate students' learning outcomes from the social
entrepreneurship program. Creating a social entrepreneurial competency model and identifying
the metrics to measure the improvements in students' skills, self-efficacy, and social

83
entrepreneurial intentions would expand the scope of understanding the benefits of social
entrepreneurship programs. Finally, this study focused on a particular program; extending
research to include additional social entrepreneurship programs will help to understand if the
factors present in this study were consistent with other programs.
Conclusion
Blenker et al. (2012) consider the entrepreneurial mindset as everyday practice, which
means that the entrepreneurial mindset applies to all walks of life. Developing a social
entrepreneurial mindset through training and education programs can develop students’ ability to
identify and locate opportunities, improve students’ skills in value creation in both economic and
social terms, cultivate students’ emotional intelligence to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty,
and nurture a strong sense of team-efficacy, especially working with interdisciplinary teams to
realize a common goal (Blenker et al., 2012). In addition to these benefits, fostering a social
entrepreneurial mindset will help students create more awareness about their communities, by
fostering the relationship between schools and outside communities, and encourage students to
design innovative solutions to solve social problems (Collins, Hanges & Locke, 2004). This
study found that a social entrepreneurship program played a critical role in improving students’
skills and better equipped them to manage their social entrepreneurial pursuits. This study also
identified that three major factors including practical curriculum design, supportive program
culture and a diverse student body resulted in the success of a social entrepreneurship program. It
is important for social entrepreneurship researchers and education practitioners to create a
unified social competency model in order to better evaluate student learning outcomes and skill
improvement.

84
References
Ahmad, N. &. Seymour, R.G. (2008). Defining Entrepreneurial Activity. Definitions
Supporting Frameworks for Data Collection, OECD Statistics Working Papers 2008/01,
OECD: Paris, 2008.
Adusei, Michael. (2016). Does Entrepreneurship Promote Economic Growth in Africa? African
Development Review, 28, 201-214. 10.1111/1467-8268.12190.
Audretsch, D.B. (1995). Innovation and Industry Evolution. MIT Press: Cambridge MA.
Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship Research. Management decision. 50(5), 755-764.
Austin, J., Srevenson, H. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
Same, Different, or Both? Harvard Business School Review. 30(1).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x
Baumol, W. J. & Strom, R. J. (2007). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1), 233-237.
Bacigalupo M, Kampylis P, Punie Y and Van Den Brande L. (2016). EntreComp: The
Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications
Office of the European Union; 2016. JRC101581
Biraglia, A. & Kadile, V. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing
entrepreneurial intentions: Insights from American homebrewers. Journal of Small
Business Management, 55(1), 170-188.
Bruyat, C. & Julien, P.A. (2001), Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16 (2), 165-180.

85
Byrne, O. & Shepherd, D.A. (2015). Different strokes for different folks: entrepreneurial
narratives of emotion, cognition, and making sense of business failure. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 39(2), 375-405.
Brown, B. & Clow, J. E. (2007). Glencoe Introduction to Business, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1987). Entrepreneurial Folklore. Journal of Small Business Management, 25
(3), 1-6.
Casson, M, Yeung., B., Basu, A. & Wadeson, W. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of
Entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press
Casson, M. (2003). The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29(4), 373-397.
Collewaert, V. (2016). When passion fades: disentangling the temporal dynamics of
entrepreneurial passion for founding. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 966-995.
Cardon, M.S., Post, C. & Forster, W.R. (2017). Team entrepreneurial passion: its emergence and
influence in new venture teams. Academy of Management Review, 42 (2), 283-305.
Dau, L. A. & A. Cuervo-Cazurra. (2014) To formalize or not to formalize: entrepreneurship and
pro-market institutions. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 29, 668–86.
Dana, L.P (1999). Small business as a supplement in the People’s Republic of China (PRC),
Journal of Small Business Management, 776–80.
Dees, J.G. & Anderson, B.B. (2003). Sector-bending: blurring lines between nonprofit and
for-profit. Society, 40, 16-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12115-003-1014-z
Dejardin, M. & Fritsch, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial dynamics and regional growth. Small
business economics, 36(4), 377-382.

