Case Study On Opportunity Formation In Social Entrepreneurship

Abstract

The rationale of this study is to investigate the notion of opportunity along with the role it plays in the processes of social entrepreneurship. This study presents single-case study of Denmark’s sustainable community. The data is been collected through documents, interviews as well as from the television programs. The case study uncovers that opportunity captures number of diverse forms in process. These diverse forms are results from incessant mobilization of the actors. Based on these findings, social entrepreneurship processes’ model has been projected, where mobilization along with transformation drives the process. The findings propose that social entrepreneur actively generates external circumstances instead of responding to opportunities that are already at hand. This entails spotlight on unusual skills and the way of thinking.

Introduction

The researchers have been more and more recognizing the donation of social entrepreneurs, along with academic awareness in this trend of social entrepreneurship has been increasing. But the field of social entrepreneurship still has to set up a logical and commonly acknowledged theoretical framework intended for understanding the process of social entrepreneurship (Mair and Marti, 2006). The idea of opportunity been organized in order to understand the processes of social entrepreneurship by huge number of scholars of this field (Austin etal., 2006; Borch etal.,2008; Dorado, 2006; Haugh, 2005; Hockerts, 2006; Mair and Marti, 2006; Monllor and Attaran, 2008; Roberts and Woods, 2005; Shaw and Carter, 2007; Thompson et al., 2000). Though, these texts offer only a superficial indication on notion of opportunity, and our consideration on the role in social entrepreneurship processes has been inadequate. In fields of both the entrepreneurship, from where concept of opportunity was introduced, along with the social entrepreneurship, it is a contested notion (Alvarez and Barney, 2007). There is a disagreement among the scholars about what exactly the opportunity is? (McMullen et al., 2007), are they discovered or been created? (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Berglund, 2007; Gartner etal., 2003; Short etal., 2010), along with what role opportunity plays in the entrepreneurial processes (Sarasvathy, 2001). The rationale of this study is hence to inspect the questions relating to opportunities along with entrepreneurial process: What social entrepreneurial opportunity is? And What role of opportunities plays in process of social entrepreneurship?
The investigation of the above questions will be going to add to insights of the processes of social entrepreneurship. These questions are going to be examined by a Friland case study.

