Framing Problems

Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship
Author(s): Chantal Hervieux and Annika Voltan

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 151, No. 2 (August 2018), pp. 279-293
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45022668
Accessed: 12-09-2022 02:04 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics
This content downloaded from 3.6.173.36 on Mon, 12 Sep 2022 02:04:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2018) 151:279-293
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-016-3252-l
Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship

Chantal Hervieux1 • Annika Voltan1
Received: 17 September 2015 /Accepted: 24 June 2016/Published online: 7 July 2016

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract Social entrepreneurship (SE) is perceived as a Social entrepreneurship (SE) is fundamentally about find-
legitimate and innovative solution to social problems. Yet, ing novel solutions to complex social problems (Dey and
when one looks at the literature one finds that the social Steyaert 2012). This purpose connects SE to the study of
problems that the SE movement seeks to address and howsocial problems and social movements; yet, a link between
these problems are identified and defined are not studied.these disciplines is not readily apparent in the literature.
While the relevance for SE of social movement tactics such
This lack of attention to the defining of social problems in
as framing has been mentioned (Mair and Marti 2006),
SE has implications for the domain for problems do not
"unfortunately, both social movement and SE literatures
exist unless they are recognized and defined, and those that
define problems have influence on how these will eventu-appear to have developed quite independently of each
ally be addressed. Our paper presents an analysis of
other" (Broek et al. 2012, p. 215). A distinction between
framing activities in SE done by the actors involved in thethe two streams of research is that "SE focuses more on
development and promotion of the SE movement. Ourrecognizing and evaluating opportunities that are worth
analysis reveals that these actors are concerned with cre-exploiting, whereas social movement literature mostly
ating an ecosystem to support social entrepreneurs. Critical
starts with the premise that there is a social cause to fight
for" (Broek et al. 2012, p. 216). Social causes and the
analysis of discourses of these actors reveals a powerful
mobilization discourse, one that supports social entrepre- framing processes surrounding their fight for recognition
neurs as the agents of change. We also find that as the SEare political power arenas that produce defining activities
movement emerged at the beginning of a cycle of protest for social problems, and therefore merit further examina-
against capitalist systems, their framing of SE as systemtion in the SE field.
changing of these very systems therefore finds strong res- We argue in this paper that a connection between SE
onance with a wide variety of actors. research, social problems theory, and social movement
theory - in particular, the use of framing processes - could
Keywords Social entrepreneurship • Social problems • help account for how SE is positioned and promoted at a
Social movement theory • Framing processes • Critical macro-level. We examine SE as a social movement in and
discourse analysis of itself that has been touted as a legitimate solution for any
range of complex social problems (Nicholls 2010). While
multiple definitions for social movements exist, they typi-
cally refer to collective action aiming to invoke or resist
some form of social change. Diani (1992) argues that social
E3 Chantal Hervieux
movements share the following characteristics: a network
Chantal. hervieux @ smu.ca
of informal interactions, engagement in some form of
Annika Voltan
political or cultural conflict, and a shared collective iden-
annikavoltan @ gmail .com
tity. Social movements are distinct from political parties or
1 Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary's University, advocacy groups, although activism plays an important role
923 Robie St., Halifax, NS B3H3C3, Canada in mobilizing efforts. As a movement, SE challenges the
4?) Springer
280 C. Hervieux, A. Voltan
notion of enterprise as organizations,

funding for not-for-profit a purely Kerlin and Pollack pro
and aims to fill a that
(2011) note gap
"scholars have in providin
largely lacked the data to
problems that are unaddressed
substantiate by
claims that government cuts directly resulted go
or other in increased non-profit commercialization" (p. 687).
institutions. SE organizatio
issues they purport to for
Alternative explanations address,
the increase in SE include "a but
network of passive acceptance of the broader
supporting environment and a
institutions
behalf, and work response to to legitimize
outside pressures" (Dey and Steyaert 2012, and
society. p. 95). The role of power and politics deserves further
SE research to date has tended to focus on definitions of attention in the SE domain, specifically in how SE is
the concept (Martin and Osberg 2015; Bacq and Janssen positioned as a catchall solution to a wide range of complex
2011), rhetoric on what constitutes legitimate forms of SEsocial problems.
(Dey and Steyaert 2012), and dominant SE discourses In this article, we connect social problems theory
(Nicholls 2010; Parkinson and Howorth 2008). However, a (Schneider 1985) and framing processes in social move-
gap exists pertaining to analysis of how framing and ment theory (Snow and Benford 1988) to discourses in key
legitimizing processes are used by supporting organizationsorganizations supporting the SE movement. We apply a
and their networks to generate support for the SE move-critical lens to our analysis of online texts from these
ment. In other words, how do proponents frame processes organizations, and explore how framing processes and
to influence the salience and actions of the movement? activities impact the recognition and valuation of SE as a
And, why and how is SE being promoted as a catch-all 'valid' solution to social problems, and how they are used
solution to social problems? to generate support for the movement. In the subsequent
Previous work in SE discourse is important for
sections we begin by exploring relevant literature pertain-
ing to social problems theory and social movement the-
understanding the language used to frame the SE move-
ment (Nicholls 2010; Parkinson and Howorth 2008; ory - in particular, framing processes in this domain. We
Mason 2012). As noted by Parkinson and Howorth illustrate the relevance of each of these theoretical areas for
(2008), "within the rhetoric of SE, the language of busi- SE and, in doing so, we expose the need for a more
ness and entrepreneurship is held up as being the way focussed perspective on framing processes in the SE field.
forward for social enterprises" (p. 285). Nicholls (2010) We then present our research approach and analysis, which
identifies two discourse clusters in SE narrative logic: offers an analysis of core framing tasks by dominant actors
those that highlight the "hero" and business-like elements in SE. We end with a discussion of other factors affecting
of the entrepreneur as central, and those that emphasize the mobilization of the SE movement, the implications of
community and networks. Critical approaches to the study our results for the field, and potential avenues for future
of SE discourse underline the power dynamics that con- research.
tribute to the emergence of dominant language (and,

therefore, the types of ventures and claims that are ulti-
mately supported). Dey and Steyaert (2012) illustrate how Theoretical Approach
the SE language has been used in public policy and pol-
itics has led to "tactical mimicry" by organizations to We begin our theoretical discussion with an introduction of
take advantage of resources available to those willing to social problems theory in order to contextualize our argu-
conform to the dominant discourse. In a similar vein, ments. Although this paper focuses less on the claim-
Mason (2012) highlights how public policy has created an making activities central to social problems theory and
"artificial business-like SE identity" (p. 136), but that in more on the framing processes associated with social
reality, disagreements exist between SE ideologies, values movements, the two are intertwined and therefore both
and practices. Most recently, Dey and Lehner (2016) have merit inclusion. Furthermore, despite the importance of
shed light on how ideology - and, specifically, conflation social problems in SE, the "social" aspect remains poorly
of the idea of 'having fun' - has been used to make SE as addressed (Chen 2012). Much effort has been taken in the
"palatable to as many people as possible" (p. 12), and SE literature to define the characteristics and distinguishing
encourage further work exploring how the field can beelements of the entrepreneurs and enterprises (Bacq and
rearticulated. Janssen 201 1), but less work is dedicated to uncovering the
Without greater understanding and acknowledgment of meaning of the social element. Instead, authors tend to
the framing processes that exist in SE, there is a risk that simply state that an initiative aims to create social value
resources may be allocated based on those that fit the and/or that it prioritizes a social mission. Without further
desired mould rather than on their potential for social elaboration, such descriptors provide insufficient detail for
impact. Although some view SE as a response to reduced understanding the claim-making process inherent to the
£) Springer
Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship 281
Social Movementprocesses
problem identified, and the framing Theory that con-
tribute to its salience.
Social movement theory is a parallel area of research to