86
Dimov, D. (2016). Toward a design science of entrepreneurship in Models of Start-Up Thinking
and Action: Theoretical, Empirical and Pedagogical Approaches, Emerald Group
Publishing.
Endres, A. M. & Woods, C.R. (2006). Modern theories of entrepreneurial behaviour: a
comparison and appraisal. Small Business Economics, 26, 189-202.
Fritsch, M. & Mueller, P. (2004). The effects of new business formation on regional
development over time. Regional Studies. 38, 961-975. 10.1080/0034340042000280965.
Fritsch, M. & Wyrwich, M. (2017). The effect of entrepreneurship on economic development—
an empirical analysis using regional entrepreneurship culture. Journal of economic
geography. 17, 157–189.
GEM. (2021). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report. GEM. https://www.gemconsortium.org/
Grebel, T. (2007). Neo-Schumpeterian perspectives in entrepreneurship research, in Hanusch, H.
and Pyka, A. (eds.), Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics. Cheltenham,
UK (Edward Elgar).
Gungah, V. & Jaunky, V. C. (2017). Does entrepreneurship drive economic growth? Evidence
from the BRICS. International journal of conceptions on management and social
sciences, 5(1).
Hayek, F. A. (1978). New studies in philosophy, politics, economics and the history of ideas.
Routledge: London.
Herbert, R. F. & Link, A. N. (1982). The entrepreneurs: Mainstream views and radical critiques.
Praaeger: New York.
Hornaday, J. (1992). Thinking about entrepreneurship: A fuzzy set approach. Journal of small
business management, 30(4), 12–23.

87
Jarvis, L.C. (2016). Identification, intentions and entrepreneurial opportunities: An iterative
process model. International journal of entrepreneurial behavior and research, 22 (2),
182-198.
Konovalenko Slettli, V. (2019). Developing entrepreneurial mindset for transformational
entrepreneurship: The case of Nordic transformative learning circles. Journal of
entrepreneurship, management and innovation, 15(4), 77-105.
Kirzner, I.M. (1997). Perception, opportunity, and profit. University of Chicago Press.
Kozlinska, I., Mets, T., & Rõigas, K. (2020). Measuring learning outcomes of entrepreneurship
education using structural equation modeling. Administrative sciences, 10(3), 58-70.
Lakshmi P., Visalakshmi, S. & Shanmugam K. (2015). Intensity of shock transmission amid US-
BRICS market., International journal of emerging markets, 10 (3), 311 – 328
Lazear, EP. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of labor economics, 23(4), 649-680.
Leffler, E. (2009). The many faces of entrepreneurship: A discursive battle for the school arena.
European Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 104–
116. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.1.104
Lin, S. & Xu, Z. (2017). The factors that influence the development of entrepreneurship
education: Based on the case of China. Management decision, 55(7), 1351-1370.
Lonen, S., & Heinonen, J. (2018). Understanding affective learning outcomes in
entrepreneurship education. Industry & higher education, 32(6), 391-404.
Marjerison R. K., & Chen R, Lin Y. (2021). The nexus of social cause interest and
entrepreneurial mindset: Driving socioeconomic sustainability. Sustainability (Basel,
Switzerland), 13(24).

88
Martin, R. & Osberg, S. (2007) Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 5(28).
Mair, J., Marti, I. (2005). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and
delight. Journal of World Business, 41(2006), 36–44.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics. 8
th
eds. MacMillan: London.
Menger, C. (1871). Principles of Economics. New York University Press
Méndez-Picazo, M. T., Galindo-Martín, M.A., & Castaño-Martínez, M. S. (2021). Effects of
sociocultural and economic factors on social entrepreneurship and sustainable
development. Journal of innovative knowledge. 6, 69–77.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science.
29(7), 770-791
Moroz, P.W. & Hindle, K. (2011). Entrepreneurship as a process: toward harmonizing multiple
perspectives. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 36(4), 781-818.
Nash, S. (2014). Heather Gell and music education in the community. Australian Journal of Music
Education, 2, 129–147.
Naudé, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: New
approaches and insights. Small business economics. 34, 1–12.
Ndou, V., Secundo, G., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2018). Insights for shaping Entrepreneurship
Education: Evidence from the European Entrepreneurship centers. Sustainability (Basel,
Switzerland), 10(11).
Omer, A. M. &Yemini, M. (2017). Initiating consensus: Stakeholders define
entrepreneurship in education. Educational Review, 69(2), 140-
157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1153457

89
Peneder, M. (2009). The meaning of entrepreneurship: a modular concept. Journal of industry,
competition and trade, 9(2), 77-99.
Prince S., Chapman S., & Cassey P. (2021). The definition of entrepreneurship: is it less
complex than we think? International journal of entrepreneurial behavior & research,
27(9), 26-47.
Phillips W., Lee H., Ghobadian A., O’Regan N., & James P. (2015). Social Innovation and
Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review. Group & organization management,
40(3), 428-461.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
Prince, S., Chapman, S., & Cassey, P. (2019). The definition of entrepreneurship: is it less
complex than we think? International journal of entrepreneurial behavior and research.
27(9), 26-47.
Rae, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: A narrative-based conceptual model. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development. 12(3), 323-335.
Ricketts, M. (2006). Theories of entrepreneurship: Historical development and critical
assessment, in Casson, M, Yeung, B, Basu, A. & Wadeson, W. (eds.). The Oxford
Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press, 33-58.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Rodriguez S., & Lieber, H. (2020). Relationship between entrepreneurship education,
entrepreneurial mindset, and career readiness in secondary students. The Journal of
experiential education, 43(3), 277-298.