Discussion

Within preceding decade the concept of entrepreneurship has been practical to change in number of further settings i.e. social change (Alvord et al., 2004), development of community (Johannisson, 1990) and development of sustainable practices of the environment (Mair et al., 2005). Social entrepreneurship is been recommended as the most capable and gradually more significant activity, since community funding for numerous social areas is dilapidated and market function are being taken over increasingly by the social tasks. Prominent successes in provisions of addressing the social tribulations in novel and in innovative ways, like in Bangladesh, Grameen Bank (Sarasvathy, 2008; Yunus and Jolis, 1998) have heaved the acquaintance of impending and extreme need for the social entrepreneurship.
Whereas there is large concurrence among the scholars of social entrepreneurship that this field is been apprehensive with the social change or social value creation (Austin etal., 2006; Mair and Marti, 2006), an explicit definition of this phenomena and amalgamated theoretical framework have still not been developed. Shaw and Carter (2007) point out in their review of literature on social entrepreneurship, 3 major issues: extent of phenomenon, social entrepreneurship description and defining who the social entrepreneurs are. Researchers wanted to find out extent of this phenomenon. Shaw and Carter (2007) state that work and efforts in order to find out extent of social entrepreneurship, are been aggravated by the miscellany of phenomenon and a deficit of a commonly approved definition. In view of the explanation of the social entrepreneurship, three fundamental perspectives have been identified by Mair and Marti (2006): not for the profit schemes aiming for creating social value (Austin et al., 2006); practices of present business enterprises that are socially responsible (Hockerts, 2006); and a medium for the social transformation along with providing solutions to rising social problems (Alvord et al., 2004).
In an effort of understanding and conceptualizing the process of social entrepreneurship, scholars have a lot curved to entrepreneurship/business field intended for the theoretical resources (Dorado, 2006; Parkinson and Howorth, 2008). Among admired concepts that is imported, is concept of the entrepreneurial opportunity. Most of the studies have openly or implicitly have used purported “discovery view of opportunities” (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000), and it is not surprising that, this is the dominant view in field of entrepreneurship/business (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Short et al., 2010). Roberts and Woods (2005) have argued that the opportunities of social entrepreneurship are created rather than been discovered.
“Disequilibrium theory of market” is been proposed by Kirzner who claims that the opportunities come up from the inadequate information as well as from the market actor’s suboptimal decisions. The “discovery view of opportunities” proposes the opportunities to be objective occurrence, whereas discovery of these is considered to be subjective process (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). This approach highlights cognitive along with the empirical features of an individual entrepreneur (Shane, 2000), who’s intellectual arrangements affects its aptitude to find out a certain opportunity. The process of entrepreneurship begins with discovery of an opportunity and then carries on with assessment of productivity of that opportunity and utilization by resource acquirement and organization (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). The information that is enclosed in opportunity gives a direction to process by recommending for the most conductive resources to assemble along with superlative way to systematize around opportunity.
Despite extensive conformity in the field of entrepreneurship that nexus perspective is a productive approach (Blenker and Thrane, 2007; Sarasvathy, 2008), the precise understanding of the relation that exist between an individual and the opportunity included in discovery view, rigorously criticized in field of entrepreneurship. Thus, the concept of opportunity is contested greatly and its role in the entrepreneurial process is vague. Without sufficient understanding of the concept of opportunities along with their role, a social entrepreneurship theory will not be going to report for external situations in which activity of entrepreneurship unfolds (Gartner et al., 2003). This study tries to meet up this problem by a comprehensive case study of a multifaceted process of social entrepreneurship.
For purpose of constructing a theory, case study method considered to be most suitable (Eisenhardt, 1989). In accordance to numerous definitions, Friland can be labeled as social entrepreneurship business enterprise. The Friland venture do not have motive of profit making, rather it clearly seeks to generate social value in variety of unusual forms of livelihood that includes environmentally as well as cost-effectively sustainable practices. In addition, it also presents 2 different advantages i.e. First advantage is that the project is multifaceted entrepreneurial event including the social dynamic elements, rural development, individual development, environmental as well as economic sustainability, opinionated procedures along with the media involvement. It hence includes numerous elements which expected to be found athwart nearly all social entrepreneurship schemes.
Second advantage it presents is that accessibility of the data and to get admittance to the people was suitable. As Denmark broadcasting agency at national level, Danmarks Radio, was concerned from the very beginning, this project was been renowned in series of TV programs along with the newspaper articles which were incorporated in the study. In addition, Friland people that were around have been extremely cooperative in giving up the interviews and telling the stories. Firstly the newspaper articles had been read in order to get a few background information prior contacting to Friland. After preliminary contact with the head of cooperative board of the venture Steen Moller & Tove, acquiescence was taken in order to gather data and also to contact the residents for the interviews in Friland. Two informants moreover recommended some particular people that were outside the Friland who must be interviewed. From the period of October 2007 to June 2008, people land was interviewed. Due to diverse viewpoints of the interviewees along with the use of TV programs, documents, newspaper articles, data triangulation became possible.
On track, opportunity is been transformed from personal problem solving; to income source; to community-level quintessence of thought of financial as well as environmental sustainability, that once more takes 2 different appearance of “Frizoner” and the Friland. An additional investigation of crucial proceedings as involving transformation along with the participation of actors points out that above described 2 elements been connected. The participation of actor or actors leads to transformation of opportunity to vigorous the benefits of actor(s) that are involved (Piihl, 2005). Hence from this it is feasible to propose that the social entrepreneurship is a course of mobilization as well as transformation. Some of the scholars have been conceptualized the preceding process by using the concept of translation (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1986,1987, 2005).
Translation is defined as process through which social and natural worlds increasingly take form (Callon, 1986, p. 224). The word translation is considered to be having two meanings given by Latour (1987): Firstly conventional meaning signifies translation i.e. sentence in a different language, like a new version or understanding of a sentence is been offered. Secondly translation means guiding an opportunity in further directions. The point is, new understandings or descriptions of an object in query send the individuals off in certain other directions; thus translation do makes difference. In Friland, the scheme is repeatedly re-interpreted by different actors when they get involved.
Gartner et al. (2003) argues that opportunity indicates external conditions of entrepreneurial activities. The thing that is considered to be crucial in terms of exterior circumstances is that diverse formations of the actors, along with their interests as well as resources, formulate, what ultimately becomes the Friland, comes out in diverse ways. An opportunity is consequently a condition which mobilizes the actors and the resources in order to formulate actors, objects, ends and resources comes out in a precise way. For understanding entrepreneurial process, it is hence significant not just that final demonstration signifies realization of the opportunity, which was there at start of process taken for granted. But it is also essential to track transformations that opportunity experiences during the process. This will be going to give well again insight into complex dynamics and numerous actors which are drawn in process.

Recommendations

The transfer of focus from considering social entrepreneur that discovers, assesses and uses, to that who vigorously mobilizes to transform external circumstances involves a move in frame of mind or judgment of entrepreneur. Subsequent Sarasvathy’s (2001, 2008) difference between causation and the effectuation logics, it can be argued that discovery view suggests causal approach while model developed at this point proposes further effectuation-oriented approach. The idea that opportunity (goal) modifies with formation, reverberate quite well to the effectuation logic, which recommends that entrepreneur must let opportunity be unwavering by existing resources.
For working social entrepreneurs, idea of the opportunity creation stresses on an additional skills and the way of thinking. Analytical skills of discovery viewpoint should be substituted with skills and state of minds that intend towards creativity (Monllor and Attaran, 2008), thoughts, bricolage (Baker et al., 2003) and group effort. Collaboration/ Association are not merely a subject of mobilizing the resources, but are of mobilizing the actors to essentially be part of venture. This involves a further unwrap approach to goals and aims of venture. Mobilization entails an eagerness to let others to construct their interests that impact on direction of venture.