Social Problems Theory social problems and is included in the category of collec-
tive action theories. Different viewpoints on social move-
Social problems theory is an area of research that addresses ments have evolved over time [see (Edelman 2001) for an
the sociology of social problems - that is, how they come overview of historical paradigms in social movement the-
to be defined, and what establishes (or excludes) them as ory]. For example, the New Social Movements approach
such. Perhaps most importantly, social problems are (Toiiraine 1988; Melucci 1989) focuses on collective
understood to be socially constructed and based on con-actions and responses to claim-making, while resource
ditions and conduct deemed troublesome by individuals mobilization theorists emphasize the importance of access
and groups (Schneider 1985). -This distinction was high-tò resources, effective organization, and the role of power
lighted by Blumer (1971), who rejected the notion that to explain why some social movements are more successful
social problems are "objective conditions" and recognized than others. Similar to the social problems approach, issues
them instead as the result of a process of collective defi- are seen as socially constructed and as requiring
nition. In other words, social problems can be understood acknowledgment in order to exist; for, "while social con-
as actors' interpretations of a need to improve a social ditions unfavourable to some groups might exist, (hese do
situation, regardless of whether the group affected agrees not pose a social problem before they have been defined as
with this perception. As a result, actors involved in theproblematic and needing solutions" (Michailakis and
problem definition process play a crucial role in problem Schirmer 2014, p. 433). Social movements consist of
identification, legitimization of problems, and which solu- groups of claims-makers who share a common set of
tions are deemed acceptable. beliefs and values pertaining to their identified cause.
Claim-making is central to a social problems orientation Social movement theory focuses on activists' actions in
in research and concerns the demands made by one actor to defining and bringing attention to a cause they perceive as
another regarding some unacceptable condition and the "a deviation from a desirable condition (how society ought
need to act on it (Spector and Kitsuse 1977; McCright and to be)" (Michailakis and Schirmer 2014, p. 431). The
Dunlap 2000). Spector and Kitsuse (1973) propose a modelclaim-making activities and call to mobilization inherent to
for the evolution and sustainability of social problems that social movements suggests an important role for activism
emphasizes claim-making processes and responses, and (and, therefore, activists) which, in the case of SE, relates
highlights the importance of the claim-making group'sprimarily to supporting organizations who advocate on
relative power in terms of its ability to have its issue rec-behalf of the collective contribution of social
ognized and validated by official institutions. Despite the entrepreneurs.
fact that claim-making activity is well covered in social Debates exist about whether social movement theor
problems theory (McCright and Dunlap 2000), it remains and social problems theory are sufficiently distinct to
generally absent from SE literature. Given the importance pursued separately. One perspective that supports th
of social problem identification, definition and solutions in coexistence is that "social movements are an example
SE, we contend that SE research needs to pay closer the social problems process" (Schneider 1985, p. 226)
attention to lhe claim-making process, the contexts in that the research topics and data vary across the t
which claims are made, and those who are making them. domains. For example, while social problems theory
At the same time, it is important to note that claim- emphasizes how meaning is constructed, social movemen
making represents one discursive activity surroundingtheory tends to focus more on macro-level structural c
social problems. Claims can be limited to ahistorical, ditions, organizational characteristics and outcomes.
narrow conceptions of what the problem is, and be the
"specific products of social problems definers" (McCright Social Entrepreneurship as a Social Movement
and Dunlap 2000, p. 502). In the proceeding section, we
elaborate on social movements, and specifically the process As noted, a range of definitions exist for what constitut
of framing (McCright and Dunlap 2000; Benford and Snow social movements. In general, they speak to collect
2000; Snow et al. 1986), which can be used to complement efforts to affect change - either from the status quo or
analyses of claim-making activity. Framing allows for response to recent reform - and seek support for the ide
consideration of the role of power, and "for a more and beliefs they represent via mobilization efforts. Oth
insightful analysis of phenomena external to this original researchers have touched on the perception of socia
social movement or group of claims-makers" (McCright entrepreneurial work as a social movement. In their wo
and Dunlap 2000, p. 503). examining the common practices of successful NFP
£) Springer
Grant and Crutchfield (2008)

important distinction between framing and other cognitive f
nizations concepts such
"work as "schema" is that
with it is the "outcome
and thro of
individuals tonegotiating
create shared meaning" (Gamson 1992, p. Ill
more imp as
alone. build They social
cited in Benford and Snow mov
2000, p. 614), and therefore an
Arthur et al. interactive
(2010) process. Muchnote
as in the case of the
the social r
extent to problems approach,
which social actors challenge enterpr
each other over the
tive organizational
meaning of the objectand symboli
they seek to define (Hargrave and
seek to Van de Ven 2006)
establish and seek legitimacy for their specific
alternative sp
contention. In this
claims. sense
We therefore argue social
that the study of claim-making
social movements"
and framing discourses by SE(p. 213).
actors can offer insight into
In their definition
the problems that matter of
specifically SE,
to the domain,Mar
where
identify points of
three dispute exist, and how some discourses are th
components
how SE represents
privileged over others.a social mov
stable but unjust equilibrium f
tion that Framing Processes in shifting
requires Social Entrepreneurship bu
resources to do so; (2) identific
shift the Increased understanding of framing
equilibrium and processes in a
SE would
val
"bringing toallow
bear
researchers to identify
inspiration
the underlying structures
courage, and behind
fortitude" (Mar
the organizational forms and approaches promoted in
(3) the field, of
achievement and the cultures
a and contextual factorsequilib
new within which
the targeted SE discourses are embedded.
group and According to Dey and Steyaert
society
highlights the
(2012), "SE
social
research has mainly problem
turned a blind eye to the
process - i.e. that
political effects it unfair condit
creates and of which it is itself a part" (p.
populations. 93),The second
thus making the need pos
for critical assessment of problem
affecting change in
definition in SE evident. these
In addition, area
dominant conceptions
lization of SE that "harbourare
activities a kind of end-orientation
used and conser- to ge
by practitioners and
vatism" can activists.
result in sacrificing radical alternatives in favour Th
SE in bringing
of those that
to are an bear
"economically viablesolution
[...] blueprint for
dealing with societal problems" (Dey and Steyaert 2012,
Framing Processes in rationale
p. 91). This risk provides important Socialfor increased M
attention to the framing processes and activities in SE.
The framing Again,
perspective
we argue that SE analysis is ripe for the oppor-em
scholarship totunity to combine insights from
bring both social problems and
attention
producers and carriers
social movement of
theories in order to go beyond seeking an m
2000). Collective action
understanding of the social problem, to include fram
the role of
oriented sets of
organizational beliefs
structures, alliances and resources inand
privi-
legitimate leging
the some causes over others. If we accept
activities and that SE ca
organization" organizations
(Benford seek to solve social problems andand bring S
Goffman's (1974)
lasting solutions to prevailing
work issues, better on
understanding
fra
important is needed about
first the problem definition and identification
method for st
situations develop
process to understand their based
differentiating factors,onobjec- in
frames to tives, and how
help issues are selected and prioritized over
understand a
actions. Snowothers.et Recental.research by (1986)
Dey and Teasdale (2016)borr
sup-
the term "frame"
ports this approach byand define
exposing how social enterprises play i
tation" that "tactical games" to gain individuals
enable access to important resources such
and label" occurrences within
as publicly supporting targeted government policies even t
at large' (p. 464).
when they perceiveTheymoney from government elaborat
to be "dirty"
processes (bridging,
and "morally repugnant". amplificati
mation) used Asby a result of the social
theoretical framework and identified
movem
increase collective
gap in the SE literature,support
our analysis turns to exploring howfor
associated claims. actors frame the cause for the SE movement, position SE as
Framing is a political activity, where dominant frames
a solution, and mobilize action. In the subsequent sections,
are rarely consensual (Hargrave and Van de Ven 2006). we
An present our research approach, analysis and findings.
Ô Springer
Method and Analysis claims develop (Scheuer and Mills 20