90
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review. 26(2),
243-263.
Shane, S. &Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Schultz, T.W. (1975). The value of the ability to deal with disequilibria. Journal of economic
literature. 13, 827–846.
Seelos, C. &. Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve
the poor. Business horizon. 48, 241–246.
Smith, B. R., & Stevens, C.E. (2010). Different types of social entrepreneurship: The role of
geography and embeddedness on the measurement and scaling of social
value. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 22(6), 575-598.
Thornton, M. (12019). Why did Cantillon change the meaning of
entrepreneurship? MISES: Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Law and
Economics, 7(3).
Valliere, D. & Peterson, R. (2009). Entrepreneurship and economic growth: evidence from
emerging and developed countries. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 21 (5),
459-480.
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday entrepreneurship—a
call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepreneurship
theory and practice. 41(3), 311-321.

91
Witt, U. (1999). Do entrepreneurs need firms? A contribution to a missing chapter in Austrian
economics. Review of Austrian Economics. 11, 99–109.
Zhou, B., Marjerison, R.K. &Chang, F.H. (2002). Chinese OEM manufacturing roadmap:
SMEs–to brand or not to brand. In Handbook of Research on Emerging Business Models
and the New World Economic Order. IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 163–182.
Zupan, B., Cankar, F., & Setnikar, S. (2018). The development of an entrepreneurial mindset in
primary education. European journal of education, 53(3), 427-439.

92
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Participant (Name): _______________________________________________
Country of Citizenship: ___________________
Location of Interview: ____________________________________________________
Time in / Time out: _________________________________________
Introduction
Thanks for meeting with me today. I am conducting this study as part of my dissertation research
for my doctoral program at USC, exploring the students’ perceptions of a social entrepreneurship
program that helps determine the effective learning practice of fostering a social entrepreneurial
mindset. I anticipate taking no more than 60 minutes of your time, and I have 12 questions for
your consideration.
Your participation is completely voluntary. We can skip any question you want at any time, and
you may stop the interview at any time. Any identifiable information obtained in connection with
this study will remain confidential. Your responses will be encrypted with a fake name
(pseudonym) and maintained separately. If you are comfortable with the possibility, I would like
to record our conversation, and the recording will be destroyed after it is transcribed. Do you
have any questions? Ready to begin?
Interview questions:
1. Tell me about the organization you work for.
2. What is your role at your current organization?
3. What made you want to participate in a social entrepreneurship acceleration program?
4. Why did you choose to join the XYZ-SA program? Which part of the program attracted
you?
5. What are the most important entrepreneurial concepts did you learn from the XYZ-SA
program that you use in your current role?
6. What is your definition of social entrepreneurship competency?
7. If you can describe your current competency level according to the Entrepreneurship
Competence Framework, what would it be?
8. What areas do you see the biggest improvement? What areas did you want to improve
through the program but did not get the opportunity to?
9. What are the examples from your professional life that demonstrate the spirit of
entrepreneurship?
10. Some people say it is hard to teach social entrepreneurial concepts because it is so
abstract. Can you give examples of the instructional strategies used in the XYZ-
SA program that were most effective in teaching social entrepreneurial concepts?
11. What about the least effective strategies in teaching social entrepreneurial concepts?
12. How did you find your instructors’ previous entrepreneurial experiences helpful to you?
13. How did you find your peers’ previous entrepreneurial experiences helpful to you?

93
14. How prepared are your instructors and where could they have improved?
15. How effectively did the program address differences in cultural backgrounds in terms of
curriculum design and teaching environment?
16. How effectively did the program address differences in the learning needs of students in
terms of curriculum design and teaching environment?
17. How do you describe the learning culture of the XYZ-SA program?

94
Appendix B
Informed Consent
Consent for Participation in Interview Research

I volunteer to participate in a research project conducted by Daisy Qiu, a doctoral student from
the University of Southern California. I understand that the study is designed to understand the
students’ perceptions of the XYZ-SA program. I will be one of approximately 15 people being
interviewed for this research.

1. My participation in this project is voluntary. I understand that I will not be paid for my
participation. I may withdraw and discontinue participation at any time without penalty.
If I decline to participate or withdraw from the study, no one will be told.