relevance to CDA is the role of power
Methodology develop and evolve. Given our inter
dynamics associated with framing p
Discourse analysis "considers how language,
apply a criticalboth spoken
lens to our analysis of on
and written, enacts social and identified SE organizations
cultural perspectives and and their fo
identities" (Gee 2011, p. 1) and provides a "methodolog-
ical framework for exploringData Sources
the social production of
organizational and inter-organizational phenomena"
Our dataactivities
(Phillips et al. 2008, p. 770). Framing include text published
are foundonline by three key
in discourses and narratives. As supporting
a result, organizations
written in the SE domain: Ashoka
discourse
and texts are fundamental to the(2016), the Skoll Foundation
understanding (Skoll 2016), and the Sch-
of framing
processes, and the production wab of Foundation
written forlanguage
Social Entrepreneurship
is "a (Schwab
Foundation 2016).
fundamental part of the construction of They were selected due to the fact that
organizational
reality" (Phillips et al. 2008, p.each
771).
has evolved to become a large, formal organization,
Gee (2011) identifies two types and has
ofa vision and mission
discourse to support social entrepre-
analysis:
descriptive and critical. Thoseneurs in achieving social
employing impact (see Table 1). They are
a descriptive
perhaps the most
approach aim to describe how language workswidelyto
known in the field and have been
increase
recognizedon
understanding. The critical approach, as influential
the other in contributing
hand, to SE discourse
(Nicholls 2010).
seeks to both explore how language Furthermore,
works, Dey and
as well asLehner (2016)
note that
"speak to and, perhaps, intervene these
in, "promotion
social or agencies"
political are "highly effec-
issues, problems, and controversies in the
tive in shaping world"
the meaning of SE,(p.
and, 9).
importantly, in
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an
mediating interdisciplinary
the experience of nascent and early-stage social
and multi-methodical approach toentrepreneurs"
studying (p. 4).
complex social
phenomena via 'naturally occurring'Organization
verbal leveland
data were collected in 2015 from the
non-verbal
language (Wodak and Meyerwebsites 2009). CDA
of the viewsSEdis-
above-mentioned support organizations.
course - i.e. written and spokenInlanguage
addition, individual
- as level data for the founders of these
something
organizations were
that is both the result of social situations, collected online toand
relationships capture their dis-
knowledge, and as somethingcourses.
thatThese data consist of 23
contributes topublished
the documents,
mainly
maintaining or transforming the from media
status quo. and business-oriented
Rather than publications
(such as Leproponents
aiming to uncover existing truths, Monde, Le temps, Huffington
of CDA Post, and the
Stanford to
analyse discursive tendencies in order Social Innovationhow
disclose Review).
truth
Table 1 SE organizations analysed
Organization name Mission Founded Geographic

scope
Ashoka http://www.ashoka.org To support social entrepreneurs who are leading and 1980 by Bill Drayton Global
collaborating with changemakers, in a team of teams
model that addresses the fluidity of a rapidly evolving
society. Ashoka believes that anyone can learn and apply
the critical skills of empathy, team work, leadership and
changemaking to be successful in the modern world
The Skoll Foundation http://skoll. The Skoll Foundation drives large-scale change by investing 1999 by Jeff Skoll Global
org/ in, connecting, and celebrating social entrepreneurs and
innovators who help them solve the world's most pressing
problems
The Schwab Foundation for Social The Schwab Foundation provides unparalleled platforms at 1998, under the legal Global
Entrepreneurship http://www. the regional and global level to highlight and advance supervision of the Swiss
schwabfound.org/ leading models of sustainable social innovation. It Federal Government
identifies a select community of social entrepreneurs and
engages it in shaping global, regional and industry agendas
that improve the state of the world in close collaboration
with the other stakeholders of the World Economic Forum
£) Springer
Coding Process
Diagnostic framing consists of finding the cause of the
problematic situation and/or attributing blame or causality.
Although the intent
While problem and
identification may easily attain consensus, epi
erally well defined
the attribution of blame is typicallyand more contested.und
methodological
Prognostic framingapproach
focuses on the articulation of proposed ap
researchers to
solutionsadopt
to the problem, as well asthe
the identificationmost
of
the purposes of
strategies, their
tactics and targets - i.e. how the solutionstudy
should
Following be implemented.
this logic, While not necessary,
we a connection
condu
selected texts in
between diagnosticthree stages.
and prognostic frames typically exists.
Atlas ti software to
Motivational framing code
pertains to mobilizing efforts overa
and
how social problems are
provides elaboration of a "call to arms bein
or rationale for
phase, we action " (Snow and Benford
analysed 1988, p. 202) and
the offers the
quotati
to more closely examine
appropriate vocabularies for engaging in a social move- the
tributing tothe
ment positioning
and moves beyond the identification of problems and o
the third solutions to actions.
phase, we Accordinganalysed
to Benford and Snow, t
tioning in order
"diagnostic framesto identify
alone, no matter how richly developed, p
tions and do little to affect action mobilization"
privileging of and, "the more
certa
and highly integrated the diagnostic,
entrepreneurial traits.prognostic and action
In the first phase
frames, ofof becoming
the higher the probability coding,
active in
used to separate data
any particular cause" (2000, p. 203). Theseinto
core framing th
identified bytasksBenford
allow social movements to address both consensus
and Sno
Benford and action mobilization
1988): diagnostic, needs (Benford and Snow 2000). p
framing Consensusare
(these mobilization further
is "a process through which a ex
lining our research approac
social movement tries to obtain support for its viewpoints"
process was and action mobilization is "the process
complete we by whichrev an
tions to ensure their
organization in a social movementfit with
calls up people to par-
gories. Each ticipate"
group of
(Klandermans 1984, p. 586). fram
second time to identify high-
purpose here was to capture t
of the threeResults
framing activi
elements and discursive tendencies. Efforts were made to
capture the problem(s) and cause(s) in the diagnostic Diagnostic Framing in SE
frames; the proposed solutions, strategies and tactics in
the prognostic frames; and whether an indication of con- The SE movement embodies multiple, yet related elements
sensus mobilization and/or action mobilization existed in in terms of how problems are identified and blame is
the motivational frames. attributed. The first diagnostic frame that emerged in the
analysis is connected to the need for realignment and
change of the capitalist model. The capitalist model is said
Research Approach to be failing because the organizational models it promotes
are not suited to today's rapidly changing complex sys-
Our analysis and discussion are guided by the model tems. The second diagnostic frame relates to inadequate
developed by Snow and Benford (1988) for assessing the funding models for social organizations.
mobilizing potential of a social movement's framing
efforts and activities. It includes four sets of factors: core Need for Change
framing tasks, infrastructural constraints of belief systems,
phenomenological constraints, and cycles of protest. Our The first diagnostic frame (simplified here as the "need for
analysis and results are presented according to the first setchange " perspective) is clearest in the discourse of Ashoka
of factors, which speaks to the robustness, completeness and its founder, Bill Drayton. However, as we will see in
and thoroughness of the framing effort, and defines threethe proceeding section, this notion of a need for change re-
core framing tasks: diagnostic, prognostic and motiva-emerges as a proposed solution that is promoted by each of
tional framing. Our following discussion section is based the actors studied. Aligning with the diagnostic proposed
on the three other elements of Snow and Benford' s (1988) by Ashoka, organizations still dominating the capitalist
model. model represent a past era, one where the dominant logic
£) Springer
Prognostic
for competitive advantage rested on theFraming in SE
ability to achieve
efficiencies (Prahalad 2004). According to Bill Drayton,
While diagnostic
"Although this organizational model still frames are based on the identification
dominates, it is of
problems
failing. The half-life of a Fortune 500and company
their causes, prognostic
getsframing speaks to
shorter
and shorter - that is, the death proposed
rate solutions and tactics
of these for addressing
slow-to those prob-
change
giants is accelerating" (2013, p.lems.
2). At a high capitalist
This level, consensus exists amongst the SE
system,
where a few giant organizations dominate,
support organizations pertaining and where
to an acknowledged need
"specialized repetition" was afor source
systems levelof efficiency
change, and
and the important role of indi-
success, is now criticized for its slowness.
vidual social entrepreneurs in affecting that change. As
This diagnostic frame emphasizes that
noted, not all actors frame as
theirsystems
diagnostic according to the
need to
change more rapidly, so too does thechallenge
need existing
for capitalist
actors systems,
cap-but each
able of embracing this change. The
includes organizations
the need sup-
for change in their proposed solutions.
porting SE and practitioners themselves
These solutions pertain to predict that
connecting actors for system
change, that
"within 10 years, any organization while keeping the social
is not an entrepreneur
actor for central to
change will be lost" (Le Monde 2014).
achieving this goal.This
The need is because
for an ecosystem approach
while there has always been change,
for affecting"the paceasof
change emerges change
the first prognostic is
frame,
and the main strategy
accelerating in an increasingly complex and favoured by SE support organiza-
interconnected
world" (Ashoka website). "To be
tions. sure,
Within the
it, more specificworld has robust
tactics for building
ecosystems areis
always been in flux. But the increase promoted,
now which includeexpo-
truly education and the
nential. As Drayton explains,need
"change
for favourable begets change
, supportive environments. Theas
second
much as repetition reinforces prognostic
repetition".
frame is connected
In factto the diagnostic
flux is frame of
inadequate fundingworld"
"the one constant" in our ever-changing models, and (Malinsky
speaks to the role of
2012). funding sources and types for supporting the SE
movement.
Inadequate Funding Models

Ecosystems
The second diagnostic frame identified is tied to funding
models for social enterprises. In this discourse, declining The first theme in prognostic framing, use of the notion of
donations and financing systems that rely heavily on grants ecosystems , stands out in our analysis, as exhibited by the
are noted as unreliable and insufficient for providing the following quotations:
resources needed for growth. This perspective is particu-
Our strategic initiatives focus on setting in motion the
larly supported by Schwab, and is articulated in the state-
people, resources and ecosystems that will bring
ment: "Although the need for social and economic
about a social revolution where everyone contributes
transformation is greater than ever before, funding for SE
to change for the good of all (Ashoka website).
projects and companies has decreased" (Brutsch 2016).
There are moments when the dynamics of an
Jeff Skoll, founder of the Skoll Foundation, also supports
ecosystem shift-an inflection point-when changes in
this view and argues that a new funding model is needed -
the ecosystem present opportunities to act that will
one that is less demanding for social organizations:
have an outsized impact (Skoll website).
What we also realized is that the early social entre- It will be an important decade to build the ecosys-
preneurs we had backed needed a different kind of tem - to use a very popular word - for SE to thrive
foundation, one that was more flexible, had a long- (Kanani 2011).
term horizon, and understood what it's like to be an
In language surrounding the ecosystem frame, social and
entrepreneur. Most foundations give short-term
economic change is the objective, which requires the cre-
funding, demand a lot of plans, and burden the social
ation of a support network and infrastructure favourable to
entrepreneur with details and data (Nee 2012, p. 28).
that goal. Here, social entrepreneurs are promoted as
Diagnostic framing in the SE movement highlights the change leaders equipped to solve the world's
interconnectedness and rapidly changing nature of complex intractable social problems. References to ecosystems
systems, and the inability of traditional, dominant organi- speak to connecting and bringing together actors from
zational models favoured by the capitalist system to keep multiple areas, and educating new and potential entrepre-
up. Furthermore, SE support organizations propose that neurs to be social innovators or "changemakers". Thus, the
outdated funding models are failing, or are bound to fail, in needed systems change highlighted in diagnostic framing
this new and rapidly changing system. efforts is made possible "by investing in, connecting and
£) Springer
celebrating social entrepreneur

Our strategic initiatives focus on setting in motion the
help them solve
people, resources the world's
and ecosystems that will bring
(Skoll website).
about a social revolution where everyone contributes
Two dominant tactics
to change for the are
good of all. Working in partnership id
lighted in the actors'
with private, discou
philanthropic and citizen sector players
change. The first is
we are achieving large-scale the
social innovationneed
that is f
the development of
grounded in decades the
of entrepreneurial entr
experience
provides (Ashoka website).
them with the ski
social problems.
The ecosystem prognostic frame includes the identifi-
This means cation and recommendation of manymore
equipping tools for social pe
people - withentrepreneurs,
the which skillset
are in turn offered by the SE support
and
so that they organizations.
can Forcontribute
example, online platforms for promoting ide
problems at leadership (Schwab website), access to funds
whatever scaleand networks is n
community, (Ashoka
city, website), and workplace,
the facilitation of connections to f
(Ashoka website).
others to increase the potential for change (Skoll website)
are provided to social entrepreneurs. Emphasis on these
For one actor, this type of edu
tools stems from the view that, "in order to succeed and
as when a conscious decision
become sustainable, social entrepreneurs - much like
should learn to read: "Just a
business entrepreneurs - require support structures tailored
took the radical step of sayin
to their needs" (Ashoka website), as well as a recognition
master written language, now
of the importance of "collaboration with other sectors,
person have
social skills the ne
particularly business, whose models of competition and
confident changemaker befo
innovation provide critical lessons for citizen organiza-
p. 3). To this end, connections
tions" (Ashoka website).
versities, and programs have b
that are felt to promote this id
Funding Sources
connected to over 20 colleges a
some "Changemaker Campus
As noted, an important diagnostic frame in the SE move-
innovation education" (Ashok
ment highlights the deficiencies of funding models for
nered with Said Business School "to lauch the first aca-
social organizations, making it unsurprising that innova-
demic center dedicated to SE, the Skoll Centre for SE"
tions in types of funding provided are a priority in terms of
(Skoll website).
solutions advocated for. In particular, SE support organi-
The second identified tactic for cultivating ecosystems is
zations advocate for a move towards investments funds and
the recognition that actions do not take place in isolation
earned income, while keeping some room for funding from
and that a favourable environment must support social
grants. The organizations analysed either directly invest in
entrepreneurs so they can succeed:
social entrepreneurs themselves, offer access to financing
The [Schwab] foundation is based on the idea that services, or connect social entrepreneurs to a network of
individuals are embedded in societal communities in potential investors. For instance, Skoll provides funding
which the common good (including the success of the including grants, and investments (Skoll website), Ashoka
economy) can only be promoted through the inter- has put in place social finance services to provide capital
action of all participants (Brutsch 2016). and financing (Ashoka website), and Schwab favours
connecting social entrepreneurs and being an enabler rather
This idea aligns with Hilde Schwab's view that "social
than investing and funding them. Thus they provide the
entrepreneurs are often the best people to address problems
space and do the selection of the social entrepreneurs they
in society because they understand the issues and chal-
will connect to those who will then provide funds (Schwab
lenges more intimately and can therefore provide key
website).
insights" (Brutsch 2016). The supporting organizations
The concept of impact investing is also promoted, which
analysed propose that resources should be allocated to
speaks to investments "where the investor is aware that
social entrepreneurs that will enable them to make revo-
they are investing in something which has social benefits
lutionary change happen. In other words, the social entre-
and is ready to take a higher portion of risk and settle for
preneur is at the center of change, but partnerships, and the
lower profit" (Chowdry 2015), and social organizations are
involvement of citizens and communities represent the way
to achieve it:
positioned as potential investment opportunities.
â Springer
Earned income is favoured as apowerful

source force constantly
of funding pulling society
dueback to
to the
its
center.
potential to grow organizations. In That
theis whywords
social entrepreneurs
of one are critical
actor:
(and no doubt why the field has grown explosively
We noticed that the for-profit enterprises, or those
over the last three decades). Because the challenge is
with an earned revenue stream, grew, on average,
at the level of systems, it requires entrepreneurs
three times faster than those purely focused on
donations. We therefore search for those models that
(Drayton 2013, p. 3).
Social entrepreneurs are society's change actors,
are able to sustain part or all of their budget through
creators of innovations that disrupt the status quo and
earned income. This income should be directly raised
transform our world for the better. By identifying the
through the core activities of the organization, not a
people and programs already bringing positive
business that is unconnected to the core strategy of
change around the world, we empower them to
the organization and purely set up for funding pur-
extend their reach, deepen their impact and funda-
poses (Kanani 2011).
mentally improve society (Skoll website).
To summarize our findings pertaining to prognostic Social entrepreneurs remain central to our strategy,
framing, social entrepreneurs are positioned as the critical because their vision and innovations are at the core of
element for achieving much-needed social change. As a result our hope for a sustainable world of peace and pros-
of this important role, they require a supportive infrastructure perity (Skoll website).
that provides them access to funding and education. Net-
Other language used to attain consensus about the piv-
works and connections between diverse practitioners repre-
otal role of social entrepreneurs and rationale for support-
sent the means by which systems change will be possible,
ing them refers to their degree of innovativeness,
making support networks that facilitate connections, create
leadership characteristics, and their proven success:
collaborative opportunities, and distribute resources an
important service offering from the organizations analysed. Skoll social entrepreneurs are innovators who have
developed, tested and proven their approach. Our
Motivational Framing in SE goal is to partner with them to replicate or scale their
impact and to help engage those whose resources,
Motivational frames aim to generate consensus for the connections, and capabilities are crucial to advancing
cause at hand, and to mobilize participants in the social their innovations (Skoll website).
movement. In terms of seeking consensus about solutions
for change, we find the positioning of the central role of the
Creating Supportive Environments
social entrepreneur as a dominant frame. In regards to
mobilizing action in the movement, we identify clear
Building on consensus seeking framing, mobilization
invitations to act made to potential participants from the SE
framing is used to identify actions that can be taken by
support organizations. More specifically, these invitations
potential participants to support the movement. Given that
identify ways that participants can direct their resources to
social entrepreneurs have been allocated a central role in
help to create supportive environments for success.
generating solutions for the movement's causes, mobi-
lization frames suggest that others should participate in
Centrality of Social Entrepreneurs
creating a favourable and supportive environment (or
ecosystem) for them. For example, investments in these
The "call to arms" made through motivational framing
"extraordinary leaders" are needed and policy barriers to
places social entrepreneurs as those with the potential to
facilitating investment need to be removed. In terms of the
make change happen, with the capacity to navigate com-
role of governments, it is suggested that:
plex and constantly changing systems. In this context they
are referred to as "creators of innovations" and "change- Government can incentivize private investors to
makers". Furthermore, they are seen as capable of being participate in the social investment market by using
connected to local communities, while maintaining a glo- policy tools that create new channels for private
bal perspective. The following quotations illustrate the investment in social enterprise, introduce subsidies to
powerful language used to position the individual entre- support expanded capital flows or remove regulatory
preneurs as central to the SE movement. barriers that prevent interested investors from par-
ticipating (World Economic Forum 2013).
How does this world, in which all the systems are
changing and bumping one another, stay on a safe, In terms of the role of philanthropists in the SE move-
fair, and beneficial-for-all path? There has to be a ment, Schwab proposes that they and social investors can
Springer
participate by
framing activities
providing
and discourses in the SE movement, as gr
sector illustrated in Fig. 1. Diagnostic
companies are framingalso
highlighted a in
innovative need to realign capitalist
social systems based on rapidly
entreprene
area" (Schwab
changing complex website).
systems, and failing funding models. T
Schwab In prognostic framing, the actors
platforms to proposefeatu
the need for
preneurs andsystem the
level change. An academic
ecosystem approach is proposed s
research andto promote SE through education and an infrastructure
knowledge on
Skoll has similarly target
that provides needed resources for success, particularly
action. They funding. While some focus on funding
engage in via grants
storis
Institute, asretained,
well impact investing
as and earned income are more
throug
media representative
outlets. of the funding modelalso
They promoted by the SE
for
which they social movement.
seek Motivationaltoframing builds
partnon the
opportunitiesdiagnostic and prognostic
identified frames by positioning social a
change, and entrepreneurs
partner as central to the movement's
with success, and "l
Ashoka by providingwebsite).
(Skoll direction to those who would like to join As
ipation and participate.
through their fram
can changemaker" be a
Highly integrated discourses through the three framing (A
identifying activities lead to an increased probability of activity in
opportunities f
in the social movements and success of mobilization
movement by efforts
joini
teering to (Benford and Snow 2000).
work with Yet, framing activity is not the
social
individuals only
and corporatio
element that affects mobilizing potential. Snow and
are invited Benford'
to s (1988) model
nominate consists of three additional ele- t
cessful ments (see Fig. 2) that help
attributes of to better understand the
social e
mobilization power of the discourses promoted through the
framing processes of the SE movement.
Discussion
The SE Movement and Infrastructural Constraints
This paper aims to recognize SE as a social movement in
and of itself, whose key proponents include SE support
Infrastructural constraints pertain to the structure of the
belief system within which the movement seeks to align.
organizations and their networks. As such, we argue the
Two main external constraints can limit the appeal and
importance of examining the claim-making activities and
framing processes of the movement's advocates to offer
action potential of framing processes: centrality, and range
critical insight to its development and positioning. and
Our interrelatedness. Centrality pertains to the level of
framing analysis highlights the interconnectednesssalience
of held by the values or beliefs of the movement
Fig. 1 Framing activities in

social entrepreneurship. Diagnostic framing Prognostic framing Motivational framing
Adaptation of the Snow and
Benford (1988) framing model
to the SE context Problem 1: Need to realign and Solution to problem 1: Consensus seeking frame
change capitalist systems systems level change Promote the social
Cause: Rapidly changing Strategy and tactics: Build an entrepreneur as the central
complex systems ecosystem and provide a actor for change
Problem 2: Failing funding supportive infrastructure Social entrepreneurs as
models through partnerships - focus on connected actors for change
Cause: Grant model is unreliable education, networks, and successful leaders
collaboration and funding Action mobilization frame
Solution to problem 2: impact Invite other to participate
investing and earned income Government to provide
Strategy and tactics are part of supportive regulation for
those for problem 1 - funding investment in SE
infrastructure that favours Philanthropist and investors to
impact investment and earned provide grants, loans and equity
income Companies to provide
partnerships
Media to promote SE stories
Academia to provide research
and education
£) Springer
Fig. 2 Factors affecting

mobilizing potency of social
Core Framing Tasks:
movement framing. Adapted
f Diagnostic ļ
from Snow and Benford (1988).
Ideology, frame resonance, and
V Prognostic
Motivational
J
participant mobilization.
International Social Movement
Research , 1(1), 197-217
/ ' / 'lobUizing' / Infrastructural '

/ Cycles of Protest ' / Potency of '
I (general movement ļ I Movement |
V activity) J ' Framing & J ' Range J
' / ' Activities J Interrelatedness y
Phenomenological
f Constraints: '
f Empirical Credibility 1
V Experential Commensurability J
Narrative Fidelity
within the larger belief system. Simply put, the higher of

theSE support organizations is beyond the scope of the
salience, the higher the probability of mobilization. paper, it is not unfathomable that these partners represent a
powerful group with their own interests (e.g. McKinsey &
Range and interrelatedness speaks to the number of and
relationships between the core beliefs and values that Company,
the the Boston Consulting Group, Morgan Stanley,
Credit Suisse, Nestle). The SE movement discourse res-
framing efforts are linked to. If the range is very limited,
onates among those that favour economic, entrepreneurial
the movement risks being discounted if the relevant beliefs
or values lose salience or credibility within the broader
approaches, and thus whose values would be supportive of
system. On the other hand, frame overextension can occur
the entrepreneurial approaches promoted by SE actors that
blend social and commercial logics (Hervieux et al. 2010).
when movements seek to address this issue by including
beliefs or values that were peripheral at the outset - thisSE is undisputedly connected to the larger capitalist
phenomenon can also occur as the movement growssystem
to it critiques, which raises the question of whether it
include an increasing number of organizations with com-
can truly affect systemic change in one it is so entangled in.
plementary, yet potentially different, goals or values. As seen in our analysis, solutions to social problems rest on
The use of business-like discourses in the SE movement the shoulders of the heralded, "hero" entrepreneurs (Ni-
has helped increase its salience, especially in capitalist
cholls 2010) that will convince actors of capitalist systems
societies. The notion of persistent unresolved social prob-to work together using existing models. Will these "para-
lems, which some have termed wicked problems (Dorado digm building actors" (Nicholls 2010, p. 617) actually
and Ventresca 2013), is not a contested arena, yet the
change the system by using the system's own logics?
proposed entrepreneurial solution is. The use of entrepre-While this question is difficult to answer, it is worth rec-
ognizing that resource rich actors that promote the SE
neurial language moves the discourse on social organiza-
tions into a new realm, leading to the understanding of SEdiscourse ground their approaches and language within the
as a field in its infancy and in the process of building itslarger, existing belief system of capitalism, making the
legitimacy (Nicholls 2010). Thus, while the range of availability of resources to social entrepreneurs entwined
with it.
beliefs and values that SE relates to is wide and is sup-
ported by capitalist societies, it could arguably be in danger
of frame overextension as a result of confounding businessThe SE Movement and Phenomenological
Constraints
and community discourses (Nicholls 2010), and focusing
simultaneously on commercial success and social impact
(Battilana and Lee 2014). Phenomenological constraints examine how well framing
Despite recognition of conflicting discourses, critiques helps to inform understanding of events and experience,
of SE strategies and tactics are rare (Dey and Steyaertand the extent to which it strikes "a responsive chord with
those individuals for whom it is intended" (Snow and
2012). And, while an analysis of the discourses of partners
£) Springer
Benford movements
1988, p.exist that have a widespread
207). effect on social
Empiric
test and verify the
change during that time. Asframing
a result, the degree to which i
events. the movement resonates with
Experiential the cycle of protest and the
commensu
the movement
point inframing relates
the cycle at which it emerges are important for its
of potential participants
potential success. If the movement materializesand
early in the t
solutions credible. Narrative
cycle it can have an important defining effect for future f
the framing movements,
aligns and generatewith
what is referred tocultu
as master
myths, folk tales)
frames. Alternatively,that
if the movement appears
inform later in the
are understood. cycle it risksThe
being constrainedSE movem
by the master frames that
fied success stories, such as the Grameen Bank, which already exist. In the case of SE, we view it as embedded in
serve as validation for its potential to solve widespread the cycle of protest surrounding the legitimacy of the
social problems via innovative models like microfinance. capitalist model, given that "the field of business has
By emphasizing a business-like narrative and touting the recently come under an unprecedented level of criticism in
social entrepreneur as a hero (Nicholls 2010) with light of its role in a number of social, ecological, and
descriptions such as "ambitious", "opportunistic", "re- economic issues present in today's society" (Valente 2012,
sourceful", etc., advocates are using a familiar language p. 563). This association has called into question the fun-
that resonates with those who value innovation and damental assumptions and practices of business such as
entrepreneurship. executive compensation and perpetual shareholder wealth
As we have seen through our analysis of tactics and the environmental impacts of firm operations, and
creation,
the role
actions promoted by the actors studied, they all make useof business in society (Porter and Kramer 2011).
of the media to help promote the success stories ofAs a movement, SE has arguably emerged at an
their
own network of social entrepreneurs. They also featuretime in the cycle, positioning it as a solution to
opportune
identified
profiles of social entrepreneurs recognized as successful - problems and an originator of master frames.
in the words of one actor this means the individual must Evidence of the power of the mobilizing discourse of the
"not only [be] financially sustainable but [...] also
initial actors of the SE movement as a master frame can be
demonstrate a sustainable business model and a proven found in the replication of their ideas in emerging organi-
track record" (Schwab website). The actors within the zations.
SE An increasing number of SE support organizations
are adopting the systems change and investment dis-
social movement therefore put much emphasis in demon-
strating the "empirical credibility" (Snow and Benfordcourses. For example, two relatively new SE support
organizations - the Moroccan Center for Innovation and
1988) of their model by featuring these social entrepre-
neurs on their websites, celebrating their successes, SE and the Tunisian Center for SE (both founded in
2012) - reference system-changing ideas as a desired out-
engaging with the media by providing materials to feature
come of their efforts.
success stories. Alliances and partnerships with universities
for research on SE, as well as promotion of university
research that tests and verifies SE claims, further helps to
build empirical credibility for the movement. Academic Conclusion
research has itself been criticized for being based on
"immediate 'use value' (as defined from the perspectiveSnow of and Benford (1988) propose that the mobilizing
ruling power)", leading to a context where "any radical potential of a social movement is related to how well
enactments of the social are sacrificed to the ostensible participants address the elements linked to four sets of
'real-life' pressures of the day" (Dey and Steyaert 2012, factors: core framing tasks, infrastructural constraints of
p. 91). Regardless of the position taken, current belief SE systems, phenomenological constraints, and cycles
research brings empirical support and validation to ofthe
protest. As illustrated, the SE movement is built on
mobilization discourse of the SE movement, thereby powerful, interconnected and well-supported discourses
enhancing its motivational power. that favour system level change through the creation of a
supportive ecosystem, to which they invite others to par-
The SE Movement and Cycles of Protest ticipate. The framing activities of the actors are well inte-
grated, and the consensus seeking and action mobilization
discourses align with the movement's identified problems,
The final set of factors termed "cycles of protest" is based
on work by Tarrow (1983a, b) and refers to general
claims, and proposed solutions.
movement activity in society, in which specific social
The mobilization power of the SE movement is further
increased by it alignment with the values and belief sys-
movements are often embedded. Snow et al. (1986) argue
that within historical eras, one or two overarching
tems of those they invite to participate. Thus while there is
4^ Springer
critique of SE, there is also mucharticulated

support via other data sources
from such as interviews
a number ofwith
resource rich, powerful and well-connected actors.
SE movement proponents. Second, Thehere to
we have chosen
investigate the by
mobilization discourse is also supported discourses of the three SE
empirical actors that have
evi-
been identified
dence, as demonstrated by the impact andas the most important
success of in thethe movement
(Nicholls 2010). While
Grameen Bank, and the many successful socialwe argue that these actors are
entrepre-
neurs featured by SE support powerful
organizations. The
and influential, further story-
research is needed to relate
telling approach is powerful their
in discourse
engaging others
to a broader range of otherand organizations in
convincing them to take part the in and support the SE
system.
In terms of other
movement. Finally, the SE discourse has areasentered
for future research,
atwe an
see sev-
eral avenues worth
opportune time. The first organization pursuing. More
studied was work founded
is needed to better
understand the role
in 1980, amidst the rise of a growing of other actors such as the media in
"transnationally-
promoting
shared diagnosis, which implicates and critiquing SE.for
neoliberalism As an a
example,
hostresearchers
of global social ills" (Ayres 2004, p.analyse
could 1 1). Aiming
discourses to change
that oppose the SE movement to
this failing capitalist system therefore resonates
see how they are supported with
or critiqued, a potential
and the
much broader societal feeling of discontent.
implications According
of such reactions. tothe scope of
While outside
the criteria established by Snowthis
and Benford
paper, (1988),
we acknowledge our of conducting
the importance
assessment of the SE movementfurther
reveals
research
a about
very howpowerful
social problem framing pro-
mobilization discourse. cesses at the individual level (i.e. amongst social entre-
Despite this powerful message, critical approaches topreneurs) influence the salience and actions of the
analyzing discourses in SE reveal troubling tendencies to movement. Given the importance of complex, "wicked"
promote the "hero" perspective (Nicholls 2010), even (Dentoni et al. 2016) problems in SE, social problems
through academic research. Further research is needed thattheory is particularly relevant for generating a better
investigates not only the impact of this discourse on actionsunderstanding of the claim-making processes for how some
of other social initiatives that seek to bring solutions to problems become prioritized over others. Finally, as the
social problems, but also the impact on how one frames
discourses of support actors both support the individual as
what is to be done such as taming, rather than solving, thethe "hero", and the networks or ecosystems as needed
systemic, wicked problems (Reinecke and Ansari 2015)connections and support for this "hero", more work is
that the SE social movement aims to address. By increasingneeded here to untangle the interactions between the social
understanding of the power of the SE discourse, research-entrepreneur and the networks of support organizations.
ers could investigate how it affects policy decisions and
organization survival.
The diagnostic frames identified indicate the need to be
References
able to work within rapidly changing complex social sys-
tems, and the failure of existing funding models, as
Arthur, L., Keenoy, T., Scott-Cato, M., & Smith, R. (2010). Where is
important problems to be solved. Thus, assessment of the
the 'social' in social enterprise? In D. Fuller, A. E. G. Jonas, &
impact and effectiveness of the systems level change R. Lee (Eds.), Interrogating alterity: Alternative economic and
facilitated by SE is needed, along with greater assessment political spaces (pp. 207-222). Aldersho: Ashgate.
Ashoka. (2016). Ashoka: Innovators for the public. Accessed April
of the validity of the solutions proposed and the problems
17, 2015. https://www.ashoka.org/.
identified. Critiques of the Grameen Bank and microfi-
Ayres, J. M. (2004). Framing collective action against neoliberalism:
nance have begun to emerge in the media, but are counter- The case of the anti-globalization movement. Journal of World-
argued by the World Bank, whose own research illustrates Systems Research, /0(1), 11-34.
its positive social impact (Khandker and Samad 2014).Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social
entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on
Further research is thus needed to investigate the effects of
geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional
SE, not only on the immediate wellbeing of those involved, Development, 25(5-6), 373-403.
but also on the systems in which it participates - i.e. is theBattilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid
system changing? If so, how, and does this change bring organizing - Insights from the study of social enterprises. The
Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 397-441.
the promised positive impact of the movement?
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social
As with any research, this study has its limits. First, our movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of
analysis relies on publicly available data. While this Sociology, 26, 611-639.
information is representative of the perspective supportedBlumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social
Problems, 18, 298-306.
by the dominant actors of the groups we investigated, it
Broek, T. A., Ehrenhard, M. L., Langley, D. J., & Groen, A. J. (2012).
may not be representative of the opinion of all members. Dotcauses for sustainability: Combining activism and
Future studies could delve deeper into how discourses are entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Affairs, /2(3), 214-223.
£) Springer
Brutsch, A. (2016). Inspiring

la-creation-de-valeur-viendra-de-la-contribution-au-changement_ seri
wab - 4439287_1698637.html.
Recognizing the best. Acces
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A
http://www.swissstyle.com/social-e
Chen, S. (2012). Creating sustainab
source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of world
Thunderbird business, 41(1), 36-44.
International Busine
Chowdry, S. (2015). Malinsky, E. (2012).
IfBill Drayton's
a five trends for social entrepre-
leader serve
Klaus Schwab. Accessed
neurs. Accessed February 12, 2016, fromFebruary
http://www.huffington
livemint.com/Politics/5TyjFO84 post.com/eli-malinsky/bill-draytons-five-trends_b_2287819.html.
der-serves-himself-there-will-be-no-trust-Klaus-Sc.html. Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case
Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partner- for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28-39.
ships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2015). Getting beyond better : How social
orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 35-53. entrepreneurship works. Boston: Harvard Business Review
Dey, P., & Lehner, O. (2016). Registering ideology in the creation of Press.
social entrepreneurs: Intermediary organizations, 'ideal sub- Mason, C. (2012). Up for grabs: A critical discourse analysis of social
ject' and the promise of enjoyment. Journal of Business Ethics,. entrepreneurship discourse in the United Kingdom. Social
doi : 1 0. 1 007/s 1 055 1 -0 1 6-3 1 1 2-z. Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 123-140.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global
Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Critique and
the radical enactment of the social. Social Enterprise Journal, warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative
8(2), 90-107. movement's counter-claims. Social Problems, 47(4), 499-522.
Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2016). The tactical mimicry of social
Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present: Social movements and
individual needs in contemporary society. Philadelphia: Temple
enterprise strategies: Acting 'as if in the everyday life of third
sector organizations. Organization, 23(4), 485-504. University Press.
Michailakis, D., & Schirmer, W. (2014). Social work and social
Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. The Sociological
Review, 40(1), 1-25. problems: A contribution from systems theory and construction-
Dorado, S., & Ventresca, M. J. (2013). Crescive entrepreneurship in ism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 23(4), 431-442.
Nee, E. (2012). Foundations: Jeff Skoll. Stanford Social Innovation
complex social problems: Institutional conditions for entrepre-
neurial engagement. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), Review, 10(2), 27-29.
69-82. Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship:
Drayton, B. (2013). A team of teams world. Stanford SocialReflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. En-
Innovation Review, 11(2), 57. trepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34(4), 611-633.
Edelman, M. (2001). Social movements: Changing paradigms Parkinson,
and C., & Howorth, C. (2008). The language of social
forms of politics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 285-317. entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics (p. 272). New York: 20(3), 285-309.
Cambridge University Press. Phillips, N., Sewell, G., & Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying critical
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis : Theory anddiscourse analysis in strategic management research. Organiza-
method. New York: Routledge. tional Research Methods, 11(4), 770-789.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis : An essay on the organization Porter,
of M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value.
experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range
Grant, H. M., & Crutchfield, L. (2008). The hub of leadership: lessons
from the social sector. Leader to Leader, 2008(48), 45-52. Planning, 37(2), 171-179.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action
Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). Taming wicked problems: The role
model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility.
Review, 31(4), 864-888. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 299-329.
Scheuer, C.-L., & Mills, A. (2016). Discursivity and media
Hervieux, C., Gedajlovic, E., & Turcotte, M.-F. B. (2010). The
constructions of the intern: Implications for pedagogy and
legitimization of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterpris-
ing Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, practice. Academy of Management Learning & Educa-
4(1), 37-67. tion. doi: 10.5465/amle.2014.0358.
Kanani, R. (2011). The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneur-
Schneider, J. W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist
ship on the evolution and future of social enterprise. Accessed view. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 209-229.
June 16, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rahim- Schwab Foundation. (2016). Schwab Foundation for Social
kanani/schwab-foundation-social-entrepreneurship-_b_8583 1 2. Entrepreneurship. Accessed February 17, 2016. http://www.
html. schwabfound.org/.
Kerlin, J. A., & Pollak, T. H. (2011). Nonprofit commercial revenue: Skoll Foundation. (2016). Skoll. Accessed April 14, 2015. http://skoll.
A replacement for declining government grants and private org/.
contributions? The American Review of Public Administration, Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance,
41(6), 686-704. and participant mobilization. International Social Movement
Khandker, S. R., & Samad, H. A. (2014). Dynamic effects of Research, 1( 1), 197-217.
microcredit in Bangladesh. World Bank Policy Research Work- Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B, Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D.
ing Paper (6821), pp. 1-50. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social- movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4),
psychological expansisons of resource mobilization theory. 464-481.
American Sociological Review, 49(5), 583-600. Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1973). Social problems: A re-
Le Monde. (2014). Bill Drayton: La création de valeur viendra de la formulation. Social Problems, 21(2), 145-159.
contribution au changement. Accessed February 12, 2016, from Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing social problems.
http ://w ww. lemonde .fr/emploi/article/20 1 4/06/ 1 6/bill-dray ton- Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.
£) Springer
Tarrow, S. (1983a). Resource mobilization

Valente, and cycles Theorizing
M. (2012). of protest:firm adopt
Organization
Theoretical reflections and comparative Studies,
illustrations. 33(4), 563-591.
Paper
presented at the Annual MeetingWodak,
of the R.,
American
& Meyer,
Sociological
M. (Eds.). (2009). Meth
analysis 4.
Association, Detroit, August 31 -September (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Tarrow, S. (1983b). Struggling to reform : Social movements
World Economic Forum. (2013).andBreaking th
scaling
policy change during cycles of protest. social
Western innovation.
societies. Accessed April 1
Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University. reports, weforum.org/social-innovation-20 1
Touraine, A. (1988). Return of the actor: Social theory in postindus-
trial society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Springer

Framing Problems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Framing Problems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship

Author(s): Chantal Hervieux and Annika Voltan

Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship

Received: 17 September 2015 /Accepted: 24 June 2016/Published online: 7 July 2016

notion of enterprise as organizations,

tribute to the emergence of dominant language (and,

Social movement theory is a parallel area of research to

Grant and Crutchfield (2008)

Method and Analysis claims develop (Scheuer and Mills 20

Table 1 SE organizations analysed

Organization name Mission Founded Geographic

Inadequate Funding Models

celebrating social entrepreneur

Earned income is favoured as apowerful

Fig. 1 Framing activities in

Fig. 2 Factors affecting

/ ' / 'lobUizing' / Infrastructural '

within the larger belief system. Simply put, the higher of

critique of SE, there is also mucharticulated

Brutsch, A. (2016). Inspiring

Tarrow, S. (1983a). Resource mobilization

You might also like