2. I understand that most interviewees will find the discussion interesting and thought-
provoking. If, however, I feel uncomfortable in any way during the interview session, I
have the right to decline to answer any question or to end the interview.

3. Participation involves being interviewed by researchers from the USC Rossier School of
Education. The interview will last approximately 30-45 minutes. Notes will be written
during the interview. The interview will be recorded. If I don't want to be recorded, I will
not be able to participate in the study.

4. I understand that the researcher will not identify me by name in any reports using
information obtained from this interview and that my confidentiality as a participant in
this study will remain secure. Subsequent uses of records and data will be subject to
standard data use policies which protect the anonymity of individuals and institutions.

5. I understand that this research study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) for Studies Involving Human Subjects: Behavioral Sciences
Committee at the USC Rossier School of Education. For research problems or questions
regarding subjects, the Institutional Review Board may be contacted through the Office
for the Protection of Research Subjects at USC campus via email: irb@usc.edu or phone:
323-442-0114.

6. I have read and understood the explanation provided to me. I have had all my questions
answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

7. I have been given a copy of this consent form.

95
Full Name__________________________ Signature ___________________________
Date ____________________________

Researcher
Full Name__________________________ Signature ___________________________
Date ____________________________

For further information, please contact: Daisy Qiu via email mengyaqi@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not a social entrepreneurship program can effectively provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to develop and lead successful social ventures and, if so, to further identify the key factors that contribute to a successful social entrepreneurial program. The research questions guiding this study are: What are the key factors that students identified as having contributed to the effectiveness of the XYZ Social Entrepreneurship Accelerator (XYZ-SEA) program in improving their social entrepreneurial competencies? What do students perceive as the significant limitations of the XYZ -SEA program in helping them achieve their social entrepreneurial goals? How did the students translate their social entrepreneurship knowledge and skills from the XYZ -SEA program into their professional domains? In order to answer these questions, this case study analyzed interview data from 18 alums of the XYZ-SEA program who graduated between 2013 and 2022. Data for this study included in-depth interviews and program curriculum. Findings revealed that students gained personal growth from the social entrepreneurship program in terms of skills improvement and knowledge expansion. Additionally, students identified that the curriculum design, the program culture, and the student body are all interplaying factors that impact students’ learning process. It is important for social entrepreneurship researchers and education practitioners to create a unified social entrepreneurial competency model in order to better evaluate student learning outcomes and skill improvement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An innovation study: designing a social entrepreneurship coaching model for entrepreneurs

PDF

From the African continent to Colombia: a Case study of African Leadership Academy and developing a new generation of purpose driven Afro-Colombian agents of change

PDF

Defining and designing a new grammar of school with design thinking: a promising practice study

PDF

Increasing faculty engagement in entrepreneurial behavior to advance regional economic development: an innovation study

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

The benefits of early intervention to improve speech clarity, voice quality, safe swallow, and quality of life in head and neck cancer patients

PDF

Examining the influence of project-based learning programs on the academic and non-academic development of Chinese students applying for admission to colleges in the United States

PDF

Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

PDF

On the quest for global competencies

PDF

Examining the role of virtual reality in environmental education

PDF

Closing the gender divide: how social status, connections, media, and culture relate to public attitudes towards female social entrepreneurs

PDF

The underrepresentation of Latinx in entrepreneurship and the identification of social, societal, and institutional barriers to close the gap

PDF

Increasing entrepreneurial engagement and persistence through education and training in a virtual organization with global operations: an innovation study

PDF

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

PDF

Integrating education for social justice and social innovation: a gap analysis of a high school program innovation to increase justice-oriented action

PDF

The role of the chief diversity officer in virtual exchange

PDF

Lived experiences of African American expatriate teachers abroad and back: a teacher's experience that brings effect to the community

PDF

A promising practice case study from Singapore of socio-emotional development in a non-traditional context

PDF

Supporting online English language teachers’ ability to implement advanced technical teaching proficiency: a gap analysis case study

PDF

Critical thinking, global mindedness, and curriculum in a Saudi Arabian secondary school

Asset Metadata

Creator Qiu, Mengya Daisy (author)

Core Title Fostering a social entrepreneurial mindset through non-degree-granting programs: a case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 08/30/2023

Defense Date 08/29/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag higher education.,OAI-PMH Harvest,program evaluation and design,Social Entrepreneurship,social entrepreneurship education

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth H. (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony B. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email daisyqiu1@gmail.com,mengyaqi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113302432

Unique identifier UC113302432

Identifier etd-QiuMengyaD-12291.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-QiuMengyaD-12291

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Qiu, Mengya Daisy

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230830-usctheses-batch-1088 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu