Description
During this detailed criteria in regard to no entrepreneur is an island an exploration of social entrepreneurial.
No Entrepreneur is an Island
An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurial
Learning in Accelerators
DUNCAN S. LEVINSOHN
2
Jönköping International Business School
P.O. Box 1026
SE-551 11 Jönköping
Tel.: +46 36 10 10 00
E-mail: [email protected]
www.jibs.se
No Entrepreneur is an Island: An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurial Learning in
Accelerators
JIBS Dissertation Series No. 105
© 2015 Duncan Levinsohn and Jönköping International Business School
ISSN 1403-0470
ISBN 978-91-86345-61-7
Printed by ARK Tryckaren AB, 2015
3
”Na terra dos cegos quem tem um olho é rei.”
Portuguese proverb
1
.
“When we are dreaming alone it is only a dream.
When we are dreaming with others,
it is the beginning of reality.”
Dom Hélder Câmara
1
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
5
Acknowledgements
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
Ecclesiastes 4:12
One of the findings of this dissertation is that even the most experienced of social
entrepreneurs are dependent on the encouragement and inspiration they find in
the company of others. I share this particular aspect of their experience – and at
the end of what feels like a very long journey, I would like to express my heartfelt
appreciation to some of the many people who have walked with me.
In Swedish there is a word that has no real equivalent in English, namely
livskamrat: ‘life-friend’. Helena, you are my life-friend in the deepest meaning of
the word. Without your love and support I would not have been able to make
this journey – nor would it have been worth making. Thank you for all your
practical help year after year: for the conference days you have spent alone with
our children and in the past year, for making it possible for me to spend Saturdays
at my desk. Far more valuable however, has been your generous attitude; your
willingness to support me in achieving something that has been important to me.
I look forward to continuing our journey together, hopefully at a slightly slower
tempo!
What would a doctoral student be without his or her supervisors? At school I
hated chemistry, but over the past years I have been grateful for its role in making
my time as a doctoral student harmonious and productive. Thank you Ethel and
Anders, for accompanying me on my academic journey of ‘becoming’. I
appreciate you both, not only for your sharp intellects and your determination to
get the best out of me – but also for your humour and concern for my wellbeing.
Our regular interrogation sessions in room B6050 have been an enormous help
in my development and have revealed new dimensions of the ‘good cop, bad cop’
approach to dialogue – I only wish I could figure out who was who! Thank you
as well for recruiting Benson Honig to your team. Meatloaf sings “Two out of
three ain’t bad”, but over the past years I have been blessed with three out of
three! Benson, thank you so much for making my stay in Hamilton and at
McMaster such a positive experience. My time in Canada with you sharpened my
intellect – and after dinner in your home, you have forever sharpened my
appetite!
There are many academic role models out there and not all of them are positive.
My three supervisors have shown me the ‘sunny’ side of academia and modelled
a generous, yet rigorous intellectual curiosity. However, you are not alone in this
role. I would also like to thank the opponent at my defence – Daniel Hjorth –
and my examining committee, for taking the time to read and assess my work.
6
I am particularly grateful to Ulla Hytti for her insightful and constructive
comments at my final seminar. Your feedback has helped me to both reframe
my study in a more exciting direction – and led me to engage with literature that
has added a deeper dimension to my work. Although I look forward to my
defence with some trepidation, I could not wish for my work to be assessed by a
more distinguished group of scholars. Nonetheless, it is not your intellectual
rigour that I most appreciate – even if you clearly display this – but rather; the
creative, provocative and multicultural aspects of your academic personalities.
Thank you Ethel for putting together such an exciting group!
My time at JIBS has been greatly enriched by many people and by trying to name
you all, there is a risk that I will miss somebody’s contribution. I think those of
you who meet me in the corridor with warmth and a smile, know who you are –
and you know that I value your friendship at work. Of course, those of you who
are (or have been) doctoral students – and have shared the ‘blood, toil, tears and
sweat’ of research with me over the past years – have a special place in my heart.
Nonetheless, not all of my time at JIBS has been spent on research and Anna
Blombäck is worth of a special mention, as my co-teacher on several courses. I
have appreciated your encouragement and trust – and JIBS would be hard put to
find a more talented and deserving Associate Dean for Education. A big thank-
you as well, to all the people at JIBS who make our teaching and research possible
– to our coordinators, administrators, librarians and caretakers. I am especially
grateful to Susanne Hansson for your work. Not just in the past weeks as I added
the final formatting to my dissertation – but also over the years, as you have
arranged doctoral courses and maintained a modicum of structure in a changing
organisational environment.
I wish I could name the managers and social entrepreneurs who populate this
study. I now count many of you as my friends and am extremely grateful for the
warmth, openness and insight with which you shared your experiences.
Last, but not least, I would like to send a huge hug to my family and my ‘non-
work’ friends. I am privileged to have parents who were not afraid to take their
children with them into a colourful and at times insecure environment – and a
father who challenges me by his example, to strive for societal impact as an
academic. My little sister Heather continues to be an inspiration for me and has
probably forgotten more about people-management, than I will ever teach my
students – I look forward to our curry nights every time I am in the U.K! I have
also been blessed with a fantastic mother-in-law, and a large and colourful flock
of children. My biggest hug is reserved for all six of you: Hannah, Emily, Kevin,
Douglas, Martin and Jonathan. You are a constant reminder to me that there are
more important things in life than Ph.Ds. – and that knowledge and wisdom are
two very different animals. Vai com Deus!
7
Abstract
This dissertation explores the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators.
Building on Jarvis’ (2010) existential theory of learning, it conceptualises
entrepreneurial learning as a process in which purposeful individuals encounter
and transform experiences of disjuncture. These experiences are embedded in
both human and material contexts. Learning processes and outcomes are
portrayed as phenomena that are influenced by social entrepreneurs’ interaction
with these environments. Accelerators are depicted as non-formal contexts of
learning, of relatively short duration – in which the structure and content of
education is progressively adapted to the requirements of the individual.
This study represents one of the first attempts to open the ‘black box’ of social
entrepreneurial learning in accelerators. The process and outcomes of learning
are investigated by means of a longitudinal case study involving twenty-four
social entrepreneurs and three accelerators run by the same organisation.
Information about learning was gathered using narrative and ethnographic
techniques, and analysed drawing on an abductive methodology.
An in-depth study of the learning experiences of four social entrepreneurs is
made and a typology of social entrepreneurs is developed. The typology
integrates experience-oriented factors with social entrepreneurs’ degree of
embeddedness in the context addressed by their product or service. These factors
combine with venture stage and the intentions of the entrepreneur, to influence
the learning process – and the outcomes associated with learning. Seven principal
outcomes of learning in accelerators are noted and the learning of social
entrepreneurs is linked to a ‘sideways’ move from a project-based charity
orientation, to a more sustainable emphasis on hybridity. Furthermore, learning
in accelerators is found to be more a product of co-creation than of effective
programme design. The characteristics and dynamics of the accelerator cohort
are found to have a significant impact on learning, with heterogeneity in terms
of industry a key stimulus. In contrast, learning is enhanced when accelerator
participants are at a similar stage of venture development.
This dissertation develops a model of the learning process in accelerators,
emphasising the influence of entrepreneurs’ backgrounds and intentions. Ten
educator roles in accelerators are identified and it is found that these functions
may be filled by more than one of the three main categories of educator in
accelerators (i.e.: managers, mentors and coaches). Opportunities for learning are
created by the interaction of accelerator participants with both human actors and
material objects. The term “splace” is used to refer to these ‘areas of opportunity’
– which allow entrepreneurs to engage in learning through reflection, dialogue,
action or community – or by combinations of these four orientations.
9
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 15
1.1 Setting the Scene ....................................................................................... 15
1.2 Moving towards Involved Enterprise .................................................... 16
1.3 From Enterprise to Entrepreneurship ................................................... 17
1.4 Learning to be Social and Sustainable .................................................... 19
1.5 Enhancing the Learning of Entrepreneurs ........................................... 21
1.6 Educating the Social Entrepreneur ........................................................ 29
1.7 The Rise of Accelerator Programmes .................................................... 33
1.8 Research Purpose ...................................................................................... 48
1.9 A Dissertation Road-map ........................................................................ 50
1.10 A Brief Note on Terminology................................................................. 52
2 Theoretical Perspectives .......................................................................... 53
2.1 The Education of [social] Entrepreneurs .............................................. 54
2.2 A Theoretical Foundation for Learning ................................................ 65
2.3 Bringing it All Together ........................................................................... 88
3 Journeying into Method ........................................................................... 95
3.1 The Beginning of the End – or the End of the Beginning? ............... 95
3.2 Entrepreneurial Methods for Entrepreneurship Research ................. 97
3.3 The Best-laid Schemes o' Mice an' Men .............................................. 100
3.4 Research & Evaluation 2.0 .................................................................... 106
3.5 Making Sense of Method ....................................................................... 110
3.6 Collecting Information about the Accelerator Process..................... 115
3.7 Analysing Information about Learning in Accelerators.................... 121
4 Social Entrepreneurs & Accelerators ................................................... 135
4.1 Chapter Overview ................................................................................... 135
4.2 The Social Entrepreneurs – Part 1 ....................................................... 135
4.3 The Accelerators ..................................................................................... 139
4.4 The Social Entrepreneurs – Part 2 ....................................................... 171
4.5 Learning in Accelerators: the 7 ‘F’s ...................................................... 235
10
5 Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators ........... 269
5.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 269
5.2 Background and Stage: the Two ‘Givens’ ........................................... 270
5.3 The Perceived Task ................................................................................ 279
5.4 Perceptions of Value and Effectiveness .............................................. 283
5.5 Splace for Learning ................................................................................. 289
5.6 Co-creating Entrepreneurial Learning ................................................. 309
5.7 Social Entrepreneurship and Accelerators .......................................... 321
5.8 There is More to Success than Learning! ............................................ 324
5.9 Modelling Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators ............ 326
6 Conclusions & Contributions ............................................................... 331
6.1 Theoretical Contributions ..................................................................... 331
6.2 Contributions to Practice....................................................................... 338
6.3 Implications for Policy ........................................................................... 340
6.4 Limitations ............................................................................................... 341
6.5 Future Research ...................................................................................... 343
References .................................................................................................................. 345
Appendices ................................................................................................................. 369
JIBS Dissertation Series ........................................................................................... 383
11
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Key contextual influences on accelerator design ............................................. 37
Figure 2-1: A basic model of learning from experience (adapted from Jarvis 2006) ...... 75
Figure 2-2: The transformation of experience (from Jarvis 1987, 2006) ......................... 78
Figure 2-3: A Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators. ............. 90
Figure 3-1: Single-case design with embedded units of analysis ..................................... 112
Figure 3-2: Characteristics and targets of 'timely' theory ................................................. 123
Figure 4-1: Startup stages, from Startup Commons (2014) ............................................. 138
Figure 4-2: Categories of social entrepreneur, developed from Cope & Watts (2000) 174
Figure 4-3: A Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators ............ 180
Figure 4-4: Venture-oriented Learning at the Intersection of Accelerator Spaces ....... 232
Figure 4-5: Person-oriented Learning at the Intersection of Accelerator Spaces ......... 233
Figure 4-6: Main Outcomes of the Booster Accelerators ................................................ 267
Figure 5-1: A preliminary model of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators ................ 269
Figure 5-2: Entrepreneurial characteristics that influence interaction in accelerator
cohorts ................................................................................................................ 278
Figure 5-3: An expanded model of factors that influence entrepreneurs' participation
in the education process ................................................................................... 283
Figure 5-4: Factors that influence entrepreneurs' attitudes towards learning-oriented
activities in accelerators ..................................................................................... 288
Figure 5-5: The move from a formal to a non-formal learning orientation .................. 291
Figure 5-6: A model of learning ‘splace’ in accelerators, depicting the interplay of
‘human’ space, time, and primary and secondary physical space. ............... 303
Figure 5-7: Tutor roles in the Booster Accelerators. ........................................................ 315
Figure 5-8: The Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
introduced in Chapter 2. ................................................................................... 326
Figure 5-9: A Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators. ................................ 327
12
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Research Activity during and after the Accelerators. ..................................... 110
Table 3-2: Principle steps in my Adaptation of Framework Analysis ............................ 127
Table 4-1: Overview of the Booster Social Entrepreneurs ................................................. 137
Table 4-2: Thematic content and timing of Accelerator activities. ................................. 146
Table 4-3: The Booster entrepreneurs, showing categories and stage. .......................... 177
Table 4-4: Social entrepreneurs' intentions. ....................................................................... 224
Table 4-5: The content and process of social entrepreneurs' learning. .......................... 225
Table 4-6: Roles Valued by Social Entrepreneurs in the Accelerators. .......................... 227
Table 4-7: Aspects of ‘Space’ described by the four Exemplars. .................................... 231
Table 4-8: Investment & Revenue - Accelerator 1............................................................ 258
Table 4-9: Investment & Revenue - Accelerator 2............................................................ 259
Table 4-10: Venture outcomes-Accelerator 1. ................................................................... 260
Table 4-11: Venture outcomes-Accelerator 2. ................................................................... 261
Table 4-12: Venture performance related to category, stage and performance. ........... 265
13
List of Abbreviations
A.o.M: Academy of Management
BIF: Business Innovation Facility
DFID: Department for International Development (U.K.)
ECE: Economic Commission for Europe
EED: Entrepreneurship education
EL: Entrepreneurial learning
ESIE: Education for Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship
I.a.P: Innovations against Poverty
MDG: Millennium Development Goal
N.f.P: Not-for-Profit
NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation
NSE: Network for Social Enterprise
PDW: Professional Development Workshop
SEC: Social Enterprise Coalition
Sida: Swedish International Development Programme
SOCAP: Social Capital Markets
SVP: Social Value Proposition
UNICEF: United Nations Children's Fund
WCED: World Commission on Environment and Development
15
1 Introduction
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
1.1 Setting the Scene
In 1624 the English poet and reluctant clergyman John Donne penned the above
words while recovering from a severe illness. Students of poetry suggest that it
was the recurring sound of bells tolling for other invalids’ funerals that awoke in
him a stark awareness of his shared humanity with these strangers. An
understanding of his interconnectedness with every individual.
Hundreds of years after his poem was written, society is rediscovering the truth
of Donne’s often-cited strophe “no man is an island”. Today it is not the sound
of a tolling bell that has awoken us to the reality of a connected and
interdependent world, but instead the increasing visibility of indicators of social
and environmental tension in our world. A combination of high-profile industrial
accidents and more gradual changes in ecosystems have alerted people to the fact
that their lives can be changed not only by the activities of their geographical
neighbours, but also by developments on the other side of the globe.
Importantly, many people have also come to realise that this impact is reciprocal.
In an interconnected world we are not only affected by other people’s actions,
but also have an impact on the welfare of others.
Jönköping International Business School
16
In this dissertation the reader is introduced to a number of individuals who
engage in an intensive process of learning. All of these individuals are concerned
about the impact of business on society and are engaged in starting up their own
enterprises. In academic terms they would be classified as ‘nascent social
entrepreneurs’. Some of them are founding enterprises whose primary impact is
on people, while others are more concerned with creating environmental value. Some
startups combine the two. What all three categories have in common is their
status as emerging entrepreneurs and their participation in an eight-week
programme of entrepreneurship education – an ‘accelerator’. The primary
purpose of this study is to explore the learning associated with this accelerator. I
seek to explore the learning that occurs as social entrepreneurs move from the
relatively lonely and unstructured environments in which they seek to create their
ventures – to the more structured and intense setting of a programme of
entrepreneurship education. An important focus in this study is thus the interaction
of these entrepreneurs with the particular approach to entrepreneurship
education represented by the accelerator. Consequently, although this
dissertation primarily focuses on the learning of social entrepreneurs, it is also
about the accelerator programmes they participate in. It tells the story of both.
1.2 Moving towards Involved Enterprise
John Donne explains his sorrow over the death of a stranger by referring to the
concept of shared humanity: “for I am involved in mankind”. In many business
organisations a similar recognition of the interdependence of the firm with
society has taken place during past decades, even if this recognition has resulted
in business leaders taking several very different types of action.
The first and most common business reaction is seen in the dramatic increase in
formalised programmes of corporate responsibility (CR), or corporate social
responsibility (CSR). As the terms themselves suggest, these programmes are
based on the recognition that businesses are in some way ‘responsible’ towards
society – even if the nature of this responsibility has varied over time (Blowfield
& Murray, 2011). Closely linked to these concepts is the stakeholder approach to
strategic management, which very clearly drives firms towards a greater
recognition of the socially embedded nature of the firm (Freeman, 1984; Rowley,
1997). Critics of these approaches however, argue that despite the increase of
CSR activities in business environments, the steps being taken are largely
incremental and fail to tackle firms’ “systemic unsustainability” (W. Visser, 2010,
p. 11).
A second way in which individuals have acted upon their recognition that they
are ‘involved in mankind’ is seen in the rise of the social enterprise. In contrast
to instrumental forms of corporate responsibility - which tend to emphasize
shareholder profit while maintaining ‘licence to operate’ (Donaldson & Dunfee,
Introduction
17
1999), social enterprises prioritise the creation of social value (Mair & Martí, 2006).
In this context the term “social” may imply either a purpose that is oriented
towards human needs or the environment– or a combination of the two (SEC,
2010). Nevertheless, according to Thompson (2008) several other characteristics
are also associated with the field of social enterprise; including the pursuit of
social value via the trading of goods or services, and the existence of a double or
triple bottom-line.
A third way in which a relatively small number of individuals and firms have
attempted to incorporate a vision of shared humanity into their operations, is by
means of what I term ‘synergy-oriented’ enterprise. Under this category a large
number of apparently unrelated business strategies can be grouped together.
What these approaches have in common is a reluctance to prioritise one aspect
of sustainability, or one particular stakeholder over another. Instead, value
creation is pursued in several areas simultaneously. It is suggested that value
creation in one area need not exclude the creation of value at another point –
indeed, it may even enhance it. The best known example of a synergistic
approach to enterprise is Porter and Kramer’s (2011) concept of ‘shared value’.
Nonetheless, upon careful examination it is possible to see that many other
concepts – such as ‘inclusive business’, ‘base-of-the-pyramid strategies’ and
‘sustainability entrepreneurship’ – operate under a similar logic. Although this
logic is perhaps most clearly spelled out by scholars such as Young and Tilley
(2006), these approaches all emphasize the need for firms to move beyond
strategies that achieve value in one area, with only a neutral (or even a detrimental
effect) in another. The aforementioned scholars term this shift a move from
“efficiency” towards “effectiveness” and emphasize the importance of firms
achieving effectiveness at several ‘bottom-lines’ simultaneously. In the case of
inclusive business this may involve a firm achieving acceptable levels of profit,
while at the same time generating income and employment for disadvantaged
individuals. For example: Coca-Cola’s strategy of adopting a labour-intensive
distribution model in Ethiopia and Tanzania (Nelson, Ishikawa, & Geaneotes,
2009). The entrepreneurs whose development is discussed in this study are
engaged in the creation of firms that either belong to this third, synergistic type
of enterprise, or to the second category: the social venture.
1.3 From Enterprise to Entrepreneurship
The above paragraphs briefly introduce three basic categories of what Azmat &
Samaratunge (2009) term “responsible” enterprise. What has not been discussed
however, is the question of how such enterprises come to exist. This is an
important question to ask in view of the important role attributed by many
societies to entrepreneurs and small firms, with regards to the creation of social
and economic prosperity. For example: in 2008 the European Union noted that
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are “providers of employment
Jönköping International Business School
18
opportunities and key players for the wellbeing of local and regional
communities” (Commission of the European Communities, 2008). In 2010 in
the United States, the International Trade Administration (2013) noted that
SMEs accounted for 33.7 % of exported goods. Furthermore, in Asia SMEs
typically accounted for 30-60 % of GDP and around 50 % of formal employment
in the same period (Calverley, 2010). Unsurprisingly therefore, many policy-
makers are fervent, if at times uncritical promoters of entrepreneurship – with
Barack Obama (2006) perhaps most explicit in his expression of the
entrepreneurial ‘creed’: “I believe in the free market, competition, and
entrepreneurship!”
If the figures in the above paragraph reflect even a small measure of the impact
of SMEs on society, then it is clearly important to understand the factors
associated with the establishment and proliferation of new enterprises.
Nonetheless, it is important to distinguish between small business management
and the actual process of establishing a small business. Many entrepreneurship
scholars suggest that new firms are important to society not only because of the
possibility that they may one day grow and employ significant numbers of people,
but also because of their innovative nature. Schumpeter (1943) identifies the
entrepreneur with a process of innovation that involves “creative destruction”,
as new products and processes make contemporary offerings redundant. Miles,
Snow, Meyer and Coleman (1978) are more conservative and argue that some
firms (“defenders”) in fact maintain competitive advantage by engaging in
activities that are not necessarily innovative. Nevertheless, on the basis of
Welsch’s (2010) survey of entrepreneurial typologies, it is clear that many scholars
associate entrepreneurship with some form of innovative behaviour. Indeed, in
the field of sustainability entrepreneurship, Schaltegger and Wagner (2011)
suggest that it is their innovative behaviour that makes small, nascent firms so
valuable. They argue that entrepreneurial firms are often responsible for radical
innovations that are initially less viable in commercial terms, but subsequently
adopted in modified form by larger firms – and marketed on a much larger scale.
Although the firms used to illustrate their discussion are primarily ‘green’
entrepreneurs, Schaltegger and Wagner define sustainability entrepreneurship as
including both social and environmental innovation. I have therefore suggested
that ‘social’ entrepreneurs can be expected to follow a similar pattern of
innovation; with small, new firms often responsible for the most radical social
innovations (Levinsohn, 2013). If this is true, a deeper understanding of the
processes associated with the successful founding of such ventures can be
expected to generate significant social and environmental benefits. One aspect
of venture development is the learning achieved by nascent social entrepreneurs,
learning that may be linked to the processes of entrepreneurship training and
education discussed in this dissertation.
Introduction
19
1.4 Learning to be Social and Sustainable
In this chapter I have so far suggested that many contemporary firms are
adopting a more ‘involved’ stance as regards the role of business in society. Some
firms are making social impact their primary purpose, while others pursue a more
synergistic approach to value creation. I have also argued that small businesses
often have a positive impact on society and that this impact is of particular value
where firms are not only radically innovative with regards to service or product,
but also innovative with regards to the creation of social or environmental value.
This suggestion naturally provokes the question of how society can contribute to
the establishment of these types of firm. What type of business environment is
conducive to the establishment of effective social (or sustainable) enterprises?
What type of person or organisation should receive financial support in order to
establish this type of business? And what kind of education or training will these
firms find useful? Questions such as these are particularly relevant when the high
rate of failure among traditional startups is taken into account, with
approximately half the number of new businesses launched in the United States
ceasing operations after four years (Headd, 2003). It is apparent that nascent
enterprises develop in many different ways and that very different outcomes
result from their entrepreneurial ‘journeys’. As Jenkins (2012) points out, even
firm ‘failure’ is a far more diverse phenomenon than is initially apparent.
The different outcomes and dissimilar paths of development that new ventures
follow is a phenomenon that I link to what Strauss (1993) and Wenger (1998)
term “trajectories”. Although these scholars differ slightly in their use of the term
(studying the development of illness on the one hand, and professional identity
and skill on the other), they both use the term to refer not only to recurring
patterns of development and outcomes, but also to the interactions that produce
these patterns. Business advisors, accelerators and incubators are all examples of
interventions into the trajectories (or development) of nascent firms –
interventions that involve purposeful interaction with the entrepreneur or the
entrepreneurial team. This interaction is usually based on the unspoken
assumption that entrepreneurs are able to learn – and that this learning is in turn
related to positive venture outcomes. Indeed, drawing on Moingeon and
Edmonson (1996), Harrison and Leitch (2005) suggest that in nascent firms the
learning of entrepreneurs is probably as important to the success of the nascent
venture – as organisational learning is to the prosperity of established
organisations.
Because a significant number of entrepreneurial trajectories lead to an exit from
the venturing process, stakeholders such as investors are naturally eager to
promote forms of interaction that prevent new ventures from following patterns
of development that are either unprofitable or unsustainable – or both.
Furthermore, many stakeholders are also keen to promote interaction that
Jönköping International Business School
20
accelerates the development of the new venture from a position of unprofitable,
low-impact activity; to one of sustainability, profitability and high impact.
In the fields of business administration and economics, researchers who have
studied the phenomenon of new venture creation have tended to adopt only one
of two general perspectives. Frequently a choice is made between focusing on
either the entrepreneurial context or on entrepreneurial agency, with fewer studies
recognising the interplay that occurs between the two. Accordingly, economists
often suggest that a region develop industrial infrastructure, clusters, or milieus
that are attractive to creative individuals (Florida, Mellander, & Stolarick, 2008;
Johansson, 1993). Entrepreneurship scholars on the other hand, often advocate
more effective entrepreneurial education or better systems for identifying and
supporting promising individuals and ventures (Carrier, 2007; Krueger & Brazeal,
1994). Increasingly however, scholars recognise that effective intervention often
requires a recognition of the combined impact of “economic, sociological,
psychological and anthropological explanations” (A. A. Gibb, 2007).
As an entrepreneurship scholar I am more interested in the processes associated
with the creation of new ventures, than in the intricacies of regional development.
Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to take the arguments of sociology
seriously and to recognise that the trajectories of individuals and of firms are
always modified to some extent by their interaction with their environment.
Donne’s phrase “I am involved in mankind” reflects not only emotional insight,
but also social reality. It also reflects Strauss’ suggestion that individual agency
(action) is embedded in interaction. This idea infers that the study of interaction
rather than agency is a key task of entrepreneurship research. In other words,
entrepreneurial learning needs to be studied at what Harrison and Leitch (2005)
term the “interface” between the entrepreneur and their context. Once again
therefore, I emphasize that although the primary unit of analysis in this
dissertation is the learning of the individual social entrepreneur, I recognise the
powerful influence of the entrepreneurial context on this learning. Indeed, the
entrepreneurial ecosystem is arguably the only factor that ‘society’ (i.e.: policy
makers and enterprise support systems) can realistically manage in the short term.
For this reason, I begin this study with a discussion of one particular aspect of
the entrepreneurial ecosystem, namely entrepreneurship education and training.
A particular type of entrepreneurship education and training (the accelerator
programme) is framed as an intervention into the learning of the social
entrepreneur. The theoretical foundations for this learning are discussed in
chapter two, but before that I address the question of why it is important to
conduct research into social entrepreneurial learning in the particular context of
accelerators.
Introduction
21
1.5 Enhancing the Learning of Entrepreneurs
One method of supporting individuals as they launch (or prepare to launch) new
ventures is entrepreneurship education (EE) – or entrepreneurship training (ET).
Both approaches operate under the assumption that if the founders of new
ventures learn to be more “competent” (Markowska, 2011) – or “expert”, if we
use the language of effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2008), then they will be more likely
to succeed. For the purposes of this study therefore, entrepreneurship education
is framed as a particular context for – and as an intervention into – entrepreneurial
learning. Pittaway and Cope (2007a, p. 500) suggest that the field of
entrepreneurship education is still in its infancy and that “We do not really know
what ‘entrepreneurship education’ actually is”. Despite this observation, Henry,
Hill and Leitch (2003, p. 123) suggest that entrepreneurship education focuses on
raising awareness about entrepreneurship, while entrepreneurship training is
about “instruction for enterprise”. Martin, McNally and Kay (2013) suggest that
entrepreneurship education initiatives can be distinguished from
entrepreneurship training initiatives on the basis of their academic or non-
academic nature (“academic-focused” and “training-focused”). Although the
above scholars base their ideas on theories of the transfer of learning, Alan Gibb
(1997) suggests that in practice it is difficult to distinguish between education and
training. Indeed, the challenge of distinguishing between the two may explain
Martin, McNally and Kay’s failure to find support for their article’s third
hypothesis – which related to training, distinguishing it from education. Gibb
(1997) notes that some writers suggest that education has to do with knowledge,
and training with skills. He argues however, that in reality the two are so
intertwined as to be nearly inseparable, due to the fact that “the practice of skill
always has a knowledge component and behaviour (embodying knowledge)
nearly always involves interpersonal skills” (ibid. p.16).
Gibb’s ideas imply that education is an activity that takes place in both academic
and non-academic contexts, even if dissimilar environments may be characterised
by different emphases. This infers that it may be more useful to categorise
initiatives that promote learning on the basis of their objectives, target groups
and degree of formality (or structure). Indeed the difficulty of making a
meaningful distinction between entrepreneurship education and training is
illustrated by scholars’ inconsistent use of the terms. Akola and Heinonen (2008)
for example, use the term “entrepreneurship training” to discuss initiatives that
address both practicing entrepreneurs and “potential” entrepreneurs (such as
academics) – despite the distinction advocated in the previous paragraph by
Henry, Hill and Leitch (2003). Isaacs et al. (2007) on the other hand, use both
terms (“entrepreneurship education and training”) to refer to initiatives in South
Africa. Hytti and Gorman (2004) employ the term “enterprise education” to
discuss programmes that either educate about entrepreneurship, foster
entrepreneurial behaviour or enhance the skills of individuals that are willing to
Jönköping International Business School
22
start a new enterprise
2
. The results of their study however, suggest that these
three emphases serve more to categorise emphases within a programme of
entrepreneurship education, rather than to distinguish between programmes. My
own findings are similar to those of Hytti and Gorman in this respect – and in
chapters four and five I describe how social entrepreneurial learning in
accelerators is associated with all three of these objectives.
The gist of my discussion in the above paragraphs is that it is not meaningful to
distinguish between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship training,
when discussing interventions into entrepreneurial learning. For this reason, in
the remainder of this study I use the term “entrepreneurship education” (as
opposed to “entrepreneurship education and training”) to refer to all of the
activities that some scholars refer to as either education or training. Nonetheless,
I argue that it is still useful to distinguish between educational initiatives on the
basis of the individuals (or groups) that they target and the degree of formality
(predetermined structure) associated with them. As will be seen, these aspects are
often linked to one another.
1.5.1 The Challenge of Access to Entrepreneurship Education
Studies of entrepreneurial education often focus on the teaching of
entrepreneurship in schools, colleges and universities – as the contents of the
excellent “Handbooks” edited by Alain Fayolle (2007a, 2007c, 2010) illustrate.
Indeed, it appears that some scholars even take this focus for granted, as
exemplified by Martin, McNally and Kay’s (1997) discussion of the evaluation of
entrepreneurship education. They note that the literature “for good reason
employs essentially all student samples” (p.214). I suggest that this emphasis is
not at all self-evident. Indeed, these scholars’ own survey of the literature
indicates that several writers have studied entrepreneurship education as it relates
to individuals whose primary identity is not that of a student. They cite for
example, Bjorvatn and Tungodden’s (2009) study of the impact of training
among Tanzanian micro-entrepreneurs, and Miron and McClelland’s (1979)
study of three practitioner-oriented training programmes. Furthermore, Pittaway
and Cope’s (2007a) survey of the literature suggests that the practitioner-
oriented
3
‘branch’ of entrepreneurship education makes up almost 20 % of the
total number of publications. These examples suggest that although
entrepreneurship education is often studied in a university or college context, it
does not have to be. In subsequent paragraphs I suggest that an important issue
in the field of entrepreneurship education is that of access. By this I refer not only
to the individuals at whom education is targeted (students or practicing
entrepreneurs), but also to the means by which it is provided (issues of structure
2 This categorisation draws on, among other scholars: (Jamieson, 1984)
3 In their survey this branch is referred to as “management training”.
Introduction
23
and duration). In terms of both the provision of entrepreneurship education and
the study of this provision, I suggest that it is important to achieve a greater
balance between the education of prospective entrepreneurs (usually students) –
and individuals who are already engaged in starting their own businesses (i.e.
practicing entrepreneurs).
The question of access to entrepreneurship education is one that relates to both
age and context. Although there have been some changes in recent years, the
majority of students in fulltime tertiary education are still relatively young. Indeed
it appears that the design of many entrepreneurship education programmes
discourages older
4
individuals from participating. Older individuals – who often
have higher family and financial commitments – are naturally hesitant to take
part in programmes of study that require them to abandon (or substantially
reduce) not only their sources of income, but possibly also the careers upon
which they have embarked. Allan Gibb (1983) suggests that this caution
characterises not only adults in general, but also many enterprise
owner/managers. This implies that older entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs who
are engaged in the founding of a new venture will find it harder to benefit from
programmes of entrepreneurship education that are associated with a substantial
investment of time and money. This difficulty may be accentuated if the
individual belongs to a “tribe” of entrepreneurship (such as corporate or
technology entrepreneurs) whose success depends on the entrepreneur having at
least some measure of experience in their profession (Welsch, 2010).
Unfortunately, as Heinonen and Akala (2007) point out, educators are at times
overly focused on issues of content and delivery. As a result, they at times ignore
the vital question of ‘target’ and end up educating “just about anyone willing to
participate”, rather than addressing issues relating to access to entrepreneurship
education (ibid., p84).
In Western society, age is one factor that appears to influence the access that
individuals realistically have to many programmes of entrepreneurship education
(Rae, 2005c). Put simply, once an individual moves beyond the age traditionally
associated with formal study they are less likely to engage in a full-time
programme of education. In Europe this constraint has been addressed to a
certain extent by the provision of shorter programmes of entrepreneurship
education – as discussed by scholars such as Heinonen and Akola (2008) and De
Faiote et al (2003). In other parts of the world however, the restricting factor of
age is exacerbated by social and economic factors. In many developing countries
a relatively small proportion of individuals have access to tertiary education – and
of those who complete university studies a significant number are subsequently
4 I.e.: older than the typical US college student I.e.: 25 years and older (Marketing Charts, 2014).
Jönköping International Business School
24
employed in other countries
5
, or in governmental agencies (Beine, Docquier, &
Rapoport, 2008). Consequently, if graduates of academic programmes of
entrepreneurship education are to apply their knowledge in their own countries
of origin, they often need encouragement to stay in (or return to) these countries.
Another way in which access to entrepreneurship education might be increased
is to deliver it so that a broader spectrum of people is able to participate. As
noted in the previous paragraph, in Europe practicing entrepreneurs are often
targeted by entrepreneurship educators. In emerging and developing economies
however, the proportion of training programmes delivering entrepreneurship
education is generally much smaller – with Ladzani and Van Vuuren (2002)
suggesting that only 27 % of SME support in South Africa addresses
entrepreneurship-related issues. When entrepreneurship education is provided to
less-frequently targeted groups the results are encouraging – as illustrated by
Bjorvatn and Tungodden’s (2009) study, in which the owner/managers of
Tanzanian micro-enterprises were provided with business-oriented training.
Among other things, this study found that participating entrepreneurs
subsequently demonstrated superior business knowledge to a control group –
and that individuals with less formal educational backgrounds appeared to
benefit most from the training. Studies such as this lend credence to one of the
emphases of this dissertation, namely the idea that entrepreneurship education is
often an effective way in which to enhance the learning of practicing
entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, relatively little analysis has been made of the
provision of practitioner-oriented education for social entrepreneurs, even if
Casasnovas and Bruno (2013) have done some initial work in this area. It is
reasonable to assume however, that the provision of education for social
entrepreneurs is unlikely to be more developed than that of traditional
entrepreneurs – and that there is a need to address the question of how access to
education can be improved.
The above paragraphs suggest that demand of developing countries for effective
businesses requires that access to entrepreneurship education be extended
beyond the traditional business school student. In other words, access to
entrepreneurship education needs to be provided not only before employment,
but also during employment. In many Western contexts there is also a need to
provide entrepreneurship education either after employment, or in the later years
of employment. In some Western contexts (such as the U.K.) the number of
people over 50 exceeds the number of people under 25 – and frequently,
individuals over 50 who become unemployed have difficulty in finding work
again. Consequently, researchers are beginning to discuss how individuals in what
Kautonen (2008) terms the “third” age (over 50), might engage in
entrepreneurship. Indeed, in the United Kingdom significant resources are being
5
I.e.: The ‘brain-drain’ phenomenon.
Introduction
25
invested in supporting these types of entrepreneur (Kautonen, Down, & South,
2008). Although some individuals do return to full-time education in the ‘third
age’, they are comparatively few in number and most countries do not have
effective educational strategies to address their needs. For example: in Sweden
individuals are not eligible for student grants after 55 and have only limited access
to government student loans after 45 (CSN, 2013). It is therefore clear that both
developed and developing countries are in need of alternative ways in which to
provide entrepreneurship education, even if the reasons for this need are very
different.
1.5.2 Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning Environments
The gist of my discussion until now is that the potential of entrepreneurship
education for societal transformation is significantly limited by educators’
preoccupation with addressing primarily the needs of students. In other words,
the learning achieved by practicing entrepreneurs is sub-optimal to a large extent
because they have not been sufficiently targeted by educators. Indeed, Daniel
Hjorth (2013) notes that initiatives that target practicing/emergent entrepreneurs
(such as incubators) rarely discuss their offerings in terms of learning
6
. However,
the experience of Pittaway and Thorpe
7
(2012), Gibb (1993), and Heinonen and
Akola (2007) also suggests that practicing entrepreneurs have not been effectively
targeted by educators. If entrepreneurs’ learning is to be optimised, it is not
enough to simply target individuals using the same methods that work for
individuals in fulltime education. Instead it is important to determine the extent
to which the methods themselves have an impact on the access entrepreneurs
perceive themselves to have, to entrepreneurship education. In this study
entrepreneurship education is portrayed as a particular context for
entrepreneurial learning. Consequently, the issue of access to entrepreneurship
education is one that addresses the question of how optimal environments for
entrepreneurial learning may be developed. I suggest that a useful conceptual
foundation for discussing this question lies in the distinction between formal,
non-formal and informal educational contexts.
Writing from the perspective of educational theory, Coombs, Ahmed and Israel
(1974) suggest that learning may take place in informal, non-formal or formal
settings. They suggest that contexts of formal learning are associated with most
institutions of higher education and tend to be “highly institutionalized,
chronologically graded and hierarchically structured” (ibid., p.8). They contrast
learning in these settings with that which takes place in both non-formal and
6
Hjorth draws on the work of Christine Thalsgård Henriques (forthcoming) in making this observation.
7
These authors refer to entrepreneurs’ lack of enthusiasm for government-backed educational
programmes as a ”problem of engagement” (p.854).
Jönköping International Business School
26
informal settings. At the other end of the spectrum, they suggest that learning in
informal contexts tends to be associated with the individual’s interaction with
friends and acquaintances, and that learning is strongly influenced by factors such
as social class, ethnicity and gender. In between the formal and informal learning
contexts they identify non-formal learning environments. They define these as “any
organized, systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of
the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular sub-groups
of the population, adults as well as children” (Coombs et al 1974, cited in Jarvis,
1987, p. 69). Critics argue that Coombs, Ahmed and Israel fail to distinguish
between education and learning in informal settings – and that they mistakenly
label informal learning as a form of education (A. Rogers, 2004). I agree with this
critique and with Rogers (ibid.) suggestion that it is important to distinguish
between learning in a context in which there is no educational structure at all
(informal learning) – and learning that is developed in a context that involves
learners in educational design and delivery (non-formal and participatory
education).
La Belle (1982) builds on the work of Coombs et al. (ibid.) and underlines the
idea that non-formal education is a distinct approach to the facilitation of learning.
He suggests however, that it is important to understand that the three forms of
learning are not mutually exclusive, even if one particular approach usually
predominates in any given environment. He also emphasizes the idea that formal
education tends to be associated with schools or universities and with “a
sanctioned curriculum”. La Belle notes however, that although non-formal
education is still systematic in character, it is less standardised and often allows
learners to influence programme goals. From the perspective of entrepreneurship
research therefore, it is arguable that scholars of entrepreneurial learning tend to
focus on the informal ways in which practitioners develop entrepreneurial
capabilities (i.e. the day to day learning of the entrepreneur). Scholars of
entrepreneurship education on the other hand, usually focus on the role played by
formal and non-formal learning environments in the acquisition of these
capabilities. I suggest however, that many of the latter scholars discuss the design,
content and delivery of entrepreneurship education in contexts of formal
learning, and that comparatively few publications discuss non-formal
environments. This suggestion is supported by Pittaway and Cope’s (2007a)
observation that around 80 % of the entrepreneurship education literature
focuses on student-oriented entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, when it
comes to research on the process and content of entrepreneurship education;
Gorman, Hanlon and King (1997, p. 67) note that “most of the empirical
literature in this area, examines the implications of teaching strategies, learning
styles, and delivery modes, primarily at post-secondary institutions”.
Although the coordination of education by a post-secondary educational
institution does not necessarily mean that education is structured in a formal
Introduction
27
manner, it is striking to note that this term is frequently associated with
entrepreneurship education by the scholars whose work is surveyed by Gorman,
Hanlon and King (1997). It is also interesting to note that when the term is used,
it is often linked to either scholars’ doubts about whether entrepreneurship can
be effectively fostered by formal education – or to practitioners’ avoidance of
formal entrepreneurship education. Gorman et al. for example, refer to
Stanworth and Gray’s (1992) suggestion that “most small businesses [are] still
prejudiced against participating in formal training”. This comment supports my
argument that questions of access to entrepreneurship education are often linked
to the educational context (formal, non-formal, informal) in which educators
operate.
To summarise: although some study has been made of education for practicing
entrepreneurs (for example: Heinonen & Akola, 2007; Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004)
comparatively little study has been undertaken with regards to non-formal or
participatory approaches to entrepreneurship education. This is particularly the
case when it comes to the provision of education for practicing social
entrepreneurs. This is a significant omission for two reasons. First of all, there is
a risk that scholars who discuss the education of practicing entrepreneurs will
not be informed by the extensive discussions of pedagogy that characterise the
literature on more formal, student-oriented approaches to entrepreneurship
education. However, this omission is also serious in view of my discussion of the
importance to society of increasing access to [social] entrepreneurship education.
For as La Belle (1982) points out, it is the non-formal approach that tends to be
adopted in situations where there is a need to improve access to education.
Consequently, I suggest there is a need for more study of non-formal approaches
to entrepreneurship education, not simply because most studies focus on formal,
student-oriented programmes – but also because of the importance of this type
of entrepreneurship education to society.
1.5.3 Enhancing the Learning of Practicing Entrepreneurs
Gibb (1983) makes it clear that the task of educating entrepreneurs does not
become easier as they grow older and become involved in starting up a new
venture. He suggests that small firms demand training which is not only highly
individualised, timely and provided in small ‘doses’ – but also training that
provides them with skills that they can implement immediately. Additionally,
Gibb notes that small firms are usually “less willing to pay a market price”, which
suggests that entrepreneurship education also needs to be affordable. Naturally,
governments and related institutions are aware of these challenges and have
responded with initiatives designed to provide entrepreneurs with this kind of
timely support. However, many of these initiatives (such as consulting and advice
services) are not necessarily intended to support the learning of entrepreneurs.
Instead, they often provide entrepreneurs with access to expert services that they
Jönköping International Business School
28
themselves do not possess, instead of increasing their capacity (Chrisman &
McMullan, 2004). Consequently, other methods of enhancing entrepreneurial
learning have been experimented with. Two of these – business counselling and
business incubation – have been found to be reasonably effective if designed
appropriately (Chrisman, McMullan, Ring, & Holt, 2012; Cooper, Harrison, &
Mason, 2001). Nonetheless, both approaches have their drawbacks. For example:
both are associated with a long-term
8
process of development and although this
process often increases the quality of a new venture, it does not necessarily
accelerate the rate at which individuals acquire entrepreneurial abilities. In the
case of incubators, there are also clear limitations to their capacity in terms of
hosted ventures. As the Economic Commission for Europe (2000) points out,
business incubators are a relevant, if at times costly solution for a small group
(“handful”) of the entrepreneurs who are unable or unwilling to participate in a
more formal, long-term programme. Most incubators are also linked to specific
geographical locations and this factor limits their clientele to firms in their
geographical vicinity or firms that are willing to relocate to the incubator site.
Consequently Hjorth (2013, p. 51) suggests that the next generation of incubators
will emphasize the role of ‘space’ rather than ‘place’ – and attempt to cater to the
needs of entrepreneurs in their “natural habitat”.
If the unattractiveness to practicing entrepreneurs and older individuals of
formal, long-term programmes of entrepreneurship education is taken as a
‘given’, it becomes increasingly important to identify the ideal characteristics of
less formal initiatives. Based on my discussion in previous paragraphs, it appears
that ‘practicing’ entrepreneurs and ‘prospective’ entrepreneurs who are not
enrolled in full-time programmes of higher education, will be best served by
education that is characterised by the following adjectives:
• Effective: education must lead to clear improvements in the ways in which
people conceptualise, initiate and run their ventures.
• Timely (or relevant): education must be provided at a point in time when the
individual is best able to make use of the information and abilities they
develop.
• Accessible: education must be provided in a manner that allows the individual
to participate, without unrealistic demands on their time or physical location.
The volume of education provided must also match demand.
• Affordable: education must be provided at a reasonable cost, when its long-
term impact on the creation of sustainable ventures is taken into account.
One approach to the provision of non-formal entrepreneurship education that
appears to fulfil several, if not all of the above criteria, is that of the new venture
8
I.e.: inferring a process of years, rather than months.
Introduction
29
(or seed) accelerator. Accelerators are a form of enterprise incubation that involves
entrepreneurs in relatively short, but intense processes of learning and
networking – and I will discussed them in more detail soon. Before this however,
I discuss the factors that influence the provision of entrepreneurship education
to social entrepreneurs.
1.6 Educating the Social Entrepreneur
I began section 1.5 by discussing some of the challenges associated with
entrepreneurs’ learning in the context of traditional
9
entrepreneurship education.
In particular I emphasized the importance of making entrepreneurship education
accessible to a broader range of individuals. For example: not only to prospective
entrepreneurs (a group often represented by business school students), but also
to older individuals and practicing entrepreneurs. In order to reach these groups
I have suggested that non-formal types of education will often be useful. What I
have not discussed however, is the question of whether or not it is possible to
apply a similar strategy to the education of social entrepreneurs. For example: does
the issue of ‘access’ apply to social entrepreneurs’ learning in the same way as it
does to traditional entrepreneurs? Are business schools primarily concerned with
educating individuals who have the potential to become social entrepreneurs (i.e.
students)? Are they less engaged in educating those entrepreneurs who are
already developing a social venture? And if this is so, are factors of geographical
distribution and entrepreneurial circumstances also relevant to the design of
interventions that aim to enhance the learning of these individuals?
In 2004 a special issue on entrepreneurship education was published in the
Academy of Management’s Learning and Education journal. It made little or no
reference to the field of social entrepreneurship and this omission was discussed
by Tracey and Phillips (2007). These scholars argued for the increased integration
of social entrepreneurship into traditional programmes of entrepreneurship
education. They also suggested that social entrepreneurs need to be competent
in all of the areas associated with success in traditional entrepreneurship, but that
three additional emphases needed to be included. Tracey and Phillips suggested
that social entrepreneurs have to learn to manage accountability to a wider range
of stakeholders, a “double bottom-line” (social and/or environmental value
creation in addition to the creation of financial value) – and a hybrid identity.
Their ideas are supported by the work of experienced teachers of social
entrepreneurship such as Gregory Dees. Dees (interviewed by Worsham, 2012)
suggests however, that it is also important that social entrepreneurs develop
emotional intelligence: cultivating the ability to relate in a sensitive manner to
community stakeholders – and not just to individuals with a background in
9
That is: oriented towards for-profit enterprises.
Jönköping International Business School
30
business. He also points out that social innovation requires deeper insight and
skill than many traditional business interventions. This latter emphasis is echoed
in Mirabella and Young’s (2012) survey of social entrepreneurship education, in
which they identify the need for business schools to include more training in
“political” and “philanthropic” skills. Miller, Wesley and Williams (2012) note
furthermore, that practicing social entrepreneurs emphasize several
competencies that business school courses in social entrepreneurship tend to
neglect. These include the marketing and selling of the organisation, a sense of
moral imperatives and ethics, the ability to communicate with stakeholders, and
the ability to challenge traditional ways of thinking.
What is interesting about the articles identified in the above paragraph is that
they appear to take it for granted, that the learning of social entrepreneurs will
take place in the formal academic environment of the college or university. In
common with much of the literature on traditional entrepreneurship education
therefore, most scholars who address the education of social entrepreneurs
neglect the possibility of educating practicing entrepreneurs. A rare exception is
Yaso Thiru (2011), who links a particular type of educational strategy
(“immersion”) to this type of learner. Elmes et al.’s (2012) study of social
entrepreneurship education in South Africa, the work of Chang, Benamraoui and
Rieple (2014) – and Beck’s (2008) study from Indonesia, suggest that this
approach has not only been used in Thiru’s three North American examples
10
.
Nonetheless, in keeping with their ‘for-profit’ colleagues, the above scholars
discuss a form of social entrepreneurship education that focuses primarily on
developing the skills of students. Consequently, the British study of Howorth,
Smith and Parkinson (2012) is unusual in framing itself as a study of social
entrepreneurship education, while focusing on the learning of practicing social
entrepreneurs.
1.6.1 Access to Social Entrepreneurship Education
In section 1.5 I suggested that the design of entrepreneurship education needs to
be informed by the characteristics and contexts of the targeted learners. I
particularly emphasized the idea that the circumstances of practicing
entrepreneurs affect the access they have to education, so that non-formal
approaches to education are often more suited to these individuals. In this section
I suggest that the particular goals of social entrepreneurship also affect
individuals’ willingness to participate in a programme of social entrepreneurship
education.
Many programmes whose aim is to increase the numbers or performance of ‘for
profit’ enterprises, are located in specific geographic locations due to social or
10
Note that one of Thiru’s cases is an incubator.
Introduction
31
political considerations. Stakeholders may wish to encourage new ventures in a
particular neighbourhood or among a particular population. For example: Brad
Feld’s involvement with the TechStars accelerator was rooted in his desire to
improve the startup community at Boulder (Feld, 2012). A geographical location
may also have the ambition of becoming a centre for a particular type of
innovation, such as health care. Many social entrepreneurs however, seek to
address social or environmental challenges in specific geographical areas, or
among specific populations – building on a “local knowledge” that is central to
their contribution (Dees, 2011). Consequently, for many social entrepreneurs
long-term relocation to another site (such as an incubator) might involve
distancing themselves from the very people they exist to serve. To make the
challenge of enhancing their learning even more difficult, the desire of the social
entrepreneur to promote the interests of particular areas or social groups
frequently places them in areas that are underserved by traditional business
services. This was the initial experience of Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh.
The challenge of supporting the learning of social entrepreneurs is augmented by
the fact that in many communities, the number of social entrepreneurs is
comparatively small, when compared to the numbers of conventional startups.
This often means that it is more difficult to obtain the ‘critical mass’ of
participants that is needed to justify an investment in [social] entrepreneurship
education. This was the case in the second of the training programmes studied
by Howorth, Smith and Parkinson (2012) – where participants were “sought out
and strongly persuaded to enrol so that target numbers could be met” (p.376).
The United Kingdom is often portrayed as one of the bastions of social
entrepreneurship and if it is difficult to gather sufficient numbers of social
entrepreneurs in such a context, it is probable that it is even more difficult to
create critical mass in less favourable environments. This implies that significant
challenges will accompany attempts to deliver social entrepreneurship education
to individuals or teams in developing countries – even if these countries may be
those with the greatest need for effective social enterprises.
The issue of gathering a ‘critical mass’ of social entrepreneurs for education has
been recognised by several organisations. Naturally, it is difficult to know
whether their approaches to educating social entrepreneurs have been formed by
a preference for a particular approach, or by their awareness of the factors
outlined above. I believe however, that I have presented credible evidence for
the possibility that the above challenges should influence the way in which
education is delivered.
Two established providers of education to early-stage social entrepreneurs use
the term “accelerator” to refer to their programmes, even if their strategies for
delivering education are slightly different. In the United States the Unreasonable
Institute has run a five week residential course for social entrepreneurs from all
Jönköping International Business School
32
over the world, for several years. The institute targets social enterprises with
proven business models and in 2013 it also began to run courses in Mexico and
Uganda. In the United Kingdom The Young Foundation runs a four month course
that also targets nascent social entrepreneurs, but does so by means of twelve
two-day workshops. It focuses on enterprises that have demonstrated that their
ideas are both effective and scalable. In contrast to the Unreasonable Institute
however, participants in The Young Foundation’s programme are primarily involved
in enterprises that have national as opposed to international impact.
1.6.2 Social Entrepreneurial Learning in a Non-formal Setting
The programmes initiated by the Unreasonable Institute and The Young Foundation
suggest that some educators of social entrepreneurs have taken into account
many of the challenges discussed in the previous section. Not least the idea that
educators of practicing entrepreneurs must adapt their educational strategies to
the circumstances of the entrepreneur. It appears that this adaptation is
associated with a move from a formal to a non-formal mode of education, on
the part of the educator. For scholars of entrepreneurship education however,
the two examples introduced above infer the possibility of achieving a second shift
in the attention of scholars of entrepreneurship education. In other words, not
only an increased emphasis on entrepreneurship education among practicing
entrepreneurs, but also the focusing of attention on interventions that enhance
the learning of practicing social entrepreneurs. As a result, the term “social
entrepreneurial learning” has been used by scholars to refer to the learning of
both practicing social entrepreneurs (Beck, 2008; Scheiber, 2014), and also
potential social entrepreneurs - that is: young people and students (Chang et al.,
2014; Kirchschlaeger, 2014).
Many of the most pressing social and environmental needs of the world are
located in developing countries. In these contexts the relative scarcity of social
entrepreneurs often combines with geographical factors to mitigate against the
gathering of a ‘critical mass’ of individuals that might justify the establishment of
an incubator, or make regular part-time education practical. Despite these
challenges, there is little evidence that a drop in society’s need for capable social
entrepreneurs is about to take place. If this need is to be filled, it is therefore
probable that educators will need to create new, more effective means of
delivering entrepreneurship education – to not only the social entrepreneurs of
tomorrow (primarily students), but also those of today. To cite Donald Kuratko
(2005): “professors […] must expand their pedagogies to include new and
innovative approaches to the teaching of entrepreneurship”. In the ‘for-profit’
sector, short-term ‘accelerator’ programmes have been created to both quicken
and improve the development of nascent business ventures. This study
investigates the efforts of the ‘social’ sector to enhance (or accelerate) the learning
of practicing social entrepreneurs using a similar approach. However, before
Introduction
33
addressing this adaptation the growth of the accelerator ‘movement’ in the for-
profit sector is discussed and its key characteristics identified.
1.7 The Rise of Accelerator Programmes
In recent years increasing attention has been devoted to designing non-formal
methods of entrepreneurship education that are appropriate to the circumstances
in which nascent entrepreneurs find themselves. One indicator of this renewed
interest is the rapid increase since 2005 of the number of short-term accelerator
programmes (P. Miller & Bound, 2011). Accelerators are intensive programmes
of non-formal entrepreneurship education that usually last for six to twelve
weeks – with three months the most common duration (Cohen, 2013m). They
are arguably a form of enterprise incubation and most programmes display many
of the characteristics associated with incubators. This includes the sharing of
subsidised office space and facilities, an emphasis on networking and the
fostering of a climate that facilitates enterprise development (Lichtenstein, 1992).
Participants are almost always nascent entrepreneurs and the accelerator is
designed to quicken the pace of venture development by means of individual
coaching, networking events and seminars on keys aspects of business.
Nonetheless, not all of the programmes which are covered by the definition of
accelerators that I introduce in section 1.7.1 refer to themselves as ‘accelerators’.
The terms “boot camp” and “business lab” are also fairly common – and the
Science Park initiative discussed by Ojala and Heikkilä (2011) is simply referred
to as “a training program”. It is therefore important to acknowledge the fact that
similar types of intensive training programmes may be referred to by different
names, even I submit that the most common term is “accelerator”. What is most
important for the purposes of this study however, is the idea that these
programmes are described by scholars as a form of enterprise support which
address the learning of entrepreneurs (Hallen, Bingham, & Cohen, 2013; Rivetti
& Migliaccio, 2014). Furthermore, as discussed in the next paragraph, the
accelerator phenomenon is both recent and growing.
In their survey of impact-oriented
11
accelerator and incubator programmes;
Baird, Bowles and Lall (2013) noted that 73 % of the accelerators they surveyed
were founded within the last five years (i.e. since 2008). A professional
development workshop (PDW) at the 2013 meeting of the Academy of
Management suggested that 3 000 startups had participated in accelerator
programmes since 2005 (A.o.M, 2013). My own monitoring (using the Google
Alerts tool) suggests that much of this increase is located in North America and
that one to two new accelerators are founded there each month. Nevertheless,
11
That is: programmes that focus on enterprises whose primary goal is that of addressing social or
environmental problems.
Jönköping International Business School
34
the Global Accelerator Network (2013) notes that accelerators exist on six
continents and an Indian journalist points out that the apparent increase in the
number of accelerator programmes is not restricted to the United States. He
suggests that in 2013 the number of accelerators in India increased at the rate of
around one new programme every month (Dey 2013). It is also worth noting that
not all of the increase in accelerator numbers is associated with new, independent
programmes. Many established accelerators expand their operations to other
regions, or even continents – as seen by Plug and Play’s expansion to Jordan and
Canada, and LaunchPad’s expansion from California to Long Island
12
.
Nevertheless, there are some indications that the proliferation of programmes
may be faltering, with new accelerators struggling to source the necessary
expertise and investors associated with success (Lennon, 2013). Despite this
qualification, the fact that the accelerator phenomenon is not only new (A.o.M
use the term “novel”) – but also growing and global, suggests that it is worth
studying. Rivetti and Migliaccio (2014) describe research on accelerators as
“exiguous
13
” and the Academy of Management PDW noted that accelerators
represent a “potentially large, yet heretofore underexploited research
opportunity” (A.o.M, 2013).
1.7.1 Defining Accelerators
Although Lewis, Harper-Anderson and Molnar (2011) note that some industry
professionals use the terms “accelerator” and “incubator” interchangeably,
scholars suggest that accelerators are distinct from incubators in several ways. In
the overview of the 2013 annual general meeting of the Academy of
Management, accelerators were defined as “time-limited entrepreneurship
educational programs that provide cohorts of nascent entrepreneurs with formal
education, mentorship, seed capital and introductions” (A.o.M, 2013). Miller and
Bound (2011) go into more detail and suggest that accelerators are characterised
by five characteristics. That is: an open and highly competitive application
process, the provision of investment, a focus on small teams (as opposed to
individual founders), a relatively short period of programmed events and
intensive mentoring, and the training in ‘cohorts’ of startups – rather than
individual companies. In addition to the above characteristics, Susan Cohen
(2013b) and Paolo Borella (2012) suggest that a sixth distinguishing feature of
accelerators is that they conclude their programmes with a planned ‘demo’ event
that exposes entrepreneurs to investors. Baird, Bowles and Lall (2013) suggest
that accelerators tend to target firms that already have customers and revenue,
while incubators focus more on early stage ventures. Cohen (2013) however,
12
Note that there is also a LaunchPad in Denmark, but I have been unable to ascertain whether it is
associated with the North American accelerators.
13
“excessively scanty” (Merriam-Webster, 2014).
Introduction
35
argues that accelerators usually target early stage ventures – a difference in
perspective that may be due to the different types of accelerators they survey.
Nonetheless, Baird et al. point out that accelerators do not always target ventures
at a specific stage of development, so that what really characterises them is the
provision of a subset of support “at any stage of [venture] development” (ibid.,
p.2). Lewis et al. (2011) agree with Baird et al.’s suggestion that accelerators tend
to focus on ‘mature’ ventures, but point out that some accelerators are simply
modified incubation programmes aimed at launching the ventures of incubator
graduates.
When the above definitions are compared with one another and with practice
14
,
it is clear that some suggested traits are more characteristic of accelerators than
others. For example: most accelerators include events in which entrepreneurs are
introduced to investors, but not all accelerators provide entrepreneurs with
investment. Similarly, although many accelerators prefer to train teams of
entrepreneurs, many do recruit individuals to their programmes. I therefore
suggest that it is useful to employ a ‘two-tier’ definition that includes both
necessary traits (without which a programme would not be considered an
accelerator) and common traits (characteristics that many, but not all accelerators
display).
I define an accelerator as a non-formal programme of entrepreneurship
education that:
• Aims to shorten (i.e. accelerate) the process of moving a new venture from
one stage of development to the next
15
.
• Aims to improve the quality of a new venture’s product or service, and its
financial sustainability.
• Trains entrepreneurs simultaneously as a cohort (rather than providing
training individually as entrepreneurs join the program, as with most
incubators).
14
In order to learn more about the general characteristics of accelerators, I monitored the internet för a
period of about a year using the Google alerts tool; making a note of factors such as duration,
location, affiliation, residency and the provision/non-provision of seed funding.
15
The possibility of accelerators addressing enterprises at more than just the initial phase of venture
development is illustrated by Ojala and Heikkilä’s (2011) study, which involved a programme that
focused on supoorting firms in the internationalisation process.
Jönköping International Business School
36
• Involves an intensive development process of limited duration, with a
maximum programme length of six months
16
.
• Includes a structured programme of enterprise-oriented education.
• Provides entrepreneurs with individualised coaching and/or mentoring.
• Involves the expansion and/or refinement of the entrepreneur’s network.
Furthermore, many (but not all) accelerators are characterised by:
• An open and highly competitive selection process.
• The provision of seed-funding, or the introduction of entrepreneurs to
potential investors.
• A duration of three to four months.
• Shared office space at a common site, with subsidised access to basic
administrative services (internet, telephone, etc.).
1.7.2 Categorising Accelerators
Although the majority of accelerators are characterised by the traits outlined
above, they often differ from one another in terms of focus, participant location,
frequency of interaction and funding. As regards focus and participant location,
some accelerators are conceived of as tools for local or regional development.
They therefore adopt a more general approach to education, and focus primarily
on entrepreneurs in the local community. Manizales-Mas and Working Capital are
examples of this type of accelerator. Manizales-Mas is located in the city of
Manizales, Colombia and Working Capital has accelerators in several Italian cities.
Both organisations focus on local startups. It is however, also possible for
accelerators to focus on startups within a particular industry, sector of the
population, or technology. Y-Combinator
17
focuses, for example: on web and
mobile applications – while New York’s Count Me In targets female
entrepreneurs. In contrast to Manizales-Mas and Working Capital, Y-Combinator
recruits its participants from a large geographical area and brings them to Silicon
Valley for three months of intensive training. These differences suggest that one
way of categorising accelerators is to locate them on a four-field diagram (see
figure 1-1), on the basis of participant location and frequency of interaction. Most
accelerators however appear to base their educational strategies on well-known
16
Some scholars suggest a time ’limit’ of three months, but my own monitoring suggests that a
significant number of programmes run for more than three months (e.g.: UpTech and the Telluride
Venture Accelerator in the U.S.A.) Very few programmes however, last for more than six months.
17
The accelerator credited with starting the accelerator “boom”.
Introduction
37
programmes – such as Y-Combinator and TechStars – and tend to be located in
sectors I or II of figure 1-1 (providing intense, residential education to either
local entrepreneurs or entrepreneurs who travel to the accelerator location). The
programme that I employ as a case study is located in sector II of the figure –
providing intense, residential education to entrepreneurs that travel to the
accelerator location.
Returning to the theme of accelerator focus, it is clear that many accelerators
recruit participants on the basis of the industry to which they belong. In the
United States for example: several accelerators target new ventures in the field of
health-care – for example: Boston’s HealthBox and New York’s Digital Health
Accelerator. Nonetheless, some accelerators focus on both a particular
geographical area and a specific industry – as illustrated by the Northwest Tennessee
Entrepreneur Center programme – which recruits entrepreneurs from the northern
part of the state and from the agricultural sector. The focus of an accelerator
appears to influence its method of delivering education. Programmes that focus
on startups in a particular area (sectors I and III in figure 1); may for example,
find it easier to adapt to the needs of local entrepreneurs.
I.
E.g.: Re-location to local
business centre
II.
E.g.: Residential
programme for non-local
entrepreneurs
III.
E.g.: Evening class
IV.
E.g.: Virtual incubator
Frequency of
interaction
Participant Location
HIGH
LOW
LOCAL DISTANT
Figure 1-1: Key contextual influences on accelerator design
Jönköping International Business School
38
Where entrepreneurs have already begun to pilot a product or service – or where
they have other jobs
18
– the nearby location of the accelerator makes it easier for
participants to maintain normal business operations while taking part.
Furthermore, participants are often able to stay in their own homes while
participating in the accelerator. These factors allow for the possibility of a longer
period of education and less frequent interaction between participants and
educators – even if they do not require such an adjustment.
Accelerators that recruit entrepreneurs from a larger geographical area face
particular challenges. Participants are either required to move to the accelerator
location for an extended period of time (usually two to three months), or they
travel to the accelerator for regular, short ‘bursts’ of education. Some
organisations have experimented with virtual accelerators (for example: Start-
upPlays and World Accelerator), but these initiatives do not appear to have had the
same kind of impact as more established programmes that require physical
participation in their activities. Regardless of the mode of delivery, most
accelerator programmes focus on for-profit enterprises. Only a relatively small
number of accelerators focus on social entrepreneurs or on startups in the not-
for-profit sector – even if this number is growing (Casasnovas & Bruno, 2013).
Nonetheless as noted in section 1.6, the environments in which practicing social
entrepreneurs operate suggests that there is a need for more programmes that
focus on this sector.
When it comes to the funding of accelerators, Susan Cohen (2013b) notes that
accelerators are now funded on both a for-profit and not-for-profit (N.f.P) basis.
She suggests however, that the first ‘wave’ of accelerators tended to be for profit
and often charged participants a proportion of equity in return for their services.
In the United States for example, the Hatch accelerator in Virginia charges new
ventures an 8 % share of their equity, while LaunchHouse in Cleveland charges
between 1 and 8 %. It is more unusual for accelerators to charge participants for
their services, as does the Women’s Small Business Accelerator in Ohio – which
charges USD $1 500 for their programme. Cohen (2013b) suggests that the initial
for-profit approach is linked to the management of several of the first
accelerators by venture capitalists. As accelerators became more visible however,
the approach attracted the attention of government. This in turn led to the
creation of accelerators that are financed by public funds, if not necessarily
owned by governmental agencies. Eleven in Bulgaria is for example, funded by
the European Union; The Difference Engine is funded by regional government in
18
In the initial stages of a start-up many entrepreneurs ’bootstrap’ by taking jobs that may not relate to
their intended product or service, but which nonetheless enable them to provide for themselves until
their ventures become profitable.
Introduction
39
the United Kingdom – and ilab/Germinate in Queensland, Australia is also
supported with public funds.
Despite the fact that many accelerators rely on funding that is either private or
public in character, many accelerators operate on the basis of a mix of revenue
streams. The Grindstone accelerator in Cape Town for example, is financed by
Knife Capital ( a private investment firm) and the South African Department of
Trade and Industry. Frequently, accelerators are at least partly funded by the
industry to which their new ventures belong. For example: the HealthBox
accelerator in the United States receives funding from the hospital company
HCA – and the ‘food and beverages services’ accelerator DrivenDonkey is
sponsored by 2 Gingers Whiskey. A growing number of accelerators are linked to
universities. For example: the ManizalesMas programme, which has links to
Babson College – and SearchCamp in the United Kingdom, which is linked to
Teesside University. Among impact-oriented accelerators, Baird, Bowles and Lall
(2013) note that 74 % of accelerators receive at least some of their support from
philanthropic sources, with just over half of the total funding for impact
accelerators coming from philanthropic capital. They also note that impact
accelerators appear to be more intent on cultivating non-philanthropic sources
of income than ‘traditional’ accelerators, so that two-thirds of impact accelerators
are structured as for-profits and one third charge participants fees. It is possible
that the charging of fees by impact accelerators is linked to the uncertainty of
financial returns from firms that focus on social or environmental impact – which
could make the charging of an equity stake less meaningful.
1.7.3 Performance
Accelerator performance is generally measured in terms of success and survival
(Lall, Bowles, & Baird, 2013). By ‘success’ scholars generally refer to either the
profitable operation of participating firms one to three years after the accelerator,
the sale of the new venture, the public sale of firm shares, or the raising of
significant investment. Scholars suggest that ‘significant’ investment implies the
raising of $350 000 (Hochberg & Kamath, 2012) to $500 000 USD (Lall et al.,
2013). Lall et al. (ibid.) suggest that ‘survival’ includes not only firms that are
profitable and that have raised investment, but also startups that are still running
– even if they are not yet profitable or have raised investment. Accelerators
sponsored with public funds however, often include statistics for job creation as
an indication of success.
One reason for the widespread interest in accelerators is the apparent success of
several high-profile programmes (for example: Y Combinator and Techstars). These
accelerators report relatively high rates of post-accelerator investment, with Y
Combinator noting that 94.4 % of participating startups received follow-on
investment in 2011, with Techstars reporting a follow-on investment rate of 53.7
Jönköping International Business School
40
% (P. Miller & Bound, 2011). These figures are accompanied by a relatively low
failure rate – with the above scholars reporting a figure of ten to fifteen percent
of participating firms. This figure mirrors Hoffman and Radojevich-Kelley’s
(2012) comment that accelerator managers generally anticipate that about 20 %
of their startups will fail. These widely publicised statistics have attracted the
interest of not only investors and government, but also nascent entrepreneurs.
Consequently, Miller and Bound (2011) suggest that demand for places on an
accelerator has outstripped supply. This observation is borne out by the relatively
small proportion of startups that are admitted to the most popular accelerators
(less than one percent of applicants) – and the increasing size of their cohorts (in
recent years Y Combinator has had cohorts of up to 84 entrepreneurs). This
contrasts with acceptance rates of five to ten percent in other accelerators and in
incubators (Lall et al., 2013).
Despite the apparent success of accelerator programmes, investors and scholars
advise caution. Hoffman and Radojevich (2012) point out that data on
accelerators is relatively new and often provides only a limited, two year
perspective. The venture capitalists surveyed by Hochberg and Kamath (2012)
expressed concern that the ‘hype’ created by accelerators’ final ‘demo day’ would
artificially inflate their ventures’ value and make it difficult for them raise later
stage investment – a concern shared by Miller and Bound (2011). The most
convincing evidence for the need for caution is however, provided by Hallen,
Bingham and Cohen (2013). These scholars conducted a comparative study of
new ventures that included not only startups from several different accelerators,
but also an equal number of startups that did not participate in an accelerator
programme. They concluded that effective accelerators provide new ventures
with knowledge and resources that they cannot otherwise access, regardless of
founders’ human and social capital. This finding addresses a common critique of
accelerators, namely that their success is due to stringent selection procedures
and subsequent ‘credentialing’ (the legitimacy afforded the startup due to its
association with the programme). It also lends weight to my suggestion that
accelerators are not only contexts in which entrepreneurs network and obtain
resources, but also important environments for learning. Nonetheless, Hallen et
al.’s study notes that not all accelerators are effective. Indeed, the startups from
several of the accelerators studied performed no better than their non-accelerated
peers. They therefore conclude that it is difficult to increase the pace of
development in new ventures and that there is presently no theoretical
explanation for how programmes achieve acceleration.
1.7.4 The ‘What’ and the ‘How’ of Acceleration
Despite Hallen et al.’s (2013) suggestion that relatively little is known about firms’
development processes within accelerators, several scholars have identified the
main contributions made by programmes to participating startups. Furthermore,
Introduction
41
in her doctoral dissertation Susan Cohen (2013a) has begun to explain the
accelerator process, using insights from the organisational learning literature. In
the following paragraphs I discuss her ideas and the factors that other scholars
link to accelerator outcomes.
Several scholars associate the contributions of accelerators with particular aspects
of programme design. Bill Autlet – the CEO of the MIT accelerator programme
– suggests that programmes tend to be designed around space, funding, structure
and status (Autlet in Feld, 2012, p. 118), while Hallen et al. (2013) discuss the
centrality of time in the accelerator process
19
. Cohen (2013b) suggests that
“intense mentorship and education” are capstones of accelerators. She also
suggests that accelerators accelerate startups by encouraging entrepreneurs to
delay ‘doing’ until they have created a coherent strategy (Cohen, 2013a). Her
observation is an interesting one, as some scholars link accelerators with the
‘hands on’ approach of Lean Start-up strategy (P. Miller & Bound, 2011). In this
study I contribute to the literature on accelerators and entrepreneurial learning
by showing that some accelerators succeed by emphasising both aspects, but at
different stages in the learning process.
A core accelerator assumption is that startup development is a process that can
be made to happen in a shorter period of time. Venture capitalist Brad Feld
suggests that the accelerator process involves a period of time that is short
enough for founders to work with enough intensity to achieve “substantive”
development, while avoiding the burnout that a year-long intensive programme
implies (Feld, 2012). In more theoretical terms, Hallen et al. (2013) suggest that
entrepreneurs often engage in ‘sub-optimal’ learning, so that the task of the
accelerator is to optimise the learning process and create a “time compression”
economy. However, as Cohen (2013b) points out, the short duration of
accelerators is also a factor that enables programmes to enlist the services of
experienced mentors who would otherwise shy away from engagement.
Hallen et al.’s (2013) discussion of the role played by time in accelerators is
complemented by Autlet’s (in Feld, 2012) observation of the function of funding.
Funding refers to the financing of entrepreneurs’ living expenses during the
accelerator period, as opposed to the provision of investment. It enables
entrepreneurs to work fulltime on their startups and to devote energy and
thought to their development, without the distraction of part-time work and
similar income-generating activities. Hjorth (2013) notes that in the context of
incubators, “time to devote to the startup” is a key variable that affects the
19
Note that Hallen et al.’s (2013) article appears to build extensively on Cohen’s (2013) doctoral
research. This is worth noting, as it is otherwise easy to gain the impression that different scholars
have arrived at similar conclusions – whereas in reality, several foundational articles on accelerators
are informed by the same data. This does not detract from their contribution, but instead underlines
the need for more empirical studies of accelerator processes.
Jönköping International Business School
42
development curve of the nascent venture – and it is reasonable to expect a
similar effect in the context of accelerators.
A key part of most accelerators is co-working, by which most scholars refer to the
idea that business development takes place in a social context, primarily in the
company of other nascent entrepreneurs. Autlet (ibid.) emphasizes the
importance of creating a sense of community among participating startups, so
that entrepreneurs can learn not only from visiting speakers, but also from one
another. Cohen (2013a) however, suggests that entrepreneurs’ learning is
stimulated not only by their perception of fellow entrepreneurs as colleagues, but
also by the motivation generated by perceiving them as competitors. Autlet (ibid.)
notes that entrepreneurs provide one another with emotional support as they
interact. Both Cohen (2013a), and Miller and Bound (2011) note that participants
engage in problem-solving together with other ventures. The entrepreneurs
interviewed by Hallen et al. (2013) described this interaction (and the networks
it generated), as the main long-term contribution of the accelerator. Nevertheless,
accelerators vary in the way they facilitate this interaction. Many programmes
provide participants with shared office space for the duration of the programme,
but participants in Y Combinator tend to work in their own living quarters and
meet one another in weekly sessions that include a meal (P. Miller & Bound,
2011).
The highly structured programme of education and networking associated with
accelerators is a characteristic that differentiates them from other types of
incubator. Cohen (2013b) for example, contrasts the intensity of accelerator
coaching with the incubator processes described by Hackett and Dilts (2004),
where tenants frequently do not take advantage of available expertise. In her
doctoral research Cohen (2013a) emphasizes the advisory role of the accelerator
manager (“director experts”). Despite this emphasis, it is worth noting that
Lichtenstein (1992) identifies a similar managerial role in his study of the Fulton-
Carroll incubator. Consequently, it is probable that the main difference between
incubators and accelerators in this context is not so much a contrast in the
advisory role of programme managers, but instead the structured nature of their
advice. This suggestion is supported by Cohen’s (2013a) discussion at other
points in her dissertation and by Miller and Bound’s (2011, p. 28) observation
that the accelerator process is characterised by “pressure and discipline”.
Entrepreneurs are expected to make progress within a given timeframe and are
provided with a basic structure in which to work.
In practice the accelerator structure discussed by scholars often consists of
didactical ‘units’ that resemble one another in terms of educational strategy, even
if they occur in different accelerators. A typical educational ‘unit’ is composed of
a visit by an experienced entrepreneur or business professional, followed by one-
on-one coaching (Cohen, 2013m; P. Miller & Bound, 2011). For example: a
Introduction
43
specialist on online marketing might begin by giving a talk on the role of websites
or electronic commerce to the entire cohort. The visitor would then follow up
their talk by discussing the implications of this input with each one of the
participating entrepreneurs, on an individual basis. At times this will be the only
interaction the entrepreneurs have with this person, but frequently one or two
entrepreneurs will spark an interest in visiting speakers – and will engage with
them after the visit. Miller and Bound (2011) suggest that this structure serves
not only the purpose of helping entrepreneurs refine their operations, but also
enables them to develop their networks – and thus gain long-term access to
resources and knowledge. The networking component is thus an important
addition to the lean startup methodology that Miller and Bound (ibid.) associate
with accelerators – and which is also apparent in programmes such as The
Difference Engine
20
. Nonetheless, accelerators appear to place greater emphasis on
the future value of networks as they facilitate the development of entrepreneurs’
knowledge and networks. Both of these are difficult for entrepreneurs to gain
access to in the absence of the ‘convening’ role played by interventions such as
accelerators (Hallen et al., 2013).
In the preceding paragraphs I have outlined several of the contributions
accelerators make to entrepreneurs’ development and the means by which these
are achieved. My discussion has been structured around the key components
identified at the beginning of this section, namely: time, space, funding, structure,
mentorship and education. In the following paragraph I discuss legitimacy, the final
component.
Many scholars suggest that an important accelerator activity takes place at the
end of the programme, when a ‘demo day’ is held (Cohen, 2013m; Hoffman &
Radojevich-Kelley, 2012). At this event entrepreneurs ‘pitch’ their ventures to
the general public and in particular, to investors. For this reason, accelerators are
sometimes referred to as “seed accelerators”, due to their emphasis on helping
ventures at the ‘prototype’ stage to become investment-ready (Hoffman &
Radojevich-Kelley, 2012; Lall et al., 2013). Scholars suggest that accelerators play
an important role in increasing the perceived legitimacy of participating ventures,
by at least two means. Firstly, accelerators’ stringent selection procedures
reassure investors that graduate ventures have potential. Secondly, the fact that
ventures are graduating from an accelerator infers that they have undergone a
rigorous process of testing and development. In his discussion of incubators,
Hjorth (2013) notes that the media publicity associated with new programmes
enhances the legitimacy of participating entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, several
other factors also influence venture’s legitimacy in the eyes of investors. For
20
Miller and Bound’s (2011, p.19) description of the development process followed by The Difference
Engine (refine, build, show) emphases several of the processes advocated in lean start-up methodology
(build, measure, learn), albeit in a different order (Ries, 2011).
Jönköping International Business School
44
example: where investors are linked to accelerators, they often have the
opportunity to get to know potential investees better and are able to cultivate
trust. Similarly, where investors are linked to accelerators, they are often in a
position to influence the development of ventures that they consider for
investment. An accelerator’s investor network is therefore extremely important,
not only in accelerators oriented towards for-profit ventures, but also in
programmes catering to ‘social’ ventures – as shown by Lall et al.’s (2013) study
of impact accelerators
21
. Hoffman and Radojevich-Kelley (2012) suggest
however, that the attitudes of mentors also have an effect on venture legitimacy –
as the continuing engagement of an experienced mentor in a startup is an
indication of their confidence in its potential.
1.7.5 Accelerators for Social Enterprises
Until now I have primarily discussed the development of accelerators in the ‘for
profit’ sector. I have suggested that when compared to other types of incubator
and to university programmes, accelerators appear to enhance the learning of a
larger number of entrepreneurs in a relatively short period of time. When
compared with incubators, the investment required of both the entrepreneur and
programme funders appears to be lower in accelerators, and the limitations
associated with long-term residence at a specific geographical location are
alleviated. Furthermore, by selecting the most promising candidates from a
comparatively large pool of applications (an additional advantage of the shorter
term of residence), accelerator programmes increase their chances of developing
successful, high-growth ventures.
The adaptation of the accelerator concept to the education of social entrepreneurs
has to some extent followed the general structure of the traditional accelerator (a
two to four month period of intense training, coaching and practical work).
Casasnovas and Bruno’s (2013) study however, suggests that ‘social’ accelerators
and incubators
22
adopt a greater variety of educational approaches than for-profit
programmes, both with regards to the delivery of education and in relation to the
length of time entrepreneurs spend at the accelerator. Furthermore, in contrast
to accelerators that recruit commercial startups, many of the accelerators that
focus on social enterprises target entrepreneurs far beyond the borders of their
own cities, states and even countries. In the United Kingdom the accelerators
run by The Young Foundation and Wayra Unltd work primarily with social
entrepreneurs on a regional basis. In the United States Good Company and Echoing
21
In their study Lall et al (2013) noted that programmes with formal links to investors had higher rates of
both success and survival.
22
Although I argue that accelerators are a type of incubator, for convenience I refer to programmes that
employ the ’accelerator’ approach to incubation as ”accelerators” and to programmes that adopt a
longer, more traditional approach to incubation as ”incubators”.
Introduction
45
Green go a step further and train international cohorts. Lall et al.'s (2013) study of
‘impact-oriented’ accelerators and incubators notes that of the 52 programmes
surveyed, 27 % are ‘global’ in terms of recruitment, 31 % are ‘regional’ (primarily
focusing on Africa and Asia) – and only 43 % recruited from a single country (35
%) – or city (8 %). Consequently, the reSET accelerator in Hartford, Connecticut
(which supports primarily local social entrepreneurs) is more an exceptional case,
than the norm.
From a research perspective, initiatives that recruit social entrepreneurs in a
‘global’ or ‘regional’ manner are interesting for several reasons. To begin with,
they represent a question that is worth finding the answer to (how can the
development of social entrepreneurs in less prosperous regions be strengthened
and accelerated?). However, because these accelerators recruit entrepreneurs
from a wide geographical area (to which they then return), these programmes
also represent a new form of accelerator – and educational strategy. Relatively
few studies of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators have been conducted and
even less investigation has been made of accelerators for social entrepreneurs. In
the following section I therefore discuss some of the ‘gaps’ in accelerator
research, from the perspective of entrepreneurial learning. These areas represent
opportunities for further study and several of them are explored in this
dissertation.
1.7.6 Weaknesses, Gaps and Opportunities
A significant ‘gap’ in scholars’ discussions of accelerator contributions and
processes has to do with the relationship between studies of accelerators and the
literature on entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education. This gap
can be expressed in two ways. First of all, it is possible to critique the literature
on accelerators for its failure to draw more extensively on scholars who study not
only the general phenomenon of learning, but also its context. In the context of
entrepreneurship, this translates into a need for studies of accelerators to be
informed by both the literature on entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship
education. At the moment scholars have only just begun to apply theories of
learning to the developmental processes apparent in accelerators – even if Cohen
(2013a) and Hallen et al. (2013) have introduced the idea of time compression
economies, and mention concepts such as vicarious learning and reasoning by
analogy. When scholars do refer to educational scholarship, it is arguable that
they sometimes do so at a superficial level (referring to a concept, yet not
employing it in an in-depth analysis) – and furthermore, that they at times use
educational terms inaccurately. For example: Hallen et al (ibid.) describe
education in accelerators as “formal”, when from the perspective of educational
theorists it is clearly non-formal in character. As I emphasized in an earlier
section, the education of practicing entrepreneurs relies primarily on a non-
formal approach to education – even if it occasionally relies on both formal and
Jönköping International Business School
46
informal strategies. Accelerators are not exceptions, as they are aimed at a
“subgroup” of the population (nascent entrepreneurs), involve “organized,
systematic, educational activity”, and are usually located “outside the framework
of the formal system” (Coombs et al 1974, cited in Jarvis, 1987, p. 69). The
distinction between formal and non-formal education is important to make if
future studies are to be embedded in educational scholarship.
The above paragraph suggests that there is a need for accelerator scholars to draw
on educational theory and on the work of scholars of both entrepreneurial
learning and entrepreneurship education. However, it is just as important to note
that when compared with the number of studies on entrepreneurship-oriented
learning among students, the numbers of studies of entrepreneurs’ learning in
the context of educational programmes are relatively few
23
. Consequently, there
is an opportunity for a reciprocal exchange of ideas: for accelerator scholars to
draw on the entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education literature –
and for scholars from these fields to develop knowledge from studies of
accelerators.
If an assessment of accelerator research is made from the perspective of
entrepreneurial learning (EL), it is useful to discuss the field with reference to the
literature review of Peter Erdélyi (2010). Erdélyi suggests that EL scholarship
tends to focus on either the individual learner or the organisational context as
the unit of analysis. ‘Individual-focused’ studies are portrayed as discussing
learning from the perspective of individual cognition or as a particular type of
managerial learning. A significant number of articles also discuss EL from what
Erdélyi terms a ‘supply’ perspective: focusing on executive education and
management training. He contrasts this emphasis of the individual’s role in
learning with a second major category of EL scholarship, which discusses
learning in the context of networks and systems of innovation. An interesting
aspect of Erdélyi’s review is his discussion of the role of non-human objects in
entrepreneurial learning. In keeping with Leitch and Harrison’s (2008) argument
that entrepreneurial learning cannot be separated from the contexts in which it
occurs, Erdélyi posits that a neglected ingredient in entrepreneurial contexts is
the domain of ‘objects’. Advocating the use of actor-network theory he argues
for a closer analysis of the role played by material objects in entrepreneurial
learning. He also echoes Ravasi and Turati’s (2005) concern that EL scholars
have been overly concerned with conceptual discussions, at the expense of
empirical work.
23
Note that I distinguish studies of entrepreneurs’ learning in educational contexts from that of studies
of management learning in SMEs. I am aware of the large body of research on ’enterprise’ education,
including the series of special issues on this theme in Education & Training between 2000 and 2005.
Introduction
47
In contrast to Erdélyi, discussions by Leitch and Harrison (2008) and Taylor and
Thorpe (2004) highlight the ‘human’ side of context – emphasising the idea that
entrepreneurial learning develops in a social or relational environment. When the
social aspect of accelerator scholarship is considered, a weakness of several
studies emerges. This weakness has to do with the inconsistent and non-specific
use of the terms by which scholars refer to the different actors in accelerators.
This flaw relates particularly to scholars’ use of the term ‘mentor’. Cohen (2013m,
p. 23) uses the term to refer to both the limited numbers of individuals who
coach entrepreneurs throughout the accelerator and the large number of visiting
speakers who only engage with the entrepreneurs for the space of a few hours
(her “four or five mentors a day” group). In her doctoral work (2013a) however,
she distinguishes between accelerator managers (“director experts”) and visiting
advisors/speakers (“mentors”). Miller and Bound (2011, pp.3, 9, 10) also employ
the term “mentor” in their article, but it is unclear exactly who they refer to. In
most accelerators, entrepreneurs are coached by at least three main categories of
individual: the accelerator manager(s), one or two additional individuals who
coach them on a regular basis throughout the course of the programme – and
the visiting, ‘thematic’ speakers who provide them with brief, topical coaching in
their areas of expertise. In their review of the terms used in the ‘developmental
interactions’ literature, D’Abate, Eddy and Tannenbaum (2006) make it clear that
although the terms ‘mentor’ and ‘coach’ are occasionally used interchangeably, in
scholarly literature ‘mentor’ is generally used for interactions that focus on an
individual’s general, long-term development – while the term ‘coach’ is used to
denote more short-term development and “practical application”. If we are to
deepen our analysis of the impact of the ‘social’ context of accelerators on
entrepreneurs’ learning, I suggest that it is important to make a clearer distinction
between the different actors involved.
A weakness exemplified by only one of the articles that discuss accelerators, is
displayed by Lall et al.’s (2013) foundational article Bridging the Pioneer Gap. This
article is worth mentioning as it is one of only a few publications that examine
programmes that focus on the development of social enterprises. Unfortunately,
the article does not distinguish between accelerators and incubators, although my
impression is that this information may be available. The article builds on
ongoing research conducted in cooperation with several leading institutes
(Aspen, Village Capital and ANDES) and its authors appear to have access to a
rich data set. However, because an unclear distinction is made between
accelerators and incubators, this data can only be used to draw tentative
conclusions about accelerator activity in the social sector. Casanovas and Bruno
(2013) in contrast, distinguish between accelerators and incubators. Nonetheless,
in their study it is apparent that the initiatives they label with each of these two
terms are very different from one another
24
in terms of duration and educational
24
I.e.: within each group.
Jönköping International Business School
48
strategy. Consequently their study does not really bring more clarity to the field
(in terms of distinguishing different types of programme). Instead it highlights
the multiplicity of educational strategies that scholars label with the term
“accelerator” and graphically illustrates the need for scholars to distinguish
between the different forms. For example, by employing categorisations such as
the four-fielder diagram I introduced in figure 1-1 (p.37).
In addition to the ‘gaps’ discussed in the preceding paragraphs, many of the
scholars whose work I have discussed suggest directions for future research.
Miller and Bound (2011) for example, suggest that more study needs to be made
of how accelerators’ performance and impact can be measured – to facilitate the
comparison of different programmes. More importantly for the purposes of this
study, Lall et al. (2013) and Hallen et al. (2013) both identify accelerator quality as
a key focus for study. They emphasize the need for developing a detailed
understanding of what ‘quality’ means in the context of accelerators, given the
latter scholars’ observation that not all accelerators are equally successful. In
particular; Hoffman and Radojevich-Kelly (2012), and Hallen et al. (ibid.) argue
that it is important to learn more about the ‘how’ (or process) of acceleration.
Hallen et al. underline the need to understand the interplay of factors that makes
the structuring of accelerator education “unclear and critical” (ibid., p.33). Finally,
Miller and Bound (2011) suggest that future research should address the
possibility of extending the use of accelerators to the development of social
ventures. In this dissertation I discuss a series of educational interventions that
have done just that. I also begins to address the ‘how’ question identified by
several scholars. In other words: the question of which factors constitute ‘quality’
in accelerators, to the enhancement of entrepreneurial learning and hence
venture performance.
1.8 Research Purpose
Despite the apparent advantages of the accelerator concept, Miller and Bound
(2011) and the Academy of Management (2013) note that little research into this
type of entrepreneurship education has been conducted. Unsurprisingly given
the rapid proliferation of accelerators, the academic community has been unable
to keep pace with the development of the accelerator concept. As a result, until
very recently the primary sources of information on entrepreneurs’ learning in
accelerators tended to be practitioner-oriented reports such as those of Stross
(2012), Miller and Bound (ibid.), and Baird, Bowles and Lall (2013). This
phenomenon is readily explained by the recent emergence of this type of
entrepreneurship education, with scholars identifying the first accelerator
programme (Y Combinator) only ten years ago in 2005. Importantly, even less
study has been carried out of the ways in which organisations have adapted the
accelerator concept to the particular needs of social entrepreneurs.
Introduction
49
In previous paragraphs I have suggested that non-formal approaches to
entrepreneurship education (such as accelerators) make it easier for practicing
entrepreneurs to participate in educational activities – and as a result, optimise
their learning. Even so, accessibility is only half of the story and if entrepreneurial
learning is to be enhanced, education also needs to be effective. The experience
of leading accelerators such as Y Combinator and Cleantech Open suggests that many
entrepreneurs benefit from accelerator activities. However, not all programmes
have seen similar success. GigTank in Chattanooga, Tennessee for example,
noted that only two out of the eight ventures that participated in its 2011
accelerator survived
25
(Bradbury, 2013). Nashville’s Jumpstart accelerator on the
other hand, reported a considerably higher success rate of 65 % (McGee, 2013).
Figures such as these imply that simply setting up an accelerator programme for
new ventures does not guarantee that participating entrepreneurs will be able to
learn enough to create sustainable businesses. Instead, it is important to recognise
the additional impact of factors such as the business environment and firms’
access to finance. Given the focus of this study, it is especially important to
understand how and what entrepreneurs learn as they participate in accelerator
activities.
Umbrella organisations such as the Global Accelerator Network boast of the high
levels of investment associated with their members’ programmes
26
. It is therefore
possible that the combination of access to investment and a highly selective
recruitment process might be the main reasons for participating entrepreneurs’
success. The recent study by Hallen et al. (2013) however, suggests that this may
not be the case and that it is instead the quality of the accelerator process that
determines venture performance. Entrepreneurs engage in several
developmental processes during accelerators; processes that include networking,
the formalisation of their enterprises (for example: through a business plan) –
and learning. In this dissertation I focus particularly on this latter process: on the
role of education in accelerating the learning of social entrepreneurs – and hence,
the development of their enterprises.
In this chapter I have suggested that practicing entrepreneurs are more able to
participate in shorter, non-formal courses of education than in long-term, formal
programmes. I have also identified accelerators as a promising new method of
non-formal entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, I have suggested that
social entrepreneurs are an important category of learners that educators might
target. Despite these promising signs, scholars agree that we know very little
about the characteristics of non-formal educational programmes such as
accelerators – and that there is a pressing need for studies of this type of
25
I.e.: 25 %
26
http://gan.co/
Jönköping International Business School
50
entrepreneurship education (A.o.M, 2013). Moreover, as Baird et al. (2013, p. 4)
point out: “the study of social-impact focused incubators and accelerators is in its
infancy”. It is therefore important to learn more about the learning of social
entrepreneurs in accelerator programmes – and about the ways in which their
learning shapes their development and the development of their enterprises.
Consequently, the purpose of this dissertation is to:
Explore the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerator programmes
In chapter two, four more specific research questions are developed from the
above purpose. However, these questions are informed not only by this
statement of purpose, but also by the theoretical perspectives that I adopt in this
study. Although the reasoning behind these questions will only fully emerge in
the following chapter, it may be useful for the reader at this stage to view the
study’s purpose and research questions together.
The four research questions addressed in this dissertation are:
1. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators
influenced by their experiences and intentions prior to entering the
programme?
2. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by the
non-human ‘objects’ (primarily educational design) that are associated
with entrepreneurship education in accelerators?
3. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by their
interaction with the different human actors within accelerators
(managers, mentors, coaches and peers)?
4. In which ways does the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators
affect their development and that of their enterprises?
1.9 A Dissertation Road-map
In the next chapter I introduce the reader to the main theoretical perspectives
that inform my discussion of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators. The
theoretical perspectives I adopt reflect the scholarly contributions that I hope to
make. In this chapter I have already introduced other scholars’ studies of
accelerators – and naturally I hope to contribute to learning in this field. In
particular I hope to expand our understanding of how the non-formal learning
environments of accelerators enhance social entrepreneurs’ learning – and hence,
the development of their enterprises. It is also my ambition to develop
knowledge about accelerators, by discussing the application of the concept in a
new context – namely that of the social entrepreneur.
Introduction
51
In chapter two I draw on the ideas of learning theorist Peter Jarvis. I also make
reference to the literature on entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship
education, placing particular emphasis on scholars’ ideas about appropriate
educational philosophies and pedagogies. It is not however, my ambition to
develop any revolutionary insights with regards to adult learning. Nonetheless, I
hope that my discussion of the learning of social entrepreneurs will provide
learning theorists with some empirically-based insight into the factors that
influence the learning process among adults. I have however, higher hopes with
regards to making a contribution to the fields of entrepreneurial learning and
entrepreneurship education. In this area I hope to develop our understanding of
the learning process, as regards on the one hand practising entrepreneurs – and on
the other hand, social entrepreneurs. In particular, I hope to make a contribution
by introducing non-formal learning environments as a particular context of/for
entrepreneurial learning. Importing so to say, this approach from fields where it
is more widely discussed – such as youth and development studies
(Kirchschlaeger, 2014). It is my expectation that a discussion of this aspect of
learning will lend depth to ongoing discussions of pedagogy among scholars of
entrepreneurship education (Neck, Greene, & Brush, 2014). By employing an
‘engaged’ method of data collection and analysis, I also hope to make a small
contribution to our understanding of how qualitative research may be conducted
in a manner that is both scholarly rigorous, yet also mutually beneficial.
Based on the statement of purpose introduced in section 1.8, and on my
discussion of the literature on adult learning, entrepreneurial learning and
entrepreneurship education; at the end of chapter two I reiterate my four more
specific research questions. In chapter three I describe the case study method
used to gather information about social entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators –
and to analyse this data. In chapter four I introduce the reader to the social
entrepreneurs whose experiences provide the basis for my discussion in chapter
five – and to the ‘Booster’
27
accelerator programme; both of which are studied in
order to achieve the purpose of this dissertation. Later on in this chapter I
provide a more detailed description of the experiences of four social
entrepreneurs. In the final section of the chapter (section 4.5), most of the
findings associated with research question four (relating to the outcomes of
learning) are located. In chapter five I discuss my findings as they relate to
research questions one (the roles played by prior experience and intention), two
(the role played by non-human objects) and three (the role of interaction between
accelerator managers, mentors, coaches and entrepreneurs). I conclude my
dissertation in chapter six, by summarising its contributions and by suggesting
possible avenues for future research.
27
In this study I use ‘Booster’ as a pseudonym for the real name of the accelerator programme.
Jönköping International Business School
52
1.10 A Brief Note on Terminology
This study is primarily about the learning of social entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, I
have often felt that the flow of my discussion would be hindered by the unwieldy
and repetitious positioning of the adjective “social” before the noun
“entrepreneur”. Consequently, unless the context is unclear I usually refer to the
individuals who participated in the Booster accelerators as simply “entrepreneurs”,
“the entrepreneurs” or “participants”. Where this is done, I take it for granted
that the reader will understand that the entrepreneurs I refer to are the social
entrepreneurs who participated in the accelerator.
Slightly more controversy may be attached to my use of the terms “startup”,
“new venture” and “enterprise”. Traditionally, entrepreneurship has been
associated with the founding of a new firm and consequently, practitioners often
favour the term ‘startup’. In recent years scholars have suggested that this
definition does not capture all of the possible implications of entrepreneurship –
a term that may refer not only to the creation of a new for-profit firm, but also
to the founding of an organisation with a social purpose – or even to the creation
of a new organisation by an existing firm. For this reason scholars increasingly
use terms such as “new venture creation” (Timmons & Spinelli, 1994) and
“venturing” (Kloosterman & Rath, 2003). In this study my primary emphasis is
on social entrepreneurs who are engaged in the creation of a new organisation –
regardless of whether this organisation is entirely new, or an independent entity
sprung from an existing organisation. Consequently, I use the terms “startup”
and “new venture” interchangeably – and also refer to the emerging, nascent
organisation using terms such as “enterprise” and “venture”. I believe that my
use of these terms as equivalents is acceptable in view of the purpose of this study
– which focuses on the role of learning in the venturing process, rather than on
distinguishing different forms of nascent entrepreneurship. My use of the terms
as interchangeable references to a similar, general activity also has its academic
precedents in other scholars’ practice (for example: Mullins, 2009).
53
2 Theoretical Perspectives
In order to build a theoretical foundation for my study of the learning of
practicing social entrepreneurs I draw on three main bodies of scholarship,
namely the literatures on entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurship education and adult
learning. By doing so it is my intention to address the ‘how’ and the ‘why’
questions inherent in my research purpose – and advocated by scholars such as
Hoffman and Radojevich-Kelly (2012). These and other scholars underline the
need for a deeper understanding of how accelerators support the learning of
nascent entrepreneurs. By adopting these three theoretical perspectives I am in a
sense looking at accelerators from two main positions in this chapter. My
discussion of entrepreneurship education provides the necessary theoretical
background for my later discussion of research questions two and three (the
influence of human actors and non-human ‘objects’ such as educational design).
Here I adopt the position of the ‘accelerator’ and participating entrepreneurs are
framed as targets of a programme of entrepreneurship education. As the chapter
progresses however, I re-position myself and discuss the accelerator from the
perspective of the participants. In theoretical terms this involves framing the
participant as both an adult learner and an adult learner who is also an
entrepreneur. This background is particularly important for my later discussion
of research questions one and four
28
, but is also necessary in order to provide a
more complete answer to question two and three.
In adopting the position of the accelerator I discuss the ‘how’ of
entrepreneurship education in accelerators. This question has to do with the way
in which programmes seek to develop entrepreneurial capacities in participants
– and a natural point of departure is the literature on entrepreneurship education.
Nonetheless, within this large body of literature I focus primarily on only two
themes. Firstly, the literature that Pittaway and Cope (2007a) label “the education
of entrepreneurs” – and secondly, pedagogy. In other words, I am mostly
interested in publications that discuss the education of individuals that are already
engaged in starting a new venture, and the philosophies and practices associated
with this education.
In adopting the position of the participating entrepreneurs I discuss the ‘why’ of
entrepreneurial learning in accelerators – and attempt to uncover the underlying
explanations for the success or failure of entrepreneurship education within
accelerators. An initial step in this process is the recognition that entrepreneurs
are not simply individuals who start and manage businesses, but also adults. I
28
Research question (1) addresses the impact of entrepreneurs’ intentions and previous experience,
while (4) focuses on the relationship between learning and enterprise development.
Jönköping International Business School
54
therefore examine the literature on adult learning and in particular, experiential
theories of learning – as these are the theories most commonly linked to
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning (Pittaway & Cope,
2007g). Nonetheless, while recognising that the individuals who interact with the
educational activities of accelerators are almost always adults, it is important to
also understand that they are also entrepreneurs. Consequently, it is necessary to
allow for the possibility that the occupation or ambition of the adult learner, may
also influence the manner in which they interact with accelerator activities. For
this reason I integrate insights from scholars of entrepreneurial learning into my
discussion of the literature on adult learning.
2.1 The Education of [social] Entrepreneurs
2.1.1 Overview
Although growth has slowed in recent years, entrepreneurship education is one
of the fastest growing fields of education in the world today (Finkle, 2007), and
is characterised by what Mwasalwiba (2010, p. 20) terms “explosive growth”.
Despite this growth, the field is characterised by heterogeneity – with Jones and
Matlay (2011) suggesting that this is a natural result of the diversity of the field
of entrepreneurship itself. Scholars also note that entrepreneurship education
research is relatively immature, with little agreement on core concepts and
measurement, widespread dependence on self-reported measures and a large
number of cross-sectional studies (Gorman et al., 1997; Pittaway & Cope, 2007a).
Despite these challenges, writers agree on several points. Jones and Matlay (ibid.,
p.702) suggest for example, that there is a shared assumption that
entrepreneurship education focuses on the “development of the student for
future entrepreneurial behaviour”. There is also general agreement over the
categorisation of entrepreneurship education programmes, even if scholars
associate slightly different foci with the commonly used categories
29
(see for
example: Dahlstedt & Hertzberg, 2012; Mwasalwiba, 2010). These categories are
briefly introduced below.
Most scholars agree that education about entrepreneurship aims to increase
learners’ awareness of entrepreneurs and the venturing process – often
attempting to make students more open to the possibility of an entrepreneurial
career (Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004). They also agree that two objectives of
entrepreneurship education can be to equip individuals to start a new venture, or
to act in an entrepreneurial manner in other contexts (Blenker, Korsgaard,
Neergaard, & Thrane, 2011). Here Kirby (2004) and Blenker and Christensen
(2010) suggest that education can also operate through entrepreneurship, creating
29 I.e.: the distinction between education “about”, “in” and “for” entrepreneurship.
Theoretical Perspectives
55
knowledge by means of entrepreneurial action. Mwasalwiba (2010) however,
suggests that there is no need for this fourth category, as strong similarities exist
between Kirby’s idea of education “through” entrepreneurship and their own
concept of education “for” entrepreneurship. Blenker et al. (ibid.) are therefore
unusual in omitting the “about” objective and in augmenting the remaining two
objectives with a further two. They suggest that entrepreneurship education can
also focus on enabling learners to create high-growth firms or social value. It is
unclear however, whether any of these scholars actually address education
‘during’ entrepreneurship (i.e. the education of practicing entrepreneurs). Given
the university-oriented focus of many entrepreneurship education scholars, it is
appears that even education ‘through’ entrepreneurship is frequently concerned
with promoting entrepreneurial behaviour in students. The practice of
entrepreneurship may therefore only be one of several educational strategies,
rather than an end in itself.
Despite the differences outlined above, the majority of scholars agree that
entrepreneurship education should not be primarily aimed at the “about”
objective (awareness-raising), but rather at the development of entrepreneurial
behaviours and an entrepreneurial mindset (Blenker et al., 2011; Kirby, 2004;
Kuratko, 2005). This view reflects concerns that present education places too
much emphasis on knowledge acquisition (Carrier, 2007). There is also increasing
consensus around the suggestion that the definition of ‘entrepreneurship’ (which
guides the emphases of entrepreneurship education) should be broadened, so
that it not only includes the starting of new business ventures – but also the
mindsets, skills and competences associated with innovative behaviour in general
(A. A. Gibb, 2002; Neck & Greene, 2011). Several scholars also suggest that it is
important to develop new approaches to teaching, due to the distinctive
characteristics of entrepreneurship (Kirby, 2004; Kuratko, 2005). As Gibb (2002)
points out however, in university settings the adoption of more appropriate
pedagogies may be hindered by academic traditions that emphasize
standardisation and are based on implicit “contracts” of knowledge delivery,
rather than individual development.
As noted earlier, much of the literature on entrepreneurship education adopts
the perspective of the university or college, and focuses on the education of
students (Mwasalwiba, 2010; Pittaway & Cope, 2007a). Indeed, Hytti and Gorman
(2004, p. 15) explicitly exclude education for practicing entrepreneurs from their
study, on the grounds that it is “training” or “professional development”. This
attitude contrasts with Gorman, Hanlon and King’s comment in an earlier paper
(1997, p. 72), in which they noted that the needs of the broader support network
for entrepreneurship education are “overlooked completely”. Other scholars also
note the relative lack of studies on entrepreneurial education for small firms
(Curran & Stanworth, 1989), and suggest that studies of entrepreneurship
education need to include all education activities and not just those “within the
Jönköping International Business School
56
educational system” (Liñán, 2007, p. 237). Liñán suggests therefore that
entrepreneurship education should address several stages of entrepreneurial
development, which she describes as those of the “potential”, “nascent” and
“dynamic” entrepreneur. Gibb (2002) also suggests that entrepreneurship
education can be usefully related to different stages of business development,
and proposes six steps on the road from “idea and motivation acquisition” to
“survival”.
The tendency of scholars to engage primarily with entrepreneurship education
in higher education means that the background to subsequent discussions of
pedagogy tends to be that of the student – and not that of the practicing
entrepreneur or small business. This clearly has an impact on some aspects of
education (for example: practicing entrepreneurs do not need to be encouraged
to engage in startup activities). Nonetheless, there are reasons why it is worth
considering the contribution that student-oriented approaches to learning might
make to the learning of nascent entrepreneurs. The majority of entrepreneurs are
for example, adults – and many teachers of entrepreneurship are keen to adopt
philosophies of education that emphasize the values of adult learning. Neck and
Greene (2011) explicitly link their approach to andragogy (theories of adult
learning), and Gibb (2002, p. 142) emphasizes the role of entrepreneurship
education in adding to the value of experience in contexts outside of “the
classroom and university”. Other scholars underline the importance of learning
by doing – an emphasis that reflects the philosophy of adult learning, even if the
connection is not explicitly made (Vanevenhoven, 2013). It is therefore useful to
discuss the range of approaches that scholars of entrepreneurship education have
used to develop entrepreneurial ability, even if many of these have primarily been
used in the context of higher education.
2.1.2 Philosophies of Entrepreneurship Education
In education, scholars often distinguish between pedagogy (theories of learning)
and didactics (approaches to teaching). This difference is seldom maintained in
the literature on entrepreneurship education (Blenker et al., 2011 are an
exception), perhaps mirroring the relative immaturity of the field – or simply a
difference in Anglo-American and Continental terminology (Kyrö, 2006). Several
scholars do however underline the importance of recognising the educational
‘philosophies’ that undergird particular approaches, with Jones and Matlay (2011)
even suggesting that a shared philosophy is necessary. Nonetheless, Blenker et al.
(2011) cast doubt on the feasibility of such a suggestion, given their argument
that different educational objectives appear to rely on distinct ontological ideas
about entrepreneurship and how it should be taught. Frequently this idea is
reflected in the contrast between scholars’ impressions of the present situation
(depicted as dominated by a teacher-centred philosophy of education) – and their
image of an ideal situation, which is more student-centred (Carrier, 2007).
Theoretical Perspectives
57
Neck and Greene (2011) link teacher-centred approaches to learning with what
they term the “entrepreneur world” and suggest it is associated with older, ‘trait-
oriented’ concepts of entrepreneurship. This model of entrepreneurship
education is also linked to teaching ‘about’ entrepreneurship, a model that
Piperopoulos and Dimov (2014) suggest infers a “single ideal [entrepreneurial]
process”. These scholars argue that if students do not fit into the ‘ideal’ mould
they are often dissuaded from pursuing an entrepreneurial career. Honig (2004)
suggests that models such as these are characterised by “convergent” thinking.
He points out that this type of reasoning is not confined to models of the ideal
entrepreneur, but is also apparent in the unreflected use of business plans in
entrepreneurship education. He argues that if used carelessly, business plans may
limit students’ thinking once completed and lead them to perceive
entrepreneurship as a linear rather than iterative process
30
. On a more
philosophical note, Daniel Hjorth (2011) draws on Gilles Deleuze in emphasising
entrepreneurship education as a social and affective (rather than primarily cognitive)
activity. Hjorth also argues that entrepreneurship education needs to be based
more on a ‘paralogical’ (non-rational) perspective. This role infers a pedagogue
role that focuses on ‘provoking’ the learner and subsequently helping them remain
in the “cracks and fissures” in their knowledge, that this provocation creates
31
.
As will be seen in my discussion of Jarvis’ theory of learning, Hjorth’s ideas
parallel Jarvis’ thinking in many ways and add valuable detail to some of his
concepts.
In order to accommodate the many different types of entrepreneurship (and
indeed entrepreneur) reflected in the writing of scholars such as Gartner (1990),
several scholars suggest that a philosophy of education be adopted that
accommodates the distinctiveness of the individual. Vanevenhoven (2013) and
Blenker et al. (2011) suggest that such a philosophy is inferred by the interaction
of the individual with opportunity, in the entrepreneurial process. They argue
that the individual and the opportunity develop simultaneously, with each
affecting the other. This implies that the experience of the individual is likely to be the
point of departure in entrepreneurship education, rather than the content an
educator believes the individual needs to assimilate. This provides a credible
explanation of why entrepreneurship education may be usefully carried out using
approaches grounded in experiential learning theories. The more common
explanation (experts and seasoned entrepreneurs learn from experience,
therefore students should be taught through experience), is less convincing – as
in a university context there is no immediate similarity between the two, apart
from their shared adult humanity.
30
Honig (2004) and Johannisson (2005) argue that entrepreneurship involves iterative, rather than
linear processes.
31
Hjorth draws on the ideas of Homi Bhaba in his discussion of the process of learning.
Jönköping International Business School
58
The idea that an underlying educational philosophy of ‘experience’ exists in many
approaches to entrepreneurship education is borne out by the discussions of
several scholars. Blenker et al. (2011) note the risk many students run of delaying
action until they can see the whole picture, and therefore advocate an action-
oriented approach to education. Fiet (2000a) calls for “theory-based activity”.
Honig (2004) advocates “learning by inoculation” (the exposure of students to
the entrepreneurial experience of failure) – and both Neck and Greene (2011)
and Gibb (2002) write of the need for learners to “feel”, or experience the “way
of life” of the entrepreneur. Writing in the context of education for practicing
entrepreneurs, Johannisson (1992) suggests that educators need to provide input
that is close to real life and advocates a strategy of learning-by-doing.
In philosophical terms the emphasis of experiential learning in entrepreneurship
education has several implications, not all of which are recognised in the
literature. One implication is that by making the individual’s experience a primary
focus in education, educators extend the reach of education beyond knowledge,
to include affective and conative aspects (emotions and motivation). This fits in
well with competency frameworks, which in contrast to many university
traditions recognize the importance of these “attributes” (A. A. Gibb, 2002). The
difficulty of this approach is however, that it does not fit in well with present
structures of higher education. Blenker et al. (2011) argue that entrepreneurship
education is not generic and needs to be tailored not only to the type of value
entrepreneurs intend to create, but also to the learner’s stage of mindset
development. This implies that education needs to be individualised to a far
greater extent (Johannisson, 1992; Jones & Matlay, 2011). Hytti and Gorman
(2004) link such a shift to increased effort on the part of both staff and students,
and to a need for more skill on the part of teachers – to balance the role of
teacher and coach. Many educational programmes cater to large groups of
students and clearly, it is uncertain whether additional resources for this purpose
would be forthcoming. Furthermore, Gibb (ibid.) notes that the didactics
(teaching strategies) of many programmes are presently designed for ease of
examination. The outcomes of education that seeks to develop not only
knowledge; but attitudes, behaviour and mindsets are harder to assess.
Many studies of entrepreneurship education suggest methods for developing
behaviour and attitudes (see section 2.1.3). For the most part these entail
exposing the learner in some way to some of the realities of entrepreneurial
behaviour. For example: Honig’s (2004) “learning by inoculation”, Gibb’s (2002)
“way of life” and Kirby’s (2004) “role-models”. Most scholars relate these ideas
to the concept of experiential learning or “action-based teaching” (Mwasalwiba,
2010, p. 40). What few scholars explicitly recognise however, is that many of
these approaches are rooted in theories of situated learning. This perspective on
learning suggests that learning is a ‘social’ process that is ideally carried out in a
realistic situation. Consequently, in discussing adult learning and the
Theoretical Perspectives
59
development of vocational expertise, Wenger (1998) suggests that it is useful to
frame learning in terms of “legitimate peripheral participation”. By this he refers
to the development of both identity and expertise through the practicing of
behaviour at the ‘edge’ of a profession – for example: through apprenticeship.
When entrepreneurship education is viewed through the lens of situated learning
theory, many approaches are seen to adopt its emphases. Blenker et al. (2011)
draw on Wenger’s concept of “imaginisation” and emphasize the importance of
transforming identity. The use of narratives, storytelling, simulations and films
(Blenker et al., 2011; Buckley, Wren, & Michaelsen, 1992; Honig, 2004) is an
artificial means of ‘situating’ venture ideas in reality, while Gibb’s (2002)
“learning through relationships” clearly embeds the learner in the reality of
business networks. Kirby (2004) suggests the use of role models, and Blenker
and Christensen (2010) discuss the function of practicing entrepreneurs in
entrepreneurship education. In a very real sense therefore, situated learning is the
unacknowledged guest at the table of entrepreneurship education.
2.1.3 Methods Associated with Entrepreneurship Education
In the entrepreneurship education literature, as noted earlier, a distinction is
generally made between the objective of learning ‘about’ entrepreneurship and
the objectives which many scholars clearly prefer – of learning ‘for’, ‘through’
and ‘in’ entrepreneurship. Scholars associate the first objective with knowledge-
centred teaching methods and suggest that classroom-based methods such as
lectures, case-studies and supervised reading are associated with this educational
goal (Carrier, 2007; Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994). These methods are primarily
linked to the cognitive aspects of entrepreneurship. For example: to Bird’s (1995)
“knowledge about” and to the “managing across a range of functions” that
Garavan and O’Cinneide (ibid.) identify with entrepreneurship, and which they
link to analytical skills. McMullan and Boberg (1991) suggest that these skills are
developed by the practised use of case-studies. As Fiet (2000c) points out
therefore, progress in entrepreneurship education does not entail abandoning the
knowledge component, but rather framing it in a more applied manner and
complementing it with other attributes.
When it comes to the objective of educating learners to start new ventures Carrier
(ibid.) suggests that business plans are a common tool. Kuratko (2005) links the
use of business plans to experiential learning, as the tool gives the impression of
being situated in reality. Several scholars however, question the uncritical use of
business plans in entrepreneurship education. They note that in real life
entrepreneurs often emphasize their business ‘models’ over their business ‘plan’
(Hjorth, 2013) – and that plans tend to foster a ‘single solution’ mindset in
learners (Honig 2004, Neck and Greene 2011). Neck and Greene (ibid., p.59) see
the use of business plans as part of an educational paradigm that focuses on
“planning and prediction”. Along with Blenker et al. (2011) they argue that
Jönköping International Business School
60
contemporary education is characterised by a view of entrepreneurship as a
rational planning process that progresses in a linear manner through a series of
stages. Scholars such as Kirby (2004), Johannisson (1992) and Benson (1992)
suggest however, that entrepreneurship often involves intuition and not always
rational decision-making. Read et al. (2009) echo this sentiment and emphasize
the idea that entrepreneurial processes are seldom linear and predictable. Indeed,
as Rogers and Freiberg (1994) point out, the same is true of modern life! To cope
with the uncertainty of entrepreneurship therefore, scholars suggest that
educators need to emphasize abilities associated with learning in and from action,
for example: by reflecting on “disharmonies and anomalies” (Blenker et al. 2011)
and through “action learning” (Honig 2004). The implication is that many of the
practical challenges of starting a new venture (i.e. the ‘for’ entrepreneurship
objective) can be solved by applying abilities associated with the ‘in’ or ‘through’
entrepreneurship objective.
In order to achieve the objectives associated with the broader goal of developing
entrepreneurial attributes – or an entrepreneurial mindset, scholars suggest
several methods. In the following paragraphs I group methods according to the
general objective associated with them (for example: insight into
entrepreneurship or increased self-efficacy). Nonetheless, it is important to note
that this grouping is both intuitive and based on scholar’s own accounts, as there
is presently little empirical evidence for the effectiveness of these different
approaches to entrepreneurship education (Brockhaus, 2001; Kirby, 2004).
A key emphasis in many programmes of entrepreneurship education is on
helping learners to gain insight into the nature of entrepreneurial life (Gibb 2002).
Many scholars suggest that this is best done by getting learners to experience
some part of this reality, either by participating directly in activity or by observing
another person in this reality. Methods that involve learners’ participation include
projects that require them to engage in some form of entrepreneurial activity in
society, for example: creating a startup, or testing a product or service (McMullan
& Boberg, 1991; Mwasalwiba, 2010; Neck & Greene, 2011). Where real-life
practice is difficult to access, other scholars suggest the use of role-playing,
simulations or games (Carrier, 2007; Honig, 2004; Hytti & Nieminen, 2013). The
emphasis in these methods is on the creation of “life-like environments” (Gibb
2002) and an experience of entrepreneurial behaviour (Vanevenhoven, 2013;
Winkel, 2013). These types of experience are what Jarvis (2010) terms “primary”
experiences, in that they involve learning through the senses and not only
cognitive reflection. Nonetheless, knowledge of entrepreneurial life may also be
developed by creating “secondary”, or “vicarious” experiences (Bandura, 1965).
Techniques for creating this type of experience include the use of narratives, story-
telling, films and visits by practicing entrepreneurs – i.e. role-models (Blenker et al.,
2011; Neck, Neck & Meyer 1998, cited in Carrier, 2007; Kirby, 2004). Blenker
and Christensen (2010), and Katz (1995) discuss the role of practicing
Theoretical Perspectives
61
entrepreneurs in students’ learning in particular detail, noting that they provide
not only role models, but also opportunities for participation and practice in
entrepreneurial activities such as problem-solving. This type of educational
activity makes it easier for learners to identify and begin to imitate what Carrier
(2007) terms “expert scripts”.
Many of the educational methods noted above serve not only to provide learners
with insight into the lifestyle of the entrepreneur, but also with the opportunity
to practice entrepreneurial behaviour. Gibb (2002) for example: emphasizes the
importance of teaching students how to learn from relationships, not least from key
stakeholders. This behaviour can be practiced in many of the more action-
oriented approaches and reflects the emphasis many scholars place on learning
behaviour – for example: Honig’s (2004) action learning, Neck and Greene’s (2011)
reflective practice and Blenker et al.’s (2011) appreciative inquiry. Many of these
methods are closely integrated with approaches that seek to provide learners with
first-hand experience of entrepreneurial life and are associated with Gibb’s (2002)
idea of need-oriented learning and Honig’s (2004) concept of contingency-based
teaching. As Rogers (1969, p. 162) points out, individuals often learn most
effectively when they are “on the firing line facing immediate problems”. Blenker
et al. (2011) therefore suggest that it is important that learners be assisted in
learning from experience and reflection, by providing them with coaching. This
idea is also emphasized by Johannisson (1992), Deakins and Freel (1998), and
Cope and Watts (2000) – who all emphasize the role of mentors in helping
entrepreneurs to learn effectively. Carrier (2007) and Hjorth (2013, p. 52) also note
the importance of providing learners with skills when they need them, and
particularly emphasize education in the use of techniques for creative thinking and
“innovation process tools”.
The above paragraphs discuss educational methods that emphasize developing
knowledge and behaviour through experience and reflection. As Blenker et al.
(2011) point out however, the development of an entrepreneurial mindset is a
challenge that although involving behaviour, goes beyond it and addresses
concepts such as self-efficacy and identity. These scholars suggest that narratives
and storytelling can be used to not only provide insight into existing models of
entrepreneurship, but also possible entrepreneurial futures. They emphasize for
example: the capacity to shift roles and identities, a theme that brings to mind
Bird’s (1995) discussion of role management as an entrepreneurial competency.
Frequently, as methods increasingly attempt to address mindsets as opposed to
vocational skills, scholars suggest educational techniques that are less clearly
linked to traditional concepts of entrepreneurship. Benson (1992) discusses how
classical literature can be used to stimulate independent thinking in students – and
especially the capacity for intuition, which he associates with the study of
Emerson’s writing. Carrier (2007) also notes Neck, Neck and Meyer’s (1998)
discussion of how the film “Dead Poets’ Society” can be used in teaching
Jönköping International Business School
62
entrepreneurship. These examples suggest that education which seeks to address
factors associated with values and philosophy, or motivation and trait drivers
may need to call on techniques that draw on sensemaking concepts such as
metaphor (R. C. Hill & Levenhagen, 1995) and analogy (Hoggan, 2014). In the
field of social entrepreneurship education; Smith, Kickul and Coley (2010)
discuss methods for developing individual characteristics that are not directly
expressed in behaviour or skills, for example: empathy. This leads us to the
question of whether any particular educational approaches are linked to the
development of social entrepreneurial ability.
2.1.4 Educating for Social Entrepreneurship
Social enterprises are often described as ‘hybrid’ firms, and despite the rise of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its emphasis of the triple bottom line,
scholars suggest that social enterprises answer in a unique manner to a ‘double’
bottom line (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001). In other words, their success is not
measured only (or even primarily) in terms of profit, but also by social or
environmental impact. Scholars also note that social enterprises are often
answerable to a different set of stakeholders than traditional firms (communities
or interest groups, as opposed to owners)(Kulothungan, 2010). They are
therefore subject to specific challenges with respect to governance, as they are
expected to take decisions in a more democratic manner than traditional firms
(Gunn & Durkin, 2010a). Furthermore, hybrid organisations often aim to diffuse
social innovation, rather than maintaining it as a firm-specific source of
competitiveness (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012). Importantly, while social enterprises
tend to operate in several sectors simultaneously (for example: the private and
not-for-profit sector), they are at times also engaged in addressing what Thomas
Jordan (2011) refers to as “wicked issues”. In other words: challenges that involve
multiple stakeholders, complex causality (often involving societal structures) –
and even disagreement over the true nature of the problem.
In view of the challenges outlined above; scholars such as Howorth, Smith and
Parkinson (2012) and Griffith (2010) suggest that social entrepreneurs do not
need fewer skills than traditional entrepreneurs, but rather more. In other words,
they cannot abandon traditional managerial competencies in order to focus on
the unique challenges of social innovation. Instead they must add new abilities to
the repertoire of the traditional entrepreneur. For this reason, surveys of the
capabilities associated with social entrepreneurship
32
often include abilities that
are similar to the capabilities associated with traditional entrepreneurship (T. L.
Miller et al., 2012). Scholars have suggested however, that additional abilities are
needed; including the ability to manage a hybrid identity (W. K. Smith, Besharov,
32 The majority of these overviews are based on the contexts of North American or Western European
social entrepreneurs.
Theoretical Perspectives
63
Wessels, & Chertok, 2012), skills in measuring social impact (Brock & Steiner,
2008; Kickul, Janssen-Selvadurai, & Griffiths, 2012), empathy (B. R. Smith et al.,
2010) and the monitoring of policy (Buchanan, 2010; Gunn & Durkin, 2010c).
Despite the greater challenges associated with educating for social
entrepreneurship, until now fewer scholarly articles have been published on
‘education for social entrepreneurship and innovation’ (ESEI
33
) than for
traditional (for-profit) forms of entrepreneurship education – even if the ESEI
literature displays similar characteristics. For example: most ESEI scholars
address the education of students in higher education (Kickul et al., 2012; B. R.
Smith et al., 2010) – and the role of reflection and experiential learning is
emphasized (Dees, interviewed by Howorth et al., 2012; Worsham, 2012, p. 448).
The usefulness of including practicing [social] entrepreneurs in education is also
noted – with the late J. Gregory Dees (ibid.) noting that shadowing is a useful
method for helping students learn more about the day-to-day life of the social
entrepreneur.
In their discussion of the competencies associated with social entrepreneurship;
Smith, Kickul and Coley (2010) suggest that social entrepreneurs need to possess
a distinct capacity for empathy. They underline the role of experiential learning in
developing empathy – but unusually, their focus is not on helping students
experience an aspect of entrepreneurial activity – but rather the situation of the
disadvantaged. Smith, Kickul and Coley (ibid.) suggest that their use of the Star-
Power simulation (or game) plays an important role in helping students develop
empathy with disadvantaged individuals in contexts characterised by poverty.
They describe this exercise as a simulation and relate it to the experiential learning
cycle of Kolb, with particular emphasis on the role of concrete experience and
reflection. Importantly they suggest that the simulation stimulates learning in
several area including both the affective (learning about the emotions associated
with poverty), the cognitive (learning about the structures associated with
poverty) and self-concept (learning about one’s own capacity to initiate change).
Brock and Steiner (2008) note that many university courses in social
entrepreneurship include service-learning in their syllabi. Service-learning in the
context of ESEI has to do with the linking of the learner to a real-life social
problem or social enterprise. In this way the learner is able to experience many
of the activities of the social entrepreneur first-hand. Examples include Syracuse
University’s student consultancy programme that links business school students
in the United States with townships in South Africa – and Universidad de los
Andes’ programme (Colombia), in which students cooperate with social
entrepreneurs in identifying and beginning to solve social problems (Brock,
33 For the sake of brevity, in this study ’entrepreneurship education’ is at times abbreviated as ’EED’,
while ‘education for social entrepreneurship and innovation’ is abbreviated ‘ESEI’.
Jönköping International Business School
64
2008). Bloom (2006) discusses Stanford’s Social Entrepreneurship Collaboratory
(SE Lab). Many of the pedagogical methods he describes are also identified by
Howorth & Smith (2012), in their discussion of education for practicing
entrepreneurs. For example: learner-centredness, co-creation, peer-learning and
an interactive learning environment. In keeping with Fiet (2000c) Bloom (ibid.)
also notes that theoretical frameworks are an important foundation that
undergird the design of participants’ ventures. Although he does not refer to
Problem-Based Learning (PBL), his description of the Stanford approach is
clearly similar and he notes among other things the important role played by “a
design problem” as a focus for the practical application of theory.
Publications on the education of practicing social entrepreneurs are far less
common than discussions that focus on the education of students. Carole
Howorth and Susan Smith (2012) are an exception and discuss ESEI in the
context of two British development programmes for entrepreneurs (in which
social entrepreneurs participated). Howorth and Smith base their discussion on
a blend of experiential and social learning theories – drawing for example on
Schön’s (1983) concept of the “reflective practitioner” and Lave and Wenger’s
work on “communities of practice” (1991; 1998). They underline the importance
of a ‘situated’ approach to education and note the use of methods such as
“coaching, action learning, business shadowing, and business exchanges” (p.376).
In keeping with Johannisson (1992), Howorth and Smith also emphasize the role
of peer-coaching among entrepreneurs and consequently, the vital importance of
creating a climate of trust. In her doctoral dissertation, Smith (2011) discusses a
related programme and adopts a networked learning perspective in addition to
that of situated learning. She suggests that practicing entrepreneurs “co-
construct” the curriculum of the programmes they participate in and that
educators often take on more of a facilitative, rather than instructional, role.
Drawing on Hodgson and Reynolds (2010) she notes characterises this type of
learning as “relational”, so that a key task of her “enablers” of education is to
create a positive learning environment (pp.263-4).
Although Smith’s (2011) discussion of the education of practicing entrepreneurs
is not restricted to social entrepreneurs, several of her ideas appear to be relevant
to both categories. Perhaps most important are her ideas on “learning spaces”
and identity. She notes the existence of four types of socially constructed learning
space: peer-to-peer, social, reflective and peripheral (p.226). Peer-to-peer ‘spaces’
are created through the dialogue of entrepreneurs with one another, on the basis
of a shared situation. Social spaces may be created in the unstructured times
around programme events – for example: in tea-breaks or on car journeys.
Reflective spaces represent the engaging by individuals in reflection, either alone
or in a group – while peripheral spaces involve the transfer of learning either into
non-venture related areas (such as home or family); or into the future, after the
programme. Smith also comments on the development of a learner ‘identity’ by
Theoretical Perspectives
65
participants, as entrepreneurs gradually move from seeing themselves as
“impostors” to viewing themselves as leaders and enterprise “delegates”.
2.2 A Theoretical Foundation for Learning
In the above sections the formation of the social entrepreneur has been discussed
in terms of the abilities required for the task and the ways in which educational
institutions have sought to develop these abilities in the individual. Clearly, a lot
has been written about both entrepreneurial ability and education for
entrepreneurship. It is therefore surprising that scholars suggest that we know
remarkably little about which educational approaches work (Kirby 2004).
Gorman et al. (1997) and Pittaway and Cope (2007) link this lack of progress to
the failure of scholars to ground their work in disciplines that have a strong
theoretical base – such as education, management learning and adult learning
theory. My brief review of the literature suggests that their critique is justified and
that many scholars prefer to describe an approach and its impact, without
discussing why the approach succeeds or fails from a theoretical perspective. For
example: Blenker and Christensen (2010) have written a useful article on the
various roles that practicing entrepreneurs can play in entrepreneurship courses.
They do not however, explain in theoretical terms why the inclusion of
entrepreneurs might be useful – even if they make brief reference to “situated”
and “action” learning. Honig (2004), and Neck and Greene (2011) on the other
hand, do refer to underlying theories of learning (Piaget and Schön). They are
however, more of an exception than a rule. It therefore appears that the field of
entrepreneurship education is not yet fulfilling its potential as a research field, in
that it presently does not borrow from theories of learning at sufficient depth, in
order to explain outcomes. This in turn makes it difficult for scholars to ‘return
the favour’ and contribute to the development of these theories.
Suggesting that much of the entrepreneurship education literature is weak in
terms of theory, does not mean that it is theory-less. Many scholars emphasize
the importance of experiential learning (Gibb 2002, Mwasalwiba 2010, Winkel
2013), suggesting that reflection is important (Neck & Greene 2011), or arguing
that an “action-based pedagogy” is needed (Carrier, 2007, p. 156). It is clear
therefore, that many scholars have developed what Rae (2004) refers to as
“practical theories”: informed insights into the underlying causes of what they
observe. Some researchers move beyond ‘practical’ theory and link their own
experience to scholars whose work underlines the importance of experience and
reflection (for example: Dewey, Kolb, Piaget and Schön)(Hytti & O’Gorman,
2004; Johannisson, 1993). However, with very few exceptions (for example:
Honig, 2004; Pepin, 2012) scholars make only superficial reference to the content
of these theories and do not take into account later developments or critiques.
By using theory in this manner, scholars give the impression that their studies
build on the ideas of others – but in reality they do not always allow these ideas
Jönköping International Business School
66
to challenge and develop their perspectives. In order to begin to rectify this
situation, I suggest that it is useful to discuss programmes of entrepreneurship
education (such as accelerators) from the perspective of the learner. Scholars of
learning portray the individual as a person who engages in learning throughout
their lifetime (Gagné, 1984). Education may therefore be reasonably framed as
an intervention into the ongoing learning of an individual, in an attempt to enhance
this learning – often in a particular area, with a particular end in mind. The
effectiveness of the educational process is consequently difficult to assess,
without reference to the learning of the individual.
In this study I adopt Mumford’s (1999) definition of learning as “an emergent,
sense-making process in which people develop the ability to act differently,
comprising knowing, doing and understanding why”. This characterisation
reflects the emphasis of other definitions employed by scholars of
entrepreneurial learning
34
, on the impact of learning on the individual’s capacity
for new patterns of action or thought – regardless of whether this ability is
translated into behaviour. However, in order to discuss the learning of
entrepreneurs from a more theoretical perspective, I suggest that it is important
to move beyond the definition of learning, to discuss the theoretical constructs
that undergird this field of study, namely adult learning. In particular, I suggest
that one of the developments of Kolb’s theory of experiential learning is
particularly useful, namely Peter Jarvis’ (2010) “existential” theory of learning.
Jarvis’ ideas are useful first of all because they take into account many
contemporary ideas about adult learning. Furthermore, Merriam and Caffarella
(1991, p. 259) note that his theory is “refreshingly comprehensive”, and that it
takes into account the ‘social’ and ‘situated’ nature of learning. As already noted
this emphasis is important, given that many scholars of entrepreneurship
education discuss didactical techniques that scholars of learning would
instinctively link to not only experiential, but also social theories of learning.
2.2.1 Dewey, Experiential Learning and Andragogy
Many scholars of entrepreneurial learning have noted that entrepreneurs tend to
learn by experimenting and from experience – including failure (Cope, 2011;
Jenkins, 2012; Minniti & Bygrave, 2001; Politis & Gabrielsson, 2005). Given
these emphases, many publications make reference to scholars whose work
emphasizes the role of experience in learning – and primarily to David Kolb
(1984; 1975). However, Kolb is only one of several scholars whose work has
contributed to contemporary ideas about experiential – and adult – learning.
Kolb’s ideas frequently draw upon the thinking of scholars such as John Dewey
and Malcolm Knowles – and Jarvis is in turn influenced by all three scholars.
34
For example: Cope and Watts’ (2000) citation of Huber’s (1991) definition.
Theoretical Perspectives
67
Consequently, it is important to briefly discuss the emergence of experiential
theories of learning – and their main traits.
John Dewey was an American philosopher and educator whose work discusses
how experience and learning relate to one another. His early work
35
was based
on his experience as an ‘engaged’ scholar in the Chicago “laboratory” school. His
later work
36
was written in the context of tensions between traditional models of
education and more “progressive” ideas. Dewey (1938, pp. 28, 35) argued that
learning is based upon the past experience of the individual, affecting not only
the identity of the learner, but also the way in which they make sense of new
experiences (his “experiential continuum”). Dewey suggested that learning
consists of individuals moving through a series of “situations”, by which he
referred to the interaction between the internal state of the individual and their
external environment. He emphasized that educators too often focus on the
learning environment, while paying little attention to the internal state of the
learner (their “powers and purpose”)(ibid., p.45). These ideas modify the role of
educators, so that their tasks include being aware of the ‘direction’ of experience
(the “long look ahead” ibid., p.87) – and the creation of an environment
conducive to positive experiences.
In addition to Dewey’s emphasis of the continuity of experience, he also
discussed issues of “non-learning”, which Jarvis (1987) develops in his own
writing. Dewey noted for example: the existence of “collateral” learning (the
‘accidental’ learning of enduring attitudes, habits and preferences) – and its
impact on future experiences of learning. He linked this type of learning to the
issue of meaning, in that he emphasized the importance of learning being
meaningful to the individual in the present, and not simply as preparation for the
future. This idea is echoed in the writings of other influential educators such as
Rogers (1969). Rogers argued that learning is affected by the degree to which
learners perceive subject matter to be relevant for their own purposes, an idea
reflected in Gibb’s (2002) suggestion that entrepreneurship education be based
on a “need to know” logic.
Despite the above contributions, the ideas that entrepreneurship educators most
consistently appear to draw upon are those of Dewey’s “method of science”. In
other words: his concept of progression and his view of learning as a social
process. Dewey’s philosophy of learning centres on experimentation and
reflection. He recommends that learners be encouraged to first of all take action,
before observing the consequences of their actions and reflecting on how they
might adapt their behaviour to create other outcomes. This logic is clearly
reflected in Neck and Greene’s (2011) recommendation that the
35
For example: Democracy and education (1916).
36
For example: Experience and education (1938).
Jönköping International Business School
68
entrepreneurship education process be based on “doing then knowing”. Dewey’s
ideas are also reflected in Blenker et al.’s (2011) advocacy of the “appreciative
inquiry” technique, which is based on an understanding of learning as a social
process. He suggests that individuals learn not only through experimentation, but
also through their interaction as members in a community. Once again, this idea
has implications for the role of the educator: positioning them as moderators of
group processes and even group members. To this role Dewey added that of the
‘designer of progressive experiences’, which I interpret to mean that one of the
educator’s roles is to lead the learner into developmental experiences (Dewey,
1938, p. 79). This infers that the enhancement of learning requires that the
educator be able to envision a ‘next step’ which the learner not only has the
capacity to attain – but which they are also motivated to attain, due to the
relevance of the new challenge to their own purposes. Aspects of this idea are
clearly seen in Blenker et al.’s (2011, p. 422) discussion of “progression” and
“building blocks” in entrepreneurship education.
The significance of Dewey’s contribution to theories of learning is witnessed to
by the fact that with the exception of Piaget, he is the only scholar writing before
the 1970s, to whom researchers in the field of entrepreneurship education
regularly refer to. In the 1970s however, an increasing interest was shown in
education for adults (Freire, 1972; Knowles, 1970; C. R. Rogers, 1969) – and in
experiential learning (Kolb & Fry, 1975). Dewey’s influence is easily traced in
Kolb’s work, with clear similarities between Dewey’s cyclical “method of
science” and Kolb and Fry’s “experiential learning cycle”. In contrast, Knowles
does not appear to mention Dewey at all in his early writing, acknowledging
instead his debt to Gagné and Maslow. Experience is however, a key factor in his
discussion – as is the task of establishing “a climate conducive to adult learning”
(Knowles, 1970, p. 54). Nonetheless, phrases such as “experience being defined
as the interaction between an individual and his environment” (ibid., p.51)
strongly suggest that Knowles draws extensively on Dewey, while failing to
acknowledge this dependency.
Knowles is rarely cited by entrepreneurship education scholars, but his ideas are
nevertheless influential, with scholars such as Béchard and Toulouse (1991)
employing his controversial term “andragogy” – and Neck and Greene (2011, p.
56) placing themselves “firmly” in the andragogy “camp”. “Andragogy” was the
term that Knowles coined for the ‘science’ of adult education. He suggested that
the study of adult education was founded on different factors than those upon
which the study of child education (i.e. pedagogy) is based. These factors include
the association of child education with a ‘transmittal of knowledge’ orientation
to teaching, the self-directed nature of adult learning, the accumulation of
experience as a resource for learning, a readiness to learn and the immediacy of
knowledge application (Knowles, 1970, pp. 37, 39). When Knowles published
his book on andragogy his use of the term was however, widely criticised. Several
Theoretical Perspectives
69
prominent scholars applauded his development of the field, but argued against
his suggestion that learning in children is distinct from that of adults (Day and
Baskett 1982; and Tennant 1986; cited in Jarvis, 2010, p. 129). Despite a recent
revival in the use of the term (for example: Forrest & Peterson, 2006), Jarvis
(ibid.) therefore concludes that Knowles’ work has gained popularity primarily
because of its ideological content (the self-directed adult) and its practicality.
Knowles is nevertheless an important, if unacknowledged background figure and
many scholars’ discussions revolve around concepts that he was instrumental in
developing. For example: Markowska (2011) identifies Bandura (1977) as a key
influence on research that emphasizes the role of goals in self-directed learning
– but it was Knowles who first discussed the role of learning contracts in 1970.
It is also worth noting that Knowles (ibid., p.273) was one of the first scholars to
discuss models of competency in relation to adult learning – a theme that has
now proliferated within the literature on entrepreneurship education.
Despite their apparent unfamiliarity with the ideas of Knowles, many scholars of
entrepreneurship education are clearly familiar with the work of David Kolb.
Kolb drew on the work of Kurt Lewin (1951) on personality, leadership and
teaching styles, and learning in small groups. Kolb developed a four-stage model
of experiential learning that is regularly referred to by scholars of
entrepreneurship education and learning (for example: Man, 2007; Politis, 2005).
His model consists of a cycle that moves between concrete experience,
observations and reflections, the formation of abstract concepts and
generalisations, and the testing of implications of concepts in new situations /
active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). Jarvis (2010) suggests that the model has
remained popular because of its relative simplicity, but argues that it does not do
justice to the complexity of learning. He also notes that many scholars ignore
Kolb and Fry’s (1975) suggestion that learning can begin anywhere on the cycle
– for example: with the formulation of abstract concepts, rather than with
concrete experience. By ignoring this possibility, the model may be used to
support arguments that suggest that experiential learning theories are primarily
about experimentation, or ‘doing then reflecting’. This does not reflect the
content of the theory.
In addition to his development of a model of experiential learning, Kolb is often
associated with learning styles: the idea that individuals have different preferences
as to how they learn. Kolb (1984) suggested that four learning styles (or types of
learner) exist
37
, that are each linked to particular stages of the experiential learning
cycle. Entrepreneurship scholars such as Johannisson (1993) appear to draw on
these concepts when they suggest that entrepreneurship is associated with action
learning (i.e. learning that begins with “active experimentation”). What is
problematic is that Kolb et al. (1986) subsequently associate each stage of the
37 The “diverger”, “assimilator”, “converger” and “accommodator”.
Jönköping International Business School
70
learning cycle with a particular type of managerial competence, associating for
example: affective competencies with the stage of concrete experience – and
behavioural competencies with the active experimentation mode. This would
imply that entrepreneurs who supposedly have a preference of experimentation,
would become proficient primarily in behavioural competencies such as decision-
making, but less good at relational aspects. Such an idea does not seem to be
supported by studies of entrepreneurial behaviour that emphasize the importance
of relational skills (Man, Lau, & Chan, 2002). Jarvis (2006a, p. 139) points out
that if the framework upon which learning styles are based is an over-
simplification, then there is a risk that the learning styles themselves are “even
more suspect”.
Recent studies of learning (or thinking) suggest that learning ‘style’ is far more
complicated than Kolb suggested. Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997) for example,
have conducted empirical research that suggests that “thinking” style may be a
more accurate term than “learning” style. They also underline the idea that styles
are situationally dependent, vary across the individual’s lifespan, and need to be
understood with reference to at least five factors (function, form, level, scope
and leaning). In the entrepreneurial learning literature, Diamanto Politis (2005)
suggests that entrepreneurs may transform similar experiences into different
kinds of knowledge, on the basis of their preferred ‘mode of transformation’.
Drawing on Sarasvathy’s (2001) theory of effectuation, she argues that some
entrepreneurs transform experience into knowledge in an exploitative manner
(emphasising reliability and predictive value), while others do so in a more
exploratory manner (emphasising control and variety). Politis bases much of her
theorising on the work of Kolb, but acknowledges that his work has been
critiqued for its failure to take into account the role of context in the learning
process. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that the value of Kolb’s ideas
to scholars of entrepreneurial learning; lies not so much in the accuracy of his
model, but rather in his directing attention to the role of experience and
experimenting in learning. What entrepreneurship scholars need to be aware of
however, is that the field of experiential learning has developed so much since
Kolb, that it is no longer sufficient to suggest that education should be based on
experiential methods. Weil and McGill (1989) point out that there are at least
four main families of experiential learning theories with distinct assumptions and
emphases – an idea reflected in the later work of Tara Fenwick (2001). In order
to be credible as scholars of education, researchers of entrepreneurship education
must therefore be more specific about the meaning and role of “experience” as
it relates to entrepreneurship. We also need to build on theories of learning that
take into account recent developments in the study of adult learning and
education. I suggest that the work of Peter Jarvis provides one such update.
Theoretical Perspectives
71
2.2.2 Jarvis: Developing Kolb and Others
As noted earlier, Peter Jarvis’ “existential” model of learning is acknowledged as
being one of the more comprehensive models (Merriam & Caffarella, 1991). This
is to a large extent a result of his attempt to integrate the work of others into his
own thinking. Although he surveys many of the main learning theorists in a
manner similar to Illeris (2003), what makes Jarvis’ work interesting is that he
also enlisted the help of practitioners of adult education. Motivated by his
dissatisfaction with the limited applicability to adult education, of learning
theories based on the behaviour of children or animals, Jarvis went ‘on tour’ in
the mid-1980s. He conducted nine workshops in the United Kingdom and the
United States, asking participants to analyse learning incidents in their own lives
and to discuss their subsequent conclusions about learning. He then introduced
Kolb’s model and asked participants to either comment on its relevance – or, if
they felt it was necessary – to reconstruct the model to better reflect their own
experience. Based on the ideas of these participants
38
, Jarvis created a model that
reflects more of the complexity of learning. Despite this process he is somewhat
critical of the model that he developed – suggesting for example: that it still does
not capture learning in sufficient complexity, and that he has underestimated the
role of emotions in learning (2006a, p. 12). Nevertheless, his model is a significant
improvement on the work of Kolb, as it takes into account among other factors:
the bodily sensations of experience and the influence of the social situation. I
therefore suggest that Jarvis’ model of adult learning is one of the more suitable
models upon which to base a discussion of social entrepreneurial learning.
Consequently, in the following sections I outline his model in more detail, paying
particular attention to the distinctive way in which he depicts the role of the
person, the social context, experience and the transformation of experience.
Where relevant, I integrate the ideas of scholars of entrepreneurial learning into
my discussion.
2.2.2.1 The Person
Central to Jarvis’ understanding of learning is his understanding of the ‘person’.
Jarvis uses this term in a particular manner to refer not simply to the individual
learner, but rather to emphasize the constitution of the individual as a “whole
person: body, mind, self – life history” (Jarvis, 2006m, p. 8). Jarvis adopts a
constructivist perspective on learning that emphasizes the idea that individuals’
understandings of themselves and their environments are shaped by their
interpretations of experience. In other words, meaning is a key idea in Jarvis’
thinking. Consequently, he suggests that what individuals perceive is not the
world, but rather their construction of it, their “life-world” (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 14).
This is an important idea for entrepreneurship studies, as some scholars (most
38
This phase of his study involved 200 practitioners.
Jönköping International Business School
72
notably Johannisson, 1992) argue that “the creation and communication of
meaning” are vital aspects of entrepreneurial capability. In other words: it is
entrepreneurs’ ability to envisage a different meaning with regards to existing
resources that is the bastion of their success.
Despite Jarvis’ (2006) emphasis on the meaning-making of the individual, he
rejects dualism (the sharp distinction between the body and the mind) and
underlines the idea that it is the ‘whole’ person that learns: “learners are whole
persons rather than a body or a mind; they are both material and mental” (ibid.,
p.13).
Jarvis suggests that individuals construct their selves on the basis of the meaning
that they attach to experience and that these meanings are stored in memory to
form “life history”. Importantly however, he suggests that many aspects of
experience are not reflected upon before being stored in the individual’s memory,
with this being a key difference between the learning of the child and the adult.
Children rely to a greater extent than adults on what Jarvis terms the
“preconscious”: in that the mind transforms sensations into memory without the
individual being aware of this process. Preconscious processes of memorisation
result in “incidental”, or “self-learning”: learning that constantly takes place
throughout the life of the individual, but which they are generally unaware of.
Jarvis associates this type of learning with tacit knowledge and suggests that
attributes such as self-confidence, self-esteem, identity and maturity are learned
in this way. With regards to entrepreneurial learning, Politis (2005) suggests that
three specific aspects of the individual’s life-history influence the ways in which
individuals transform new experiences into knowledge. She suggests that startup,
management and industry-specific experience are especially important – as they
often provide individuals with an understanding of problem-solving and a basis
upon which to recognise opportunity.
In addition to Jarvis’ discussion of the influence of life-history on learning, he
also suggests that individuals can engage in more conscious, ‘purposeful’
learning. This type of learning has to do with new knowledge, skills, attitudes,
beliefs, values and even emotions – and involves an “appreciation of the senses”
(Jarvis, 2006a, p. 25). He underlines nonetheless, that purposeful, or “intentional”
learning is always accompanied by incidental learning.
Jarvis’ concept of the person is important for an understanding of his discussion
of the learning process. This is because he believes that learning is associated
with the transformation of experience (more of this below). In a very real sense,
Jarvis’ perspective of the person centres on the idea that ‘you are your
experiences’, with the term “biography” representing the individuals collected
experience of meaning. His vision of learning is therefore one of an ongoing
process of “becoming”, in which an iterative learning process begins with “the
Theoretical Perspectives
73
whole person in the world” and ends with “the changed whole person in the
world”. This characteristic focus on the whole person is a trait that leads him to
describe his approach as an “existential” theory of learning. His use of the term
resonates with that of Neergard et al. (2012), who discuss the need for
entrepreneurship education to address issues of identity, emotions and “deep
beliefs”. It also reflects Rae’s (2005a) observation that a key aspect of
entrepreneurial learning involves the development of identity – and that this
development is not only a cognitive process, but also infused with emotion.
When Jarvis’ distinction between preconscious and purposeful learning is related
to the theme of entrepreneurial capabilities, its relevance becomes clear. Many of
the factors associated with entrepreneurial ability, such as Gibb’s (2002) “self-
confidence and self-belief”; appear to be learned at a preconscious level – while
other abilities may be learned using more intentional strategies. Both types of
ability are nevertheless learned through experience, which suggests that scholars
are correct in emphasising the role of experience in entrepreneurship education
and learning. Here Erikson’s (2003) discussion of the development of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy is useful. He draws on Bandura’s (1986) social-
cognitive theory to suggest that entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy is developed through
experiences of mastery, vicarious experience and social experience. Jarvis’
understanding of experience is however, not necessarily identical to that referred
to in publications on entrepreneurial learning. It is therefore discussed in more
detail below.
2.2.2.2 Experience
For Jarvis the concept of experience needs to be contrasted with its opposite,
namely the situation in which individuals experiences harmony with themselves
and their environment, and therefore take their “life-world” for granted. Here he
draws extensively on the ideas of Schutz and Luckmann (1973). He suggests that
the person constructs a relationship with four main elements in their world and
that much of the time these relationships are taken for granted and not reflected
upon, nor transformed in any manner. In the diagram below, he represents this
taken for granted nature by an unbroken arrow. Two-way arrows represent two-
way relationships (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 15).
Person to person: I Thou (you)
Person to phenomenon (thing/event) I > It
Person to a future phenomenon I > Envisaged Thou or It
Person to self I Me
As long as the person is in harmony with their taken-for-granted life-world, little
learning occurs. Jarvis suggests that learning is linked to a particular category of
Jönköping International Business School
74
experience, namely episodic experience. He uses this term to distinguish episodes
of awareness from the individual’s collected ‘biography’ of experience (Jarvis,
2006a, p. 73). When individuals are confronted with a novel experience their
sense of harmony with their life-world is interrupted and they must deal with this
in some way. Jarvis terms this experience of disharmony disjuncture and suggests
that it occurs “when our biographical repertoire is no longer sufficient to cope
automatically with our situation” (ibid., p.16). He represents this interruption of
harmony by placing a double slash between “I” and the factor to which “I”
relates. For example:
Person to phenomenon (thing/event) I //> It
When an individual encounters an experience of disjuncture, learning occurs
through their transformation of the experience. In other words: by the attachment of
meaning to sensation, so that the disjuncture is resolved. In order for this
meaning to become part of our biography, Jarvis suggests that it needs to be
practiced (or used) in some way. The more often the individual is able to use the
newly acquired meaning, the better they commit it to memory. This mechanism
provides a theoretical explanation for several of the recommendations of
experiential learning – for example: its emphasis on learning by doing and its
suggestion that knowledge must be seen to be relevant to the needs of the learner
(C. R. Rogers, 1969, p. 158). It is also coherent with scholars’ discussions of the
role of critical incidents in entrepreneurs’ learning (Jason Cope & Gerald Watts,
2000) – and the potential of failure to enhance entrepreneurial capabilities
(Deakins & Freel, 1998; Politis, 2005). Jarvis’ discussion of disjuncture is
however, particularly relevant to Hjorth’s (2011) emphasis of the role of
“provocation” in entrepreneurship education. Indeed it is possible to argue that
the main difference is one of perspective, with Jarvis emphasising the process of
learning and Hjorth focusing more on the instrument that initiates the process.
Theoretical Perspectives
75
Jarvis models the simplest form of the transformational process describes in the
preceding paragraphs in the following manner:
Figure 2-1: A basic model of learning from experience (adapted from
Jarvis 2006)
Jarvis makes several important comments about this process. First of all he
suggests that the disjuncture in box 2 is often associated with an individual’s
awareness of the fact that they are unable to carry out a task. If they are able to
learn to carry it out (for example: by creating knowledge and skills), they commit
this ability to memory, so that box 5 is associated with competence and tacit
knowledge. Both of these processes are however “emotion-full”. The initial
disjuncture may awaken feelings of inadequacy and frustration, while a successful
resolution may be associated with a feeling of self-confidence. What is important
(1) The person takes
the life-world for
granted
(5) The person takes
the life-world for
granted again
(2 Has sensation /
disjuncture
(3) Gives meaning to
sensation / resolves
disjuncture
(4) Practices the
resolution
Jönköping International Business School
76
in Jarvis’ theory however, is that as the individual progresses through life it is the
meaning attached to sensations that is memorised (and later recalled from
memory), and not the sensation itself. In other words: when a disjuncture occurs
it is transformed by the person into meaning. This meaning may take the form
of, for example: knowledge, skill, emotions, values, and attitudes. When
disjuncture occurs again in life, it is often in these meanings that we experience
disjuncture, as the self is now more aware of the meaning than of the original
sensation. This infers that the episodic experience is socially constructed by the
individual, so that several different individuals may experience the same situation,
yet interpret it in different ways. From the perspective of entrepreneurial
learning, the person’s tendency to attach meaning to sensations is at times
problematic. Deakins and Freel (1998, p. 147) for example, suggest that
entrepreneurs’ learning is “cumulative and path-dependent” – so that
entrepreneurs at times stubbornly stick to approaches that were once effective,
but no longer relevant. As one of the entrepreneurs interviewed by David Rae
(2005a, p. 329) commented: “we’ve worked out our own answers and we’re going
to stick to them.” The tendency of individuals to stick with what they know
(rather than explore new knowledge) is one of the factors that causes Hjorth
(2011, p. 54) to emphasize the role of “deterritorialisation” and “decoding” in
learning. By this he refers firstly to the “uprooting” of people from deeply
engrained “habits and conventions” – and secondly, to the “freeing of people
from investments in images and representations”.
Before I move on to the way in which Jarvis suggests experiences are transformed
into meaning, it is necessary to make a few more comments about the nature of
experience. Jarvis suggests that experience is either primary or secondary, and
that much of our learning takes place through secondary experience. Primary
experience is associated with our senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,
touching and feeling). Consequently, when we relate to our life-worlds (person
to person, person to phenomenon, person to future phenomenon, or person to
self) we are able to experience the first two directly, through sensation. However,
much of what we learn is mediated, or secondary – so that we are told about a
phenomenon by a friend, we read about it in a book, or observe someone else
carrying out an action. These experiences are also transformed and memorised,
but the transformation nevertheless occurs in the context of primary experience.
In other words, as we listen to a lecture (mediated experience) our senses still
make us aware of the body language of the speaker and our own emotions, as
well as those of others. These ideas provide a theoretical explanation for the
emphasis experiential scholars place on the learning environment – for example:
Roger’s (1969) discussion of “the initial mood or climate of the group” (p.164).
Moving on, Jarvis (ibid., p.84) suggests that the exercise of skill is always a
primary experience, so that the distinction between “theory and practice” can be
portrayed as reflecting the contrast between primary experience (to which all of
our bodily senses contribute) and secondary experience (in which fewer senses
Theoretical Perspectives
77
are involved). Jarvis suggests therefore that experiential learning is principally
oriented towards primary experience.
2.2.2.3 Transforming experience
Jarvis’ discussion of the manner in which episodic experience is transformed into
learning is illuminating, yet contradictory. The strength of his concept lies in his
suggestion that learning involves the “whole person”, so that experience is
transformed not only by reflection, but also by action and emotion. In practice
however, he devotes more space to the reflective, or cognitive element – as he
readily admits (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 88). Nevertheless, his portrayal of the different
ways in which experience may be transformed is useful and is depicted in figure
2.2. The figure depicts the various ways in which Jarvis suggests that disjuncture
is transformed into meaningful experience – and subsequently integrated into the
individual’s biography. Importantly the figure depicts a process of learning, rather
than non-learning (which Jarvis also discusses). Non-learning is briefly discussed
later in this section.
In his early work, Jarvis (1987) suggested that nine routes to learning can be
distinguished, three of which relate to what he terms “non-learning”. Although
he has developed his model further, it is worth noting that his basic premise
remains the same. That is: the idea that although experience is the cornerstone
of learning, the transformation of experience is not only achieved through
conscious reflection (cognition), but also by activity and emotions. In other
words: in theory an episodic experience might be transformed primarily by the
individual’s emotions, following the route 1A > 2 > 4 > 6 > 7 > 1B. The
transformation of an experience through action would be represented as 1A > 2
> 5 > 6 > 7 > 1B and so on. In keeping with his concept of the “whole person”
however, Jarvis suggests that the transformation of experience rarely follows a
‘pure’ route (i.e. only emotion, only action or only reflection). Instead it may be
dominated by one aspect of learning (cognition, action or emotion), but will
typically include another factor. Often a measure of reflection will be included,
so that the transformation of an experience by an emotional process would be
depicted as 1A > 2 > 4 > 3 > 6 > 7 > 1B. Jarvis suggests that this aspect of the
learning process is especially important, as it can distinguish between the “rote”
learning of a skill through action – and a learning process where both the ‘how,’
and the ‘why’ or ‘when’ of the skill is learned. This ‘compound’ effect on learning
is similar to the ‘complementarity’ effect discussed by Erikson (2003), where
‘mastery’, ‘vicarious’ and ‘social’ experiences combine to enhance entrepreneurial
self-efficacy.
Jönköping International Business School
78
Figure 2-2: The transformation of experience (from Jarvis 1987, 2006)
The process of transforming experience through reflection is perhaps the most
common perspective on experiential learning, with several variations apparent in,
for example: the work of Freire (1972, 1998), Boud and Walker (1991), Mezirow
(1997, 2000), Brookfield (1988) and Schön (1983). Jarvis notes the centrality of
individuals’ questioning of experience to learning and suggests that presumption
(the taking of things for granted) is a barrier to learning. He also suggests that it
is common to adopt a pragmatic approach to learning, whereby patterns of
meaning that repeatedly ‘work’ for the individual are added to their biographies.
Mezirow (1991) notes this in his work on transformative learning and suggests
that if an individual is to continue learning, they often need to move beyond
Dewey’s reflection on the content of experience – to critically assess both their
meaning-making processes and the assumptions their interpretations rest upon.
Jarvis is more philosophical in his discussion of knowledge, noting for example:
Theoretical Perspectives
79
that it can be difficult to distinguish between knowledge and beliefs – even if
beliefs are arguably more influenced by the individual’s social environment. He
does however suggest that the dynamic process of ‘knowing’ is made up of the
constructed knowledge of the individual, as well as their beliefs, values and
attitudes. He argues however, that when experience is transformed through
reflection it is the process of thought that is in focus, rather than the structure of
knowledge.
In Jarvis’ writing, thought is conceived of as being oriented either backwards in
time, or towards the future. He suggests that discussions of the role of reflection
in experiential learning tend to focus on the past. This is clearly often the case,
as witnessed to by the writing of scholars such as Mezirow (1997), Taylor and
Cranton (2013), and Argyris and Schön (1974; 1996). Indeed, the work of Weick
(1979) seems to imply that sensemaking’s orientation to the past could be an
instinctive human orientation. Importantly though for entrepreneurship scholars,
Jarvis suggests that intentionality is an important, future-oriented factor in the
transformation of experience. He refers to the ideas of Boud, Keogh and Walker
(1985) who point out that reflection can be directed at many different goals and
that intentions “influence both the manner of reflection and its outcome” (p.24).
Boud et al. (ibid.) note that Habermas (1974) recognised the importance of
purpose in the learning process, terming it “critical intent” – and they point out
that the work of Mezirow builds on Habermas’ framework. Jarvis suggests that
reflection that is oriented towards the future tends to focus on one of two things:
either what we anticipate/plan to happen or what we would like/desire to happen
(Jarvis, 2006a, p. 100). He also notes the existence of day-dreaming, an
occurrence that he relates to the person’s unconscious desire to avoid a repeat of
“bad” experiences in the past. The existence of day-dreaming seems to suggest
the existence of a subconscious form of future-oriented transformation of
experience, a possibility that Jarvis relates to the “incubation” phase of creativity
(i.e. the recognition that the mind continues to develop ideas on its own, even
when the individual’s attention is apparently directed elsewhere).
When the general concept of intentionality is related to the specific context of
entrepreneurial learning, Politis (2005) suggests that the ideas of Brousseau et al.
(1996) on career orientation are useful. These scholars suggest that several
different types of career orientation exist: with individuals pursuing not only
traditional ‘hierarchical’ progression (upwards in an organisation, seeking more
power) – but also progression based on expertise and diversity. Politis suggests
that individuals oriented towards power and expertise often adopt an
‘exploitative’ strategy towards learning (more analytical), while those who
develop ‘spiral’ or ‘transitory’ career patterns tend to adopt more ‘exploratory’
strategies. A difficulty with the concepts of Brousseau et al (ibid.) is however,
that all four of their orientations are oriented ‘inward’ to the individual. In the
context of social entrepreneurship, where success is often defined in terms of the
Jönköping International Business School
80
well-being of others, it remains to be seen whether these concepts are adequate
– or whether it is necessary to discuss a fifth type of career orientation.
To conclude this overview of how experience is transformed into knowledge
through reflection, it is worth noting the existence of various types of thinking –
and the significance of styles of thinking. Jarvis (2006, p.101) discusses several
thinking types and positions several of these in tension with one another
(memorising and interpreting, creative and critical, problem-solving and
decision-making, directed and undirected, deductive and inductive reasoning).
Although he does not go into detail about how these types operate in
transforming experience, the value of his discussion lies in his arguing that many
scholars who discuss the transformation of experience through reflection only do
so by means of the critical, questioning approach that is characteristic of the
Socratic method and of scholars such as Freire (1998) and Mezirow (1997).
David Rae (2005) observes that the transformation of experience is not only
associated with cognitive dissonance, but also emotional dissonance. This reflects
not only Jarvis’ discussion, but also recent thinking in, for example:
transformational learning – with Taylor (2007) noting scholars’ increasingly
awareness of the need to account for the role of emotions in learning. Jarvis is
however, sceptical of Goleman’s (1995) work on emotional intelligence,
suggesting that he oversimplifies the role of emotions and is excessively
biological in his approach, ignoring the role of the mind. Instead he relies
primarily on the work of Cell (1984), who argues that emotions must be more
than simply bodily sensations, as there are many more types of emotion than
sensations. Jarvis (2006, p.109) therefore suggests that emotions can be
understood as being composed of three components: “a judgement, a feeling and
an action tendency”. He argues that emotions tend to be self-oriented, so that
experience is often interpreted in the light of its impact on the self (for example:
our physical self or our self-worth) – so that it is transformed by an emotional,
rather than cognitive response. Jarvis terms the work of emotions in maintaining
a “significant self” their “functional” role, but suggests that emotions can also
transform experience in a dysfunctional manner – for example: by interpreting
the abilities of others in an envious manner, so that self-esteem is lost. Finally he
suggests that emotions also transform experience in a “profound” manner, in
situations where we experience something that is beyond our understanding (for
example: mystery or beauty). Jarvis suggests that experiences such as these are
often defined as religious experiences and that they can stimulate actions such as
contemplation or worship. He emphasizes however the difficulty of defining the
transformation of experience as purely emotional, or purely cognitive – noting that
a profound experience usually involves all three aspects. In other words: the
cognitive judgement that an experience is beyond the rational capacity of the
individual, the resultant feeling of awe – and the subsequent action of
contemplation. He underlines however, that emotional learning is stored in our
Theoretical Perspectives
81
memory of meanings (our “biography”), in the same way as cognitive learning.
We draw upon this memory when we encounter new experiences and it affects
the way in which we make sense of future, similar events.
The final way in which Jarvis suggests that experience may be transformed is
through action. Indeed, as Jarvis (2006a, p. 111) associates himself with the
experiential learning paradigm, he at times uses the phrase “I act, therefore I am”.
He acknowledges that accidents can happen, suggesting that action is possible
without thought. Nonetheless, he limits his discussion to action that is intentional
– or conscious. Developing Merton’s (1968) ideas, Jarvis (1992) suggests that
conscious action may take ten forms and that these forms may in turn be
categorised as non-action, action and reaction. He also suggests that the level of
an individual’s consciousness varies as they act (high to none) and that action is
generally linked to one of three cognitive orientations. These are the future
(planning) the present (monitoring) and the past (reflection). Entrepreneurship
scholars often suggest that this form of learning is preferred by entrepreneurs,
with Johannisson (1992) even going so far to suggest that entrepreneurship is
action learning. As will be seen however, my own research suggests that this is
not always the case and that entrepreneurs transform experience into knowledge
not only through action, but also through reflection and emotions.
Remembering that the transformation of experience by action is initiated by a
disjuncture therefore, Jarvis suggests that a failure to transform experience may
result from three factors. Anomic non-action is the result of an experience that
creates a gulf between individuals’ biographies and the situation that they cannot
bridge. Preventive non-action involves a power/authority in the situation
preventing the individual from taking action – and non-response is the
unexplained failure of the individual to take action when a disjuncture is
encountered.
When individuals do take action in response to a disjuncture, Jarvis suggests that
their actions may be characterised as either experimental/creative, repetitive,
presumptive, ritualistic or alienating. For each of these forms of action, Jarvis
suggests that the determining factor with regards to learning is the accompanying
level of consciousness. Experimental/creative action is inherently high in
consciousness – while presumption involves little or no consciousness, because
the individual assumes that an experience is identical to those in their biography
and is unaware of any disjuncture. Jarvis suggests that variation in learning will
often occur where the available ‘range’ of consciousness is high. He argues that
this is particularly so with regards to action that is repetitive or ritualistic.
Repetitive action is carried out to restore harmony
39
in the face of disjuncture,
but Jarvis argues that if it is done in a conscious manner it can instead transform
39 In Jarvis’ model, harmony is associated with a lack of learning and development.
Jönköping International Business School
82
experience. For example: an apprentice who has carried out a task and failed to
complete it satisfactorily might repeat the task the next day. Whether or not they
learn from their failure will however be partly determined by the manner of their
repetition (unthinking or highly conscious repetition). Here the relevance of the
“future-present-past” aspect also becomes relevant, as the apprentice’s level of
consciousness can vary on all three dimensions as he or she repeats the task:
“What did I do wrong yesterday? How am I performing the task at the moment?
What must I do next?”
A similar process to the above can occur in ritual, when actions are performed
on the basis of tradition rather than in response to disjuncture. Jarvis suggests
that although the action is not initiated by disjuncture, disjuncture may occur in
the course of action – if the ritual is carried out in a thoughtful manner. Honig
(2004) suggests that the creation of business plans is a “ritual” action – and
clearly, the process of creating a business plan can be carried out in a manner that
either enhances learning, or that simply involves ‘checking the boxes’. However,
when individuals do not engage at all with a task and just go through the motions
(i.e. with very low levels of consciousness), Jarvis suggests that no disjuncture
takes place and that alienation will occur. When this takes place, individuals carry
out actions in a manner that is not future-oriented and do not actively monitor
their actions. In a situation of alienation (where “our awareness of the world is
high, but we may not be able to change it”), Jarvis (2004, p. 110) suggests that
incidental learning about the self may occur. This learning is often accompanied
by strong emotions and the meaning attached to the experience may have a
profound impact on the individual’s motivation to take action at a later date. This
type of learning mirrors the initial intensely emotional experiences of failure
described by the entrepreneurs whose learning is discussed by scholars such as
Cope (2011) and Jenkins (2012).
A characteristic of Jarvis’ writing is his frequent and at times controversial
discussion of the ‘dark’ side of learning (Le Cornu, 2005). He discusses for
example, the phenomenon of “non-learning” (discussed later on) and in his
discussion of the transformation of experience through action, he discusses not
only “non-action”, but also “reaction”. Reaction involves either ‘retreating’ or
‘rebellion’ – where “retreat” may or may not involve disjuncture, but nevertheless
involves the individual removing themselves from the situation. For example: a
manager may be aware of the learning opportunities associated with their
participation in a project, but due to the pressure of time or other commitments
they might decline an invitation to participate. In Cope’s (2011) discussion of
entrepreneurs’ learning in/through failure he notes that some individuals
engaged in sports activities for a while, to ‘get away’ from their experiences. They
did however return to these experiences at a later stage, suggesting that ‘retreat’
may at times be a means of postponing learning, rather than avoiding it.
Theoretical Perspectives
83
Jarvis defines “rebellion” as the individual’s action to change the situation rather
than themselves. An entrepreneur faced with a change in customer preferences
could for example, decide to focus on a new set of customers rather than adapt
their product or service to the change.
Jarvis (1987) originally suggested that non-learning can take place as a result of
either presumption (the assumption that a new situation is identical to one
experienced previously), non-consideration (for some reason the individual does not
focus attention on the situation and therefore does not learn from it) – or rejection
(for some reason the individual rejects the opportunity to learn from a situation).
In his later work however (2006, 2010), he comments on his increasing awareness
of the role of incidental learning (i.e. subconscious learning). He therefore points
out that the term “non-learning” is not entirely accurate and that the person may
learn from experiences that they do not consciously direct their attention to. In
his early writing he also acknowledges that previous meanings may be reinforced
through the act of presumption, a process that is arguably also associated with
learning.
2.2.2.4 The social context
The final part of Jarvis’ theory of learning that is important to discuss, is his
treatment of the role played by the “social”. Jarvis understands learning as a
science that is inherently inter-disciplinary, so that he adds perspectives from
sociology to arguments that are grounded in psychology or philosophy. He
suggests that learning always takes place in specific contexts and that the majority
of these contexts involve relationships with other people. He therefore argues
that when scholars write about “formal” or “informal” learning, they are not so
much talking about a specific type of learning, but of different learning situations
(Jarvis, 2006a, p. 54). He suggests that learning typically takes place in either
individual, informal, non-formal or formal environments – and in these contexts
it is characterised by either proactive or reactive behaviour on the part of the
learner (Jarvis, 1987). He defines informal social environments as contexts in
which the individual interacts with friends, acquaintances, etc. in a manner that
is not formally structured. Non-formal environments are defined as organised
educational activity that is provided outside of the formal system, for example:
agricultural extension. Examples of formal social environments are school or
university settings, such as classrooms. At this point it is interesting to reflect on
Jarvis’ discussion of how individuals construct their life-world by experiencing
not only themselves and others, but also ‘things’ and’ events’
40
. Actor-network
theorists such as Latour (2005) and proponents of activity theory (for example:
Engeström, 2000) discuss how individuals interact with non-human artefacts in
far more detail than many of the more ‘main-stream’ scholars of adult education.
40
See paragraph at the beginning of section 2.2.2.
Jönköping International Business School
84
Jarvis for example, acknowledges the possibility of his ‘whole person’ interacting
with ‘things’, but does not go into detail with regards to how this interaction takes
place – even if he does discuss the role of physical ‘space’ to a limited degree. In
the context of entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education this is a
lamentable omission, given the important role played by non-human artefacts
such as business plans.
Jarvis (1987) suggests that the distinction between contexts of formal and non-
formal learning lies primarily in the lesser degree of bureaucracy found in non-
formal environments, even if non-formal settings are clearly still organised. In
contrast, the difference between non-formal and informal environments lies in
the general lack of pre-specified procedures or interaction in informal contexts.
Jarvis suggests that individuals move between proactive and reactive learning
behaviour in these environments, where proactiveness is associated with the
learner taking the initiative in creating an opportunity for learning – as opposed
to reacting to the initiative of somebody else. An individual could for example,
display pro-active behaviour in signing up for a course, but while attending the
course adopt a more reactive role. Jarvis suggests that individuals’ motivation to
learn may be affected by the extent to which they participated in the creation of
the situation. In other words: whether they have acted as "agents” seeking to
expand their pool of meaningful experience – or in response to “oppressive
social structures”, so that they are instead attempting to recreate harmony in their
life-worlds (ibid., p.66). These factors (type of learning environment and
proactivity vs. reactivity) are important for our understanding of entrepreneurial
learning, as aspects of proactive and reactive learning behaviour may be
associated with different types of learning environment. As noted earlier, much
of the entrepreneurship education literature focuses on formal learning
environments, where traditions of learning can create an expectation that
learning will be reactive in character. As this study will show however, much of
the learning that takes place in accelerators takes place in a non-formal
environment. Naturally, in all three learning environments it is possible to
identify aspects of the other two. A non-formal environment can contain formal
structures – and in both formal and non-formal environments, periods of
informality occur.
Although learning is affected by the individual’s attitude towards education and
by the characteristics of the learning environment, Jarvis suggests that the impact
of social context on learning is also related to aspects of culture, time and space.
Drawing on Berger and Luckmann (1967) he notes that learning in early life is
associated with “primary” socialisation, by which he refers to the imparting of
culture (“all the knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs, values and emotions that we,
as human beings, have added to our biological base”) to the child by significant
others (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 55). He also suggests that learning styles are to a certain
extent culturally-based, as seen in the contrast between Chinese and Western
Theoretical Perspectives
85
learning styles – where both cultures include questioning as a route to learning,
but at different stages. Furthermore he underlines the foundational role of
language in learning and the idea that much of our self-identity and understanding
of our ‘location’ in society, is developed through socialisation. This implies that
“entrepreneurship” is a cultural concept that is learned by means of language in
a particular cultural environment. This idea is illustrated by Helene Ahl (2002) in
her discussion of gender in entrepreneurial discourses.
As the person grows older they are increasingly affected by what Jarvis (again
drawing on Berger and Luckmann, 1967), refers to as “secondary” socialisation.
This type of interaction includes among other things, the learning of behaviour
and roles that are associated with sub-groups in society. For example: in
particular professions. Jarvis notes the importance of role-oriented behaviour
and the existence of rituals in society that facilitate the move between roles – for
both the individual and the people with whom they interact (for example: a
college graduation ceremony). He underlines the idea that secondary socialisation
involves a process of learning and goes so far as to suggest that Lave and
Wenger’s (1991) concept of situated learning is “basically a description and
analysis of secondary socialisation as a learning process” (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 61).
Jarvis therefore underlines the importance of understanding the culture that
individuals have grown up in and the cultures in which they operate, if we are to
understand their learning. He does however argue that individuals are not only
receivers of socialisation who engage in stability-enhancing “maintenance”
learning, but also actors who are able to change the way they act within culture –
and ultimately the culture itself. Drawing on Botkin, Elmandjra and Malitza
(1979) he terms this type of learning “innovative learning”. He also draws on
Putnam (2000) in suggesting that culture is not only a source of restrictive
socialisation, but also an abundant source of resources that can contribute to the
individual’s learning.
Jarvis suggests that in addition to culture, ‘space’ is part of the social context that
influences learning. He distinguishes between physical and social space,
suggesting that modern technology has increasingly reduced the impact that
physical space has on learning. This idea is linked to the role of our senses in
facilitating learning through secondary experience. Jarvis suggests that the
increased capacity of media to convey information to more than just one of our
senses (typically our hearing), has an impact on the number of opportunities we
have for learning. He illustrates this idea by contrasting the use of radio to convey
news of human suffering (the listener receives information through a single sense
based on the meaning made by the journalist) – to that of television, where both
seeing and hearing are involved – often accompanied by multiple interpretations
of meaning. As Jarvis points out, the development of technology implies not only
a change in the amount of material available as secondary experience, but also a
change in the way in which this experience is transformed – with emotions
Jönköping International Business School
86
potentially playing a greater role. He does not however discuss the issue of
information ‘overload’ and its impact on learning.
Jarvis’ discussion of space is brief and although he identifies the issue of social
space (our culturally determined position in society or organisations), he does not
discuss it at length. He does note however, that the ‘liquid’ nature of modern
society means that individuals have less time to presume upon their life-worlds
and to take roles and situations for granted. In a positive spirit he associates this
with “more opportunities to learn” (ibid., p.65), but does not appear to reflect
on the implications of his “proactive/reactive” framework. It is however possible
that the pace of change in the modern world increasingly puts individuals on the
‘back foot’, in a reactive mode of learning. This trend might be expected to have
an impact on the way in which we transform our constant experiences of
disjuncture.
The third main factor in Jarvis’ discussion of the social context of learning is time.
Jarvis suggests that time structures our experiences in the same way as space and
emphasizes the idea that learning always takes place in the present – even if he
points out that we can learn from the past with the future in mind! Drawing on
Kierkegaard (1959) and Simpson (1995), he suggests that individuals experience
time as it relates to the ‘self’ in two ways. Either as something through which
they must move in order to achieve a goal (relating to Kierkegaard’s “external”
history), or as a “constitutive” feature of their being (Kierkegaard’s “internal”
history). Jarvis proposes that in the modern world, time is frequently dealt with
in an “instrumental” manner – as something that must be overcome, rather than
come to terms with. Simpson (ibid.) suggests that when individuals come to
terms with time, rather than seeking to overcome it they begin to create “praxis”.
This concept is linked to professional practice and Jarvis associates it with the
reflective repetition of actions which transforms “knowledge into wisdom” and
“skill into expertise” (Jarvis 2006, p.68). In somewhat convoluted philosophical
terms therefore, Jarvis argues that despite the attempts of modern educators to
overcome time by making knowledge explicit, there is no real substitute for
practice – which he associates with [first-hand] experience, trial and error, and the
gradual absorption of “working rules of thumb, or heuristics” (ibid.).
2.2.3 Critiques
Despite the strengths of Jarvis’ model of experiential (or ‘existential’) learning, it
is not without its weaknesses. With the exception of scholars such as Paulo Freire
(1972, 1998) and Moacir Gadotti (1996), many educational thinkers draw
primarily on North American and European ideas – and Jarvis is no exception.
In order to develop the work of Kolb and others, Jarvis toured the United
Kingdom and the United States – yet apparently did not seek input from non-
Western audiences. His ideas may therefore be subject to some of the critique
Theoretical Perspectives
87
levelled at other theories that adopt a more ‘social’ perspective on learning (such
as situated learning and communities of practice). These theories have been
critiqued for failing to take into account the issue of power in learning (Barton &
Tusting, 2005) – and despite Jarvis’ discussion of non-learning, this appears to
be an apt criticism of his work. In the context of accelerators that recruit social
entrepreneurs from developing countries, some acknowledgement of the impact
of privilege and poverty on learning would have been appropriate. As Gadotti
(ibid., p.5) wryly comments: “the school has become an institution in conflict like
any other”. The accuracy of his observation is illustrated by my discussion of
some of the processes of learning in accelerators, in section 4.3.7: ‘Similar
structures, dissimilar interaction’.
Alison Le Cornu (2005) suggests that Jarvis’ work is weak with regards to its
treatment of time, its portrayal of the process of internalisation and the concept
of non-learning. She suggests that Jarvis oversimplifies learning by depicting it as
a ‘single strand’, sequential process. She argues that in reality, learning does not
occur sequentially (in that a single occurrence of disjuncture is experienced and
resolved before moving on to new experiences). Instead she suggests that
individuals often experience several disjunctures at once and are constantly
engaged in resolving these, at different levels of engagement. Le Cornu (ibid.)
suggests therefore, that learning is ‘multi-stranded’ in character and I concur with
her argument.
Peter Erdélyi (2010) does not discuss the work of adult learning theorists in
depth, but his critique of the entrepreneurial learning literature is also applicable
to the ideas of scholars such as Jarvis. Erdélyi (ibid., p.11) suggests that scholars
of entrepreneurial learning have tended to adopt “anthropocentric ontologies”;
emphasising primarily the ‘cognitive’ aspects of learning. His discussion makes it
clear that he also identifies a clear ‘social’ theme in the literature. Nonetheless, he
laments the absence of a ‘material’ perspective on learning and suggests that
scholars include this viewpoint in future work. I believe that Erdélyi’s critique is
justified and that insufficient attention has been devoted to the role of material
objects in learning – not only in the literature on adult learning, but also in
entrepreneurial learning scholarship.
Jarvis suggests that his theory of learning is ‘existential’ in that it has to do with
the whole person (implying at least mind, body and emotions) – and not just
singular aspects of the individual, such as the mind. In practice however, he often
seems to give more emphasis to the role of reflection in learning. Jarvis does
note that he only became aware of the significant impact of emotions on learning
at a later stage in his career – and this may explain his failure to include these new
insights into his writing. However, this weakness could also be a result of what
Le Cornu (ibid.) terms his ‘weak’ portrayal of how learning is internalised. I tend
to agree with Le Cornu, as Jarvis appears to have difficulty in showing exactly
Jönköping International Business School
88
how an experience of disjuncture is transformed into new knowledge, through
(for example) emotions. Hjorth (2011) provides a more satisfactory account, by
discussing the role of affect in creating an existential ‘space’ in which new ideas
can develop.
Despite the relevance of some of Le Cornu’s comments, I disagree with the
overall inference of her reasoning, which makes reflection the ‘king’ of the
transformational process
41
and appears to equate ‘consciousness’ with
‘reflection’. In doing so Le Cornu essentially neutralises Jarvis’ suggestion that
transformation tends to take place primarily through either reflection, practice or
emotions. My impression is that although the process of internalisation to some
extent remains a ‘black box’, Jarvis is nevertheless correct in suggesting that
reflection is but one of three ways in which the individual transforms experience
into knowledge (or a ‘changed whole person’).
Jarvis discusses non-learning at length, but Le Cornu (ibid.) argues convincingly
that regardless of the significance of the learning experience, some kind of
learning is always taking place – even if experience only serves to reinforce
lessons already learned. Once again I tend to agree with her argument and
although she does not suggest a term for the type of [non-] learning described by
Jarvis, it is possible that a term such as ‘insignificant’ learning might be
appropriate.
2.3 Bringing it All Together
In my introductory chapter I stated that the purpose of this study is to ‘explore
the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerator programmes’. In this chapter I
have discussed entrepreneurial learning in terms of the ‘how’ of educational
practice, philosophy and pedagogy – but also in terms of its ‘why’. In other
words, by moving beyond educational practice to examine the underlying
processes that influence its outcomes (i.e.: learning). By including theories of
adult learning (such as that of Jarvis) in the study of social entrepreneurs’ learning
in accelerators, it becomes clear that any study of the learning process in
accelerators cannot rely solely on the entrepreneurship education literature.
Instead, such a study needs to admit the possibility that it is the interaction of a
programme of education with the learning behaviour of the entrepreneur that
leads to their development. This implies that the study of entrepreneurial learning
in accelerators will be incomplete, if researchers only focus on either the structure
of accelerator education or the developmental experiences of participating
entrepreneurs. A more complete picture will result if the two are studied in
relationship to one another. This suggestion is in keeping with the ideas of
41
Le Cornu (2005) attributes “great significance” to the role played by reflection in transforming
experience (p.10).
Theoretical Perspectives
89
Strauss (1993), who underlines the importance of focusing on interaction when
studying the development of individuals and phenomena.
Building largely on Jarvis (2010), I suggest that entrepreneurship education
develops the capabilities
42
of entrepreneurs not only by creating relevant
experiences of disjuncture, but also by helping entrepreneurs resolve disjuncture.
In theoretical terms therefore, one aim of accelerators is to create and resolve a
greater number of disjunctures among participating entrepreneurs, than would
normally be experienced in the same period of time, outside of the programme.
Naturally, it is to be expected that most of these disjunctures will relate to the
new venture in some way. Furthermore, as noted previously, it is also conceivable
that accelerators may develop entrepreneurs by creating a different type or depth
of disjuncture than they ordinarily experience. Accelerator success may therefore
be linked to both the quantity and quality of the ‘creative disjuncture’ that is
facilitated.
Scholars of entrepreneurship education suggest several methods for creating
and resolving disjuncture, many of which involve practical – as opposed to purely
cognitive – tools. As noted in my introduction, a particular feature of accelerators
is the involvement in the educational process of a group of peers: the accelerator
cohort. A second feature is the short period of time in which education is
delivered, a characteristic that contrasts with entrepreneurship education in both
university and incubator settings. Consequently, in any study of entrepreneurial
learning within accelerators, it is important to pay particular attention to the
impact of these factors.
When the content of the literature discussed in this chapter is brought together
in the context of an accelerator programme, the following synthesis of the
process of entrepreneurial learning is derived (see figure 2.3). This figure depicts
the interaction of education in a non-formal environment, with the intentions
and behaviour of the individual entrepreneur. Consequently, although the
diagram may give the impression that the entrepreneur is the primary focus of
the synthesis, it is important to emphasize that the accelerator process develops
by means of the interaction of the accelerator as an entity in itself (of which the
entrepreneur is an integral part), with the participating entrepreneurs. Drawing
on Dewey (1938), and Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985); the figure first of all
takes into account the influence of the individual on the learning process. In
other words the ‘internal’ factors that Dewey refers to as “purpose”, but which I
refer to using the latter scholars’ term “intent”. At the same time, the accelerator
42
The concept of capabilities is congruent with my earlier definition of learning as the development of
”the ability to act differently”.
Jönköping International Business School
90
programme is designed in a manner that seeks to both create and resolve relevant
disjuncture in the experience of the entrepreneur.
At this point it is worth noting that the educational process in accelerators
depends not so much on a philosophy of didactics (effective teaching), but rather
of dialectics (Gadotti, 1996; Hjorth, 2013). Entrepreneurs are encouraged by
both accelerator staff and their peers, to test their ideas and to develop effective
solutions to the challenges of their startups. At the same time, entrepreneurs are
constantly providing feedback (conscious or otherwise) to accelerator staff about
the relevance and effectiveness of both the programme content and the
accelerator process.
Intent
Learning-oriented
DESIGN
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE &
CAPABILITIES
Long-term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Creating
disjuncture
Transforming
disjuncture
Acting-
Feeli ng-
Thinking
Intent
The ENTREPRENEUR
Immersion in
Learning Process
Figure 2-3: A Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators.
Theoretical Perspectives
91
In view of the purpose of this study (see section 1.8) and taking into account
additional insights gathered from the literature review in this chapter, several
more specific questions are asked in relation to the process of entrepreneurial
learning in accelerators. These were briefly mentioned in chapter one, but are
outlined in more detail below.
2.3.1 Research Questions
In this chapter I have discussed the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of social entrepreneurial
learning. Previously I have stated that my general purpose is to explore the learning
of social entrepreneurs in accelerator programmes. But what does this mean in practice?
As I explore the process of entrepreneurial learning, what am I especially
interested in? Having discussed several of the theoretical fields that have a
bearing on entrepreneurs’ learning, I suggest that the four research questions
introduced in chapter one now make a little more sense. Before moving on to
discuss my methodology and the results of my study, I therefore revisit them,
briefly demonstrating how they are each a product of this chapter’s theoretical
discussion.
An important first question has to do with the impact of social entrepreneurs’
experiences, orientations and intentions prior to the accelerator programme.
Scholars such as Dewey (1938) and Politis (2005) argue that individuals’
experiences before interacting with educational activities play a critical role in
their learning. If we are to understand the developmental process in accelerators
(one of the ‘gaps’ identified by Hallen et al., 2013), we must acknowledge the
possibility that entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators may be influenced by
experiences that accelerators have little control over. For this reason the first
question that I ask in this study is:
1. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators influenced by
their experiences and intentions prior to entering the programme?
A second question responds to the critique of David Erdélyi (2010), that
contemporary EL scholarship does not take seriously the influence of non-
human objects on learning (i.e.: “the material”). This is a concern that is also
evident in Engeström's (2000) activity theory – which discusses the role of
“instruments” in learning (Sannino, Daniels, & Gutiérrez, 2009). It is also
apparent in Wenger’s (1998) discussion of social/situated learning, in which he
discusses the important roles played by “boundary objects”. In accelerators
entrepreneurs’ learning can be expected to be influenced by non-human aspects
that include not only objects such as curriculum design, but also physical objects
such as business plans, physical ‘space’ – and even time.
Jönköping International Business School
92
One particular aspect of the ‘material’ that I discussed in my introduction is the
idea of a ‘non-formal’ learning environment. I have suggested that this type of
learning environment makes it easier for practicing entrepreneurs to develop
what Politis (2005, p. 400) terms “entrepreneurial knowledge”. I also argue that
accelerators are an example of such a learning environment, as they display
several of the characteristics of non-formal learning contexts (including less
standardisation and the possibility of learners influencing programme goals). It
is important to emphasize however, that although an educational programme
may be more attractive to entrepreneurs and easier for them to participate in, this
does not necessarily mean that it is effective. As Hallen et al. (2013) point out, some
accelerators are effective while others are not. Their suggestion that differences
in quality exist, but that these differences are “unclear and critical” (ibid., p.33)
suggests that it is necessary to explore accelerator processes in more detail. This
infers that it is important to create a ‘richer’ understanding of the entrepreneurs’
learning in accelerators, so that the interplay of the different factors may be more
easily perceived. As Gibb (1983) has pointed out, one of the distinguishing traits
of entrepreneurship education for practicing entrepreneurs is that it adapts to the
needs and circumstances of the individual to a far greater extent than traditional
(formal) education. Nonetheless, I have argued that relatively little is known
about the processes and outcomes of the non-formal approach to education that
Gibb and other scholars envisage.
Taking into account the possibility that material, ‘non-human’ factors (including
a non-formal learning environment) may have an impact on learning, a second
question addressed in this study is:
2. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by the non-human
‘objects’ (primarily educational design) that are associated with entrepreneurship
education in accelerators?
In my introduction I noted that a distinct characteristic of accelerators is their
education of entrepreneurs in ‘cohorts’. In my ‘weaknesses, gaps and
opportunities’ section (1.7.6) I described the inconsistency in the literature, in
distinguishing between the different types of support roles found in accelerators
(most notably between medium-term mentors and visiting coaches). Although
the ‘people’ side of accelerators is in a sense an integral part of programme design,
I suggest that for the purpose of analysis it is valuable to distinguish the ‘people’
side of accelerators from the ‘material’ side. Cohen’s (2013a) doctoral research
provides initial evidence that different actors influence the creation of knowledge
through accelerators, in different ways. As noted previously however, her study
relies on ex post accounts of the accelerator process. It is possible that a study that
gathers data during the accelerator process – and in a different context, will
provide further insight about how different accelerator roles (for example:
managers, mentors, coaches and peers) contribute to learning. If this is the case,
Theoretical Perspectives
93
then it is likely that an awareness of these different contributions would assist
accelerator managers in designing effective programmes. Similarly, given the
distinctive emphasis of accelerators on educating entrepreneurs as cohorts, it is
important to learn more about the ways in which entrepreneurs interact with one
another in the educational process. For this reason a third research question asks:
3. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by their interaction
with the different human actors within accelerators (managers, mentors, coaches and
peers)?
A final research question has to do with accelerator outcomes – and is perhaps the
one which both policy-makers and participants in accelerator programmes are
most anxious to pose. Scholars have identified important outcomes for
accelerators that focus on accelerating for-profit ventures; but as Lall et al. (2013)
point out, our knowledge about the outcomes of programmes for ‘social’
enterprises is far more limited. If key stakeholders (such as policy-makers) wish
to enhance the growth and effectiveness of social enterprises, then it is important
to learn more about the learning generated by programmes that profess to
accelerate their development. Similarly, social entrepreneurs who are considering
applying to an accelerator need to know what they can expect to learn from
participating. In other words, questions of investment beg answers that hint at
expected results, regardless of whether the investment is made in monetary
resources or in time.
My fourth research question is therefore addressed to the ‘outcomes’ part of my
study:
4. In which ways does the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators affect their
development and that of their enterprises?
In the next chapter I describe the way in which I gathered information about
entrepreneurs’ learning in an accelerator programme. Among other things, I
describe how an accelerator was selected for study and the methods used to
collect and analyse information about entrepreneurs’ experiences.
95
3 Journeying into Method
[Duncan] “…if you feel worried or irritated about something; please write this
down in the space below.”
[Alice] “Frustration about not getting hands on the project. Working on this...”
In order to discuss the phenomenon of social entrepreneurial learning in
accelerators I employed an interpretative, case-study methodology that involved
the study of three accelerator programmes. The development of my method is
discussed in this chapter, which is structured in the following manner. It begins
with a ‘soft’ description of how the methods used to collect data were developed
and refined in the first accelerator (sections 3.1 to 3.4). In these sections I also
describe how I came to study the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators,
and I discuss the practical and ethical challenges of conducting ‘engaged’
research. In section 3.5 I discuss my methodology by framing it as a case-study
that is informed by ethnographic and narrative methods. Finally, in sections 3.6
and 3.7 (as well as part of 3.4) I describe the research process in the second and
third accelerators. In these sections I present the ‘hard facts’ of my data collection
for all three accelerators; including numbers of interviews conducted and their
timing – as well as the ‘nitty-gritty’ detail of interview procedures and data
analysis.
3.1 The Beginning of the End – or the End of
the Beginning
43
?
The sentences at the beginning of this chapter are taken from a comment by a
participant in the first accelerator that I studied. The ironic phrase “working on
this” refers to a questionnaire the entrepreneur was asked to fill in during week
two of the eight week programme. Her response was just one of several signs of
a growing reluctance among the entrepreneurs to participate in the research and
evaluation process. This reluctance rapidly developed into an outright refusal on
the part of several participants to take part in the type of evaluation activities that
had been designed. At the very beginning of my study I was forced to abandon
my research method and go back to the drawing board. But how did I become
involved in the accelerator in the first place? And what happened next? This
chapter describes the process by which I gathered data about accelerators. It aims
to provide the reader with not only an understanding of the methodology used
in this study, but also its development as I interacted with practitioners.
43
Status Quo, from the album In Search of the Fourth Chord.
Jönköping International Business School
96
Consequently, the alert reader will note that the chapter provides not only
information about methodology, but also some insight into aspects of the
accelerator process. In particular, the difficulties associated with conducting a
process study of accelerators reflect the intense, often stressful character of the
programmes.
In order to understand how I came to study an accelerator programme for social
entrepreneurs it is necessary to understand a little more about the background to
this study and indeed, about my own background. I have lived and worked in
developing countries for a large part of my life: growing up in Colombia in Latin
America – and spending seven years working as an adult in Mozambique,
southern Africa. I have spent much of my working life in what is often termed
the ‘third’ sector, or civil society. In Mozambique for example, I was engaged in
leadership training and community development. During these years I became
increasingly interested in the roles businesses play in alleviating the challenges of
poverty and underdevelopment. Later when I was given the opportunity to
engage in doctoral studies, it was natural for me to focus on firms that seek to
create synergies between the creation of economic, social and environmental
value. In the first years of my doctoral studies I therefore became engaged in the
evaluation of a project run by Coompanion, a Swedish organisation that supports
the development of social enterprises and cooperatives. The project helped me
develop my skills in participatory research, but did not really address the type of
social enterprise I was most interested in, namely ventures operating in
developing countries.
As I worked with Coompanion and began to read more of the literature on social
and sustainability entrepreneurship, I became particularly interested in the
initiatives that the Swedish and British governments were sponsoring in the fields
of ‘inclusive’ business and ‘business for development’. In particular, two
programmes seemed to be focusing on the types of venture that I was interested
in, namely the Swedish Innovations against poverty (IAP) programme and the British
Business Innovation Facility (BIF) initiative. I contacted the managers of both
programmes to discuss the possibility of conducting a study of the ventures that
were applying for their funding – and eventually came into contact with a third
organisation: the Network for Social Entrepreneurship
44
(NSE). This Scandinavian
45
organisation had just received notice that its application to the Swedish
44
Network for Social Entrepreneurship is a pseudonym and in the remainder of this study is abbreviated
as NSE.
45
In this dissertation I endeavour to maintain the anonymity of the accelerator and its participants, by
referring to the location of the programme as ’Scandinavia’ – as opposed to providing a specific country
name such as Denmark, Sweden or Norway. Fortunately, there are several development programmes
for social entrepreneurs in all three countries and residents of all three countries move readily between
them, often in connection with start-up or business activities.
Journeying into Method
97
International Development Agency (Sida) for project funding had been approved
and it was therefore recruiting participants to its first social business accelerator.
Due to the fact that I had previously conducted evaluations for projects
sponsored by the European Union and spurred by having recently been asked
the “what’s in it for me?” question by a dubious social entrepreneur, I asked NSE
if they had enlisted an evaluator to their programme. They had not and voiced
an interest in my suggestion that I conduct such an evaluation, in exchange for
being given access to the participating entrepreneurs. Following this initial
expression of mutual interest by email, I travelled to their office to discuss my
proposal in more detail with the accelerator manager, ‘Denise’. The outcome of
the meeting confirmed our initial positive impressions and it was agreed that I
should accompany the upcoming accelerator as an external researcher/evaluator.
My initial contact with NSE was made in March 8, 2012 and the first accelerator
began on April 10. After over a year of chasing social entrepreneurial ‘fish’, I
suddenly faced the prospect of being suddenly thrown into a pond of them - with
only three weeks in which to prepare.
3.2 Entrepreneurial Methods for
Entrepreneurship Research
In the above paragraphs I have described very briefly what was in fact a
prolonged ‘fish-chasing’ process, characterised by frustration and numerous
dead-ends. Halfway through my doctoral studies I had a clear picture of what I
wished to study (the process of becoming a social entrepreneur with a concern
for developing countries). I was also fairly sure that the apparent scarcity of this
type of venture and my focus on process implied a specific how of conducting my
study (namely an exploratory, qualitative method). However, I was making little
progress towards finding the who (i.e. nascent social entrepreneurs). Indeed, the
only social entrepreneur I managed to interview declined to participate in any
further research. Perhaps prompted by her mentor (who accompanied her to the
interview), she pointed out that as a very busy individual engaged in starting up
a new venture, she simply did not wish to prioritise an activity that did not
provide a clear ‘payback’ to her startup. As I was to discover later on, the
challenge of entrepreneurial ‘busyness’ was to become a recurring theme in my
study.
Naomi Zigmond (2000) suggests that research is similar to detective work. My
own experience is that it is perhaps more similar to the activity of the
entrepreneur, particularly if Johannisson’s (1992) emphasis of entrepreneurship
as organising and meaning-making is taken to heart. As I have written up my
research I have reflected on the appropriateness of having to adopt an
entrepreneurial method in order to be able to study the very phenomenon of
Jönköping International Business School
98
entrepreneurship. Briefly then, the entrepreneurial patterns that I have identified
in my method include the following:
3.2.1 Timeliness and Relevance
The thinly-veiled “what’s in it for me?” reply of the busy entrepreneur who I
failed to convince to participate in my study has returned to my thoughts time
and time again in my study. My initial reaction to the entrepreneur’s question was
to suggest that my research would perhaps be found useful in the long term.
However, as I have engaged with the activities of the accelerators I have been
forced to question this idea. I have had to consider the possibility that the
difficulty of developing studies that are both relevant and timely may have more
to do with traditions of research, than with practitioner expectations. I have come
to agree with Argyris and Schön (1974) who suggest that it is critical that
researchers not only produce theory, but also theory that is timely and that can be
closely linked to managerial action. The very short time frame of ‘my’ business
accelerators (eight weeks) made this an exceptionally difficult task, but challenged
me to develop techniques that began to address this challenge.
3.2.2 Alertness to Opportunity
Having spent several years cultivating a familiarity with the Scandinavian social
entrepreneurship networks, I was – to borrow Kirzner’s (1973) term – ‘alert’ to
the possibility of conducting a study of nascent social entrepreneurship with the
participants in these networks. This alertness enabled me to contact organisations
and individuals – such as NSE – who possessed the ‘resources’ necessary for my
researching venture. However, it was not enough to simply recognise the
opportunity associated with the NSE accelerator, the opportunity needed to be
exploited – and meaning conveyed to accelerator managers, in order for me to
be granted access to the participating entrepreneurs. Without being able to
‘market’ the value of my research to accelerator managers I would have been
unable to “recycle” the resources of the accelerator (the social entrepreneurs)
into a “new pattern” (Johannisson, 1992, p. 1).
Before coming into contact with NSE’s accelerator programme I had expected
to be able to create a tidy, well-structured study of nascent social entrepreneurs.
In the end however, the diversity of ways in which these entrepreneurs interacted
with my research initiatives forced me to take into account the fact that I was
manifestly unable to rigidly control a research process that was based on
interaction. Indeed, the only behaviour which I was able to predict and control
with some certainty was my own. I realised that if I was going to be able to see
my study through, I would have to adopt what entrepreneurship scholars term
an ‘effectual’ approach to opportunities for data collection (Read & Sarasvathy,
2005). This did not mean abandoning all attempts at structure and planning, but
Journeying into Method
99
rather recognising their limitations and being prepared to take advantage of other
opportunities that were not apparent at the beginning of my study. As Saras
Sarasvathy (2001) puts it, I was forced to become good at exploiting
contingencies. As my study progressed I came to realise that the flexibility that I
was forced to adopt with regards to data collection was not so much a limitation,
but an advantage. Some of the advantages of the ‘entrepreneurial’ method that
developed during my study are discussed below.
Without delving into the academic debate about whether opportunities are
discovered or created, I believe that much of my study’s empirical ‘richness’ has
developed from a disciplined alertness to opportunity, rather than any privileged
foresight into the processes associated with accelerator programmes. This is
particularly so given the significant differences in the type of secondary material
46
that I managed to access during the three accelerators. For example: in the first
accelerator the management team recorded short interviews of the entrepreneurs
and posted them on YouTube. These interviews provided additional information
about the feelings and activities of the participants at different stages of the
accelerator. However, these interviews were not carried out in the second
accelerator. Instead an interested journalist conducted written interviews of a
slightly different character for a social entrepreneurship website. A significant
proportion of my data is therefore not only a product of a well-planned
programme of data collection, but also the result of opportunities for insight or
information that were available, but which needed ‘harvesting’. This reflects
David Fetterman’s (2009) comment that the data gathering process requires that
researchers develop a ‘sensitivity’ to both tone and timing – if they are to gain
access to information they were not originally aware of.
3.2.3 Building on Partnership
A third characteristic of my research is its dependence on a dynamic partnership
with the managers of NSE – and indeed with the entrepreneurs themselves.
Although I would characterise my method more as ‘engaged’, rather than ‘action’
research; my study has nevertheless been characterised by dialogue, transparency
and candour. By being willing to engage with the ambitions of NSE and by
sharing managers’ desire to create a better accelerator, my impression is that they
in turn have become willing to help me create a better academic study. Senior
researchers often have the privilege of working in teams and can reap the benefits
of several extra pairs of eyes and ears – and at least one additional interpretation
of events. In business schools however, doctoral students are traditionally
expected to ‘go it alone’ and risk having to rely entirely on their own efforts for
data collection and analysis, and on artificial forms of reflexivity. By partnering
46
I.e.: data that I did not generate through my own efforts. For example: through interviews,
questionnaires, observation or focus groups.
Jönköping International Business School
100
with accelerator managers I believe that I have managed to overcome some of
the disadvantages of ‘single’ scholarship. At times data has been collected by both
accelerator managers and myself (for example during focus groups), and we have
pooled our data at a later date. At other times I have shared my impressions with
the same managers, only to be confronted with a different interpretation – or
with data that seemed to contradict my ideas. In the following paragraphs, the
‘nitty-gritty’ of these partnerships is described.
3.3 The Best-laid Schemes o' Mice an' Men
47
3.3.1 Hitting the Road Running
Financing for the first Booster accelerator (A1
48
) was provided by Sida at relatively
short notice. ‘Short’ that is, when the substantial amount of effort necessary to
recruit not only mentors and speakers, but also entrepreneurs is taken into
consideration. It was also necessary to plan the research and evaluation process
in this period. As the start-up date for the accelerator approached, what we
believed to be a workable model emerged. NSE staff would be responsible for
daily ‘check-ins’ with the participants (brief updates in a group context on the
issues upmost in each entrepreneur’s mind). They would also conduct a more
informal Wednesday evening focus group each week, to dig a little deeper into
the week’s developments. I would conduct baseline interviews with each
entrepreneur and then monitor their progress by means of a short online survey
each Friday afternoon. I would also participate in the accelerator’s activities two
to three days each week as an observer.
Due to the late confirmation of financing, NSE staff were still planning the
accelerator as the activities of the first week commenced. Consequently, as I
noted in a subsequent report, both management and evaluator ‘hit the road
running’. Unsurprisingly, accelerator staff were primarily concerned with the core
activities of the programme (workshops, mentoring, meetings with investors,
etc.) – and with ‘matching’ the Sida financing with investment from other
sources. As a result, in the first accelerator scheduled research and evaluation
activities were unwittingly nudged out of the schedule. For this reason much of
my data collection in the first accelerator was characterised by compromise and
a contingency-oriented strategy of data collection. An example of this is the
baseline interview that I had hoped to conduct with each entrepreneur in the first
47
Taken from the poem "To a Mouse, on turning her up in her nest with the plough", by the Scots poet
Robert Burns (written in 1785). By comparing the destruction of a mouse’s nest by a plough to the
unravelling of human plans by circumstances, the poem emphasizes the fragility of human planning.
48
Booster was the name given to the accelerator programme run by NSE. In the remainder of this
dissertation the first Booster accelerator is referred to as A1, the second as A2, etc.
Journeying into Method
101
few days of the accelerator. Due to the tight schedule I only managed to interview
two entrepreneurs in the first week, by meeting them in a break and over lunch,
while they participated in a CSR fair at a nearby business school. The remaining
five entrepreneurs were interviewed at different times – both face-to-face and by
telephone – over the course of the next two weeks, with the final ‘baseline’
interview taking place on the Friday of week three. This ‘messiness’ was however,
limited to the first accelerator and in the following two accelerators sufficient
time for interviews was scheduled – and for the most part, managers and
entrepreneurs stuck to the agreed timetable.
In a previous section I noted that ‘entrepreneurial busyness’ was a theme – and
above all a challenge – that was to characterise much of my data collection. In
new ventures the startup process is associated with an intense and prolonged
period of hard work for the entrepreneurs involved. Consequently, many
entrepreneurs are reluctant to dedicate time to discussing their experiences with
researchers, or to filling in questionnaires. It rapidly emerged that the A1
49
entrepreneurs were no exception and indeed, many of them appeared to be even
busier than the entrepreneurs I had met outside the accelerator. I associate this
intensity with participants’ awareness of the unique opportunity the accelerator
provided them with, to engage in developing their businesses. Many of them
seemed determined to make the most of their time in the accelerator and
appeared intent on maximising their use of each hour and every day. This at times
involved avoiding ‘unnecessary distractions’ such as ‘pesky’ researchers.
3.3.2 Ethical Issues and the Dynamics of Interactive Research
The busyness of accelerator participants affected the research process in several
ways. At a practical level the contexts that were often associated with ‘contingent’
interviewing sometimes resulted in recordings of poor quality. One baseline
interview conducted in a café over lunch was so interspersed with the noise of
cutlery and the conversations of other guests, as to be largely unusable. However,
other apparently hopeless contexts functioned surprising well, as was the case
with Barry’s 48-minute interview: conducted over his mobile phone as he
travelled across the city by underground and car. By interacting with the Booster
entrepreneurs in this way, I rapidly gained a sense of the intense character of the
accelerator and became more aware of the activities around which I was
scheduling my own activities. Consequently, I was given a first-hand taste of the
‘hustle and bustle’ that the social entrepreneurs experienced as they progressed
through the accelerator. I suspect that much of this would have been lost, had I
49
In this study for the sake of brevity, the accelerators that entrepreneurs participated in are referred to
using the abbreviations ’A1’, ’A2’ and ’A3’.
Jönköping International Business School
102
adopted a case-study approach characterised less by ethnography and more by
the ‘clinical’ interviewing of participants outside of the accelerator context.
Despite the advantages of conducting interviews ‘in’ the accelerator
environment, I was at times concerned about the ethical issues associated with
my study. I felt the need to provide the entrepreneurs with more detailed
information about the research and evaluation process, and about issues such as
confidentiality. However, these issues were only really perceived to be important
by me – and my attempts to engage in a dialogue about them tended to be met
with either managerial compromise (“can you say something about the process
in five minutes at tomorrow’s check-in?”) – or entrepreneurial incomprehension
(“can’t we work it out as we go along?”). In hindsight it is also apparent that my
regular attempts to start a conversation about confidentiality may have created
an impression that confidentiality was in fact necessary (rather than an alternative
to be considered). Possibly as a result of this, all but one of the entrepreneurs in
the first accelerator asked to be identified by pseudonyms in my dissertation. In
contrast, my presentation of the issue of confidentiality in the second accelerator
resulted in all of the entrepreneurs asking to be known by their real names. When
I subsequently shared this information with two of the participants from the first
accelerator (Henrik and Barry), they readily agreed to the use of their real names.
After discussion with my supervisors however, it was subsequently decided to
anonymise both the accelerator and the entrepreneurs.
As the quote at the beginning of this chapter illustrates, the process of developing
a workable model for combining evaluation and research was both difficult and
frustrating. I was particularly concerned about the ethical aspects of my research,
particularly about the question of “informed consent” (Oliver, 2003).
Nevertheless, this was not the only ethical issue at stake. I also faced the question
of whether it would be ethical to ignore the wishes of the entrepreneurs and
somehow force them into reading (or listening to) the information about ethics
that I had prepared, at the time I considered appropriate and in the format of my
preference. In the end I decided to respect the wishes of the entrepreneurs and
to engage them in an ongoing dialogue about confidentiality over the course of
the accelerator. This decision reflects an approach to the resolving of ethical
questions pioneered by Steinmann and Löhr, which Preuss (1999) refers to as
“discourse” ethics.
My decision to discuss the ethical questions associated with my research over the
period of the accelerator, rather than in a single session at the start of the
accelerator was one that was appreciated by the entrepreneurs. As Catrin (A1)
commented in a focus group in week eight:
“I’d still stick to my comment that I’d find it easier just to have it as a frank
group discussion, ’cos we are a small team. […] I appreciate that you’ve
listened to that feedback and we were able to do it in this format.”
Journeying into Method
103
At the end of the first accelerator it was clear that not only had we reached a
compromise about the format for discussing issues of confidentiality, but also that
the entrepreneurs understood the issues at stake and were able to give me clear
information about their wishes. In a discussion about confidentiality in the final
week of the accelerator several of the entrepreneurs asked that I use pseudonyms
for their names in my reports and dissertation, with only two asking to be known
by their real names. Several entrepreneurs who requested anonymity appeared to
base their wish on a desire for simplicity (avoiding administrative tasks such as
signing contracts and responding to emails). The entrepreneurs also made it clear
that they were willing to have their interviews used for evaluation or research,
but not for marketing purposes.
Although one of the main challenges of conducting research in the accelerators
involved resolving issues of confidentiality, another challenge had to do with the
consequences of my research on the entrepreneurs themselves. Although only
Andrew (A1) and Gabriella (A1) gave voice to entrepreneurs the impact of some
of my interviews, it was apparent that asking questions is not an activity without
ethical implications. As I asked social entrepreneurs about their backgrounds
(and in particular about individuals who had influenced their development), I at
times set in motion a sense-making process they had not previously experienced.
Although I was asking questions in order for me to make sense of their
backgrounds, by doing so I was highlighting pieces of the social entrepreneurs’
lives that they continued to reflect upon. In several cases they later commented
on the value they attached to the questions I asked, as it stimulated and facilitated
their own processes of making sense of their lives. However, from an ethical
standpoint it is clear that the reflective process that resulted from my interviews
was uninvited, even if it was difficult to foresee.
3.3.3 Death by Evaluation
As the first accelerator progressed and the entrepreneurs began to engage more
intensively with their business plans, visiting speakers and mentors; it became
increasingly clear that the design of both the accelerator and the evaluation
process was not entirely compatible with the activities of the entrepreneurs. This
friction appeared to stem from two main sources. On the one hand, several of
the accelerator staff came from professional contexts in which dialogue and
reflection were an important tool in either initiating social change (Denise:
Fairtrade), or in enhancing group dynamics (Frida: professional process
facilitator). Their ‘soft’ expectations with regards to the role of team-building
sessions contrasted with the ‘hard-nosed’ attitudes of several of the participants.
These individuals had backgrounds in design and were impatient to get on with
their startup activities. The contrast between the ‘touchy-feely’ orientation of the
accelerator facilitators and the ‘doer’ orientation of the entrepreneurs is
illustrated by Alice’s matter of fact comment during a focus group run by the
Jönköping International Business School
104
process leader Frida. Her clipped response to Frida’s colourful encouragement
to reflect on the activities of the past week was:
“I don’t reflect”.
To be fair to Alice, the comment does not reflect the depth of her professional
experience, but rather a pattern of behaviour or a style of learning. She developed
her comment in the ‘halfway’ questionnaire in week four:
“Reflection is not a big fan of mine. I generally reflect after the work is
completed. This is very new and somewhat uncomfortable for my way of
working.”
Further explanation was provided by her colleague Edward who pointed out
that for a qualified designer, reflection is a natural component of professional
conduct. To be asked to reflect in what he perceived to be a superficial manner
suggested to him that the managers of the accelerator (and perhaps me) were not
treating him with sufficient respect.
Although there was clearly an occasional clash of professional cultures during the
first weeks of A1, a second reason for a mismatch between accelerator activities
and the evaluation of the accelerator had to do with intensity and timing. In the
first few weeks of the accelerator the entrepreneurs were quite simply being asked
too many questions too often, when they had relatively little material to reflect
upon. As the accelerator progressed they also came under increasing pressure to
perform. For example: by making progress on their business plans and by
practicing their ‘pitches’ (short verbal presentations of their business ideas). As
they began to feel tired and stressed, they were confronted with additional
demands by the accelerator facilitators and me – to fill in questionnaires and
participate in feedback sessions. Unsurprisingly a reaction was not long in
coming…
3.3.4 From Crisis to Consensus
I began this section with a quote from the Scots poet Robbie Burns, in which he
compares the destruction of a mouse’s meadow home by a plough, to the
frequent failure of human plans to turn out as expected
50
. As the first accelerator
got up to speed in weeks two and three, it became increasingly clear that the plans
conceived for the evaluation of the accelerator had also gone “agley” and needed
to be changed. Several things prompted this conclusion. For one thing, the
entrepreneurs began to engage less enthusiastically with the check-in sessions
50
In the poem the strophe “The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men” is followed by the words: ”Gang aft
agley” – which means ”go often awry”.
Journeying into Method
105
each morning and some chose to be absent from these sessions altogether,
arriving instead just in time for the first speaker session of the day. The ‘Friday
feedback’ questionnaires that I had posted online each week were also
increasingly ignored, or only filled in with extremely short and uninformative
answers. Furthermore, in ten days we planned to conduct halfway interviews and
yet, as the end of week three neared, I had still not managed to schedule baseline
interviews with two of the entrepreneurs. It was obvious that our programme
evaluation needed radical revision. Consequently, after a convoluted
combination of face-to-face and telephone conversations, a new approach was
negotiated with the entrepreneurs and subsequently launched.
The new strategy for evaluating the accelerator was designed to take into account
the pressure the entrepreneurs were experiencing. In a frank discussion with the
accelerator participants a compromise was proposed, whereby the facilitators
promised to drastically reduce the number of evaluation activities, with the
expectation of more active participation in the few remaining events. What this
implied in practical terms was that the planned halfway interviews were replaced
by an online questionnaire, the ‘Friday feedback’ questionnaire was scrapped and
the number of ‘check-ins’ was reduced from five each week to only two. This
suggestion appeared to satisfy everyone and the mood of the group – which had
begun to sour somewhat – appeared to return to its previous level of enthusiasm
and collegial support.
3.3.5 On Emotions and Evaluation
Following the revision of the research and evaluation strategy, the remainder of
the first accelerator passed relatively uneventfully and the entrepreneurs and
accelerator facilitators participated in an engaged manner in both the halfway
questionnaire (sent out at the beginning of week five), and the evaluation day in
week eight. We then built upon our experience of conducting evaluation and
research in an accelerator context, as the next accelerator was planned and
subsequently launched. Before introducing that process however, it is important
to comment on the impact of mood and emotion on the research process.
As has already been noted, the busyness of the entrepreneurs had a major impact
on their willingness to participate in the evaluation process. What also became
clear with the benefit of hindsight, is that this busyness – which produced feelings
of stress among the entrepreneurs – also affected their perceptions of the
accelerator. As the accelerator progressed many of the entrepreneurs experienced
pressure to achieve goals that they had set for themselves, or which they felt were
expected of them (for example: business plans, a sales strategy, etc.) This stress
seems to have been particularly high in weeks seven and eight (as indicated by
the ‘stress diagrams’ that the A2 and A3 entrepreneurs were asked to draw as part
Jönköping International Business School
106
of the final evaluation
51
). When the entrepreneurs were asked questions about
the accelerator in week eight, the majority of their responses contrasted markedly
with their responses in week four – negatively. They also tended to be harsher in
tone and more unbalanced than the week four responses (i.e. critical comments
were not complemented by positive reflections). In both accelerators the two
main facilitators (Denise and Karen) were unprepared for what both I and they
perceived to be a sudden switch in entrepreneurs’ perceptions, and were
bewildered and saddened by the sudden rush of critique.
My interpretation of the substantial dip in entrepreneurs’ perceptions of the
accelerator is that their feedback was to a certain extent coloured by emotion in
the final week of the accelerator. Studies of management behaviour in other
contexts suggests that individuals’ behaviour is far from rational, and that
emotions and performance have a significant impact on one another (Brundin &
Nordqvist, 2008). In Brundin and Nordqvist’s study, CEOs were observed to
use anger to regain a feeling of control and power on their boards, and it is
possible that such a process occurred towards the end of the accelerators. In
other words: the pressure to perform and a feeling of not having performed as
well as they had hoped, may have been counteracted by some entrepreneurs by
an expression of anger – as communicated through the focus group in A1 and
the final interviews in A2. In a sense therefore, the severe critique expressed
towards the end of both accelerators may be coping behaviour prompted by
stress (see for example the ideas of Anderson, 1977). This discussion is however,
outside the realm of this dissertation. What is worth noting however, is the
problematic nature of the impact of emotions on entrepreneurs’ perceptions of
the accelerator. If I had chosen to conduct a questionnaire-based study of the
outcomes of accelerator programmes that only addressed participants in the final
stages of the accelerator, I would clearly have risked gathering misleading data.
By employing a qualitative study that took a more holistic, process-oriented
perspective I reduced this risk substantially – even if I still faced the challenge of
assessing which of the reported perceptions most closely reflected the long-term
impact of the programme.
3.4 Research & Evaluation 2.0
An exciting characteristic of Sida’s support to NSE was its provision for a series
of accelerator programmes and consequently, for an ongoing process of learning
and improvement. I discuss the development of the Booster accelerator in other
chapters, as this chapter focuses primarily on method. Nevertheless, as NSE
concluded the first accelerator and began to plan for a second, two factors are
worth mentioning. The first has to do with my role as a carrier of organisational
51
See appendices.
Journeying into Method
107
knowledge, while the second has to do with the idea of a methodological
‘evolution’ over the course of the two (and subsequently three) accelerators.
3.4.1 Bridges for Knowledge
NSE is a small not-for-profit organisation that to a large extent relies on the
voluntary activities of its members for much its operations. Founded in 2004 it
tends to employ staff for its programmes as money becomes available, primarily
through project funding. When NSE received news that its project application
(which included an accelerator programme) had been approved, the board
moved quickly to employ someone to run the programme. They hand-picked
Denise, an ambitious woman with a background in Fairtrade – who also
happened to be one of the individuals identified by a leading Scandinavian
business newspaper, as one of the region's “super talents”. Denise agreed to run
the first accelerator, but underlined her intention to leave immediately afterwards
in order to travel to the United States and participate in the election campaign
for Barack Obama.
One implication of this recruitment was that a significant amount of the
organisational learning from the first accelerator was located in three main
‘places’: Denise’s memory, the written reports from the first accelerator – and in
the memory of the accelerator’s evaluator (i.e. myself). Although the next
accelerator manager (Karen) naturally had some contact with Denise prior to the
second accelerator, she relied to a large extent on the documentation from the
first accelerator (a significant part of which was provided by myself) and on what
I could tell her about the lessons learned in A1. I therefore found myself taking
on the unexpected (and for a researcher somewhat unusual) role of a ‘knowledge
bridge’ between the first and second accelerator.
3.4.2 Evolving Method
One of the advantages of qualitative method is that it is not as dependent as
quantitative methodologies on the careful replication of previous studies. As
Guba and Lincoln (1982) point out, method in naturalistic inquiry
52
is often
emergent, with the design of the study developing continuously as data is collected
and analysed. The “rolling, cascading, unfolding” design process (ibid.) is a result
of two main factors in research, namely progressive focus and improvement. In
many qualitative studies, researchers begin their work in an exploratory manner
with relatively little theoretical pre-understanding about what is being observed.
As data is gathered and analysed, understanding increases and particular parts of
52
Naturalistic inquiry is an approach that shares many, although possibly not all of the main
characteristics of other qualitative research methodologies.
Jönköping International Business School
108
the data are subjected to more intense scrutiny and re-visited. This naturally infers
that new questions will be asked and that new sources of data may be
investigated. In qualitative research this is a natural and necessary part of the
study, as Jennifer Platt (1992) points out. She notes out that although the study
author often has “an initial intention”, “as the research is carried out, unexpected
findings and new ideas develop” (ibid., p41). Consequently, the subsequent
changes in questions asked as the study progresses do not present the same kind
of challenge to research validity as such a modification would infer in a
quantitative approach. It is also worth noting that the process described by Platt
also characterised my research, which gradually progressed from being a general
study of the development of social entrepreneurs, to being a more focused
exploration of social entrepreneurial learning in accelerators.
The progressive focusing associated with qualitative studies is by far the most
common reason given in the literature for researchers employing new techniques
as a study progresses. What is less commonly discussed is the change of research
design due to difficulties with the design itself. This is perhaps understandable,
due to the pressure on academics to portray their research as well thought
through in all areas. Nevertheless, my impression is that this pressure is likely to
result in either a certain falsification of method (mistakes are glossed over in
order to create a better impression), or in ‘mundane’ research (research into
phenomena that we are familiar with). It is naturally easier to design functional
research strategies for contexts that we are familiar with, than it is to move into
unfamiliar territory. Many scholars however, would argue that it is in fact the
unfamiliar that is likely to result in what Alvesson and Sandberg (2013) term
“interesting” research.
3.4.3 Sharpening my Tools
As I conducted my study of the first Booster accelerator programme, it became
clear to me that several of the tools I was using were not producing the results I
had hoped for. By getting the entrepreneurs to provide me with weekly
reflections on their progress through the accelerator (the Friday feedback
questionnaire
53
) I had hoped to be able to construct a rich process account of
their experiences and development. Accelerator participants however, were
clearly unwilling to devote time each week to this task. At the same time, I was
not satisfied with the information I was gaining from the days I was spending at
the accelerator. Participants’ reflections during the final evaluation day suggested
that important interaction was taking place among the entrepreneurs, but that I
was capturing relatively little of this interaction by observing their routine
activities (which often consisted of participating in a seminar and then going to
their computers and continuing work on their business plan). My impression was
53
See Appendix 1.
Journeying into Method
109
that the information generated by participant observation in the first accelerator
was not worth the substantial investment of time involved (thirteen days, or 32
% of the total accelerator). Subsequently, I nevertheless concluded that this initial
investment had been necessary in order to acquaint myself closely with the
structure and character of the accelerator. However, I felt that it would be hard
to justify spending a similar amount of time in the second accelerator.
In view of the above and taking into account what had been learned about the
impact of entrepreneurial ‘busyness’ on participants’ willingness to share their
reflections, a revised research and evaluation strategy was designed. It was
decided to make NSE’s expectations about entrepreneurs’ participation in the
evaluation clearer, while at the same time reducing the number of instances when
they would be asked to provide feedback. At the same time I still wished to be
able to collect ‘rich’ data on participants’ experiences – and for this reason it was
decided to conduct interviews halfway through the accelerator and in the final
week. This implied leaving out the initial baseline interview and forced me to rely
more heavily on the documentation solicited from entrepreneurs by accelerator
staff prior to the accelerator (such as their CVs and application forms).
Accelerator staff would continue to hold regular ‘check-in’ sessions with the
entrepreneurs and a focus group run by one of the accelerator staff would again
take place in week eight. I also insisted on the inclusion of a short session about
the research and evaluation process during the team-building days at the start of
the accelerator. Finally, the number of days on which I visited the accelerator and
spent time on direct or participant observation was reduced from thirteen to
eight (and subsequently to seven in A3).
Table 3.1 provides an overview of the research and evaluation activities
conducted in the three Booster accelerators. More complete details of the various
questionnaires and interview guides are found in the appendices. In total forty-
two interviews were conducted, distributed among the three accelerators as
detailed below. Twenty interviews were conducted in A1 (thirteen with
entrepreneurs and seven with managers and stakeholders. Eighteen in A2 (fifteen
with entrepreneurs and three with managers) – and twenty in A3 (sixteen with
entrepreneurs and four with managers). Additionally, three focus groups were
held in the first accelerator, one in the second and one in the third.
Jönköping International Business School
110
Table 3-1: Research Activity during and after the Accelerators.
Research activity during the accelerators
Accelerator 1 Accelerator 2 Accelerator 3
Date Activity Date Activity Date Activity
week 1 INT, DO, Q week 1 DO week 1
DO
week 2 DO, Q, FG week 2 week 2
week 3 week 3 week 3
week 4 DO week 4 INT, DO week 4
INT, DO
week 5 DO, Q week 5 week 5
week 6 week 6 week 6
week 7 DO, FG week 7 DO week 7
week 8 DO, FG week 8 INT, DO, FG week 8
INT, DO, FG
Key: INT = interview, DO = direct observation, Q = questionnaire, FG = focus group
Post-accelerator research activity
5/6 month follow-up Telephone interview
1 year follow-up Online questionnaire
3.5 Making Sense of Method
In the above sections I have described the research process as it developed from
a simple search for social entrepreneurs into a multi-faceted investigation of
social entrepreneurial learning in a series of accelerator programmes. Although
many academics may feel that they recognise particular philosophies of science
and methodologies in the preceding sections, I feel it is important to be more
explicit about the research process I engaged in. This is necessary not because it
is inherently wrong to conduct research without claiming to follow a certain
methodology, but rather because I am influenced by several genres of qualitative
method. It is therefore not only necessary to acknowledge my debt to these
schools, but also important to identify the methods I have used – in order that
the adequacy of these methods be judged by appropriate criteria. Consequently,
in this section I briefly describe the main methodological pillars that undergird
my study. In the sections that follow I then provide more detailed information
about the instruments used. To use a culinary metaphor: I begin by this section
by describing the kind of cake that I am baking, before moving on to describe
the particular ingredients that I have used.
Journeying into Method
111
3.5.1 Ontological and epistemological perspectives
In this study I adopt a critical realist understanding of knowledge and of how we
are able to extend knowledge. This implies that I view reality as ‘stratified’, with
researchers occasionally experiencing events in the “empirical” domain, despite
the fact that events are continuously taking place in the domain of the “actual” –
regardless of whether or not we observe them (Blundel 2007). These events are
in turn the product of the foundational domain of the “real”, where natural
objects exist independent of human perception. These unchanging objects
possess “intransient” properties, many of which we are able to observe by the
impact that they have on our experience. Our interpretation of how this impact
occurs (by means that critical realists refer to as “mechanisms”) is however
“intransient” (Danermark et al. 2002). In other words: our theories about how
both natural and social structures function do not exactly correspond to reality.
In this dissertation I view reality from a critical realist perspective, but do not
follow a strictly critical realist method. I do however use an abductive method in
my analysis and as my study progresses, it is arguable that I engage in the
retroduction process advocated by ‘pure’ critical realists. That is: the attempt to
progress beyond the development of theory, to the distinguishing of the
underlying properties and causal mechanisms that enable the processes defined
in the theory to operate.
3.5.2 Case Study
To many readers it will already be clear that my study is qualitative in nature and
based upon what Kumar and Ormiston (2012) term a case study “strategy”. In
other words, on an approach to research that focuses on the collection of data
from a limited number of individuals and contexts, in order to enable the
“detailed and intensive investigation of a phenomenon” (ibid., p.107). Pervez
Ghauri (2004) suggests that the case study approach is useful when relatively little
is known about a phenomenon, suggesting that the strategy is appropriate for the
study of accelerators. As my earlier discussion of the accelerator literature makes
clear, scholars suggest that ‘quality’ is a key differentiator between high and low
performing programmes, yet what exactly this ‘quality’ is made up of remains
uncertain (Hallen et al., 2013). One way of beginning to clarify the content of
‘quality’ is to gather what Ghauri (ibid.) terms “sufficient information” about a
limited number of cases, in order to be able to discuss these in detail. Cope and
Watts (2000) note that entrepreneurial learning is such a complex phenomenon
that it is most appropriate to study it using a qualitative methodology.
Consequently, given the state of research on accelerators and my research
purpose (to explore social entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators), I deemed a
qualitative, case study strategy to be an appropriate choice of method.
Jönköping International Business School
112
Among the several approaches to case study research that exist, my study would
initially appear to be what Robert Stake (1995) terms an “intrinsic” approach.
Intrinsic case-studies are studies that focus on a particular individual or
organisation on the basis of the researcher’s interest in that particular person or
group
54
. They share many of the features of what Kumar and Ormiston (2012)
term “single-case design”, in that they provide researchers with access to a case
that is “unusual, extreme or something to which access is rarely granted”. My
involvement with NSE provided me with the opportunity to obtain first-hand
data about social entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators over a relatively long
period (three years). As both the phenomenon and the degree of access granted
are relatively unusual, an intrinsic and single-case approach seems appropriate.
Although it appears useful to distinguish case study research as either ‘intrinsic’
or ‘instrumental’ in character, Stake (1995) admits that the distinction is not
always easy to maintain. This was also my experience, as from the perspective of
NSE my choice of case was based on intrinsic logic (my task as an evaluator was
to assess the effectiveness of their accelerator). However, from my perspective, I
was adopting an instrumental approach by choosing a number of entrepreneurs
to study, in order to learn more
about their learning. This
reasoning reflects the technique
of ‘theoretical sampling’
discussed by Kathleen
Eisenhardt (1989). In other
words: individual entrepreneurs
were identified who I believed
would help me develop theory
about learning in accelerators.
My experience suggests that in
this particular instance, Stake’s
discussion of intrinsic and
instrumental cases is not
particularly useful. Instead, I
suggest that the work of the
COSMOS Corporation more
accurately reflects my own
approach – as seen in figure 3.1
(COSMOS Corporation cited in
Yin, 2011, p. 8). In their discussion they note the existence of a particular type of
single-case study, in which the ‘case’ involves several secondary units of analysis
54
An instrumental case-study on the other hand, focuses instead on a particular phenomenon and the
individual or group is chosen because the researcher believes they can provide useful data about this
phenomenon.
CONTEXT
Case
Embedded unit of
analysis 1
Embedded unit of
analysis 2
Figure 3-1: Single-case design
with embedded units of analysis
Journeying into Method
113
– which are nevertheless not identified as cases in themselves. This approach
reflects my own approach, in which the accelerator is the context for the case
itself (social entrepreneurial learning), while the individual actors ‘within’ the
accelerator are portrayed as ‘embedded units of analysis’. This perspective reflects
what Perren and Ram (2004) term a focus on “multiple stories milieu
explanations” – and also their “entrepreneurial personal story explorations”
perspective.
Both of the perspectives mentioned by Perren and Ram (ibid.) adopt a subjective
view of phenomena studied (usually a social constructivist perspective), with the
first approach paying more attention to the creation of meaning through
interaction – and the second privileging the subjective experience of the
individual entrepreneur. As I have noted previously, my study attempts to include
both perspectives: reflecting the uncomfortable reality of learning, as something
inherently individual (it is the person who incorporates new experience into their
‘life world’) – yet also social (or collective) in terms of process and underlying
structure. Andrew Abbott (1992, p. 65) notes that this type of case study
55
incurs
“fuzzy realities”, by which he refers to the idea that cases are “engaged in a
perpetual dialogue with their environment, a dialogue of action and constraint
that we call plot”. He argues that a strength of his “case/narrative” approach is
its allowance for cases to be ‘transformed’ during a study – so that research may
begin as a study of – he gives the example of “craft” – but conclude as a study
of “profession”. This flexibility enables researchers to be ‘true’ to their data in a
manner which more quantitative case-study approaches may not allow.
3.5.3 …with a Hint of Narratives and Ethnography
Kumar and Ormiston (2012) suggest that the case study approach is a ‘strategy’
available to researchers and not necessarily a detailed prescription for method as
such. Their observation is reflected in Eisenhardt’s (1989) comment that
relatively little has been written about the analysis of case study data.
Consequently, scholars have considerable room for manoeuvre when it comes
to the gathering and analysis of data and may even run the risk of mixing methods
in an inappropriate manner – as Perren and Ram’s (2012) discussion of subjective
and objective case study paradigms illustrates. Nonetheless, Kumar and
Ormiston (2012) argue that a strength of case study research is its use of multiple
data collection methods. Under the general ‘umbrella’ of a case study strategy
therefore, I have loaned techniques for data collection and data analysis from the
methodological fields of ‘narratives’ and ‘ethnography’.
55
Abbott discusses an approach very similar to my own, which he terms the “case/narrative” – a sub-
type of which is “multicase narratives”.
Jönköping International Business School
114
The content of my theoretical framework underlines the centrality of
entrepreneurs’ experiences of accelerator programmes to my study. Many
scholars have argued convincingly for the centrality of experience to not only
learning in general (Dewey, 1938), but also adult learning (Knowles, 1970; Kolb,
1984). Furthermore, in the field of entrepreneurial learning several scholars have
underlined the centrality of experience to the learning achieved by entrepreneurs
(Jason Cope & G. Watts, 2000; Minniti & Bygrave, 2001). Even organisational
scholars who adopt a more cognitive approach to the analysis of organisations
note that managerial sensemaking is predominantly based on past experience
(Weick, 1979). Given the apparent importance of individual experience to the
learning process, I deemed it appropriate to on the one hand, gather
entrepreneurs’ own accounts of their learning in accelerators (narratives) – while
at the same time observe their day-to-day activities in the accelerator context
(ethnography). However, it is important to emphasize that I have adapted
narrative and ethnographic methods to the realities of my own study and that I
have not followed what staunch supporters of either methodology would
consider to be a ‘pure’ approach. This is not unusual and Gubrium and Holstein
(1999, p. 561) note that “in the practice of fieldwork there is considerable
overlap” between the two approaches. Indeed, they suggest that each perspective
fruitfully “tames” the “excesses” of the other; by questioning each method’s
reliance on ‘only the narrated experience of the subject’ or ‘only the interpretation
of the ethnographic observer’. Consequently, rather than following only one
method to the exclusion of the other, I use ethnography to provide reflexive
perspective on the insights offered by entrepreneurs’ narratives – and vice-versa.
I also seek to assure “the reader/enquirer of the research” that my study is both
trustworthy and credible
56
, by providing a transparent description of my method
(Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 272). In the following sections this is done by
discussing on the one hand the collection of data about social entrepreneurial
learning – and on the other hand its analysis. Where narrative and ethnographic
methods have informed my work, this is commented on in the text.
56
These terms are often used as the key indicators in qualitative studies of criteria similar to those of
”reliability” and ”validity” in quantitative studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Journeying into Method
115
3.6 Collecting Information about the
Accelerator Process
Although the central ‘case’ in this study is the learning of the social entrepreneur,
‘learning’ as such is a difficult phenomenon to infer simply through observation.
This is particularly so in view of the fact that I have defined learning as the
‘potential’ to act in a different manner. To be certain that an individual had
acquired a particular capability after education would require close observation,
often over a long period of time (requiring resources few researchers have access
to). Furthermore, some capabilities are of a cognitive or emotional nature,
making them difficult to assess in an accurate manner. In view of these challenges
I depend to a large extent on individuals’ own accounts of their experiences in
and after accelerators, in order to discuss their learning. At times these accounts
have been long and fall comfortably into the ‘classic’ definition of narratives as
“stories” (Labov, 1972). At other times long accounts have not been volunteered
and I have had to construct my own narrative of an individual’s experience of
learning, though their responses to a series of questions. As Catherine Riessman
(2008) notes however, both types of response on the part of the Booster
entrepreneurs (and my construction of textual accounts based on their responses)
may be classified as “narrative”.
In my study I have made extensive use of interviews in order to both obtain and
construct narratives. I conducted two to three interviews with most of the social
entrepreneurs and at least two interviews with managers in each accelerator. I
have also made extensive use of direct observation and focus groups.
Furthermore, as explained in previous sections, I made a failed attempt to get
participants to maintain weekly diaries (this was the goal of the ‘Friday feedback’
questionnaire). Consequently, as I also maintained a journal (field notes) I ‘tick
all of the boxes’ with regards to the techniques that Johnstone (2007) associates
with ethnography. However, as noted previously I am more concerned with
being transparent about my method, than with locating my method in a specific
genre.
Despite her discussion of the usefulness of obtaining and constructing narratives
from interview material, Riessman (2008, p. 62) notes that there is a risk that
researchers neglect the role of context in the development of narratives – so that
stories are at times “presented as if they dropped from the sky”. Dawson and
Hjorth (2012, p. 339) share this concern and underline the role of narratives in
not only highlighting relational processes, but also “the context they are
embedded in”. Riessman’s observation is in keeping with the emphases of most
case study strategies and is a timely reminder that this study is as much about
entrepreneurship education in accelerators (the context of entrepreneurs’
learning), as it is about the learning of the entrepreneurs themselves. In this study,
Jönköping International Business School
116
the use of interviews and focus groups has therefore been complemented with
direct observation and secondary data (including entrepreneurs’ curricula vitae
and applications to the accelerator) – as well as additional interviews with
stakeholders of the accelerator (such as Sida personnel, NSE board members and
accelerator managers).
3.6.1 Interviews
Interviews are the primary source of data in many case studies and form the
backbone of most narrative-oriented methods. Unsurprisingly therefore, they
also play a central part in my study. When interviewing I tried to develop an
overall understanding of the ‘story’ of entrepreneurs’ learning in the accelerator,
by eliciting responses based on four thematic areas. These were “background”,
“experience halfway through the accelerator”, “immediate impressions at the end
of the accelerator” and “reflections several months after the accelerator”. It is
worth noting however, that slightly different tools were used to collect data on
some of these themes in accelerators one and two. This was primarily a result of
the revision of the method in the light of my experience of conducting research
in the first accelerator. The main changes made were firstly: the integration of
the ‘background’ and ‘halfway impressions’ themes into a single interview – and
secondly: the adding of an individual interview to the focus group exercise in the
last week of the accelerator, in A2. This change was made because of my
impression that the entrepreneurs were providing longer, richer explanations of
their experiences during interviews (as opposed to the online questionnaire). They
also seemed to be more forthright in their observations in the context of a one-
to-one interview, than in the context of a focus group – at which some of the
accelerator staff were present. To summarise therefore: in both accelerators the
same general themes were covered during data collection, but slightly different
tools were used to cover them.
The interview format used in my study was primarily the “in-depth”- approach
discussed by Ritchie and Lewis (2003). In practice this meant that prior to the
interview I prepared a list of themes or issues that I wished to learn more about
from the interviewee. During the interview this “topic guide” (ibid. p.117) served
as a reminder of the general issues that I wished to address. The list also provided
me with a ‘back-up’ orientation, should the interviewee provide me with an overly
prolonged or irrelevant response that threatened to get us both lost. For example:
in the first interview in A1 the concepts I used to orient the interview were
“identity”, “social learning”, “community of practice” and “social / sustainable
entrepreneurship”. Here I was informed by Bowen’s (2008) discussion of the role
of sensitising concepts in data collection and analysis, as well as by Dick’s (1990)
convergent interview method. Dick’s method reflects the values of narrative
methods, in that it emphasizes the importance of asking an effective opening
Journeying into Method
117
question, followed by a prolonged effort at keeping an informative conversation
going by asking probing, follow-up questions.
The above paragraph describes a somewhat ‘ideal’ format for interviews.
Naturally I was not always able to follow this format due to the behaviour of the
interviewees themselves. Several entrepreneurs (primarily Edward and Alice in
A1) provided very short answers to my questions and seemed to be intent on
getting the interview over as quickly as possible, which resulted in fairly short
interviews of around 20 minutes. Others showed no signs of slowing down at 45
minutes. However, it is important to note that the content of my interviews was
also affected by my interaction with the managers of the accelerators. For the
most part, an interview session was scheduled for a particular date and I prepared
a preliminary set of interview topics/questions, which I then sent to the
accelerator coordinator. This was not done for their formal approval, but rather
in a spirit of openness which I hoped would be reciprocal. This often resulted in
the coordinator adding questions to the interview guide, even if I at times
managed to dissuade them from including too many extra questions. One
example of this was the adding of a question to the interview guide for the
interview at the end of the accelerator in A2. The accelerator coordinator asked
that I include a question about her own performance, as well as a brief assessment
of several of the visiting speakers.
The interview guides used in my study are found in the Appendices section.
3.6.2 Questionnaires
Although interviews increasingly became my preferred research instrument over
the course of the accelerators, I employed questionnaires at several stages in the
first accelerator and for a follow-up one-year after the conclusion of all three
accelerators. With the exception of the ill-fated ‘Friday feedback’ initiative (which
was designed to be more of an online diary), internet-based questionnaires were
initially adopted due to the difficulties encountered in setting up interviews. As
the research process stabilised (in A2 and A3), I relied almost entirely on
interviews to gather material about entrepreneurs’ experiences of the accelerator
– and used a single online questionnaire to gather ‘hard’ data about finance- and
growth-related outcomes. This questionnaire was sent to entrepreneurs twelve
months after the end of the accelerators.
The online SurveyMonkey tool was used to administer questionnaires and a
subscription invested in to provide access to some of the software’s more
advanced analysis tools. In A1 I assumed erroneously that many entrepreneurs
would find it easier to answer questions online, at their own convenience. This
did not prove to be the case, even if several entrepreneurs clearly made an effort
to fill in the surveys at the halfway point and for the one year follow up. With
Jönköping International Business School
118
few exceptions respondents tended to provide very brief answers and often
skipped entire questions. When an individual failed to respond to a questionnaire,
a reminder was sent either by me or by the accelerator coordinator. At the one
year follow-up stage for the first accelerator, the entire process for the sending
out of the questionnaire (i.e. emailed link and reminders) was administered
primarily by the accelerator coordinator. This resulted in a slightly quicker and
more complete response rate. The one year follow-up for the second and third
accelerators was administered by me, as accelerator staff were busy preparing for
accelerators three and four.
The questionnaires used in my study are found in the Appendices section.
3.6.3 Direct Observation
In previous sections I have underlined the importance of embedding the
individual experience of entrepreneurs into the contexts in which they are active.
Without at least some knowledge of the structures and interactions individuals
refer to in interviews, researchers have little basis for interpreting their accounts
as ‘normal’, ‘unusual’ or even ‘interesting’. For this reason I spent a substantial
amount of time in both accelerators observing the interactions of the
entrepreneurs with one other, with visiting speakers and with the activities of the
accelerator. This observation activity was reduced somewhat in the second
accelerator and third accelerators (from thirteen full days to eight – and seven),
when I felt that I was familiar with the programme’s routines and content.
In qualitative research it is common to distinguish between direct and participant
observation. In ethnography for example, with its emphasis on understanding
culture, researchers are often called upon to participate in a particular setting in
order to experience it first-hand. In the accelerator programmes that I studied it
was obviously difficult for me to participate as a nascent social entrepreneur.
Consequently, for the most part I engaged in ‘direct’ observation – even if I
occasionally helped out with tasks such as setting up equipment for a public pitch,
or even assisting with feedback on entrepreneurs’ pitches. By behaving as yet
another person in the accelerator context who wished the entrepreneurs well
57
(rather than as an impassive ‘fly on the wall’), I was able to create closer and more
positive relationships with both managers and entrepreneurs. This relationship
was a factor that made it easier for participants to share their experiences with
me, not only during the accelerator, but also afterwards. Consequently, I still
interact with several entrepreneurs by email or on Facebook. Gabriella (A1) and
Nelson (A2) in particular have often taken the initiative to send me unsolicited,
but welcome updates on their startups. The development and importance of this
type of rapport has been documented by researchers such as Scott-Jones and
57
Note that this behaviour reflected a genuine engagement and was not feigned.
Journeying into Method
119
Watt (2010). They suggest that it is important that researchers ‘earn the right’ to
access by demonstrating both “commitment to collaboration” and seriousness
about collecting data that will benefit those observed.
The development of a relationship from the role of ‘neutral observer’ to that of
‘committed confidant’ is illustrated by my chat with Henrik towards the end of
the first accelerator. The conversation might be interpreted as suggesting that the
‘fly on the wall’ has become somebody with a perspective that might be worth
listening to. The conversation is best understood if readers are aware that Henrik
is a fashion-conscious, young entrepreneur whose product is T-shirts produced
in the shanty towns surrounding the garbage dumps of Brazil.
Duncan: “So, what’s happening?”
“Oh, I’m planning for a presentation. I’ve been invited to the meeting of all the
top managers of [name of a prestigious Swedish bank]. – I just don’t know
how I should dress. I’m going to be mixing with the “suits” and I don’t know if I
can go like this…” [looks at Duncan apparently expecting a response]
Duncan: “Um… why not? I think that the reason you’ve been invited is
because you represent something different. They’re probably fed up with only
meeting other managers in suits! And anyway, in a sense you are your
product – why not take the chance to expose the product you’re trying to sell?”
“Yeah, that might make sense…”
Although I occasionally interacted with the entrepreneurs in a ‘participatory’
manner in the first accelerator, my interaction with the entrepreneurs in the
second and third accelerators was generally more formal. This was primarily due
to the clearer structure created for the research process, which positioned me
more obviously as an occasional visiting evaluator. Often my direct observation
involved sitting in on seminars and taking notes about participants’ questions,
comments and interactions with one another. I also took note of apparent moods
and body language. Prior to such a seminar I would introduce myself to the
speaker and inform them of my presence and the reason for my being there.
In the above paragraph I have described my reliance on note-taking for capturing
entrepreneurs’ behaviour and interaction. An alternative would have been to
video such interaction (Chambers, 2000). Although this might have provided
valuable additional information, I felt this would have been intrusive enough to
interfere with the normal group process. I judged note-taking to be a more
natural behaviour in a seminar situation and therefore less likely to affect the
behaviour of the entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, I concluded each day by recording
(and occasionally writing down) additional impressions of the time that I had
spent at the accelerator. I recorded happenings and comments that I had not
Jönköping International Business School
120
managed to write down at the time of observation, as well as my own feelings
and recollections from the day. Consequently, several evenings a week my fellow
travellers on the train home were treated to the sight of a lone man walking up
and down the most isolated part of the platform, speaking into a little black box
58
.
3.6.4 Focus Groups and Check-ins
During both accelerators NSE staff conducted several focus groups with the
participating entrepreneurs. These were designed primarily to get feedback from
them about their experiences of the accelerator – either at the halfway stage (in
A1), or at the end of the accelerator (all three accelerators). An additional, more
informal focus group was also held in week two of A1. At least two ‘check-ins’
were held each week (or one ‘check-in’ and one ‘check-out’). These brief
meetings involved gathering the entire group of entrepreneurs and inviting them
to either provide the group with a very brief status update, or to bring up an issue
they felt needed addressed.
During the longer focus groups I took on the role of a passive observer, taking
notes on either a lap-top or with pen and paper. Often these sessions involved
the use of post-it notes and flipcharts, and where these were used I took
photographs of the individual notes and each page of the flipchart that had been
used. I also made a careful note of the colours used by each entrepreneur in order
to be able to link written comments to individuals. Prior to this, the entrepreneurs
were informed that I was taking notes of their comments and that it was
important for NSE to be able to identify the comments with each individual, in
order to be able to respond appropriately.
When I was able to participate in a check-in/out session I made notes about
participants’ comments after the session. Occasionally individual entrepreneurs
were unable to attend a focus group. When this occurred an online questionnaire
was used to gather their responses to the main focus group questions. This was
only done in A1 however, as the use of interviews in the final week of A2 and
A3 made it possible to get feedback from the entrepreneurs, even if they had
been absent from the focus group. On a few occasions entrepreneurs came up
to me after a check-in session and provided me with an explanation of issues that
had been brought up, apparently concerned at the conclusions that I might draw
based on limited information. I made an additional note of these interpretations.
58
My recorder.
Journeying into Method
121
3.6.5 Secondary Data
Although I obtained a substantial amount of ‘contextual’ information from
observation, I was also able to access several other sources of data about the
entrepreneurs and the accelerator itself. With regards to the accelerator, in
addition to my interviews with managers and key stakeholders I requested (and
was given) a copy of the project application and access to the accelerator’s online,
shared folder (via DropBox). I was also provided with copies of the entrepreneurs’
CVs and their applications to the programme.
An intriguing aspect of doing research in NSE was the variety of short-term
sources of information that emerged over the course of the accelerator. As
mentioned previously, most of these sources were one-off happenings that were
not repeated in the next accelerator. For example: in the initial weeks of the first
accelerator, the coordinator Denise filmed short five-minute interviews with
individual entrepreneurs and posted these on YouTube. This was not done in the
second accelerator, but instead another person interviewed one entrepreneur
each week and posted her summary of the interview on the webpage of a network
for social innovation. In the second accelerator, a nascent social entrepreneur
doing work experience at NSE collected data to use in a filmed documentary
about one of the participants. Many of these unexpected opportunities for
additional data collection provided me with not only additional material about
the entrepreneurs and their experiences, but also information about their
interpretations of these experiences. This was also true of the filmed pitches that
the A1 entrepreneurs created, where it was interesting to compare their sales
rhetoric with the startup reality discussed on a day-to-day basis. This contrast
underlines the perceptiveness of Erving Goffman’s (1959) analysis of human
interaction as intentional and directed towards an audience.
3.7 Analysing Information about Learning in
Accelerators
3.7.1 Recording and Checking of Data
During my study of the NSE accelerators I collected data in various forms, the
majority of which I later converted into written text. All interviews were recorded
on a small digital recorder and the resultant sound files sent to either Scandinavia
or the United Kingdom for transcription. Some researchers suggest that it is
useful to combine analysis with transcription (Riessman, 2008). My personal
preference however, is to do one thing at a time and I prefer to devote my energy
to a focused analysis, rather than what – in my case – tends to become a prolonged
combination of transcription and mediocre analysis. Furthermore, as
transcription is a very time-consuming activity for me, I have difficulty in carrying
Jönköping International Business School
122
it out quickly enough to produce the ‘timely theory’ that I discuss in the next
section.
After transcription I listened to the interview recordings while reading the text
of the interview, checking the recording for accuracy and inserting notes about
tone or other characteristics (such as pauses and laughs), where these were
missing. I also inserted a paragraph at the beginning of each transcription
describing the context in which the conversation was recorded. The majority of
the transcriptions proved accurate, but one Scandinavian firm tended to
paraphrase interviewees’ replies and their documents required more editing than
those produced by other agencies. I also had my own recorded reflections
transcribed, as well as one recording of a focus group and all of the short
YouTube interviews. After checking the transcriptions for accuracy, I replaced
the names of the interviewees with pseudonyms and sent a copy of the transcript
to the interviewee for checking and comments. This was a useful step, as several
of the entrepreneurs in the second accelerator had heavy accents that both the
transcribers and I at times found hard to understand. Hence Kenny’s comment
upon reading the transcript I sent him:
“So good to hear from you and to also get a copy of the interview. I just
rushed through it and saw some little corrections, I guess you had issues
understanding my African accent. Is it possible before me to work on it and
send it back to you at this time?”
All of the data sources that were available in textual format were imported into
the NVivo qualitative data analysis (QDA) software package. Although NVivo
can be used to automate some aspects of data analysis, I did not use this function
and relied instead on the software’s ‘manual’ coding functions for data analysis.
However, I also found NVivo to be a useful tool for managing data and
maintaining an overview of the information available for analysis.
3.7.2 Timely Theory: Sounding-boards & Reports
In a previous section I commented on the importance to my study of my
‘engaged’ position in relation to the managers and entrepreneurs with whom I
interacted. Andrew Van de Ven (2007) suggests that two criteria for engaged
research of high quality include relevance and impact. However, few scholars
discuss the way in which time affects both of these variables. My research on
accelerator programmes provides a stark illustration of the influence of time on
the development of research findings. For my study of the NSE accelerators to
have any impact on their development, the maximum period between the
carrying out of field research and my provision of a report on my findings was
eight months. For interviews or focus groups conducted halfway through the
eight-week accelerator, a period of two weeks was the desired ‘turn around’ time.
Journeying into Method
123
Figure 3-2: Characteristics and targets of 'timely' theory
Jönköping International Business School
124
The pressure to provide timely feedback to accelerator managers pressured me
to deliver coherent results at an early stage, a pressure that in turn encouraged
me to develop instruments that were capable of creating synergies between
practitioners’ expectations and the demands of academic research. The analysis
process that resulted is illustrated in figure 3.2; which depicts the progression of
data analysis from short-term, practitioner-oriented feedback to reports of a
more long-term, theoretical nature.
In practice the different kinds of feedback generated by my study resulted in
distinct styles of report. At the ‘practical reflection’ level I produced preliminary
written documents that I termed “sounding boards” (more of these below), while
at the ‘strategic’ level I produced more formal reports, often one to two months
after the conclusion of an accelerator. One of the more long-term, theoretically-
oriented ‘reports’ is represented by this dissertation.
The reports I provided at the ‘strategic’ level clearly played an important role in
terms of organisational learning for NSE. Karen (the A2 coordinator)
commented that she had referred to one such report repeatedly while planning
the second accelerator. Indeed, the three themes with which I summed up the
impact of the first accelerator (“friends, focus and feedback”) were used as a
slogan to advertise the second programme. Nonetheless, among these different
types of analysis it is perhaps the ‘sounding board’ that merits special attention.
At several instances during the three year period in which NSE ran their
accelerators, I provided managers with informal reports about the accelerator
process. I called these reports ‘sounding boards’. These reports were intended to
provide practitioners with initial explanations of what I had observed.
Importantly however, the sounding boards also provided me with opportunities
to obtain additional interpretations of what I had observed. Before sending this
type of report to the accelerator coordinators I underlined the preliminary nature
of my interpretation. I also emphasized my expectation that they in turn would
provide me with feedback regarding either their disagreement with my
explanation, their wish to complement my explanation with additional
information, or their ideas for an alternative explanation.
In practice this process proved to be a valuable tool for two main tasks. First of
all, by making a follow-up phone-call the routine response to a report (i.e. the
sounding board), I minimised the possibility of what I had written being
misunderstood. I had used the sounding board tool in previous evaluations and
was painfully aware of the fact that what I believed I had expressed clearly in a
report, was not necessarily what readers understood. More importantly for my
research, the follow-up discussion provided me with an opportunity for
reflexivity and triangulation. Reflexivity contributes to the analysis process by
helping the researcher consider other possible interpretations of what has been
Journeying into Method
125
observed (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000). Triangulation increases the credibility
(or validity) of the writer’s explanation of a phenomenon, if their interpretation
is shared by a number of other well-informed people (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003;
Stake, 1995). In my discussion of the sounding board reports with accelerator
managers my ideas were both critiqued and affirmed. A concrete example of a
critique of my interpretation involved my affirmation of a comment made by one
entrepreneur about the behaviour of another participant. As both of us had lived
for several years in Africa I felt that I understood where they were coming from
and felt they probably knew what they were talking about. However, when I
commented on the issue to the accelerator coordinator her response was entirely
different. Her impression was that the entrepreneur who had made the comment
had a negative mindset. This comment forced me to question and reassess my
own interpretation (which was that the entrepreneur had made a valid
observation about the motives of one of their colleagues).
3.7.3 Applied Thematic Analysis
3.7.3.1 Different Methods for Analysing Narratives
Riessman (2008) notes that narrative accounts may be analysed in several
different ways; including thematic, structural, dialogic/performance and visual
analysis. In the context of family business research, Dawson and Hjorth (2012)
suggest a model that integrates the main emphases of the first three approaches.
Nonetheless, Zorn (2001; cited in Johnstone, 2007, p. 114) suggests that thematic
analysis is particularly useful in ethnographic studies that focus on how
individuals talk about “ongoing relational episodes”. My interest lies not so much
in discussing the way in which a typical ‘story’ of social entrepreneurial learning
is built up in the Booster accelerators (a structural perspective) – and I am not
overly concerned with discussing how different stories are ‘performed’ for the
listener (the dialogic/performance perspective). The latter type of analysis is of
course relevant, as at times the social entrepreneurs clearly ‘directed’ their
narrative performances in order to achieve certain goals (for example: their
YouTube interviews often aimed to spread information about their participation
in the programme). However, I chose to employ this aspect of narrative analysis
as a supplementary tool to enhance the reflexivity of my study, rather than as the
main method of analysis. Instead I chose to focus on identifying the principle
themes that emerged from entrepreneurs’ accounts of their experiences in the
accelerators. This approach is similar to that of Ewick and Silbey (2003) – who
not only adopt a thematic analysis in their own study, but also engage with the
shorter, ‘episodic’ type of narratives that characterise much of my own data. It is
also somewhat similar to the approach known in non-narrative circles as ‘content
analysis’, although Joffe and Yardley (2004) underline that thematic analysis pays
more attention to the ‘qualitative’ aspects of a text.
Jönköping International Business School
126
The thematic approach to data analysis that I adopt draws not only on the ideas
of scholars of narrative – such as Riessman (2008), Mishler (1995), and Gubrium
and Holstein (2009); but also on the work of more general scholars of qualitative
methodology (for example: Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2011; Ritchie & Lewis,
2003). In keeping with these scholars’ ideas therefore, my own analysis began in
a relatively unstructured manner with a reading and re-reading of the texts
produced during data collection. My analysis then moved gradually from a ‘face-
value’ understanding of entrepreneurs’ experiences, towards a more conceptual
understanding expressed in more theoretical language – and finally, to the
comparison of the experience of the individual with the experience of others.
This gradual progression reflects Abbott’s (1992) discussion of the value of
moving from the analysis of a “single-case narrative” to that of “multicase
narratives” – and his emphasis of the need to create insight about ‘plot’ (“the
loose causal order that we generally regard as explanatory”)(p.64).
As I attempted to develop my own approach to conducting an analysis of the
Booster narratives, I noted several issues that I felt needed to be prioritised. The
first issue had to do with data management. Many scholars of narrative discuss
data analysis, but pay little attention to the challenges associated with managing
the large amount of data associated with a comprehensive study. It appeared to
me that there was a risk of me focusing on the most obvious data in my study
(interviews), while neglecting other data sources that might provide important
additional insight. I associated this risk with the difficulty of gaining an overview
of the entire data set. As I developed my method I therefore included this
capacity for data management on my ‘wish list’.
A second issue that I felt I needed to address was the issue of maintaining a
coherent view of entrepreneurs’ narratives ‘as a whole’, while at the same time
conducting the detailed thematic analysis advocated by scholars such as Ritchie
and Lewis (2003). As I had previously experienced the ‘drowning in data’
phenomenon when analysing data using a grounded theory approach, I was wary
of approaches that threatened to make it easy to see only ‘trees’, but no ‘forest’.
Consequently, a second item on my wish-list was the development of an
approach that would facilitate the move from micro analysis to an interpretative,
yet coherent account of social entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators.
3.7.3.2 Adapting the Framework technique to narrative analysis
The wish-list described in the preceding paragraphs was developed over a period
of many months, during which I experimented with several methods of analysing
the data that I had collected in NVivo. In the end I decided to adapt the Framework
approach that has been developed in the United Kingdom at the NatCen centre
for social research and subsequently integrated into the NVivo software package.
Journeying into Method
127
Framework is an approach to the analysis of qualitative data that was pioneered by
Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis (2003). The method these scholars recommend has
been substantially influenced by grounded theory, but the software they
developed to assist in their analysis is adaptable for use with other methodologies.
Framework is distinctive in that it facilitates the creation of a matrix presentation
of data on which both case
59
and theme are visible simultaneously. This makes it
easier for researchers to avoid the Achilles heel of grounded theory, namely the
risk of creating a large number of codes that eventually risk becoming distanced
from their original embeddedness in specific contexts. The software has the
additional advantage of forcing analysts to begin theorising at an early stage, as
the process of summarising data involves identifying the key issues in each
section of the text. The table below provides a brief overview of the analytical
steps that are included in my adaption of the Framework method.
Note that although table 3.2 may give the impression that data analysis is a linear
process, in reality the process is very iterative. It involves not only moving
backwards and forwards between stages, but also between levels of analysis (the
whole vs. the detail). In subsequent paragraphs I describe these steps in more
detail.
Table 3-2: Principle steps in my Adaptation of Framework Analysis
Step Description
1. Familiarisation with
body of data
Reading of main body of interview transcripts.
Selection of a single individual for initial
analysis.
2. Familiarisation with
single interviewee
Reading and re-reading of interview transcripts
for a single individual, writing notes in text.
Brief summary of notes.
3. Preliminary
framework creation
Use of notes from (2) and research questions
to construct basic analytical framework. Use of
gerunds.
4. Creation of “meaning
units”
Coding of sections of text into both existing
and new categories. Use of gerunds.
5. Summarisation of
themes
Creation of short summaries of the main
content of the text in each thematic category
60
.
Initial theorising.
6. Creation of case
narratives
Construction of complete descriptive and
explanatory account of each individual’s
experience.
7. Comparison of cases Comparison of cases to one another on a
thematic basis to highlight similarities and
differences.
59
By this Ritchie and Lewis (2003) refer to the individual respondent.
60
This may be done outside of Nvivo, or within the programme using the ‘Framework Matrices’ tool.
Jönköping International Business School
128
My adaptation of the Framework technique begins with two steps that have to do
with the researcher familiarising themselves with the data that they have collected
about individuals’ experiences. At this point the goal of the analysis is to gain an
initial understanding of the type and characteristics of the data, so that the
material on a series of individuals can be analysed in more detail at a later stage.
As the analysis of this individual will help form the initial analytical framework
for the analysis of the remaining interviews, it is useful to try and identify a case
which is fairly similar to the others (what Benner, 1994 terms a "paradigm" case).
In this way, the resultant analytical framework will hopefully be able to cope with
the majority of the data from the remaining cases. If an ‘extreme’ case were
selected, the analyst risks having to create an entirely new framework at a later
stage, which involves unnecessary work.
Once a representative case has been selected for analysis, the researcher
embarks on a second process of familiarisation. This involves the reading and re-
reading of the transcripts for a single individual, in order to become familiar with
their overall characteristics and content. This foundational activity reflects the
analytical process of hermeneutical method, where there is a constant move
backwards and forwards between the ‘part’ and the ‘whole’. At this stage of my
analysis I employed the annotation tool in NVivo to make initial notes about my
thoughts about what the entrepreneurs were saying. I found this exercise to be
particularly useful in preserving an overall sense of the ‘whole’, prior to engaging
in a more detailed analysis of the text. These initial notes were then briefly
summarised in a few paragraphs using the “memo” tool in NVivo
61
.
Having made initial notes about the empirical material that is to be analysed, my
adaptation of the Framework approach involved creating an initial thematic
framework on the basis of the study’s research questions and common sense
(Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Ritchie and Lewis (ibid.) recognise that most analysts
are inevitably going to have to code for textual groupings that involve several
themes which could have been predicted prior to the coding process. For
example: text involving baseline data such as the household composition of the
interviewee and prior experience, but naturally also interview excerpts that are
clearly related to the study’s research questions. This reflects Guest, MacQueen
and Namey’s (2011) discussion of how texts are ‘segmented’ as part of the
process of developing an effective codebook.
In my own adaptation of the Framework tool to narrative analysis I integrated the
initial predictive framework recommended by Ritchie and Lewis (2003), with the
more inductive technique suggested by Guest et al. (2011). This involved first of
all the creation of an analytical framework from the general themes raised by my
61
My use of the memo tool at this stage should not be confused with the more theoretically-oriented
stage of “memoing” in Grounded Theory.
Journeying into Method
129
research questions, as well as more obvious themes about entrepreneurs’
backgrounds. In my study some basic themes that I created on the basis of my
research questions included “The road to SE and the accelerator” and “Learning
process”. I then complemented this framework with sub-headings and concepts
that I had identified as interesting – or that often occurred in my reading of the
first interview transcript (for example: “Top-down Large enterprise perspective”
as a sub-heading under “Non-learning”). Often this required the creation of
entirely new headings in a ‘garbage can’ folder entitled “Other”.
The third step in my adaptation of the Framework technique involves both the
creation of additional themes (based on the note-taking done during the initial
reading of the transcript) and the incorporation of these themes into new or
existing clusters. This step is similar to the inductive thematic analysis described
by Dawson and Hjorth (2012), in their third analytical phase of “exploration”.
During this stage I read the transcripts again and categorised (or coded) the text
into distinct thematic units. At this point I did not attempt to link these units to
theoretical, disciplinary concepts. Instead I simply read the text and labelled
different sections as belonging to either one or more existing themes, or to a new
one. As this was done, the notes taken in step 1 naturally provided clues as to the
themes that might be constructed from the text. This process requires discipline
on the part of the analyst – so that new themes are added to the framework as
they occur to the researcher, rather than being unnaturally forced into existing
headings. At this stage I also took care not to ‘splinter’ the text too much so that
I lost a sense of its overall character and context. As Alvesson and Sköldberg
(2000) point out, it is important to preserve a long enough portion of the text, in
order to be able to ‘listen’ to it. My experience suggests that their advice is sound
and that the key to useful analysis at this stage is to capture sections of text as far
as possible, rather than single words or short phrases.
The fourth step in the original Framework approach is that of summarising data.
During this step researchers are advised to analyse the accounts provided by each
individual; studying the data that is associated with each theme and summarising
this data into a short description. This usually entails the analyst gathering
together all the different snippets of information the person has provided about
(for example) their interaction with other entrepreneurs. The researcher attempts
to glean the most important kernels of information from these textual extracts
and to re-formulate them into a concise description. Using the NVivo software
this is done in a manner that links the summary to the original texts, making it
easier for the researcher or an external investigator to re-visit the scholar’s
interpretation. In practice I found this difficult to do and as a result, the majority
of the thematic summaries recommended by Ritchie and Lewis (2003) were not
conducted in NVivo, but rather integrated into a longer narrative about each of
the four social entrepreneurs about whom I tell what Van Maanen (1988) terms
a “realist tale”.
Jönköping International Business School
130
The final two steps in my adaptation of the Framework technique involve the
construction of a longer account of the individual’s experience and the
comparison of their experience with that of others. At this stage the usefulness
of thinking about what needs to be included in such an account at an early stage
becomes apparent. Based on the summaries already created for each theme, the
researcher constructs an account of the individual’s experience that includes not
only all of the main themes that emerged during the analysis, but also illustrations
from the transcripts themselves – and from additional sources of data, such as
the researcher’s field notes. This chain of evidence is an important source of the
credibility and plausibility that Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest are indicative of
sound qualitative research. It is also a characteristic of my research that illustrates
the usefulness of combining ethnographic and narrative methods. By adding
detail about entrepreneurs’ behaviour and the contexts in which they lived and
worked, a further dimension is added to the richness already present in their own
narratives. In my study I constructed a ‘realist’ tale for four social entrepreneurs
who represented not only the three accelerators that I studied, but also a
particular category of participant. By ‘realist’ Van Maanen (1988) refers to a genre
of ethnographic writing in which scholars portray the experiences of those they
study in a manner that largely removes the field-worker from the account in an
attempt to give the tale an authentic, objective ‘feel’. He contrasts this approach
with narrative strategies that are “confessional” and “impressionist” in nature, in
giving the field-worker are more obvious, interpretative role in the final account
– or in couching the tale in more colourful, dramatic terms. Arguably however,
the initial sections of this chapter are ‘confessional’ in nature, and I have therefore
judged that the purpose of this study is best served by adopting the more ‘realist’
perspective of the traditional ethnographer.
The final, but most prolonged step in a multicase narrative analysis is a comparison
of the experiences of several individuals to one another, in an effort to capture
the key factors associated with these experiences. NVivo’s framework tool for
conducting matrix analyses facilitates the process of comparing different aspects
of entrepreneurs’ experiences to each other, as the software enables the analyst
to quickly access the thematic summaries for each case and to display these side
by side on one or more computer screens. In practice (as noted above), I felt
unable to create summaries of all the entrepreneurs’ experiences in the manner
advocated by more experienced Framework users and relied on more traditional
methods. For example: by creating simple tables to classify entrepreneurs’
comments, and by leveraging my familiarity with the entrepreneurs to intuitively
identify similarities and differences.
Journeying into Method
131
3.7.4 Digging Deeper – and Differently
In order to dig ‘deeper’ into entrepreneurs’ experiences I found it useful to adopt
not only another perspective on narrative analysis (the dramaturgical
perspective
62
), but also several of the perspectives discussed by Patricia Benner
(1994). Dramaturgical analysis builds on Erving Goffman’s (1959) suggestion
that individuals tend to both ‘perform’ and ‘enact’ their narratives. This implies
that researchers need to ask for whom the person is telling their story – and to
what purpose. The listener/reader also needs to be sensitive to the way in which
the individual is describing themselves, as this ‘enactment’ hints at an ideal they
may be striving toward.
Benner, despite coming from a different methodological background
(phenomenology), suggests several very useful points of analytical departure that
I find helpful in thinking about how to approach entrepreneurs’ narratives in a
‘different’ manner. Drawing on her work with Judith Wrubel (1989), Benner
(1994) suggests that five aspects of human experience may be usefully explored
in qualitative analyses. These include first of all, situation: the recognition of the
situatedness of the person both in the present and also historically, as well as the
questioning of the character of their situation (as either harmonious or
“breakdown”). Secondly, embodiment is identified as insight into the embedded
nature of cognition and experience in relation to the individual’s physical body.
Temporality focuses on the lived experience that the individual has of time and
concerns has to do with the meaning-filled orientation of the individual in a
situation. Finally, investigation of common meaning looks at shared, taken-for-
granted linguistic and cultural meanings that guide, and at times limit how events
and behaviour develop. Due to the characteristics of the phenomenon that I am
studying (entrepreneurial learning), I believe that Benner’s tools pose more
relevant questions to entrepreneurs’ texts than the more traditional ‘pentad’
questions (act, agent, agency, scene and purpose) of Burke (1969).
The above paragraphs describe several additional perspectives that I adopted as
I analysed my empirical data. These perspectives enabled me to go beyond the
face-value statements of interviewees and to think of alternative explanations.
This involved not only a deeper dig into my data, but also a ‘different’ dig. The
importance of digging differently in qualitative research is emphasized by
Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000), who argue that researchers need to be ‘reflexive’
with regards to their interpretations of events. In my approach to narrative
analysis this reflexivity is mirrored in my attempt to find a middle-ground
between what Smith, Flowers and Larkin (2009, p. 106) term a “hermeneutics of
empathy” and a “hermeneutics of suspicion”. Nonetheless, Alvesson and
Sköldberg (ibid., p.273) suggest that reflexivity is best practiced by conducting
62
Reissman (2003) refers to this perspective as “dialogic/performance analysis”.
Jönköping International Business School
132
analysis at four levels; namely by interacting with the empirical material,
interpreting it, interpreting it critically and reflecting on how one’s own text was
produced. Although I have found it difficult to employ all of these levels
consistently in my analysis, I have attempted to include aspects of them at regular
intervals in my analysis and write-up. In particular I have attempted to recognise
how my role as an evaluator affected the information entrepreneurs provided me
with. It is clear that many of them perceived me as someone who could influence
accelerator managers into providing them with resources they wished to obtain,
particularly in the second accelerator. As I analysed the interviews I attempted to
bear this in mind, among other considerations.
3.7.5 Critiquing the Method
All research designs involve choosing a method because of its advantages, while
also acknowledging and attempting to compensate for its flaws. Case study
strategies, narratives and ethnography are not exceptions, and Riessman (1994),
Dawson and Hjorth (2012), and Van Maanen (1988) discuss several of their
weaknesses. A common weakness has to do with generalizability – by which I
refer to the possibility of drawing conclusions about entrepreneurial learning in
other accelerators, based on this study. This study’s advantage is its attention to
detail and the potential it offers to reveal the ‘micro’ processes of social
entrepreneurial learning. This is however, achieved at the cost of generalizability
– for as Riessman (ibid., p.70) points out: “sample sizes in narrative studies are
small, and cases are often drawn from unrepresentative pools”. Case-studies,
narratives and ethnography can all contribute to the development of theory; but
care must be taken when applying the findings of this study in other contexts.
Closely related to this aspect is Dawson and Hjorth’s (ibid., p13) discussion of
the temptation that narrative analysts must resist, to attach too much significance
to “the idiosyncrasies of a particular case”.
A second weakness of a qualitative case strategy is its interpretative nature, which
often requires scholars to engage in a ‘double-hermeneutic’ of interpreting an
individual’s interpretations. In the context of entrepreneurship, interpretative
approaches that focus on the narratives and activities of the entrepreneur can
reinforce traditional portrayals of the entrepreneur as a heroic individual. This is a
particularly valid criticism when studying accelerators, given the group-oriented
nature of these programmes. A further criticism of my particular adaption of
narratives/ethnography could be directed at the evolving nature of the method
itself – in that the techniques used and even some of the questions asked were
slightly different in the first, second and third accelerators. As Johnstone (2007)
points out, ethnographic method is by nature unpredictable and ‘cyclical’ (as
opposed to linear) in terms of process. While this flexibility may enable
researchers to obtain unique data, it does make it difficult (if not impossible) to
replicate ethnographic studies. Nonetheless, the alternative – involving the
Journeying into Method
133
consistent use of research instruments developed early on in the study – would
risk avoiding what Alvesson and Sandberg term ‘interesting’ research. In other
words, by prioritising issues of replicability and face validity researchers are often
bound to study phenomena that we are already somewhat familiar with.
With regards to the dependence of qualitative methods on interpretative
techniques, Van Maanen (1988) notes that researchers have to make choices as
to how they present their data. By choosing a ‘realist tale’ as I have done, I lose
some of the transparent reflexivity apparent in what he terms “confessional” tales
– and much of the colour associated with “impressionist” tales. Regardless of the
way in which I tell my ‘tale’ however, it is important to remember that I am
interpreting actors’ words and actions – and that another person might interpret
these in a different manner. Nor can we be certain that entrepreneurs’ portrayals
of their own learning are entirely accurate. As Norman Denzin (2000, cited in
Riessman, 2008, p. 188) points out, narratives are reflections on the world, not of
it. Consequently, it is important that this study is read bearing in mind that the
methods employed are associated not only with certain strengths, but also
corresponding weaknesses. Nonetheless, at the end of the day the main judge of
a method’s appropriateness must be its ‘fit’ (Creswell, 2007). Drawing on Cope
and Watts (2000), I argue that the complexity of social entrepreneurial learning
requires a qualitative, interpretative methodology. With regards to my use of
narratives as a base for theory building, Dawson and Hjorth (2012, p3.) argue
that the approach is particularly useful when a study’s goal is to extend knowledge
by understanding “not only the results of what happened but also their making”.
Finally, I suggest that the study of social entrepreneurial learning is ‘nascent’ in
character and that consequently it is appropriate to adopt a method that involves
an “open-ended” approach to the collection and analysis of data (Edmondson
& McManus, 2007). In the next chapter I begin to explore this nascent field: the
world of social entrepreneurial learning in the context of accelerators.
135
4 Social Entrepreneurs &
Accelerators
4.1 Chapter Overview
In this dissertation the learning of social entrepreneurs is studied in the context
of an external intervention into their learning, in the form of an accelerator
programme. This chapter introduces both the social entrepreneurs who
participated in the three accelerators studied – and the accelerators themselves.
As 24 social entrepreneurs participated in these accelerators, I have deemed it
unrealistic to describe each of their learning processes in detail. Instead I have
chosen to first of all provide a brief overview of all of the social entrepreneurs
who participated in the accelerators that I studied. I then describe the accelerators
that they participated in, before discussing the learning of only four individuals in
more detail. My employment of a few individuals as “exemplars” of social
entrepreneurial learning is common practice in qualitative studies (Benner, 1994).
In case studies theory is often developed “through the richness of […]
contextualised accounts and the level of precision in […] description” (Dawson
& Hjorth, 2012, p. 340). Consequently, in this study the learning of four
entrepreneurs is related to the context in which their learning takes place (the
accelerators). For this reason I describe the programmes that they participated in
before I discuss their experiences. The accelerators serve as a backdrop to my
more detailed description of the four processes of social entrepreneurial learning
that emerged as social entrepreneurs interacted with the accelerator.
4.2 The Social Entrepreneurs – Part 1
In chapter one I noted the distinguishing characteristic of the entrepreneurial
‘cohort’ in accelerator programmes. In this dissertation three accelerators are
studied, each of which recruited a different mix of social entrepreneurs (see table
4.1). In subsequent paragraphs I refer to these three accelerators using the
abbreviations ‘A1’, ‘A2’ and ‘A3’. The intention of the Booster accelerators was to
accelerate the development of social entrepreneurs whose products or services
targeted countries in the ‘developing’ world. This ambition resulted in a
progressive narrowing of the accelerator recruitment process as time went by. As
a result, the A1 programme recruited a higher proportion of Scandinavian social
entrepreneurs, while the A2 and A3 programmes both recruited primarily non-
Scandinavian entrepreneurs. The composition of the accelerator cohort is one
aspect of the context in which the individual’s learning takes place. Consequently,
Jönköping International Business School
136
the social entrepreneurs are described below as individuals situated in a particular
cohort.
Despite its ambition to recruit entrepreneurs who were working on ideas that
were clearly linked to the developing world, the majority of the entrepreneurs in
the first accelerator did not actually reside in a developing country. Most of them
were instead developing a product or service for these contexts (Gabriella, Catrin,
Andrew, Barry), or developing an idea that was intended to facilitate a process
associated with development work – such as raising funds (Alice and Edward).
Henrik was the only entrepreneur who had been living in a developing country
immediately before coming to the accelerator – and even then, only for a year.
In section 4.4 I suggest that several different categories of social entrepreneur
participated in the Booster accelerators – and these categories are described in
more detail later. At this point suffice to say that four of the seven social
entrepreneurs recruited to accelerator one (A1) came from the ‘knowledgeable
improviser’ category and were ‘expatriates’. The ‘indigenous’ category of social
entrepreneur was entirely absent from A1. With the exception of Catrin, all of
the A1 entrepreneurs were Scandinavians or had strong links to Scandinavia
(Andrew and Gabriella were both married to Scandinavians). All of the social
entrepreneurs participated in the accelerator on their own, with the exception of
Alice and Edward – who came as a team. Three of the seven participants were
female.
In contrast to the first programme, the second accelerator was dominated by the
‘indigenous’ category of social entrepreneur (six of nine participants). However,
in contrast to the first programme only two of the nine participants were female.
All of the six ‘indigenous’ social entrepreneurs were male and came from East
and West Africa. In contrast to A1 however, only two of the entrepreneurs were
not resident in the countries they were targeting with their enterprises – and one
of these (Marie) had recently returned from south-east Asia after residing there
for many years. Marie, Heidi and possibly Jamal were thus the only ‘Westerners’
in A2, with Heidi coming from North America, Marie from Norway – and Jamal
an immigrant from south Asia who had lived in Scandinavia for more than a
decade. As will be seen in the section ‘Similar structure, dissimilar interaction’ the
different backgrounds of the social entrepreneurs influenced how they interacted
with one another. Differences in ethnicity and gender were at times reinforced
by the accelerator structure and affected entrepreneurs’ interaction with one
another. Four of the nine social entrepreneurs belonged to the ‘confident entrant’
category.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
137
N
a
m
e
/
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
A
c
c
.
P
r
o
v
e
n
a
n
c
e
C
a
t
.
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
f
o
c
u
s
S
t
a
t
u
s
a
t
s
t
a
r
t
*
*
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
l
a
/
B
r
o
t
t
l
e
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
i
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
-
2
)
A
l
i
c
e
/
G
o
o
d
l
i
n
k
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
w
e
b
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
g
i
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
A
n
d
r
e
w
/
C
-
C
u
r
e
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
K
I
-
E
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
c
o
m
b
a
t
t
i
n
g
s
p
a
m
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
C
a
t
r
i
n
/
I
m
b
a
n
i
A
1
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
C
E
-
E
c
r
o
s
s
-
b
o
r
d
e
r
m
o
n
e
y
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
E
d
w
a
r
d
/
G
o
o
d
l
i
n
k
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
w
e
b
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
g
i
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
H
e
n
r
i
k
/
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
G
a
r
m
e
n
t
s
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
I
-
E
y
o
u
t
h
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
o
n
r
u
b
b
i
s
h
d
u
m
p
s
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
B
a
r
r
y
/
C
e
l
l
S
u
n
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
V
-
E
s
m
a
l
l
-
s
c
a
l
e
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
J
a
m
a
l
/
A
g
r
i
T
e
c
h
A
2
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
I
-
E
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
/
e
n
e
r
g
y
i
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
-
2
)
M
i
r
i
a
m
/
B
e
t
t
e
r
W
o
r
k
A
2
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
g
a
r
m
e
n
t
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
'
r
i
g
h
t
s
/
s
a
f
e
t
y
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
S
t
e
v
e
n
/
B
i
b
l
.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
a
i
r
e
s
A
2
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
l
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
L
e
w
i
s
/
B
i
o
V
o
l
t
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
H
e
i
d
i
/
B
o
t
t
l
e
A
r
t
A
2
N
o
r
t
h
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
E
f
e
m
a
l
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
K
e
n
n
y
/
A
f
r
i
-
T
e
x
t
A
2
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
I
-
I
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
-
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
N
e
l
s
o
n
/
P
i
s
t
o
l
s
t
o
P
l
o
u
g
h
s
A
2
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
P
e
t
e
r
/
A
f
r
i
P
a
d
s
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
p
a
d
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
I
s
a
a
c
/
M
o
b
i
C
l
i
n
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
m
o
b
i
l
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
s
c
a
l
i
n
g
(
2
)
N
a
d
i
a
/
F
e
m
i
c
h
a
r
g
e
A
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
I
-
E
w
o
m
e
n
'
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
O
l
g
a
/
R
o
u
g
h
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
s
A
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
b
a
t
t
i
n
g
h
u
m
a
n
t
r
a
f
i
c
k
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
P
a
t
i
e
n
c
e
/
F
a
i
r
C
a
r
e
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
K
I
-
I
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
f
o
r
s
e
x
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
R
e
b
e
c
c
a
/
S
p
r
e
a
d
I
T
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
T
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
T
h
o
m
a
s
/
T
o
u
r
F
a
i
r
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
e
t
h
i
c
a
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
W
i
l
l
i
s
/
A
f
r
i
C
h
o
c
A
3
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
/
f
a
i
r
-
t
r
a
d
e
c
o
c
o
a
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
V
i
n
a
y
/
S
u
n
p
o
w
e
r
A
3
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
i
a
K
I
-
I
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
Z
a
y
d
/
P
u
r
e
t
e
c
h
A
3
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
s
t
K
I
-
I
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
/
p
u
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
*
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
a
n
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
n
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
w
h
o
i
m
m
i
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
s
a
n
a
d
u
l
t
.
*
*
S
t
a
g
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
r
t
u
p
C
o
m
m
o
n
s
(
2
0
1
4
)
Table 4-1: Overview of the Booster Social Entrepreneurs
Jönköping International Business School
138
The third accelerator was similar to the second in that a large proportion of the
participants (four of the eight) were recruited from African countries. However,
in contrast to A2 the third cohort consisted of as many men as women – and
only one of the non-African entrepreneurs came from a Western background.
The remaining entrepreneurs came from Eastern Europe, the Middle-East and
South Asia. Moreover, most of the entrepreneurs belonged to the ‘indigenous’
category of social entrepreneur – and five of the eight participants could also be
described as ‘knowledgeable improvisers’. Only one of the social entrepreneurs
in A3 belonged to the category that I term ‘expatriate’ social entrepreneur.
In terms of venture stage, I draw on the typology developed by the Start-up
Commons (2014) to categorise the progress already made by the social
entrepreneurs when they entered the Booster programme. This typology consists
of three over-reaching stages (pre-startup, start-up and growth). The typology is
divided into smaller sub-stages and numbered, with some stages ‘bridging’ the
gaps between the three main stages (see figure 4.1). “Pre-startup” is for example,
subdivided into “ideation” (-2) and “concepting” (-1), with “commitment” (0)
providing the bridge to “startup”. “Start-up” is associated with “validation” (+1),
with “scaling” (+2) bridging over into the “growth” phase – in which the final
stage of “establishing” (+3) is found. As table 4.1 shows, the first accelerator
recruited a considerably larger proportion of early-stage (‘pre-startup’) social
entrepreneurs, than A2 and A3. In both A2 and A3 about half of the
entrepreneurs recruited were at the ‘startup’ stage of development, with the other
half fairly evenly balanced between the ‘inception’ and ‘inception>survival’
categories.
Figure 4-1: Startup stages, from Startup Commons (2014)
The typologies mentioned above and the impact of the different constellations
of entrepreneurs on the accelerator process are discussed in more detail in the
sections entitled ‘Similar structure, dissimilar interaction’ (4.3.7) and ‘The social
entrepreneurs – Part 2’ (4.4). I now move on to describe the context for this study
of social entrepreneurial learning, namely the three Booster accelerators.
establishment (3)
STARTUP GROWTH
ideation (-2) concepting (-1) commitment (0)
PRE-STARTUP
validation (1) scaling (2)
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
139
4.3 The Accelerators
4.3.1 Background
In this dissertation I explore the social entrepreneurial learning of three cohorts
of social entrepreneurs who participated in an accelerator run by a Scandinavian
third sector organisation. This organisation, the Network for Social
Entrepreneurship
63
(or NSE) is a member-based, not-for-profit. It was founded in
2004 primarily in order to give more structure to the growing network of
individuals who were interested in promoting social entrepreneurship in
Scandinavia. The organisation’s website identifies NSE’s mission as that of
“promoting, inspiring and empowering” social entrepreneurial activities – and its
vision as: “a world where social entrepreneurship competes with traditional
business, and is seen as a norm rather than an alternative way of doing business”.
Isabelle, one of the NSE board members, describes the development of the
network as involving two stages. The first stage, from 2004 to 2010, was based
primarily on networking and on the voluntary activities of its members. This
stage is associated with regular networking activities. For example: the monthly
meeting of social entrepreneurs at the SocNet office, initiated in 2006. It also
involved the participation of network members in think-tanks that focused on
the role of the private sector in development. Members also made several visits
to developing countries to engage in a dialogue on social entrepreneurship. This
dialogue was carried out in partnership with other third sector organisations
including the Swedish organisation ForumSyd and Pioneers of Change in South
Africa. At the same time, network members were engaged in activities relating to
social entrepreneurship in Scandinavia, setting up for example an annual three
week introductory course on the subject and pioneering the Youth for Change
64
project in 2010. The latter project was later developed into an independent social
enterprise and focuses on increasing the participation of young people in solving
social challenges in their local environments.
The Youth for Change initiative, despite not being NSE’s only successful initiative,
was to a large extent a watershed project. Isabelle suggests that it marked a change
in mindset within NSE, as board members were forced to make the choice
between scaling up the network’s activities and limiting the amount of activities
the organisation was involved in. Isabelle had been an NSE member for several
years and as demands on the organisation increased, she also became the first
person to be employed on a part-time basis. Her recruitment coincided with the
63
This is a pseudonym.
64
Despite the existence of an organisation with this name in California, this is a pseudonym for one of
the projects run by NSE.
Jönköping International Business School
140
election of Frank as new chairman to the NSE board in 2011. Frank recollects
seeing his task as chairman as that of helping NSE make the move from a
network to an organisation. This was done by focusing on a scaling up of the
things that they had “semi been doing for years” and by transforming “loosely
created” partnerships into formal agreements where possible.
One of the partnerships prioritised by the network was their dialogue with the
Swedish International Development Agency (Sida). NSE had maintained contact with
Sida since its founding and had partnered with the agency in arranging several
seminars. In 2010 they had also applied for funding to set up a more formal head
office with a salaried director. This application was rejected due to having too
broad an aim – and also because it did not focus primarily on developing
countries. Nevertheless, following the success of Youth for Change the NSE board
believed that they had increased evidence for the organisation’s capacity to
nurture successful social entrepreneurs. They were also aware of Sida’s increasing
interest in the role of the enterprise in development, as seen in their launching of
the Business for Development (B4D) programme and the matched-funding initiative
Innovations against Poverty (I.a.P)(Sida, 2010). NSE therefore put together a new
application for funding. This application focused more exclusively on the
establishment of a function within the organisation that would create “a support
function and incubator activity for entrepreneurs whose innovations actively
promote the combatting of poverty” (NSE 2011). The three year project for
which the organisation sought funding was titled “Boosting Social Entrepreneurship”
(BSE) and the accelerator associated with the project subsequently became
known as “Booster”.
Funding for the BSE project was granted by Sida in late 2011. Fascinatingly, the
application does not include any description of the creation of a series of
accelerators for social entrepreneurs, even if it is clear from my interviews with
board members that this was a key part of the intended programme. Instead the
application describes several different forms of support, including: mentoring,
individual advice and support, a web-based virtual community for social
entrepreneurs, and ongoing workshops and seminars. Consequently, my
impression is that although the idea of an accelerator was one that may have
existed when the application was made, it only matured significantly during the
period between the sending in of the application and the approval of funding.
Evidence for this is given by Isabelle’s comment that the accelerator idea
developed after the application was sent: “the application focused on the
[programme’s] purpose and the need for such a programme”. Frank’s comments
reflect the board’s search for a method that would “accelerate the entrepreneurs
who already had ideas, but needed a crash course in the business aspects […] or
other elements of being an entrepreneur”. It does seem however, that Frank was
a driving force with regards to the final choice of instrument, as he describes a
personal process of learning about accelerators that included taking on board
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
141
impressions from programmes such as the Unreasonable Institute and Echoing Green.
He summarised the end result as a process of adaptation: “we tweaked the idea
of long-term incubation to short-term acceleration with scalability”. What this
involved in practice is described in the following section.
4.3.2 Designing for Development
4.3.2.1 Accelerator 1
At several points in this dissertation I describe the gradual process of emergence
that characterised the first accelerator programme. In other words: the move
from a conviction that social entrepreneurs needed to be supported, to the
development of more specific ideas about how to support, the sourcing of funding
for a programme of support – and finally, the recruitment of somebody to run
the programme. The ‘somebody’ who was recruited to run the first accelerator
was Denise, a young woman with a background in the Fairtrade movement. She
was given the task of designing a programme around several key factors that
Frank and other NSE members believed to be vital to the acceleration process.
These factors are briefly described below.
A core idea of accelerators is obviously acceleration: the development of targeted
ventures in a more rapid manner than would otherwise have taken place. Isabelle
referred to this key accelerator role as one of “leverage”. She also talked of the
accelerator process in terms of a “catalyst” and suggested that one of its functions
was “quality assurance”. In other words, the task given to Denise was to design
a process that both increased the pace of venture development, while also
ensuring that the development taking place was sound and healthy. Frank made
it clear that “healthy” implied a move towards financial viability: the development
of business propositions that would be attractive to investors. However, he
allowed for the possibility that the accelerator might not be able to bring all the
social entrepreneurs to this stage:
“The idea is how can we make these startups investor-ready, like include
businesses that can stand on their own two feet […] ensuring that they
understand that they can stand on their own two feet, or are at least equipped
with the questions that they need to answer in order to become standing on
their own two feet.”
In order to create ‘leverage’ both Frank and Isabelle identified several key
functions that they believed the accelerator needed to fulfil. They also had ideas
about how these functions could be provided. Frank suggested that the
accelerator would provide social entrepreneurs with access to new knowledge
(“high quality lecturers”), individual coaching (“coaches, mentors”), an expanded
network (“events”) and investment (“investors”). Here the design of the Booster
Jönköping International Business School
142
accelerator was clearly influenced by the social business accelerator of the
Unreasonable Institute. Their program focuses on two main themes, namely: the
development of the entrepreneur and their venture – and the linking of the
entrepreneur to investors, by means of effective pitching and investor-oriented
events. The British School for Social Entrepreneurs describes a similar approach to
learning that involves five components. Four of these (witness sessions, expert
sessions, mentoring and action learning sets) were also adopted by NSE in their
own accelerator (SSE, 2013). The similarity of the Booster programme to other
short-term programmes underlines the relevance of this study. It is probable that
insights from the Booster accelerators will be useful in enhancing the learning
associated with other programmes that share many of its ingredients.
Despite the influence of other programmes on the design of the NSE accelerator,
the two board members who exerted most influence on its design – Frank and
Isabelle – drew extensively on their own experiences and values as they identified
the key emphases for their own programme. As already noted, one such emphasis
was that of quality assurance. Frank suggested that one of the functions of the
entrepreneurial cohort should be that of assessing and improving the quality of
one another’s ventures:
“Giving them a space […] to be with one another and to learn and question
each other about the quality, the focus, whatever element of their business.”
Isabelle was equally adamant on this point, reflecting on her own experience in
incubators and emphasising the importance of “mangling” one’s business idea in
an “intense” environment. Nonetheless, Frank and Isabelle also attached special
weight to the function of the accelerator cohort as a provider of much-needed
companionship and peer feedback. They both referred to the ‘loneliness’ of the
entrepreneurial experience as a point of departure for their reasoning, as
illustrated by Frank’s comment:
“I think peer support for any business person or entrepreneur is often left
lacking. We often work alone in our own spaces.”
Building on this observation, they emphasized the importance of creating
networks and relationships to combat this isolation. As Isabelle reasoned:
“I think there is an impact in the area of the network one builds in a
programme like this […] A clear advantage of the accelerator will be its
intensity. We are our own bosses in our own operations - but we need a
relation to other entrepreneurs who can understand our idea, but still view it
from the outside.”
To summarise therefore, the first accelerator was designed with one eye on the
Unreasonable Institute – and was intended to provide new ventures with the
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
143
leverage necessary to move significantly closer to ‘investor readiness’. In order to
do this NSE intended to first of all help participating entrepreneurs improve their
businesses by means of new insight (visiting speakers) and a critical appraisal of
their ventures (by their mentors and peers). Moreover, the accelerator was
intended to extend the networks of the entrepreneurs by means of events and
interaction – and by extension, their access to both social and financial capital.
4.3.2.2 Accelerator 2
The second accelerator lasted for eight weeks (the same as A1), but in contrast
to the first was held in the Scandinavian winter – from January to March, 2013.
Two factors that affected the timing of the second accelerator were the ambition
of NSE (as expressed in the application to Sida) to hold two accelerators a year
– and the negative experience of several entrepreneurs after they graduated from
the first programme. The first accelerator finished just before the Scandinavian
summer – and hence the period in which many Nordic businesses go into ‘sleep’
mode. At this point they tend to maintain necessary activity, but do not generally
initiate anything radically new. Several entrepreneurs commented on the de-
motivating experience of moving from the ‘high’ of the accelerator experience,
to the torpidity of the Scandinavian summer period, when many of the people
they wished to make contact with were simply not available.
The second accelerator differed little from the first in terms of content and also
lasted for an eight-week period. Due to the change in programme coordinator
(as described in my methods chapter); the new facilitator, Karen, was naturally
hesitant to change anything major without first experiencing the programme.
However, although she maintained the overall content of the A1 programme,
Karen had more time to prepare the second accelerator. She was therefore able
to structure the accelerator in a manner that was more strategic in terms of the
learning process, rather than convenient in terms of fitting into speakers’
schedules. The revised timing of the second accelerator is depicted in table 4.2
of the ‘Structure and content’ section.
A major change in the design of the second accelerator was the timing of the
programme. Programme managers took note of a comment I made in a report,
where I noted that finishing the accelerator just before the Swedish summer
holidays had a demotivating effect on some of the entrepreneurs. The new
accelerator was therefore scheduled so that it began in January and finished at
the end of March. Unfortunately, the majority of the entrepreneurs in the second
accelerator cohort were recruited from Africa – which created new challenges.
For example: difficulties in arriving on time in the mornings due to the late
sunrise (and a lack of birdsong to indicate that dawn had come) – and several
practical issues associated with the unpreparedness of several of the participants
for the harsh Scandinavian winter.
Jönköping International Business School
144
4.3.2.3 Accelerator 3
The structure and content of the third accelerator were only slightly revised from
the second (see table 4.2). Three changes to the programme were however made.
First of all, due to the composition of the third cohort (mostly social
entrepreneurs from developing countries), the timing of the accelerator was
changed back to that of A1 – i.e. April to June. A second, important change was
the recruiting of two volunteers to the accelerator management team for help
with practical issues. One of these (Jemma) was given the exclusive task of
planning networking activities and suggesting contacts for each of the social
entrepreneurs. Finally, due to the pregnancy of Karen (the A2 accelerator
manager) the responsibility for the day-to-day running of the accelerator was
handed over to Frida. Frida participated in A1 and A2 as a process leader and
was recruited to NSE shortly after the end of the second programme.
4.3.3 Structure and Content
4.3.3.1 Accelerator 1
The structure of the first Booster accelerator (A1) was initially planned by the
newly recruited manager Denise, in a manner that interwove education,
networking and practice in a fairly balanced manner throughout the eight-week
accelerator. As will be described later, this routine was altered in the final weeks
of the programme. The first accelerator lasted for eight weeks and took place in
a large Scandinavian city between April and June, 2012.
The accelerator began on a Tuesday with a two-day team-building session at a
small conference venue attached to a business centre for alternative health
practice. On the second day a speaker from a British social venture took centre
stage, as the entrepreneurs began to transfer their focus from the dynamics of
the group to the dynamics of their own ventures. On the Thursday of week one,
the entrepreneurs participated in their first networking event, manning the NSE
stand at a CSR fair held by a well-known business school in the region. On the
Friday they travelled for the first time to the hot-desking venue SocNet, which
was to be their workplace for the next seven weeks.
Beginning on week two, each week then followed a fairly similar pattern. Two
educational sessions with external speakers were held on Mondays, Wednesdays
and Thursdays; with Tuesdays and Fridays dedicated to the social entrepreneurs’
own work – or to individual coaching sessions. Networking activities were
scheduled throughout the accelerator, with some arranged by NSE (such as the
‘Social Entrepreneurship Evening’ and the final graduation event). Additional
networking activities were arranged by organisations not formally connected to
NSE and the entrepreneurs participated in these on a more informal basis. These
activities, which included the international SOCAP conference on impact
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
145
investing, were integrated into the accelerator schedule rather than planned to fit
in with a particular stage of the programme.
As noted previously, the general ‘logic’ and direction of the accelerator was
influenced by the structure of the Unreasonable Institute’s programme. This
structure focused very much on helping entrepreneurs attain ‘investor-readiness’.
In other words, NSE’s ambition was that by the end of the accelerator the
entrepreneur would be able to present their startup effectively (their “pitch”),
while also backing their presentation up with a credible business plan. At the
same time, the accelerator maintained a clear focus on developing countries and
on the field of social entrepreneurship. The combination of these emphases led
to the content of the accelerator being characterised by four main themes,
namely: ‘social innovation’, ‘building a viable business’, ‘funding’ and ‘marketing’
(my summary). The content and timing of these themes is shown in table 4.2.
Several things are worth commenting on in relation to the table. First of all, the
table does not capture one of the important characteristics of the accelerator,
namely the iterative nature of the programme. At several points in the accelerator,
speakers who had visited the programme and given a talk on a certain subject
(for example: business models), returned to the accelerator several weeks later
for a follow-up session. In this way they were able to accompany the
development of the social entrepreneurs’ thought processes and their practical
application of session content. Something else that is not apparent from the table,
is the emphasis in A1 of pitching activity and social media. More formal attention
was given to the verbal presentation of the social entrepreneurs’ businesses in
weeks one and five, but in reality each week of the accelerator included some
activity that required participants to explain their business idea to somebody else.
Similar attention was paid to the role of social media in promoting the new
ventures. Consequently, an emphasis on blogging and other techniques for
creating an internet presence, was something that was particularly noticeable
throughout the first accelerator.
A final factor that does not emerge from the table’s simple thematic description
is the ‘who’ of the accelerator content. Many of the speakers who visited the A1
programme had a background in entrepreneurship, sustainable business or
corporate social responsibility. With the exception of a guest from the British
social venture WeCreate and two Scandinavian entrepreneurs working abroad, all
of the speakers were based in Scandinavia – even if several of them had extensive
experience in developing countries. Many of the speakers had previously been
members of NSE and with few exceptions were not presently engaged in starting
ventures directly addressing the challenges of the developing world. A fairly
typical speaker was one who had engaged in social innovation at some stage in
their career, but who was now employed in either a larger organisation in the area
of sustainability, or as a consultant.
Jönköping International Business School
146
Table 4-2: Thematic content and timing of Accelerator activities.
Theme Content A1 A2 A3
Social
innovation
- Social entrepreneurship
- MDGs / CSR governance
- Sustainable business
- Business in developing markets
- Measuring social impact /SVP
Wk.1
Wk.2
Wk.4
Wk.4
Wk. 6
Wk.3
Wk.3,8
Wk.2
Wk.1
Wk.1
Wk.2,3
Building a viable
business
- Business plan
- Business models
- Financial management
- Scaling
- Customer focus / sales
- Leadership
- Project Management
- Legal aspects / Int. property
Wk.2
Wk.3,5
Wk.2,8
Wk.3,7
Wk.3
Wk.7
Wk.7
Wk.1,7
Wk. 2,4
Wk.4
Wk.5
Wk.1
Wk.3,78
Wk.4
Funding - Social finance / I.a.P
- Crowd & equity funding
- Funding strategies
- Understanding investors
- Grant writing
Wk.1
Wk.3
Wk.3
Wk.7
Wk.5,6
Wk.5
Wk.5
Wk.5
Wk.4,5
Wk.4,5
Wk.5
Marketing - Communication strategy
- Web sites
- Social media
- Brand management
Wk.2
Wk.3
Wk.3,7
Wk.6
Wk.6,8
Wk.5
Wk.6
Wk.1,6
Wk.7
Wk.6,7
Other - Presentation and pitching
- Entrepreneurial networking
- The entrepreneurial process
- Building innovation capacity
- Intercultural communication
- Excel & PowerPoint
Wk.1,5
Wk.2
Wk.3
Wk.4
Wk.6
Wk.4
Wk.7,8
Wk.2
Wk.2
Events - Mingle w/ NSE board / kick-off
- Night of Impact / SE bar
- CSR Fair / E’ship Day
- SOCAP conference
- Lunch w/British Council
- SE presentation in borough
- Study visit to social enterprise
- Study visit to business lab
- Speed-dating w/mentors
- Graduation / investor mingle
Wk. 1
Wk. 3
Wk. 1
Wk. 5
Wk. 8
Wk. 1,
4
Wk. 4
Wk. 2
Wk. 6
Wk. 3,8
Wk.1
Wk.5
Wk.1, 6
Wk. 3
Wk. 3
Wk.4
Wk.8
As the first accelerator progressed and the entrepreneurs made progress on their
business plans, they became increasingly aware of the impending end of the
programme. Many of them experienced this as stressful and complained about
the continued intensity of the scheduled programme of visiting speakers. For this
reason, towards the end of A1 the decision was taken to cancel several sessions
in order to free up more time for individual activity. However, in order to
counteract the risk of having a ‘content-less’ last few weeks, the entrepreneurs
were asked to clarify their needs for expertise and additional coaching.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
147
Accelerator managers subsequently catered to these needs on a more
individualised basis than at the beginning of the programme: running a few
sessions with smaller groups, or helping the entrepreneurs to get into contact
with relevant experts on an individual basis.
4.3.3.2 Accelerator 2
The second Booster accelerator was fairly similar to the first in structure, although
as will be seen, it generated very different interaction and outcomes.
Consequently, in both this section and subsequent sections I do not provide a
detailed description of the characteristics of the second programme that
remained more or less unchanged from the first. Instead I focus on the features
of the second accelerator that were different from the first.
In contrast to the first accelerator, A2 devoted three full days of the first week to
team building. The second accelerator again sourced several speakers from the
United Kingdom, even if these were not the same ones engaged in A1. The
general content of A2 and the timing of the different themes are depicted in the
middle column of table 4.2.
As more time was available for planning in the second accelerator, it was easier
to schedule speakers in a more logical manner than in the first accelerator. In A1,
accelerator managers were at times forced by speakers’ schedules to fit them in
on dates that were not optimal from a pedagogical perspective. In contrast, in A2
there was a clearer progression from theme to theme throughout the programme.
This is clearly seen in table 4.2, where the ‘funding’ theme in A2 is scheduled
primarily in week 5, whereas in A1 the sessions on this theme were more
splintered and took place in weeks 1, 3 and 7. The schedule for A2 also illustrates
the learning that took place between the two accelerators. In A1, managers
invited the speakers that the entrepreneurs appreciated the most, back to the
programme to provide follow-up and a more in-depth treatment of their topics.
In my evaluation of A1 I had suggested that fewer speakers be used in future
accelerators and that more effort be spent on providing continuity. Accelerator
staff adopted this suggestion and in the A2 schedule it is possible to see how a
particular subject is introduced early on in the programme and then systematically
followed up at a later stage. For example: “business plan” was introduced in week
2 and followed up in week 8 – and the topic “business models” was introduced
in week 3 and then followed up in week 7.
In the second accelerator participants were exposed to ‘external’ events a little
less than in the first. For example: the accelerator did not coincide with local
events such as a university CSR fair, nor with regional events such as the SOCAP
conference on social investment – which was opportunely located in southern
Sweden in week 5 of A1.
Jönköping International Business School
148
4.3.3.3 Accelerator 3
The final accelerator surveyed in this study was similar to A1 in terms of timing
(starting in mid-April and ending in mid-June) and resembled A2 in terms of
structure and content. As in A1, the programme took advantage of other
organisations’ events to maximise networking opportunities for the
entrepreneurs. For example: the A3 social entrepreneurs attended an
entrepreneurship day held by a business school in the city. A study visit was also
arranged to a successful social enterprise based in Scandinavia, but operating in
Africa – as well as to a business ‘lab’ with a focus on emerging markets. In A3, a
seminar on writing grant proposals was included for the first time and a highly-
appreciated session on project management was also introduced. A ‘speed-
dating’ event was arranged so that the social entrepreneurs could get input from
the mentors of their peers – and several practical sessions on software skills
(Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint) were also arranged. Slightly more time was
also devoted to the financial aspects of social entrepreneurship. The general
content of A3 and the timing of the different themes are depicted in the right-
hand column of table 4.2.
4.3.4 Place
In the following paragraphs the physical spaces in which the Booster social
entrepreneurs lived and worked are described. The SocNet working environment
that was common to all three accelerators is described first, before the additional
‘secondary spaces’ associated with each particular programme are discussed.
4.3.4.1 SocNet
The Booster social entrepreneurs spent a large amount of the accelerator period at
SocNet, a hot-desking office environment developed for enterprises with a ‘social’
orientation. The SocNet concept is international and over 30 centres exist in the
world, primarily in the northern hemisphere. Several centres have also been
started south of the equator, even if the organisation has not yet created an
effective presence among developing nations. All of the centres in the world are
linked via a virtual platform and networking for social impact is a core idea in
SocNet activities. The web publicity provided by the ‘hotel’ that hosted the Booster
entrepreneurs describes its vision as involving a desire to create spaces that:
”combine the best of a trusted community, innovation lab, business incubator
and the comforts of home. Spaces with all the tools and trimmings needed to
grow and develop innovative ventures for the world. But above all, spaces for
meaningful encounters, exchange and inspiration, full of diverse people doing
amazing things.”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
149
What being located at SocNet implied in practice for the Booster social
entrepreneurs was primarily access to both the centre’s physical facilities and the
centre’s network of entrepreneurs for an eight-week period. Renting space at a
SocNet facility usually means not only working in an open-office environment,
but also ‘hot-desking’ (the practice of using whichever workplace is available each
day, upon arrival at the centre). In the first accelerator this practice was slightly
adjusted, so that the entrepreneurs only hot-desked within a limited physical
space that was dedicated to the accelerator. This space was however, not
physically cut off from the rest of the SocNet working area – so that the
entrepreneurs were still able to network at will with the other SocNet residents.
Coffee-breaks and lunch were generally taken in an unstructured manner, in the
small kitchen area used by all of the SocNet staff and residents.
4.3.4.2 Accelerator 1
Many of the social entrepreneurs who participated in A1 lived in the city area, or
had friends in the area. Three of the participants however, did not live in the city.
Two entrepreneurs re-located from other European countries for the eight-week
period (Alice and Catrin) – and one (Henrik) travelled all the way from Brazil to
participate. After a few weeks, Henrik moved in with Edward to reduce his
housing costs. The existence of these ‘secondary’ spaces is worth noting, as
learning activity and interaction are not processes that begin when entrepreneurs
enter their ‘office’ and immediately cease when they leave it. In contrast to the
second accelerator, only two entrepreneurs shared ‘secondary’ space upon
leaving SocNet – the formal working environment that I refer to as ‘primary’ space
in future discussions.
4.3.4.3 Accelerator 2
The second accelerator began in the same location as the first and also made the
move to the SocNet on the Friday of the first week. Due to the fact that the
majority of the participants came from developing countries in Africa, NSE
managers rented an apartment for them in a suburb of the city. All of the social
entrepreneurs who shared this apartment were male. Of the remaining
entrepreneurs one was male (Jamal) and lived close to the apartment rented for
the African entrepreneurs. The other two were female (Marie and Heidi), with
Heidi renting a room for the duration of the accelerator – and Marie staying at
her home in the city. The journey from the African entrepreneurs’ apartment into
the city centre (where SocNet was located) took around an hour and often
involved a change of buses or trains. The African entrepreneurs found the
journeys to and from SocNet taxing, not least because of the inhospitable weather
and the darkness associated with Scandinavian winter mornings and afternoons.
They did however spend much of the day in the same ‘primary’ space as the social
entrepreneurs in A1 and A3 – at SocNet. In contrast to the A1 social
entrepreneurs however, the Booster cohort in A2 no longer occupied a specific
space at SocNet, but were expected to engage in ‘genuine’ hot-desking: choosing
Jönköping International Business School
150
a new working space each day from all of the available work-stations. With
regards to ‘secondary’ space, only the African entrepreneurs met one another
regularly in contexts outside of SocNet (primarily at their apartment). As will be
discussed in section 4.3.7, this contributed to a distinctive group dynamic.
4.3.4.4 Accelerator 3
Managers revised the accelerator’s accommodation ‘strategy’ for the third
accelerator and reduced the travel time of the social entrepreneurs by renting
accommodation closer to the city centre. Once again the entrepreneurs were
hosted by SocNet and their ‘primary’ space was structured in much the same way
as for the A2 cohort. An equal number of men and women was recruited to the
third accelerator and consequently, the cohort was housed in a ‘male’ apartment
and a ‘female’ apartment. Social entrepreneurs shared rooms (two and two) and
all four of the male participants stayed in the apartment provided for them by
NSE. Only three of the female entrepreneurs made use of their apartment
however, with Nadia staying with her boyfriend in the city. Among the male
entrepreneurs, Thomas also had relatives in the city and spent some time visiting
them at weekends. In terms of ‘secondary’ space therefore, the accommodation
of the A3 social entrepreneurs was organised according to gender. As with the
A2 cohort, the way in which this space was organised affected the group dynamic.
This is discussed in section 4.3.7.
4.3.5 Mentors
4.3.5.1.1 Mentoring Roles and Routines
Prior to the start of the accelerators each entrepreneur was allocated a mentor
with whom to interact during the eight-week programme. An attempt was made
to link entrepreneurs with mentors who had experience of at least some aspect
of the entrepreneur’s enterprise. For some individuals this meant that their
mentor had personal experience of starting their own business, while other
mentors had experience in the particular industry in which the entrepreneur was
expecting to niche themselves. The role of the mentors was intended to be that
of the ‘specialist’ with regards to the particular enterprise that they were allocated.
In other words, the mentors were expected to coach the entrepreneurs in a
manner that led to the development of their enterprises, on the basis of their
unique insight into the needs and objectives of a single entrepreneur.
The mentors were recruited from the NSE network and from the region in which
the organisation has its head office. Several of the mentors were members of the
NSE board, or had a history of engagement with the organisation. The
entrepreneurs were introduced to their mentors at an evening dinner in week 1
of the accelerator and were then expected to make their own arrangements for
the structuring of their interaction. The majority of the entrepreneurs
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
151
subsequently met with their mentors every two weeks for the duration of the
accelerator, although it is important to underline that they also maintained regular
contact by other means – such as email, Skype and social media.
Mentors tended to fulfil five main functions. Firstly and perhaps most
importantly, they functioned very much as proactive ‘counsellors’ or ‘sounding
boards’. First of all, as individuals with whom the entrepreneurs could discuss
the development of their enterprises. And secondly, as individuals who – as they
became acquainted with the enterprise – provided the entrepreneur with their
impressions of its strengths and weaknesses, as well as their ideas of what the
entrepreneur could do to develop their firm. This was the experience that Nelson
(A2) had with his mentor:
“She told me, ‘Right now Nelson I know that you have the business strategy
beside the not-for-profit strategy, but this is what you need to focus on’. And
she helped me develop the idea and we developed it to the best”.
The above quote illustrates the mentor’s role in assessing the health of the new
enterprise in a holistic manner and in helping entrepreneurs prioritise.
Nevertheless, many of the entrepreneurs also used their mentors as sounding-
boards for some of the more specific tasks associated with the accelerator, such
as sales pitches. In other words, mentors were expected to provide feedback not
only about the ‘bigger picture’, but also about the smaller ‘pieces of the puzzle’ –
such as pitches to investors, web pages and funding strategies.
A second role the mentor played was as a provider of relevant contacts,
particularly in the cases where the mentor was active in the same industry as the
entrepreneur. For example, as Henrik commented several months after the end
of the accelerator:
“I’ve found a really good contact at Sweden’s biggest clothing brand, via my
mentor.”
A third role that some mentors played was that of the ‘provider of structure’.
One of the challenges of the accelerator was its intensity and the diversity of
impressions thrust upon participants in a relatively short space of time. Naturally
some entrepreneurs had difficulty in keeping so many ‘balls’ in the air at once
and appreciated their mentor’s role in maintaining focus and a sense of stability.
Heidi for example, noted that her mentor complemented her in this area and
helped to get more out of their sessions by ensuring that tasks were both clarified
and focused upon:
“When we’d like work on stuff, she was always really good at focusing, ‘cos I
can be really bad at that, like especially if we’d go meet for coffee, then I could
talk to you for an hour and then be like, ‘Oh… I’ve got to go to work’. But she
Jönköping International Business School
152
was really good at being, ‘Okay. Yeah. Let’s… what are we going to work on
today? And how...’ You know what I mean? She was good like that.”
A fourth function filled by several of the mentors was that of the ‘enthusiast’ or
‘cheerleader’. For entrepreneurs coming in from their ‘islands’ it was emotionally
strengthening to have at least one other person showing enthusiasm for and even
commitment to their startup. Even where entrepreneurs later expressed
disappointment regarding the mentorship process, they felt initially moved by
the experience of no longer having to ‘go it alone’. In Heidi’s words:
“I used to get really happy when she’s ‘we’ talking about that glass, to have
someone else… that is like working, what seems, with you. You know… that
feeling.”
Nelson described his interaction with his mentor in a similar manner, pointing
out that her contribution was not only of an advisory nature, but also of a more
emotional, affective character:
“She has passion in what I’m doing”
A final function that some of the mentors filled was that of a ‘role model’ for the
entrepreneur. For some of the less experienced entrepreneurs and for those
entrepreneurs with a background in not-for-profit organisations; their mentor
provided an example of professional, for-profit leadership. Steven for example,
describes his mentor as not only pushing him to achieve, but also ‘teaching’ him
through not only his example, but also his expectations. Steven’s case is described
in more detail in a later section.
4.3.5.1.2 Experiences of the Mentoring Process
Despite the efforts made by managers to match participants with suitable
mentors, the entrepreneurs in both accelerators had mixed feelings about the
effectiveness of the mentoring part of the programme. These feelings were linked
to several factors, namely; the level of engagement of the mentor, the usefulness
of their network to the entrepreneur and the relevance of their experience to the
entrepreneur. For the most part entrepreneurs were satisfied with their
interaction with their mentor if they were able to provide either relevant contacts,
or relevant feedback (based on credible experience). However, in the absence of
both of the above participants tended to rate their mentor negatively, regardless
of their enthusiasm or investment of time in their enterprise.
In all three accelerators entrepreneurs expressed satisfaction with mentors who
created sufficient time in which to interact with them – and dissatisfaction with
individuals who they felt did not. Nelson for example was appreciative of the fact
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
153
that his mentor was clearly making an effort to engage with him, but also showed
an awareness of the fact that not all mentors were similarly committed:
“She is willing to help with more of her own time.”
“She was always… whenever we set an appointment she was always coming,
always coming, I did not have to look for her. Other fellows that have a good
mentor… suddenly they would change their appointment – and mentors are
too busy! I don’t know, but [name of mentor] was not like that, she would
always come.”
The above observation suggests that one of the factors that made several
individuals relevant as mentors (their startup experience), at times proved to be
their ‘downfall’ – as some accelerator participants perceived them as not having
enough time. This created either frustration on the part of the entrepreneur, or
uncertainty – or both. Although the frustration is perhaps easiest to understand,
it is important to note that entrepreneurs also expressed uncertainty about how
to interpret their mentor’s behaviour. This uncertainty affected their own
behaviour, primarily in making them more hesitant to engage with the mentor.
For example, Gabriella’s on her interaction with her mentor suggests that she
feels on the one hand that her contact with her mentor is useful, but that she is
also unsure of what her mentor feels with regards to her own enterprise:
“I wrote here [referring to a Post-It note] um, I need to keep on talking with
[name of mentor]. In fact, if I commit on a point we must …we have to do it!
So, I don’t know, but it’s like… my ability to convince him… to keep on. I think
he’s really worried. He’s really… [clicking fingers] right now, he’s really…
busy”.
As noted earlier, an important factor in the entrepreneurs’ assessment of their
mentors’ contributions had to do with their networks. Clearly, an important role
of the mentor is not only their ability to advise the entrepreneur, but also their
ability to put the entrepreneur into contact with individuals or organisations that
can help their enterprises develop. Many of the mentors were able to do this,
particularly in the first accelerator – where many of the social entrepreneurs had
strong ties to Scandinavia. In the second accelerator however, where the majority
of the participants came from developing countries, the limits of the NSE
network began to make themselves felt. Karen (the A2 manager) commented on
this in a follow-up interview, but it was also clear from some of the entrepreneurs’
comments that they had hoped to be able to grow their networks a little more
through their mentors. Heidi for example, was clearly not impressed with her
mentor’s ability to help her out with relevant contacts:
Jönköping International Business School
154
“Well, I didn’t get any connections from her, as far as import/export. She had
someone she thought maybe would do some freelance packaging design for
me, but it didn’t work out. She thought she had someone who might help edit
a video – once I go back and make a tape and then they just clip it together, it
didn’t work out... Um, she did know someone at import/export who didn’t have
any information that was relevant for me.”
In a previous section I noted that accelerator participants were generally
understanding when their mentors were unable to provide them with one of the
two main benefits of business mentoring (advice and relevant contacts).
Fortunately therefore, many of the mentors proved adept at rapidly assessing the
character and stage of the entrepreneurs’ startups and were consequently able to
provide useful feedback. In this area however, it became clear that several factors
contributed to making the mentors’ assessments of the entrepreneurs’ ventures
a challenging task. Comments from the entrepreneurs several months after the
accelerator underline the importance of this assessment in helping mentors adapt
their input to the situation and context of the entrepreneur. Their comments
suggest that the relevance of mentors’ advice revolves around their familiarity
with four enterprise-related factors, namely: the stage of the startup, the sector in
which the startup intends to operate (for-profit, hybrid or not-for-profit), the
industry in which the startup operates and the social context of the startup.
4.3.6 Coaches
One of the contributions of this study is its provision of a deeper understanding
of the different ways in which long-term ‘mentors’ and short-term ‘coaches’
enhance the learning of social entrepreneurs
65
. As noted earlier, Susan Cohen
(2013b) notes that external experts engage with the entrepreneurs in an
accelerator for different lengths of time, but uses the term ‘mentor’ for all these
actors. I suggest however, that it is useful to refer to experts who spend only a
short period of time with the entrepreneurs, as coaches. In this section I describe
entrepreneurs’ experiences of interacting with these individuals, focusing
particularly on the characteristics they associate with ‘good’ coaching. As I do so
I acknowledge the tendency of entrepreneurs to assess coaches on the basis of
the relevance of the content they bring to the accelerator. In other words,
entrepreneurs’ assessments of how coaches perform reflect to a certain extent on
the efficacy of accelerator design. Even if coaches are experienced and
knowledgeable, if entrepreneurs do not perceive the subject a coach has been
asked to talk about as relevant, they are often unenthusiastic about their input.
65
Clearly in an eight-week accelerator, ’long-term’ has a very different connotation than it does in other
contexts. In an accelerator someone who sticks around for eight-weeks shows a ’long-term’
commitment, whereas a speaker who only visits for one or two days is ’short-term’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
155
In A1 this was reflected in the contrasting comments
66
about coaches made by
experienced entrepreneur Barry and the less experienced, profession-oriented
entrepreneurs Gabriella and Alice:
(Barry) “I have come so far with my business that many activities are not very
valuable. However, they sometimes give me new ideas and activities that
develop practical skills – like yesterday’s theatre session with Gordon which
was great and very rewarding […] I was too far ahead with my business to fit
into what the programme could offer”.
(Gabriella) “I could not have reached so much information and so much
interesting feedback from people with the right knowledge, if I had kept on
working on my own”.
(Alice) “It’s a really well thought-through schedule”.
Gabriella and Alice’s comment lends support to one of the factors that Hallen et
al. (2013) associate with accelerator success, namely programmes’ ability to
engage high quality speakers for a limited period of time. Barry’s response
however, suggests that excellent speakers do not guarantee relevance and that
what coaches talk about, needs to be aligned with the needs of entrepreneurs’
ventures. As noted previously, this is largely a product of accelerator design and
has been discussed elsewhere in this study (for example, in 4.3.3 ‘Structure and
content’). Consequently, in the remainder of this section I will limit my discussion
to the factors that affect coach effectiveness, that do not relate to content.
4.3.6.1 Experts vs. Entrepreneurs
In Booster three main categories of coach had contact with accelerator
participants: experts that met the entrepreneurs only once or twice, experts that
interacted with the entrepreneurs continuously throughout the accelerator – and
individuals with personal experience of social entrepreneurship. In this study the
term ‘experts’ is used to refer to individuals with specialist knowledge in a
particular area of entrepreneurship. For example: in marketing or crowdfunding.
For the most part these experts visited the accelerator on two separate occasions:
once for an entire day to give a lecture and hold individual sessions with each
entrepreneur – and once for a morning or afternoon session several weeks after
their first visit. Frequently the social entrepreneurs were given a task to complete
by the speaker, such as improving their online presence or creating a ‘pitch’ on a
crowdfunding website. The second visit was intended to provide feedback on the
completed task.
66
The comments are written responses to an online questionairre and have been edited for grammar
and spelling to enhance readability.
Jönköping International Business School
156
At the end of the first accelerator it was clear that entrepreneurs were challenged
by the intensity of the programme, while also complaining about speakers’
tendency to cover the same material in their lectures. My impression was also
that they were having trouble putting all of the ‘pieces’ of the entrepreneurial
‘puzzle’ together. In my report I therefore recommended that NSE tackle these
issues by slightly reducing the number of visiting speakers and by encouraging a
few key speakers to visit the accelerator regularly during the eight week period.
The NSE managers took this on board and in the second and third accelerators
one of the coaches who the entrepreneurs had appreciated the most (‘Jackie’),
was asked to engage in a longer series of workshops. Although much of Jackie’s
expertise lay in the field of financial management, she also talked about business
models. Accelerator managers hoped that this combination of expertise would
allow participants to make sense of the topics covered by other speakers, by
relating them to a ‘helicopter’ perspective of their enterprises. Although my
recommendation was initially based on intuition, later interviews suggest that the
challenge of transforming the specialised input of a large number of experts into
a coherent whole was a task that even more experienced entrepreneurs found
difficult. Many of the social entrepreneurs continued to find sensemaking a
challenge, despite the steps taken to alleviate the ‘splintering’ effect engendered
by covering many different areas of entrepreneurship in a limited period. As the
‘experienced’ entrepreneur Thomas commented, halfway through the third
accelerator:
“So, now you have different coaches giving you different segments of the
business plan, but it is only your own responsibility to put them together, and
that’s where the coaching could be helpful, to make sure all these elements
are coordinated well in the business plan”.
Although an important role of the programme’s mentors was that of helping
entrepreneurs see the ‘forest’ rather than just the ‘trees’, at times it was clear that
coaches who had first-hand experience of social entrepreneurship also helped
with this task. Marie for example, described the contrast between the ‘expert’
coaches and one of the social entrepreneurs who visited the programme:
“I think it’s really good that it wasn’t just them, even if they’ve been fantastic
[names several of the expert coaches] - that it wasn’t just those who were
really business-oriented, but also those who were sources of inspiration –
Mattias and Barry. They tore down the structures a little […] if I’d have had to
do it by the book nothing would have happened – I need a freer way in”.
Marie’s reflection on the role of Mattias (the social entrepreneur) is similar to that
of several other entrepreneurs, who describe his role in simplifying the complex
picture of social enterprise built up by the accelerator – and making the task
appear feasible. An unintended consequence of introducing entrepreneurs to a
large number of experts, is that the resulting complexity can produce a feeling of
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
157
inadequacy: many entrepreneurs begin to feel overwhelmed. Consequently, it
appears that social entrepreneurs such as Mattias play an important emotional role
in accelerators. On the one hand, this role has to do with the development of a
feeling of ‘do-ability’ among accelerator participants. For example: Rebecca (A3)
described Mattias’ contribution as:
“Giving inspiration and courage to start out, be a practical entrepreneur.”
Other entrepreneurs used terms such as “amazing” and “inspiring” to describe
Mattias’ sessions. However, when participants described the impact of his visit
in more detail, a second emotions-oriented contribution emerged, namely that of
‘feeling understood’. Often the need for this only emerged when it was absent
from the accelerator, as evidenced by Kenny’s (A2) comments:
(Duncan) “If you could choose a mentor again, what would they give you?”
(Kenny) “I would choose a mentor who… who really is an entrepreneur, not
who works… in respect of the father
67
, he works in telecom. You understand. I
would choose a mentor who is an entrepreneur. Like, he talks business. So
this time he will not only tell me technical things for example – he will tell me
business management. He will advise me. He will see my struggle, he will see
my pains. […] He will understand… he will appreciate my efforts… more. […]
If you don’t like business, for example, I tell you what I’ve been through in my
course of being an entrepreneur. You will not value it, you will think it’s
nonsense”.
Kenny’s comments are similar to those of other entrepreneurs such as Henrik
(A1) – who described the value he would have attached to being able to discuss
his enterprise with someone who has: “done what I’ve done. From the start, from
zero, with the same resources”. For Henrik, his mentor’s lack of entrepreneurial
experience was to some extent compensated for by his meeting with Mattias
68
.
However, it seems significant that several entrepreneurs bring up the subject of
emotional pain and failure when they discuss mentors and coaches. Referring to
Mattias’ visit, Olga (A3) wrote:
“The most important part was examples (concrete) from his venture and
failures he had.”
Olga’s comment mirrors not only an appreciation of Mattias’ pedagogy (the use
of examples), but also of his imperfection. The pictures painted by practicing,
fallible social entrepreneurs often contrast with the idealistic portraits
67
Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa often refer to other men as “father”, as a sign of respect.
68
This is described in more detail, in the in-depth case study of Henrik that follows in section 4.4.
Jönköping International Business School
158
constructed by other experts – in that they tell a story of success despite
shortcomings. For many entrepreneurs the ‘humanity’ of visiting entrepreneurs
is an important factor in reinforcing their intentions to engage in
entrepreneurship (Hytti & Heinonen, 2013). Well-intentioned expert coaches
who describe ‘best practice’ risk creating feelings of inadequacy among
accelerator participants and may reflect an assumption that education for venture
development is primarily a cognitive process. The experiences of the Booster
entrepreneurs however, suggest that nascent entrepreneurship is also a process
characterised by emotion. If they are not to abandon their ventures, it appears
that entrepreneurs need to feel understood. They need to feel that success is
possible without perfection, and that social entrepreneurship is a feasible and
meaningful project. Practicing social entrepreneurs appear to provide more of
this vital emotional input, than coaches without entrepreneurial experience –
regardless of their degree of expertise.
4.3.6.2 Providing Inspiration and Energy
The above paragraph suggests that practicing entrepreneurs often contributed to
participants’ learning in a manner that affected their emotions – and in particular
their feelings of hope and efficacy. Some entrepreneurs’ comments however,
suggest that both the practicing entrepreneurs and the subject-oriented ‘experts’
contributed to a general atmosphere of energy and creativity. Barry (A1) and
Kenny (A2) represent different types of entrepreneur, but describe very similar
processes of creativity. Kenny for example, describes how flashes of creativity
often came to him during the accelerator, as he listened to a coach:
“I’m just kind of posing that I don’t believe in the academic formula of things
[…] Like in the case of Johan - there’s a guy who came, his name is Johan
69
–
and while he was teaching and stuff like that, my mind wasn’t following what
he was saying – but he said something that sparked my brain and that solved
a very big problem that my organisation was having. And that has to do with
um, measuring impact. […] And it was still not too clear, but when the last
woman, Jackie, brought something – when Jackie came in – Jackie finished
the whole thing.”
Kenny’s experience suggests that at times a creative experience develops during
the accelerator that is not so much a product of clever design (“I don’t believe in
the academic formula of things”), but rather of synergy and a climate conducive
to reflection. His comment makes it clear however, that the accelerator coaches
were not unimportant to his creativity. Rather, he describes how one of them
provided the ingredient that enabled him to complete the idea that came to him
in a seminar. Barry’s experience is similar and is described in more detail in a
69
Johan held on workshop on among other things: ’social value proposition’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
159
subsequent case-study. His comment however, underlines the role coaches play
as inspirers of creativity:
“It’s a bit like... sitting in a lecture, it’s not just that if it’s boring I think of
something else, it’s almost the opposite. It has to be inspiring, because if it’s
boring I begin to think of my to-do list and so on. But if it’s inspiring, then…
then the creative ideas come about completely different things.”
The experiences described above suggest that coaches contribute more than just
their specialist knowledge to accelerators. With hindsight it is therefore clear that
my discussions with entrepreneurs about coaches’ contributions was lacking in
insight. I asked participants to score coaches’ sessions primarily on the basis of
how ‘useful’ the content was (even if entrepreneurs were free to write further
comments on the coach’s contribution after this assessment). Other sections of
entrepreneurs’ interviews however, make it clear that coaches also participated in
the development (or impeding) of a particular ‘climate’ within the accelerator –
something that Hjorth (2011) refers to as “affect”. Effective coaches appeared
to bring energy and inspiration to the accelerator. These factors seem to be
related to outcomes (such as creativity) that are more difficult to predict than the
‘common-sense’ outputs intimated by the topics they addressed in their
workshops.
4.3.6.3 Relating their Knowledge to the Entrepreneurs’ Ventures
Allan Gibb (1983) suggests that in small firms, managers demand that education
be immediately applicable to the needs of their enterprises. Participants’
assessments of the coaches who participated in the Booster accelerators suggest
that social entrepreneurs share this orientation. In week three of A1, Edward for
example, expressed his discontent over what he perceived as a disproportionate
amount of talk, in contrast to action:
“I had expected more… more, um… what shall I say. More… or rather, less
talk. Less talk and more action.”
In view of this type of expectation it, it is unsurprising that coaches who related
their teaching to situations the entrepreneurs were familiar with, tended to be
evaluated more positively than those whose explanations entrepreneurs felt were
too theoretical. Ideally, coaches would relate their teaching directly to the
entrepreneurs’ own ventures. Olga (A3) for example, evaluated two coaches who
held sessions with a similar focus (branding and communication) in a manner
that illustrates this preference:
(Referring to coach 1: branding strategies) “Useful, would like to have some
concrete work on the case of my organisation”.
Jönköping International Business School
160
(Referring to coach 2: communication strategies) “It was useful because the
coach concentrated on concrete examples, gave concrete and individual
recommendations”.
Olga’s written comments were accompanied by a ‘scoring’ of the coach on a scale
of one to four, with “not useful at all” at one end and “extremely useful” at the
other. Although not all of the entrepreneurs provide explanations for their
scoring, it is interesting to note that the second coach received a consistently
higher score than the first. Nonetheless, practical relevance was not the only
characteristic of coach behaviour that entrepreneurs identified as important.
They also assessed coach performance in terms of their preparedness and the
respect they demonstrated to the social entrepreneurs’ own competence.
4.3.6.4 Showing Respect – and Being Prepared
Despite the expertise shown by many of the coaches, several entrepreneurs
reacted not so much to the competence that they demonstrated, but to the
attitudes they perceived them as having. In both A1 and A2, entrepreneurs
appeared to be less willing to learn from coaches who they felt were talking
‘down’ to them. Edward described his experience in the following way:
“Sometimes I felt like I’m not being treated as a professional […] all the people
in this room who were accepted for this programme, we have a background.
We’ve been working, we know things from before… so we’re not complete
beginners. […] We all need support and um, encouragement, but
sometimes… I don’t know how to put it. Treating people as if they don’t know
anything, or I don’t know… sometimes I’ve felt that way. I’ve felt that way
sometimes from lecturers, but even sometimes from the programme
personnel.”
In A2 Kenny made a similar comment about the expectations one of the lecturers
(‘Konrad’) had of the African entrepreneurs. I questioned him about why he had
given the coach such a low score:
“I’ll give Konrad… two.”
(Duncan) “So what did he need to improve then, was it just not very relevant
or… ?”
“Relevant, maybe. I think I will say Konrad probably underestimated us as
Africans; he never thought we would be exposed to the extent he met us, so
there was a little shock… So maybe it’s just like a football match… a bigger
team’s going to play a smaller team and they say ‘we’re just to kill them away’
and when you get there the reverse is almost the case, or something.”
(Duncan) “So did you feel he was talking down to you?”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
161
“No, no… not talking to us at too low a level, but he wasn’t actually telling us…
giving us vital information for our standard. Almost like what you said, but not
like he was looking down on us, no – but he was just like telling me things I
know, telling me colours: ‘this is red, this is purple’ and stuff.’ […] I honestly
did not enjoy his teaching.”
Although the above quotes to a certain extent mirror a somewhat top-down
attitude on the part of some coaches, they also mirror another aspect of coaches’
behaviour that entrepreneurs reacted to, namely a lack of preparation. The
majority of the Booster coaches lectured ‘pro bono’ and this was at times
associated with some of them devoting too little time to preparation. This was
particularly so in A1, before managers were able to ‘weed out’ those speakers
they felt were not providing the entrepreneurs with the input they needed.
Managers were however, also responsible for this behaviour to a certain extent –
as coaches were not always informed about the characteristics of the cohort
ahead of time, nor told what other coaches had covered. Consequently, Edward
(A1) made the following comment:
“One of the things is to find a way to not… repeat things – especially in the
first weeks, some of the lectures. You felt like this is the third time or fourth
time I’m hearing the same thing. But from another person. […] perhaps fewer
lectures and focus on some really good ones.”
My analysis of entrepreneurs’ comments about coaches suggests that what
participants were concerned about, was not so much the coaches’ preparation as
regards their own areas of expertise. Instead they highlighted the importance of
speakers familiarising themselves with the larger context of the accelerator (as
illustrated by the above comment) – as well as with the entrepreneurs and their
ventures. Something entrepreneurs found irritating was having to introduce their
ventures to coaches who had not met them before. They felt that this wasted
workshop time – as when four coaches visited the accelerator in a week the
entrepreneurs had to conduct four introductions before moving on to the
workshop topic. Entrepreneurs interpreted this behaviour as indicating that
coaches had not done their homework (i.e. familiarising themselves with the
ventures before the session). In contrast, entrepreneurs were enthusiastic about
coaches who knew at least a little about their ventures upon arrival and could
therefore make relevant reference to their ventures in their sessions. Two of the
A3 entrepreneurs commented on this behaviour in their evaluation of a coach
who talked about websites:
(Olga) “It was detailed, concrete. The comments were made very specifically
for our website”. Score: 4 (extremely useful).
(Patience) “Personalised feedback on our website with constructive advice on
how it can be better.” Score: 4 (extremely useful).
Jönköping International Business School
162
4.3.6.5 Being Familiar with the Context of Social Entrepreneurship
An interesting theme that emerged in interviews with the A2 entrepreneurs was
the unfamiliarity of some coaches with the contexts in which most of the
entrepreneurs operated, namely the developing world. Comments tended to
focus on either difficulties that entrepreneurs had in transferring ideas to their
own environments, because coaches’ talks centred on Western/European
examples – or on the impracticality of their ideas. Steven (A2) made the following
comment about a coach who talked about issues of impact evaluation:
“A lot of his examples were… European examples. Yes, he didn’t really have
knowledge of Africa, but his content and examples were good, but they were
more for Europe.”
Peter (A2) also discussed differences between coaches, suggesting that Konrad
needed to make his teaching “friendlier” by enabling participants to ‘see and feel’
the content. As he moves on to discuss other coaches, it appears that he defines
‘friendly’ teaching as content that is adapted to the context of the entrepreneur:
(Referring to Konrad) “The way of teaching it, he should change it. He should
make it friendlier and you know, people should like it. […] Okay, I know he
gave us the key points, but I think he should make it feel… you know, make it
see, make the participants feel it.”
(referring to several other coaches) “The social impact guy wasn’t so good…
he was too theoretical. Even the previous guy… at least he tried to put it in the
context of the participants. So this other guy who came in. It wasn’t so good,
but at least he did try and put it in that context whereby… eee! People enjoy
and you feel you’re like, ‘yeah!’, you know… for example like the guy who did
the social networking.”
Kenny (A2) also discussed the teaching of the social impact coach, clearly
illustrating the typical dislike of the Booster entrepreneurs for teaching that they
felt was overly theoretical and that they had difficulty in relating to their own
contexts:
“Um, I think too theoretical; yeah, it was more of theory, theory, theory.
Theoretical!”
(Duncan) “Okay, so not so… didn’t feel very relevant for you or…?”
“It’s relevant, but you know the brain sometimes gets tired of things that are
too much like… theories, because you… you just like… like these days you
want to see the practical… how it affects me, you understand?”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
163
The above paragraphs illustrate the reality of all educational programmes, namely
that educators bring different content and distinct educational approaches to the
‘classroom’. With each accelerator, NSE staff became more aware of the
strengths and weaknesses of the individual coaches and adjusted the design of
the programme accordingly. Coaches who received poor feedback from
participants were dropped and either replaced with new ones – or with existing,
effective coaches who were asked to take on additional sessions. Managers took
entrepreneurs’ feedback seriously and my impression is that they became
increasingly skilled in managing the accelerators as time passed by. Consequently,
it is natural to expect that each Booster accelerator would be slightly better than
the last – as managers incorporated their experience into the design of the
programme and the recruitment of mentors and speakers. In reality however, the
second accelerator is associated with a pattern of interaction that appears
considerably less effective than those of the first and third accelerators. This
suggests that accelerator design may not be the only factor critical to programme
success. In the following section I describe several contrasts in the way in which
the three Booster programmes developed – contrasts that emerged despite strong
similarities in structure and content.
4.3.7 Similar Structures, Dissimilar Interaction
4.3.7.1 Accelerator 1
One of the most interesting insights generated by this study has to do with the
extent to which the learning of the social entrepreneurs is shaped by the emergent
characteristics of the accelerator cohort, as opposed to the design of the
programme. The group dynamic in the first accelerator was very positive, with
entrepreneurs displaying open and supportive attitudes to one another – and for
the most part, to the accelerator itself and to staff. Several months after the
accelerator Henrik referred to this positive group dynamic as he discussed the
need for some kind of online follow-up:
“It [the online group] would have been really good for all of us I think,
especially as we all trust each other. We were really open for one another on
Booster and that was fantastic.”
Despite the fact that the social entrepreneurs came from different backgrounds
– and even if some had progressed further than others, there was an atmosphere
of ‘togetherness’ in the first accelerator. Henrik attributed this to the trust and
openness that developed among participants. It is also possible that the relative
homogeneity of the group in terms of ethnicity, played a role. All of the
entrepreneurs (with the exception of Gabriella) came from Western Europe –
and only one of the participants was not a long-term resident in Scandinavia
(Catrin). Gabriella’s comment however, suggests that the group dynamic may
Jönköping International Business School
164
also have been enhanced by entrepreneurs’ experience of being able to work on
their own venture ideas, in the company of other individuals facing similar
challenges:
“Six people feel just like I do: it’s hard, but it can be done.”
4.3.7.2 Accelerator 2
In contrast to the first programme, the second accelerator was characterised by
tension and conflict. Building on the experience of ‘post-accelerator depression’
in the first accelerator, the second accelerator was held at the beginning of the
year. Unfortunately, the composition of the cohort was radically different, with
the majority of the entrepreneurs of African origin – and male. This made the
programme’s scheduling to avoid ending just before the Scandinavian holidays
irrelevant. Entrepreneurs also came from very different social backgrounds, even
when they came from similar geographical locations. Isaac was for example, well-
travelled and seemed to be financially well-off. Steven in contrast, had never
travelled outside of his home country – and as time went by, managers gained
the impression that some of the African entrepreneurs (for example: Kenny)
lacked the financial resources possessed by the previous cohort.
As the second accelerator progressed, it became evident that many of the
entrepreneurs in the cohort were having a hard time getting on with some of
their colleagues and that sub-groups were forming. It was also clear that many of
the African entrepreneurs were irritated over some of practical arrangements
made by Booster managers and by the lack of immediate opportunities for funding.
These negative attitudes in turn engendered irritation on the part of the
accelerator managers themselves and among the non-African entrepreneurs. At
the end of A2, Kenny described the breadth of the conflict in the following way:
”Like you heard, there’s a fight in the house [laugh]. You understand, you
know… stuff like this one is beating this one. Enemies here and there…
[laugh] It happened, it happened you understand. Side-talk. This one doesn't
see, you understand; gossiping, backbiting, the issue of food, attitude…”
As I interviewed managers and entrepreneurs it became clear that at least four
factors were affecting the group dynamic: practical issues relating to sustenance
and accommodation, issues of status, issues of expectations and issues of
behaviour.
With regards to the practical issues, it appears that this factor was linked to
finance, travel and household duties. In comparison to many regions of Africa,
the cost of living in Scandinavia is high. NSE provided for entrepreneurs’ travel
and accommodation, but not for clothing or food. Consequently, the cost of
participating in the accelerator was far higher than many entrepreneurs had
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
165
expected and as the programme progressed, several entrepreneurs felt less and
less able to afford to eat. At times the African entrepreneurs ate together – and
in an atmosphere of scarcity, extra attention was focused on the need for each
person to contribute a similar amount of money for upkeep. Consequently,
tensions rose when individuals did not appear to be ‘pulling their weight’. For
example: when Kenny said that he was having trouble withdrawing money using
his West African credit card.
In addition to tension associated with money, it appears that some of the African
entrepreneurs were unprepared for the day-to-day practicalities of household
work (primarily preparing food, cleaning and washing clothes). In many African
households, women perform these duties – and in well-to-do families, servants
are often employed. As Lewis commented:
“I don’t remember when I actually cooked. In our culture once you have – I
mean you have – you are married, I mean you’re not supposed to cook.”
One result of backgrounds such as those reflected in Lewis’ comment, was that
some of the entrepreneurs least used to household work became irritated with
NSE and did their best to avoid housekeeping tasks. However, as Nelson
describes, this created tension within the group:
“The guy I was talking to last week, the guy from [name of country], he don't
do anything. He don't cook, he don't clean, he has never done anything - and
when you talk he gets angry. He has never done anything! When it comes to
the house, cleaning or cooking, he’s not doing anything. But when you go in
and talk then he feels angry”.
It is worth noting that the neglect of household work was not necessarily linked
to the resources entrepreneurs had access to. Nelson noted for example, that
Isaac helped out with housework – but that Steven did not. What is clear
however, is that the tensions linked to the practical challenges of living in
Scandinavia were augmented by entrepreneur’s attitudes with regards to ‘status’.
Several of the African entrepreneurs described feeling that some of their fellow-
Africans thought they were better than them. Peter and Nelson both commented
on this impression:
(Nelson): “…other people think that they are up there and other people think
they are down there.”
(Peter): “Something else… people are bossy, others want to show that they
know a little bit. I don’t like that crap […] We have people who want to be
high… and then others, you know, want to be like… [makes ‘stuck up’
noises].”
Jönköping International Business School
166
Although a large part of the tension in A2 was associated with the African
entrepreneurs, it was clear that the non-African participants were also affected
by the conflict. At times they sympathised with the situation of the African
entrepreneurs – critiquing NSE for not being better prepared for their needs.
However, at other times they appeared to take sides: aligning themselves with
participants who they felt worked hard and were attentive, and distancing
themselves from those who they perceived as arrogant or spoiled. In particular
Heidi and Marie appeared irritated by entrepreneurs who they felt were
participating ‘just for the money’ and by entrepreneurs who did not display an
interest in learning. When I asked her to explain why the group had splintered in
the way she described, Marie made the following comment:
“It felt as if some of the group had… um, expectations that weren’t realistic
[…] some of these projects… I don’t know how realistic they are and what
these lads have for objectives with these projects.”
Conversations with Marie that were not recorded made it clear that the
expectations she was referring to had to do with funding. Her sensitively phrased
assessment was that some of the African entrepreneurs had signed up for the
accelerator primarily because they felt they expected to source investment – and
not in order to learn – and develop their enterprises. Heidi’s assessment on the
other hand was direct and passionate:
“I was getting quite frustrated at the beginning […] and I mean it doesn’t really
have anything to do with me, so it shouldn’t really bother me – but when
everyone’s just talking about funding and… connecting with people and I was
like ‘Did you read any of the emails? Have you looked at the website? [laugh]
This isn’t want it’s about, you know!’[…] It’s not about grants, it’s about doing
something sustainable”.
When it came to the behaviour that Marie and Heidi associated with a
preoccupation with funding, Heidi commented several times on the behaviour
of some of the African entrepreneurs. The following excerpt is one of many
examples:
“Sometimes it’s obvious that people… haven’t been paying any attention, then
they ask a question at the end and it’s just so embarrassing and you’re like…
‘they [the speaker] just said that!’ You know, like that isn’t you being…
questioning and having, you know, insight. And then sometimes people don’t
understand it, that’s fine, you know. But you know, it’s ‘cos you’ve been on a
computer the whole time, then…’ [laugh]”
Other parts of Heidi’s interviews reveal that she is referring to the behaviour of
some of the African entrepreneurs (and in particular to Nelson and Lewis).
Steven commented on this behaviour (which included late arrival, accessing
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
167
websites/social media, writing emails and taking phone calls during lectures) in
his interview – and I also experienced it first hand on several occasions. Marie
described how she raised this issue with the group in the fourth week:
“I brought up that I get so damned irritated with everybody arriving late and
going in and out of the room, and disturbing when we’re having lectures. I find
that bloody irritating!”
Marie’s comment in week four opened the ‘floodgates’ of criticism and an open
discussion was held about the climate in the group and the practical challenges
facing the African entrepreneurs in particular. She said that things improved a bit
after this, but interviews make it clear that the group as a whole never really came
together in A2. Instead, entrepreneurs linked together in smaller sub-groups, with
Marie and Heidi tending to discuss venturing issues mainly with one another –
and at times with Jamal. Kenny linked up with Nelson and to a lesser extent with
Peter, while Isaac spent more time with Lewis. Steven described receiving advice
from experienced entrepreneur Isaac, but did not mention linking up with any of
the other entrepreneurs on a more equal peer-to-peer footing. Consequently, my
impression is that Marie speaks for all of the A2 entrepreneurs when she
summarises her experience of the group dynamic in the following manner:
“To begin with I tried, and I have helped some people who I’ve had better
contact with. But we had nine individuals with different knowledge and
competences, and we have definitely not taken advantage of that.”
4.3.7.3 Accelerator 3
The third Booster accelerator was similar to the first in terms of the positive group
dynamic that developed. NSE managers learned a great deal from the challenging
experience of the A2 accelerator and addressed many of the problems associated
with it: providing entrepreneurs with an allowance for food, scheduling the
accelerator in the warmer weeks of spring and reducing the distance from
entrepreneurs’ accommodation to SocNet. An equal number of males and females
was also recruited and a session on intercultural communication was held early
on in the programme. Consequently, entrepreneurs were enthusiastic about the
resultant group dynamic – describing an atmosphere of humour, openness, trust
and ‘family’. Entrepreneurs quickly came up with nicknames for individuals
whose names they had trouble pronouncing, or who were characterised by a
particular trait. Indeed, the group dynamic was characterised by so much humour
that the Scandinavian managers were at time uncertain as to whether individuals
were going too far. As manager Frida commented:
Jönköping International Business School
168
“There’s been this way of talking – and there’s a very fine line between what’s
okay and what isn’t – but there’s been this way of talking in the group where
they’ve been able to joke about each other. I find that… that they joke with
each other, that they kind of… laugh at themselves and at others.”
Frida’s experience reflects the impression I received from observations and from
interviews, that the prevailing atmosphere in the group was open, trusting and
friendly. It is therefore important to understand that, despite the exceptions
discussed in subsequent paragraphs, entrepreneurs’ experience of the third
accelerator was overwhelmingly positive.
Despite the marked contrast in the overall group dynamic between A2 and A3,
interviews with entrepreneurs and managers revealed that there was a surprising
amount of continuity in terms of the factors affecting it. In particular respondents
described the emergence of sub-groups based on gender and ethnicity – and the
existence of behaviour that had the potential to develop into significant conflict.
After the second accelerator my impression was that I had gathered data on an
‘exceptional’ case: I felt for example, that few researchers would be familiar with
the type of conflict that characterised A2, from their own studies of accelerators.
I was therefore very surprised as I began to interview the A3 entrepreneurs, to
discover a similar pattern of interaction around practical household issues
70
. In
A2 all of the African entrepreneurs were male and lived in the same apartment.
In A3 the group was more heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity, but lived close to
one another – with males in one apartment and females in another. Thomas (an
experienced manager who enjoyed philosophising) volunteered a sociological
analysis of the A3 group dynamic in one of his interviews. He identified a male
member of the cohort (Willis) as an “alpha male” and described how he
attempted to get other members of the group (Vinay and Zayd) to cook for him:
“Willis is more dominant alpha male… so he uses the others to get his wishes
fulfilled. Whether it’s for cooking, or for... getting. And, these [Vinay and Zayd]
come from cultures that are very easily subordinated, so they comply easily
with the African… Silverback. So, this has created a group where… Willis has
adopted the Vinay as his housemate and… food source.”
In contrast to the process in A2, Thomas’ account suggests that the tension
associated with social entrepreneurs ‘using’ others for their own purposes, never
blossomed into a significant conflict. Thomas described how he intervened when
he noticed Willis’ behaviour, ‘raising the consciousness’ of Zayd and Vinay and
making them aware of his ‘manipulation’. By intervening at an early stage, it does
70
Note that my data on this interaction is overly dependent on the account of a single entrepreneur who
highlights his own role in resolving the conflict. Other entrepreneurs do however confirm the
existence of the tension described – albeit in less detail.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
169
appear that Thomas was able to stifle behaviour that threatened to have a
negative effect on the group dynamic. Nonetheless, Thomas’ account suggests
that Zayd and Vinay were irritated by Willis’ behaviour, even if they initially
complied:
“In the beginning they’re like, ‘F**k why do I have to do this?’, but they still do
it”.
Thomas’ interpretation of events is that he intervened to prevent a negative
group dynamic from developing (“I’m doing preventive, I’m helping them to not
get to the point of conflict”). At the same time, the terms he uses in other parts
of the interview to refer to Willis (“leech”, “free-rider”) suggest that Willis’
behaviour engendered a negative attitude on the part of Thomas, towards
interacting with him.
Other entrepreneurs’ comments on the group process provide further insight
into the A3 group dynamic. Thomas portrays himself as protector of the group
dynamic (“I’m the one who defends the other apes”), but other entrepreneurs’
comments suggest that his role may have been restricted to the male group, with
Rebecca apparently taking on a similar role among the females – as Nadia
commented:
“She [Rebecca] would be a good mum, she has been like a mother for us.
Always asking us how we are getting on.”
Rebecca in turn, commented that she felt that it took three to four weeks for the
group to begin to function effectively – an impression somewhat shared by the
other female entrepreneur from East Africa (Patience), who suggested a slightly
shorter period (two to three weeks). Nonetheless, as I questioned entrepreneurs
about interaction it became clear that although they felt the group was
functioning effectively, they were also aware that they were forming ties with
reference to ethnicity and gender. At times this only became apparent when I
paused to reflect on, for example: female entrepreneurs’ use of terms such as
“the guys” – or by reading between the lines of interviews. Similarly, when males
discussed interaction they tended to mention primarily other male entrepreneurs
(and vice-versa, in the case of female entrepreneurs). At other times respondents
described the impact of gender explicitly, as in Thomas’ case:
(Duncan) “Have you found you talked to… are there any of the entrepreneurs
you talk to more than others?”
Jönköping International Business School
170
“Yes, of course; naturally. A gender division has really worked, you can take
that any way you want. So… I would put a bit of emphasis on that in terms of
sustainability… even in the introduction, I would make people aware that
gender roles exist […] even if they come from other cultural backgrounds they
haven’t been exposed to the same political pressure of gender equality […]
It’s senseless, you can smooth it over so nicely with positive words and
actions, like, in this field we’re operating, hugging, and being open,
collaborative.”
The male sub-group in A3 appeared to develop a higher level of interaction than
the female group, despite the potential for conflict associated with Willis’
behaviour. It emerged for example, that they had initiated regular, informal get-
togethers in the evenings, to discuss all manner of subjects – not all of which
were business related. This informal interaction appeared to be reinforced by the
natural segregation of shared living space along gender lines. Although
entrepreneurs described instances of ‘crossing the gender border’ for advice, it
appears that they only did so occasionally and that it involved more effort. For
example: Nadia jokingly commented that Patience was unlikely to go and knock
on the door of the men’s apartment, for fear of the door being answered by
Thomas in his underpants!
Many of the A3 entrepreneurs were very similar in terms of gender, industry and
entrepreneurial stage (for example: Olga and Patience whose ventures both
addressed sex-workers). Nonetheless, my observations and entrepreneurs’
comments suggest that ethnicity and even status often played a more significant
role in determining who entrepreneurs were most likely to interact with. For
example: Patience and Rebecca came from the same country and after only a few
weeks it was clear that when accelerator tasks required peer input they tended to
seek each other’s company. Thomas also explained his tendency to associate with
Zayd by referring to ethnicity:
(Duncan) “So, who do you talk to most… who do you find: ‘I speak to this
person, we give really feedback to each other?’ ”
“I’m… because of my Middle Eastern background… I’m a good support for
Zayd, [name of country
71
], whatever we call him”.
Although it was common for entrepreneurs to link up primarily with other
individuals of the same gender and ethnicity in A3, this was not always the case.
For example: despite Thomas’ comments about Willis ‘using’ Vinay, they seemed
to form an early companionship based on among other things, their status as the
only two smokers in the group. This apparently minor detail was identified by
71
Due to the fact that the African entrepreneurs had difficulty with Zayd’s middle-eastern name, they
initially referred to him by his country of origin – and eventually the nickname stuck!
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
171
Vinay as the main thing that ‘brought them together’. In the first few weeks of
the accelerator Vinay also attempted to teach Willis yoga, but desisted after the
early mornings proved to be too much for him! In contrast to Thomas’
assessment, Vinay made no negative comments about Willis’ behaviour and
when asked whether he tended to talk with any entrepreneur more than the
others, he immediately identified Willis. He did however, seem both amused and
mystified at this companionship. One of the interesting characteristics of the A3
accelerator was the tendency for the cohort to group into ‘pairs’ when working
(as opposed to groups of three or four). It is therefore also possible that some
entrepreneurs (such as Vinay and Willis), paired up with each other ‘by default’.
That is: simply on the basis of being the only individuals without a natural
companion. As almost all of the group were travelling and shopping in
Scandinavia for the first time, there was a natural tendency to seek company
when shopping or travelling. Often entrepreneurs sought the company of the
same individual, but in contrast to A2 the sub-groups that formed did not appear
to have a negative impact on the atmosphere in the larger group. Patience’s
description of the group dynamic (in the final week of the accelerator) echoes
the descriptions provided by the other social entrepreneurs:
“It has become like, you know, a family where you joke about anything, so it’s
not only mental but also, you know, the emotional attachment and the
companionship that you feel when you are around the people that really know
you or understand you”.
I have now described the context for social entrepreneurial learning (the Booster
accelerators) in considerable detail. In the next section I move on to describe
four different experiences of learning in this context.
4.4 The Social Entrepreneurs – Part 2
One of the advantages of developing an accelerator in a sector that relatively few
actors have focused on previously, is that ‘ignorance’ provides numerous
opportunities for learning – hence the Portuguese proverb that heads up my
‘acknowledgements’ section. Writing about incubators, Vanderstraeten and
Matthyssens (2012) suggest that many programmes develop specific internal
competencies that align with the strategies they adopt when recruiting new
tenants. It is arguable that accelerators are similar to incubators in this regard and
that with time, accelerator managers become more aware of the types of
enterprise that benefit most from their programmes – or of the types of
enterprise most likely to succeed. This increasing focus on a particular type of
enterprise may boost the most obvious outcomes of the accelerator (firms that
survive, grow or obtain investment). However, it may also reduce the likelihood
of managers becoming aware of the less obvious benefits of the programme to
other categories of enterprise.
Jönköping International Business School
172
The Booster accelerators are unusually useful to scholars of social entrepreneurial
learning due to the diversity of enterprises that participated in the programmes.
The social entrepreneurs who participated in the accelerators had very different
backgrounds, were attempting to start distinct types of social ventures and were
at different stages in the founding process. This heterogeneity might be a
challenge in a quantitative study, but in an exploratory study it is an advantage.
This is so because the study expands, rather than narrows down the list of types
of social entrepreneur whose learning might be enhanced through participation
in an accelerator. Such an expansion is likely to generate a wider range of
alternatives for future research, in contrast to a study of an accelerator that only
focuses on enterprises in a particular industry or at a specific stage of growth.
Due to the diversity of participating ventures, my analysis of entrepreneurs’
learning in the accelerators could have been structured around several different
characteristics. For example: industry (or sector), region of operation and stage
of development. After familiarising myself with my data however, I initially chose
to group (or categorise) participants according to three characteristics that
appeared to affect the way in which they participated in the accelerator and
accelerator outcomes, namely: whether or not they were long-term residents in
the country in which they were working, their experience in the sector their
venture focused on – and their length of managerial/entrepreneurial experience.
This process for creating typologies mirrors the practice recommended by Ayres
and Knafl (2008) – and the typology itself reflects the categories developed by
Cope and Watts (2000), in their exploration of entrepreneurial learning.
Cope and Watts (2000) develop the work of Gibb and Ritchie (1982) in
discussing entrepreneurial learning in relation to the experience of the
entrepreneur. They construct a four-field diagram along the axis of
business/managerial experience (high-low) and sector experience (high-low).
This diagram allows for four categories of entrepreneur to be distinguished
72
.
These are: the ‘innocent’ (low managerial / low sector experience), the
‘knowledgeable improviser’ (low managerial / high sector experience), the
‘confident entrant’ (high managerial / low sector experience) – and the ‘veteran’
(high managerial / high sector experience). As I reflected on my interviews with
the Booster social entrepreneurs my impression was that a third factor was also
important in the learning processes discussed by individuals. This factor had to
do with the experience of the entrepreneur in the particular geographical or
cultural context of the place in which they sought to establish their venture. I
categorise individuals as ‘indigenous’ social entrepreneurs if they were living in
the same country that their enterprise was targeting and were either from that
country, or had spent most of their lives there. The term ‘expatriate’ social
72
In figure 4.1 the different categories are numbered: 1- ‘innocents’, 2- ‘knowledgeable improvisers’, 3-
‘confident entrants’ and 4- ‘veterans’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
173
entrepreneurs in contrast, refers to individuals whose enterprises targeted a
country that they did not come from, nor in which they had recently spent a
substantial amount of time
73
.
At first glance, the ‘indigenous
74
/ expatriate’ distinction outlined above may
appear to be an oversimplification. Nonetheless, my intuition (based on my
experience of growing up in and working in developing countries) was that they
probably reflected important underlying differences. Individuals who I term
‘indigenous’ are often more reliant on the success of their venture for their own
prosperity and have a far weaker safety net to fall back on, should their ventures
fail. For ‘expatriate’ social entrepreneurs operating in the same context, the failure
of their venture tends to result in little more than embarrassment and a
comparatively small financial loss. As Henrik (A1) commented:
“I’m actually not very worried, my life doesn’t depend on Garbage Garments.”
Other differences include the expectation in developing societies that expatriates
will often break with local traditions, while natives are expected to follow them.
My point is not to denigrate the one over the other, but simply to underline the
idea that the two categories of entrepreneur often operate under different
premises. Importantly, I base the above suggestions not only on my own
intuition, but also on recent research on innovation at the ‘base of the pyramid’.
While not employing the exact terms that I use, Brännvall and Johansson (2012)
note that “entrepreneurs from underserved markets” (who I term ‘indigenous’)
follow a distinct pattern of innovation when compared to expatriate firms. They
report that expatriate firms spend less time studying the needs and behaviours of
target populations, and also use a more ‘closed’ model of innovation that relies
on a smaller number of external experts and advisors. Brännvall and Johansson
also note the existence of a distinct group of experienced entrepreneurs among
innovating firms – many of whom are individuals with a background in senior
positions and global companies, often from India and Nepal. These individuals
would probably be termed ‘veteran’ using Cope and Watts’ (2000) terminology –
and ‘veteran-indigenous’ (V-I) using my typology.
73
By ’substantial’ I mean a period of at least five years.
74
It is possible that the term ‘embedded’ might be more indicative of the rationale that makes it useful to
distinguish between indigenous and expatriate (non-embedded) social entrepreneurs.
Jönköping International Business School
174
By adding the ‘indigenous- expatriate’ factor a three-dimensional model was
developed (see figure 4.1), which allows for the distinguishing of eight different
types of entrepreneur. However, for the sake of simplicity I distinguish between
entrepreneurs with experience of the contexts in which they were launching their
ventures, by simply adding the terms ‘indigenous’ or ‘expatriate’ to the terms
coined by Cope and Watts. For example: I term an individual with extensive
managerial and sector-oriented experience, who is also an experienced actor in
the context in which they operate; a ‘veteran-indigenous’. For the sake of brevity,
in later sections I abbreviate each type and add ‘-E’ or ‘-I’ to distinguish between
the indigenous and expatriate variations of the same type. A ‘confident entrant’
with little experience in the context where their service/product will be used is
this abbreviated as ‘CE-E’.
Despite my use of Cope and Watts’ (2000) terminology, it is important to note
that I emphasize slightly different factors when I use their terms. This is
particularly so with regards to my understanding of the term ‘sector’. Cope and
Watts seem to discuss the term ‘sector’ with a focus primarily on the type of
industry in which the entrepreneur is active (for example: renewable energy or
mobile communications). My interviews with the Booster entrepreneurs however,
suggest that their participation in the accelerator was very much influenced by
their professional identity and experience. Consequently, while I hesitate to replace
Cope and Watts’ term altogether, it is important to note that the term ‘sector’ is
not without its weaknesses – in that it is not extremely specific and can contain
additional aspects of expertise and identity. This reasoned, yet subjective
distinction is one reason why I term my grouping a typology, rather than a
taxonomy – in keeping with the ideas of Smith (2002), and Ayres and Knafl
(2008).
Figure 4-2: Categories of social entrepreneur,
developed from Cope & Watts (2000)
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
175
In this study of entrepreneurial learning I suggest that it is useful to distinguish
between different types of social entrepreneur. I do so based on the assumption
that if certain social entrepreneurial types are linked to different processes or
outcomes of learning, it will be easier for accelerator managers to recruit and
interact with each ‘type’ more effectively. In the case studies that follow I describe
the patterns of interaction and outcomes associated with four types of participant
in more detail. I have selected these four types out of the eight possible types,
because they represent the types of social entrepreneur more commonly found
in this study. Furthermore, at times I have chosen to discuss only one ‘version’
of a particular type, because the other variation is similar to the first (for example:
the behaviour of the ‘veteran-expatriate’ was similar to that of the ‘veteran-
indigenous’). Clearly, I have also been unable to provide case studies of categories
that may exist in other contexts, but that were absent from the accelerators – for
example: the ‘innocent-indigenous’ type. Consequently, my choice of ‘sub-cases’
for a more detailed study of social entrepreneurial learning, has been influenced
by my desire for relevance (it is most useful to discuss the learning of the type of
entrepreneur most commonly found in accelerators) – and insight. In other words,
because a particular type of social entrepreneur illustrates a radically different
process or outcome of social entrepreneurial learning.
In the following paragraphs I describe the four types of social entrepreneur
discussed in this study in more detail – and present a table on which I locate the
accelerator participants who belong to each category.
In keeping with Cope and Watts (2000), I term the first type of accelerator
participant the ‘veteran’ (V). Entrepreneurs of this type
75
were frequently older
than their peers and tended to have had a fairly long and successful career prior
to participating in the accelerator. Often this implied international postings,
experience of leading teams and/or organisations, and responsibility for
significant financial resources
76
. Due to their experience these individuals were
usually competent in many areas in which their fellow entrepreneurs lacked
experience. Consequently, accelerator managers were often challenged to find
mentors that could provide them with the quality of input implied by their
backgrounds. In the first accelerator Barry (V-E) belonged to this category, as
did Isaac (V-I) in the second programme. I also judged Thomas in A3 to belong
to this group (V-I), as he had considerably more experience in consulting and
management than his peers – even if he would be considered relatively
inexperienced in comparison with the ‘extremes’ of Barry and Isaac.
75
Note that in this section the terms ’category’ and ’type’ are used interchangeably. This does not mean
however, that I am creating any other type of classification than the simple descriptive typology
discussed by Ayres and Knafl (2008).
76
I.e.: budgets of hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
Jönköping International Business School
176
The second category of Booster participant is the ‘knowledgeable improviser’ (KI)
– expatriate or indigenous. In my initial analysis I called this category the
‘profession-oriented social entrepreneur’. This was because the individuals in this
category seemed to participate in the accelerator on the basis of their ‘profession’
rather than in response to an acute social need. Participants in this category
tended to construct their social entrepreneurial intentions around the logic “I am
a [profession] – so how can I use my profession to create social or environmental
value?”. For the most part, the entrepreneurs of this type were Europeans (i.e.:
expatriates /KI-E) – and several had a background in design. Only one
participant from this category was found in the second accelerator (Marie –
expatriate), but in the first programme half of the participants were ‘profession-
oriented’ (Andrew, Alice, Edward and Gabriella) – and all of them belonged to
the ‘expatriate’ category (KI-E). In A3 I classified two social entrepreneurs
(Vinay and Zayd) as ‘knowledgeable improvisers’ – and both had intimate
(‘indigenous’) experience of the contexts they were targeting (KI-I). However,
the social entrepreneurs in this category tended to have limited managerial
and/or entrepreneurial experience.
The third and fourth types of social entrepreneur discussed in more detail in this
study, belong to the ‘confident entrant-indigenous’ (CE-I) and ‘innocent-
expatriate’ (I-E) categories. I suggest that these two categories represent the
classic domain of the social entrepreneur, in that individuals in these categories
are often responding to a pressing social need that is associated with a ‘sector’ in
which they have relatively little experience. What individuals bring to the table is
their passion for change – and in the case of the ‘confident entrant’, their skills
(or experience) as leaders or agents of change. Unsurprisingly therefore, a large
number of the Booster social entrepreneurs occupy these two categories.
In table 4.3 I have mapped the Booster social entrepreneurs according to the social
entrepreneurial ‘type’ that I associate each individual with. However, despite my
emphasis of the distinctiveness of each type of accelerator participant, it is
important to note that my typology at times simplifies and exaggerates these
differences. At times entrepreneurs were ‘borderline’ cases and displayed some
of the characteristics of a second category. Andrew (KI-E) was such an
entrepreneur, having a long enough background in entrepreneurship to be
bordering on the ‘experienced’, while also choosing to develop his venture on
the basis of his professional knowledge. Barry, who I have categorised as
‘veteran-expatriate’ had some sector-oriented experience, but was far more
experienced in terms of his background as a manager. Jamal (I-E) and Gabriella
(KI-E) had immigrated to Scandinavia from developing countries – and despite
having lived in Europe for many years, could conceivably be categorised as
‘indigenous’ entrepreneurs. In the Booster accelerator however, Jamal and
Gabriella did not distinguish themselves from ‘expatriate’ entrepreneurs in terms
of their behaviour – perhaps due to the long period of time they had spent in
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
177
Scandinavia. Consequently I have not categorised them as ‘indigenous’ social
entrepreneurs, even if this could be appropriate in an accelerator recruiting
individuals who have only recently emigrated.
The distribution of the different categories in the three accelerators is portrayed
in table 4.3. Enterprise stage of development is also indicated, using the typology
developed by the Start-up Commons (2014). As noted earlier, their typology
consists of three over-reaching stages (pre-start-up, start-up and growth), each
of which is divided into smaller sub-stages. These sub-stages are numbered from
-2 to +3. This practitioner-oriented model of entrepreneurial stage is used
because it focuses primarily on the stages associated with nascent
entrepreneurship, in contrast to several more scholarly articles (for example: V.
L. Lewis & Churchill, 1983; Scott & Bruce, 1987). These latter articles are heavily
Name / Enterprise Acc. Provenance Cat. Status at start**
Barry / CellSun A1 Scandinavia V-E validation (1)
Alice / Goodlink A1 Scandinavia KI-E concepting (-1)
Andrew / C-Cure A1 Scandinavia* KI-E concepting (-1)
Edward / Goodlink A1 Scandinavia KI-E concepting (-1)
Gabriella / Brottle A1 Scandinavia* KI-E ideation (-2)
Catrin / Imbani A1 Western Europe CE-E concepting (-1)
Henrik / Garbage Garments A1 Scandinavia I-E commitment (0)
Isaac / MobiClin A2 East Africa V-I scaling (2)
Lewis / BioVolt A2 East Africa V-I commitment (0)
Miriam / Better Work A2 Scandinavia KI-E concepting (-1)
Heidi / Bottle Art A2 North America CE-E validation (1)
Nelson / Pistols to Ploughs A2 West Africa CE-I validation (1)
Peter / AfriPads A2 East Africa CE-I validation (1)
Steven / Bibl. Communitaires A2 Central Africa CE-I concepting (-1)
Jamal / AgriTech A2 Scandinavia* I-E ideation (-2)
Kenny / Afri-Text A2 West Africa I-I validation (1)
Thomas / TourFair A3 East Africa V-I validation (1)
Olga / Rough Diamonds A3 Western Europe KI-I commitment (0)
Patience / FairCare A3 East Africa KI-I commitment (0)
Rebecca / Spread IT A3 East Africa KI-I commitment (0)
Vinay / Sunpower A3 South Asia KI-I validation (1)
Zayd / Puretech A3 Middle East KI-I validation (1)
Willis / AfriChoc A3 West Africa CE-I validation (1)
Nadia / Femicharge A3 Western Europe I-E concepting (-1)
* Denotes an entrepreneur resident in Scandinavia who immigrated as an adult.
** Stage categories from Startup Commons (2014).
Table 4-3: The Booster entrepreneurs, showing categories and stage.
Jönköping International Business School
178
cited, but adopt a ‘life-cycle’ perspective that glosses over the sub-stages
associated with nascent entrepreneurship
77
. I am aware that other scholars also
discuss issues of entrepreneurial ‘stage’, but my main focus is on the learning of
nascent social entrepreneurs. I have therefore chosen a typology that reflects my
experience of the stages the Booster entrepreneurs were at and have chosen not to
engage in a discussion of the merits of different models. I am nevertheless aware
that my choice may be controversial, given the different perspectives adopted by
other scholars (Carter, Gartner, & Reynolds, 1996; Reynolds & Miller, 1992) –
and in view of suggestions that ventures do not necessarily progress through
these stages in a linear fashion (Bhave, 1994). It is also worth pointing out that
few discussions of stage appear able to adequately cope with the ‘sideways’ mode
of development discussed later on in this study. That is: the establishment by a
non-profit organisation, of a branch of the enterprise that operates in a more
business-like manner.
In the following sections I describe four social entrepreneurs’ experiences of the
Booster accelerator in more detail. These descriptions reflect the ‘broad brush’ of
my over-riding research purpose (to ‘explore the learning of social entrepreneurs in
accelerator programmes’). Naturally, the full diversity of experiences described by the
twenty-three social entrepreneurs who participated in the three Booster
accelerators, cannot be captured within the confines of this dissertation. For this
reason the four individuals are chosen as ‘exemplars’ of the four categories
described above (Benner, 1994). Furthermore, complete data is not yet available
for the social entrepreneurs who participated in the third accelerator (these
individuals have not yet completed the one-year follow-up questionnaire).
Consequently, only individuals from the first and second accelerators have been
chosen for in-depth analysis – as I am able to tell their stories ‘from beginning to
end’.
Entrepreneurs’ experiences within each category vary to a certain extent, but my
analysis suggests that there is more to unite the entrepreneurs in each category
than there is to distinguish them from one another. In chapter five the
experiences of the remaining twenty-one entrepreneurs are at times referred to
as the findings of the study are discussed in more detail. However, the following
section and chapter five have different purposes. In the following paragraphs I
provide the reader with an impression of the ‘whole’ experience of the
entrepreneur. In keeping with the ambitions of qualitative research, I try to
provide the reader with a ‘rich’ account of how the participation of a social
entrepreneur in an accelerator affects their learning. In this section my intention
is to provide the reader with four views of the ‘forest’ (the ‘whole’ experience of
the entrepreneur) – before moving on in chapter five, to examine individual
‘trees’ (particular aspects of this experience). In my discussion of these latter
77
For example: Scott and Bruce (1987) suggest that ’survival’ immediately follows ’inception’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
179
aspects I expand my discussion and draw on the testimony of the entire group
of social entrepreneurs.
Each of the four case-studies is divided into five sections. In the first section I
describe the entrepreneur’s background and personality, before moving on to
describe their expectations of the accelerator as discussed at the beginning of the
programme and in subsequent interviews. A short description of the
entrepreneur’s venture is also provided. These three sections roughly equate to
the two components ‘the entrepreneur’ and ‘intent’ in my synthesis of the
literature in chapter two (see figure 4.2). The ‘intentions’ part of the section also
reflects the concerns of my first research question (‘In which ways is the learning
of social entrepreneurs in accelerators influenced by their experiences and
intentions prior to entering the programme?’) Naturally however, the social
venture itself embodies something of the long-term intent of the entrepreneur,
while their ‘expectations’ capture part of their short-term intent with regards to
their participation in the accelerator.
The section ‘experiencing the accelerator’ describes the experience of the
entrepreneur during their eight weeks in the programme. In this section it is
hoped that the reader will begin to get a ‘feel’ for the answers to research
questions two and three, even if these are not explicitly addressed until chapter
five. Consequently, in this section the interaction of the entrepreneur with their
mentor, accelerator staff, external speakers (coaches) and peers is described.
Participants’ experiences of the accelerator material structure (for example: time,
space, activities and assignments) are also portrayed at this point. This content
roughly matches the ‘Immersion in the learning process’ part of the diagram. The
fifth section (‘after the accelerator’) describes the development of entrepreneurs’
ventures after the programme and their subsequent comments on the
contribution of the accelerator to their development. In the diagram, this section
is intended to parallel the ‘new or expanded knowledge and capabilities’ and
‘long-term business outcomes’ parts of the diagram. It also provides the reader
with a feel for the answers to research question four, answers that will be
discussed in more detail in chapter five.
Jönköping International Business School
180
Intent
Learning-oriented
DESIGN
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE &
CAPABILITIES
Long-term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Creating
disjuncture
Transforming
disjuncture
Acting-
Feeli ng-
Thinking
Intent
The ENTREPRENEUR
Immersion in
Learning Process
Figure 4-3: A Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
181
4.4.1 The Veteran-Expatriate: Barry (A1)
4.4.1.1 Background and Personality
Barry is a 42 year old Danish businessman, whose father was an entrepreneur.
When Barry was eight years old his parents divorced and his father moved to
Angola, where he had been doing business for several years. Consequently, Barry
moved backwards and forwards between Angola and Denmark as he grew up
and calls Angola his second homeland. His father married an Angolan woman
and they had children, so that Barry has brothers and sisters in both countries.
Barry spent some time in the Danish navy after military service – as a reserve
officer, before studying civil engineering at university. He then moved into
consultancy and worked for several years with an international consultancy firm
focusing primarily on business development. Eventually, the part of the firm that
Barry worked in was bought by a multinational computer manufacturer. By that
time Barry had risen in the ranks and was responsible for the consulting
personnel in that part of the firm. In 2009, shortly after the global financial crisis,
the firm began to lay off personnel – yet wished to maintain contact with many
of their skilled employees. They therefore introduced a scheme whereby
employees were allowed to take a leave of absence while retaining a third of their
salary. At university Barry and several other students had discussed the possibility
of starting their own businesses – so when the chance of a paid leave-of-absence
came up, Barry seized it. As he puts it:
“[At university] many of us said that we were building our CVs in order to be
able to do something in the future. I realised that I was doing it so that I could
run my own business. And now I have the chance, so if I don’t do it now – and
I’ll soon be 40 – it will never happen.”
Barry describes his career as centring around three themes; criteria that he has
developed to guide his choices when offered new career opportunities.
Importantly he found that all three criteria were fulfilled by the type of startup
one of his friends suggested:
“I want to work internationally, I want to work with something that makes the
world a better place and, um... I want to be in charge. So when I started my
own business and my friends came and said ‘Why don’t you work with solar
energy in developing countries?’ – then I got everything at once.”
Barry describes these values as constant in his life since around the year 2000,
although he adds that ‘people’ are a fourth component that he adds to the
equation nowadays:
Jönköping International Business School
182
“It’s important for me to work with people. Regardless of whether or not they
are my employees or my colleagues – or if I make life better for people. So
that’s a fourth component.”
Unsurprisingly considering his background, Barry was one of the most
experienced entrepreneurs in the first accelerator, a characteristic mirrored by his
rating by the global computer firm in 2005, as having “strong leadership
potential” (the highest rating). Despite his obvious capacity he was very ‘low key’
in his behaviour; displaying a helpfulness, curiosity and an openness to new ideas
that some of the more experienced entrepreneurs in the second accelerator (for
example: Isaac and Lewis) appeared to lack. This humility and willingness to learn
from others was displayed by Barry in many different contexts. Speaking at an
Innovations against Poverty conference several months after the accelerator, Barry
described his learning rationale:
“Others have done it before, learn from them [...] One way of working may not
work elsewhere; you have to try, try, try...”
“It might be the person sitting next to you on the bus who can help you most at
the moment, out of all the people in the world – and if you’re not open to that
and initiate a conversation, you’re sure to miss a lot of opportunities.”
Despite his openness to new ideas, it is important not to mistake Barry’s
unpresuming attitude for a lack of direction or enthusiasm. Barry is passionate
about what he does and contrasts his feelings while doing his old job with his
feelings today:
Duncan (follow up question after Barry described his ‘getting quite
comfortable’ and lacking passion at his old employer): “So you have that
passion now?”
“Yes! Yes! Yes! It’s like I’m living in a story tale. I’m living for a goal [...] I often
describe it as if there is a magnet in the future, pulling me. Um... I’m on the
way towards a goal... and I’m convinced that it’s a good goal.”
4.4.1.2 The Venture
The passion that Barry described in the first interview I conducted with him (in
week three of the accelerator) centred on his vision of bringing electrical power
to rural areas in Africa. After leaving the computer corporation, Barry began
searching for an idea around which to develop his venture. One of his friends
suggested that solar power was an exciting possibility. Building upon his
familiarity with sub-Saharan Africa, Barry began to develop this idea. The process
that led from his friend’s suggestion to the final business idea is unclear, but after
several months Barry had a clear idea of what he wanted to do. He wanted to
develop a business that would help entrepreneurs in the rural areas of Africa to
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
183
earn a living by charging their neighbours’ cell phones using solar power. His
ambition is to have 250 000 African entrepreneurs using his innovation.
Barry discussed his ambition with his friend (who unsurprisingly had come up
with the idea, because he owns a solar power manufacturing facility). Without
Barry asking the firm to do so, the firm then developed ten prototype solar
chargers for Barry to test in the field. Here the contribution of Barry’s experience
is clear:
“Um, that [to say he did it without me asking] isn’t altogether true... I requested
it without saying so. I planted the idea with the right person who I knew would
do something with it.”
This informal partnership drastically reduced Barry’s development costs, the
importance of which should not be underestimated. I interviewed an
entrepreneur a few months before Barry, who was also developing a portable
solar charging system – and one of their greatest challenges was the financing of
the technological development of their product.
Barry describes the field testing of the product in deceivingly simple terms:
describing in a few sentences the process of travelling to Angola, testing the
prototypes and receiving a positive response. This positive response and Barry’s
partnership with the solar manufacturing firm made it easier for Barry to take a
further step in developing his venture and attracting finance. Assisted by the
manufacturer, Barry applied for funding from Sida’s Innovations against Poverty
programme and was awarded a grant of $75 000 USD. The grant was conditional
on Barry matching the grant with other investment, which was a key concern as
he entered the accelerator in the spring of 2012
78
. Nonetheless, it had enabled
Barry to make some progress on is startup prior to entering the accelerator. On
entering the programme Barry’s startup had already received funding from his
step-mother in Angola and a lawyer friend – and he was employing a consultant
in Angola and a student in Denmark on a part-time basis.
4.4.1.3 Expectations
Prior to the accelerator in 2012, Barry participated in a course for nascent
entrepreneurs in 2009. However, after his contact with Sida in 2010, he was put
in touch with NSE and became a member. Later, as NSE began to plan the first
accelerator, Booster manager Denise asked him if he would like to participate.
Barry reasoned that although he expected the accelerator to be similar to the 2009
course, time had passed and he felt that it would be healthy to be exposed to a
“critical evaluation”. However, although Barry describes his expectations of the
78
Barry was able to raise some finance after the accelerator, but is unclear about whether he was able
to raise enough money to entirely match the Sida grant, or only part of this amount.
Jönköping International Business School
184
accelerator as including “marketing to investors, networking, sourcing
investment”; in both his application and subsequent interviews he emphasizes
inspiration as a primary motivation (on the application form he wrote “to provide
inspiration” first on his list of expectations).
“to hear what other entrepreneurs are up to and to be inspired... to get a little
energy”
In addition to inspiration, an expanded network and contact with investors; Barry
also identified advice, coaching and “experience-based knowledge” as his
expectations of the accelerator. In his interview at the beginning of the
accelerator Barry developed his reason for participating in more detail. He
described his experience of the long process of launching a venture being
detrimental to his critical thinking, with the pressure of trying to raise investment
leading him into a pattern of just attempting to complete what he had planned
to do. Consequently he felt a need to have a critical look at his venture once again
– and to set aside the time to do this.
4.4.1.4 Experiencing the Accelerator
Barry was one of the entrepreneurs who was willing to talk at length about his
experiences of the accelerator and his account makes for interesting reading.
Early in the accelerator it was clear that his participation was having an
unexpected impact and that he appreciated the programme’s inspirational
speakers for an unusual reason.
“It wasn’t conscious, but I notice now when I’m sitting on this course, that
simply by being quiet and just having a paper and pen in front of me and
somebody talking about something. So... there are parts of my brain that are
otherwise far too inactive that relax and kind of free themselves.”
“It’s a bit like... sitting in a lecture, it’s not just that if it’s boring I think of
something else, it’s almost the opposite. It has to be inspiring, because if it’s
boring I begin to think of my to-do list and so on. Um, but if it’s inspiring then...
then I start getting creative thoughts about entirely different things. It’s as if...
yeah, my brain relaxes and... ‘Yes, that was the way I planned to do that –
that was stupid. Do it this way!’ – and in that way I put things together. And
that isn’t conscious, it wasn’t the reason I’m on this programme.”
Barry stands out from many of the other entrepreneurs on the accelerator
because of his emphasis of the importance of attaining social impact with
financial sustainability. As with many of the accelerator participants he prefers to
describe himself as an entrepreneur, rather than a social entrepreneur – but he
had clearly thought through the financial side of his venture more than many of
the others – who had often focused primarily on their social impact. For them
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
185
the exercise in thinking through the financial sustainability of their ventures was
new, while Barry described it as the “foundation” of his work on his startup up
to that point. Nonetheless, Barry did not react negatively to this, but found the
exposure to others’ ideas interesting and inspiring:
“It’s really exciting to meet these people who haven’t thought about that at all
previously”.
“Open source... and stuff like that... it’s not social... entrepreneurship, social
work - that we do things for each other without getting paid. Um, it’s almost
more social entrepreneurship than what I’m doing. [...] They’ve managed to
find a model where nobody gets paid and still they survive... it’s pretty
amazing!”
Despite his appreciation of the new ideas and inspiration generated by the
accelerator, as the programme developed it became increasingly clear that Barry
was already familiar with many of the concepts and skills covered by the
accelerator. His venture was one of the few startups in A1 already in a position
to scale up and he commented that in terms of product/service-related ideas, he
was only able to ‘borrow’ ideas from one of the other ventures (Catrin’s cross-
border, SMS-based payment service). Halfway through the accelerator Barry was
already aware of the mismatch and commented:
“I have come so far with my business that many activities are not very
valuable. However, they sometimes give me new ideas and activities that
develop practical skills - like yesterday’s theatre session with Enoch, which
was great and very rewarding”.
As noted earlier, Barry appeared to be unusually aware of his own patterns of
thinking and the way in which the structure of the accelerator supported or
restricted his learning. For example: he reflected on why he found the session
with Enoch rewarding.
“It was good because it was a break, we used a different part of our brain.”
Despite Barry’s experience, he came away from the accelerator with more than
just inspiration and a few new ideas for his venture (for example: “a discount
coupon using a texting service”). From a more strategic, long-term perspective
Barry described how he had learned the importance of coordinated
communication during the accelerator. This learning took place as a result of the
accelerator’s ‘critical assessment’ of each aspect of his venture, which was one of
the reasons he gave for wanting to participate.
“I realised that I can’t do crowd-sourcing because my website doesn’t tell the
story I’m passionate about”.
Jönköping International Business School
186
As was the case with many of the entrepreneurs in the first accelerator, Barry
felt that there were too many seminars and too little time set aside for individual
work. In the final evaluation he suggested that the programme be radically
reduced to one full day of coaching and lectures. However, he emphasized the
need to retain the ‘inspirational’ function of the accelerator (“one inspirational
speaker each week”). He also recommended that the accelerator take on some of
the ideas from the startup course he had taken previously. He particularly
emphasized the need for entrepreneurs to be given clear tasks each week – and
the need for a single ‘head teacher’ to place demands on participants and follow
up on their assignments. Barry also questioned the recruitment process of the
first accelerator, suggesting that in the future accelerator managers needed to first
ask themselves what the goal of the programme was. Based on this understanding
he suggested that they should subsequently ask which of the applicants they
could develop during the accelerator, to attain that goal.
An interesting phenomenon that emerged as Barry participated in the accelerator
was a behaviour that I refer to as ‘piggy-backing’. Barry was in many ways more
experienced than the other entrepreneurs and often appeared to make a greater
contribution (in terms of feedback and advice) to the other entrepreneurs’
ventures, than they did to his. Barry did not appear to object to this imbalance
and other entrepreneurs were appreciative of it. Gabriella (KI-E) appeared to be
the entrepreneur who benefitted most from Barry’s willingness to ‘piggy-back’.
Her relation to Barry after the accelerator underlines the idea that the
phenomenon involved not only advice, but also the sharing of networks and
practice. Twelve months after the accelerator, Gabriella accompanied Barry on a
trip to Africa and by doing so was able to meet several of his local contacts –
who naturally provided her with useful information and advice about how to
adapt her product to their context. It also appears that during the trip Barry
‘modelled’ entrepreneurship in the African context for Gabriella – as she was
able to follow first-hand the process that he engaged in, as he sought to develop
his venture in the Angolan market.
4.4.1.5 After the Accelerator
One year on after the accelerator a lot had happened in Barry’s venture. He
employed seven people: himself fulltime, one other person half-time in Sweden,
two fulltime employees and three agents (receiving either a wage or sales
commission) in Angola. He described the first year as a tough one and one that
he described as being almost totally devoted to sourcing investment. He
confessed that he thought it would be easier to find investors than it proved to
be – and also commented on the difficulties associated with the delay between
coming to an agreement with an investor and actually receiving the investment.
“I mean, the agreement and the milestones and stuff were written based on an
agreement in August and my belief that the money would be available in
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
187
September [...] those bits don’t change and what we are supposed to achieve
– but I haven’t had any money available during the first two months of that
plan
79
.”
Barry commented that although he was now trying to devote all his energy to
selling his product, it was difficult to focus on sales when investment wasn’t
finalised and he felt uncertain as to how long the money would last – not least
when he had employees to consider. He also repeated his comment made during
the accelerator, that the challenge of being involved in a startup has a cost at
home in terms of reduced income and worry about the future. One year after A1
he described visiting Angola one week each month and being in daily contact
with his staff. However, he commented that the pressure got worse as his venture
developed:
“In the beginning I had the advantage of being able to be at home while I
worked with business development – the stage most of the others were at
during Booster – that stage isn’t a problem. But later [...] the family doesn’t get
much out of it, but rather the opposite: I don’t contribute with money, I don’t
contribute with time and I’m not present
80
– so it gets really unbalanced.”
Despite having had a tough first year all, it was clear from Barry’s account that
he was making progress not only with regards to selling his product, but also in
terms of creating a strong organisational culture. Barry’s explained that his
philosophy has been one of not so much writing down organisational values, but
rather living them out. He then wryly described how he came under pressure
from investors to change his franchise model from one of renting the product to
entrepreneurs (entailing a lower risk for the African entrepreneur) to one of
selling them the product. When he brought this suggestion up with his staff in
Africa they questioned the suggestion immediately:
“ ‘Yes... but we’re a socially responsible company!’ – and then they began to
find alternatives themselves... so that, yes - the sales model should sponsor
the rental model.”
When asked about the long-term impact of the accelerator, Barry commented
first of all that the programme helped him develop a network among social
entrepreneurs. It also emerged that it was the accelerator that first led him to
understand himself as a social entrepreneur:
79
The interview took place at the beginning of November 2011.
80
The context of the interview makes it clear that Barry is referring to his thoughts being elsewhere,
even when he is physically present.
Jönköping International Business School
188
“I can’t say that it was only at Booster, but in principle it happened about then;
it was the first time I realised that some people call what I do ‘social
entrepreneurship’ .”
Barry repeated what he said in earlier interviews, about the value of the network,
but is a little more specific. He suggests that the value of the network (he appears
to be referring to the cohort at this stage) lies in the different competencies
possessed by the entrepreneurs and the stimulation he experienced while working
with different business ideas – “that was very exciting”. He commented that he
has begun to coach Gabriella and that he will be discussing the “digital bits” of
his operation with another participant, Edward. He also says that he would like
to develop several other contacts he made during Booster – in particular several of
the visiting speakers. Barry goes on to discuss his own learning and says that he
has taken on board some of the accelerator content, and some of the ideas that
surfaced there:
“I still have an idea about conducting a crowd-sourcing campaign and some
other things – so it actually gave quite a lot.”
Despite his positive attitude to the accelerator, Barry is still convinced that he
had achieved too much in his venture, when he entered the accelerator and that
the accelerator failed to provide him with two key areas of knowledge, namely
contacts with investors and coaching in sales:
(Duncan: Did the content of the accelerator match your needs at the time?)
“No, it didn’t. I had come too far [...] I was after the final destination which we
never arrived at, that we would finalise and become ready to meet investors
and get in contact with a larger network of investors.”
“I don’t think I really needed much help to develop. I just needed help to meet
investors... Perhaps what I needed, what I would have found useful was sales
– coaching on sales [...] how to commercialise the market as fast as possible.”
Despite these observations, Barry denied my suggestion that he might have
found it frustrating to participate in an accelerator with entrepreneurs who had
made less progress than him:
“No, I didn’t feel that. I felt that it was stimulating.”
He also commented that he appreciated the fact that two of the participants were
focusing on Africa and developing countries. However, when questioned about
whether it was better to recruit entrepreneurs from either the same industry or
the same stage of development, Barry was adamant that it is more important that
entrepreneurs be at the same stage:
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
189
“I think it’s good if they’re at the same stage. If someone is into the
commercialising phase and someone else is into the... in theory they can
learn from one another, but then you’ll be completely uninterested in each
other’s problems.”
(Duncan: “So they don’t need to be from the same industry, but rather at the
same stage?”)
“Exactly […] they shouldn’t be from the same industry.”
In previous interviews Barry had made little comment on his relation to the
mentor he was allocated during the accelerator. I questioned him more about this
and he said that he hadn’t met his mentor since concluding the programme, but
that they were planning to eat lunch together soon. When I asked what his
mentor contributed, Barry responded dryly “Not much so far” – and after further
discussion he acknowledged that his mentor was more an “acquaintance” at the
moment, even if he had a feeling now and again that the relationship might lead
to something useful. Barry suggested that time is always a constraining factor for
entrepreneurs, even when it comes to relationships:
“As an entrepreneur or a businessman... the less time you have the greater
your dependence on it ‘clicking’ when you meet different people. And it
[Barry’s relationship with his mentor] hasn’t really clicked I think”.
Despite Barry’s misgivings about the mentor allocated to him by Booster, he was
still enthusiastic about the idea of a mentor:
“At the moment it would be good to have a mentor who is great at building a
sales organisation.”
One year after leaving the accelerator though, Barry received a lot of advice from
his father-in-law (“an entrepreneur from [location], he knows what it takes”) and
his stepmother in Angola who constantly encouraged him and came up with new
ideas. He had difficulty however, in imagining how NSE could contribute to the
development of his venture – but was keen to remain in the network (“because
I find it inspiring”).
Two years after the accelerator, Barry went back to ‘traditional’ employment,
albeit with a focus on emerging markets, He now runs his startup as a ‘part-time’
operation and on his LinkedIn page the duration of his solar energy startup is
listed as “4 years, 10 months’).
Jönköping International Business School
190
4.4.2 The Knowledgeable Improviser: Marie (A2)
4.4.2.1 Background and Personality
Marie is a 51 year-old entrepreneur from Norway – which, given her focus on
southern Asia implies that she is ‘expatriate’ (KI-E). Married with two children,
she has now settled in Norway after many years living abroad. Initially trained in
graphic design and journalism, Marie’s first major job was at a photo agency – a
job that she held for seven years, while running her own photo-journalism
company on the side. During this time she became increasingly interested in
human rights and CSR issues – and in particular, the rights of garment workers
in southern Asia
81
and in China. This interest led to her successful application to
work for the press and communications department of a major European
garment wholesaler, focusing primarily on the production of materials relating to
garment suppliers in China and southern Asia. Five years later Marie had moved
from documenting the activities of garment suppliers and their employees, to
living in southern Asia and managing rights-related projects for the garment
wholesaler. In 2011 Marie moved into the corporation’s CSR department as
project manager for a series of initiatives that centred on the improvement of
workers’ conditions in suppliers’ factories. These initiatives included the
production of manuals and films on worker safety. She then left the company
upon her return to Norway in 2012, and began working independently as a CSR
consultant and taking several university courses in the subject.
As a person, Marie appears forthright, open to new experiences and engaged. In
her CV she describes herself as an organiser and implementer: “creative, curious
and always willing to learn”. She displays many of these characteristics as she
participates in the accelerator and is clearly a ‘people’ person rather than a loner:
going out of her way to help resolve conflict or to facilitate the progress of other
entrepreneurs.
4.4.2.2 The Venture
Marie’s experience in southern Asia had made her aware of the need for
developing safety procedures and an awareness of workers’ rights among the
smaller garment factories that are often ignored by the CSR programmes of large
corporations. Back in Norway she toyed with the idea of developing a ‘hub’ for
worker safety and workers’ rights, that would bring together all of the major
stakeholder groups in the garment industry: “workers, suppliers, buyers,
industrial organisations, networks, NGOs and governments”. By providing a
platform around which stakeholders could engage in dialogue, Marie’s ambition
was to:
81
I.e.: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
191
“use business as a driving force with cooperation [...] and transparency as
core tools. I would like the hub to grow [...] to change attitudes and actions
amongst all, from workers to managers to prime ministers”
Marie’s startup was consequently at the idea stage when she participated in the
accelerator and her intention was to develop a platform for stakeholder dialogue.
Initially in a single country in southern Asia; but with time, in several of the main
garment-producing nations in the region.
4.4.2.3 Expectations
Marie’s expectations of the accelerator centred very much on moving her startup
from idea to action. In the pre-accelerator survey she writes of developing an
action plan and of creating “systems for the [hub/stakeholder] collaboration. It
is clear that she expects to get professional advice while at the accelerator,
particularly on the practical, financial and legal aspects of launching her venture
– and she is keen to sharpen her presentation skills. Nevertheless, the interviews
made it clear that Marie was particularly concerned about preparing a business
plan and a concrete description of her product offering – something she could
show to potential customers as a basis for their ‘coming on board’.
Marie was one of the few entrepreneurs who included her own contribution to
the group under the ‘expectations’ heading, writing that she looked forward to
sharing her own knowledge and experience with the other participants.
4.4.2.4 Experiencing the Accelerator
‘Intensity’ was a theme that characterised much of Marie’s interview halfway
through the accelerator, both in terms of value and experience. Very much aware
of the demands made on her time by her consultancy work, Marie appreciated
the focus demanded by the accelerator.
“I feel it’s good to work intensively, reserving time and working very intensively
with this – because I get new [consultancy] tasks all the time and it’s easy for
that to take over, as I need to make a living”.
Nevertheless, halfway through the accelerator Marie was feeling both pressure
and frustration. Clearly she was learning a lot and enjoying the process, but she
also commented on the difficulty of developing everything that she wished to –
and noted that she had been unable to accomplish many of the things she had
hoped to. For example:
“I really want to finish preparing a business plan that I feel good about, but I
don’t have enough time, because there so much going on all the time. But I
learn a lot every day.”
Jönköping International Business School
192
Despite this frustration Marie expressed her appreciation for the working
environment at SocNet. She talked about the value of meeting different people
there, both during the week and at events:
“It’s an unbelievably good environment to work in. I’d love to stay on”.
Marie also noted the contribution of the accelerator to expanding her network
and emphasized the value of meeting people who were interested in her venture.
She commented on the questions interested people ask who are involved in social
entrepreneurship and that stimulate her thinking. For example:
“A question I get since I started the accelerator, which I’m not sure I’ve had
before is that people say: ‘Oh great! How nice to hear about your project –
and what do you need?’ And I reply, ‘What I need? Well you know...’ That’s a
fantastic question and I’ve really taken it on board.”
With regards to her expanded network, Marie expressed its value in terms of the
future: knowing who to contact for advice and being able to contact them (on
the basis of having been introduced to them at the accelerator). Her enthusiasm
for the accelerator’s contribution to her network was undiminished at the end of
the programme, when she mentioned for example: that she had already scheduled
a follow-up appointment with one of the speakers. Marie also pointed out that
although the accelerator was structured in a manner that implied that participants
should get practical coaching from the visiting speakers and more strategic
coaching from their mentors, it was also possible for entrepreneurs to get extra
feedback by chatting to one anothers’ mentors.
Marie was provided with a mentor with a background in the textiles industry and
was positive about the feedback he provided about her startup, particularly in
relation to issues she was having trouble resolving. For example: the question of
how to structure her ‘hub’. She commented on the usefulness of having a mentor
who complemented her weaknesses, rather than reinforced her strengths (“boxes
and systems and finance” vs. “ideas and creativity”). Despite her mentor’s
structured personality, Marie described the mentoring process as dynamic in
nature with their dialogue based on relevance rather than any pre-structured
process. Her mentor would occasionally give her themes to address that related
to key aspects of her startup, such as business model and finance – often by
asking her questions. At other times he would introduce her to entrepreneurs
with similar business models or ideas and encourage her to ask about their
solutions, or their evaluations of her startup idea. On another occasion he
accompanied Marie on a visit to a fashion company, as a way of ‘testing’ her
product on a potential customer. Marie summarised her mentor’s contribution
as that of a ‘sounding-board’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
193
With regards to the contribution of the visiting speakers, Marie commented that
one of the accelerator’s contributions had to do with helping her with the parts
of the startup process that she was less familiar with:
“A lot of things are fairly concrete: the idea and the tools and so on – I have
that kind of knowledge – but it's everything else round about that needs to fall
into place.”
At the end of the accelerator Marie underlined the importance of being able to
discuss her startup with “so many professional people”. She associated these
discussions with the development of her idea to a workable proposal and
commented that this interaction increased her chances of success:
“I think the chances of this thing succeeding are higher and that it [the
accelerator] has in fact accelerated”.
Marie suggested that different speakers made contributions of a very different
nature. In other words, speakers not only differed in terms of the topics they
covered, but also in the role played by their visit. Marie noted for example: that
some of the speakers were very practical and ‘business-oriented’, while other
instead made more of an ‘emotional’ contribution. Marie even went so far as to
suggest that these more inspirational speakers “tore down” some of the overly
rational structures built up by the more practical visitors. This contribution was
clearly important in terms of helping Marie get through the intensive accelerator
process:
“Some of the speakers have been very inspiring and that has given me hope
and strength to move on - because it’s really heavy to get this off of the
ground”
Marie, as noted earlier, had a wealth of experience to draw upon during the
accelerator and often reflected on the design of the programme and on the
ongoing process. In the interview at the end of the accelerator for example: she
pointed out the different states of preparedness among visiting speakers. She
questioned whether the voluntary nature of their engagement might be linked to
some of them appearing unprepared for their interaction with the entrepreneurs.
In particular she complained about the frequent need for participants to spend
valuable seminar time on acquainting visitors with their ventures. Marie also
suggested that an ‘overload’ of seminars makes it difficult for entrepreneurs to
make progress on their ventures:
“It just doesn’t work to sit for an hour or two between lectures and get
something useful done”.
Jönköping International Business School
194
Marie also suggested that the accelerator be designed with a focus on two stages.
A ‘basic’ stage during the first three weeks, to provide participants with
foundational business knowledge – and a ‘specialist’ stage in the remainder of the
programme, to enable entrepreneurs to focus on their particular needs. She
suggested that this ‘individualised’ focus is needed in order to address differences
between participating ventures. For example, she suggested that some ventures
were more in need of an expanded network than others – and that several of the
entrepreneurs felt frustrated, because they had been unable to make as many
connections as they had envisaged. Marie also acknowledged that she felt
frustrated at not being able to make as much progress during the accelerator, as
she had hoped to.
As noted in a previous section, conflict was a recurring theme in the second
accelerator and Marie believed that the design of the accelerator was a factor in
the group’s problems. She suggested that accelerator managers wrongly assumed
that it was necessary to take pressure off of the group in order to create a feeling
of ‘togetherness’. Marie suggested instead that the accelerator be designed in a
manner that enhanced cohesion ‘under pressure’. For example: by getting on with
the development of entrepreneurs’ ventures at an early stage and enhancing the
group process during this development – and also by scheduling and structuring
entrepreneurs contributions to one another’s ventures. Marie was clearly affected
by the tension within the group and her frustration over both the design of the
accelerator and some of the other entrepreneurs’ attitudes:
“Something that has created a lot of pressure and stress, is that... um, people
haven’t, um... given of what I feel they should have given.”
“It’s been hard, because these guys have done whatever they wanted to and
come and gone as they wished, and sat and worked with other things during
seminars. Everyone’s had their laptops open and I get so unbelievably
stressed by that, so I had to go and sit on a corner so I couldn’t see their
screens as they sat and Facebooked and Googled.”
“It was a bit like... we should support each other and help one other and so
on. And I felt that it became really individualised after... after week one it just
went ‘swish!’ and we splintered and then no one seemed to want to help
anyone else.”
“So we have not made use of one another’s’ capacities... at all”.
When asked if the problems stemmed from the accelerator or from the group,
Marie felt unsure and said that the responsibility probably rested with both the
group and the accelerator managers. She noted for example, that entrepreneurs
were at different stages in the development process. She also questioned whether
some of the ventures that participated in the accelerator were ‘realistic’ –
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
195
wondering therefore, with what motives the entrepreneurs running them had
come to Scandinavia. She suggested that the intensity of the programme
accentuated the tensions in the group and that participants had very different
ways of handling the assignments given them by managers. Marie described how
she was at time “disobedient” and neglected some of the assignments, preferring
to prioritise tasks that she felt were important. She suggested however, that other
participants felt they had to complete all of the tasks assigned to them – while
others might not have done any assignments at all. Marie was particularly critical
of the role taken on by the accelerator managers, which she felt developed into
a ‘mothering’ role (ensuring that all of the practical challenges of the accelerator
were solved), rather than that of a leader:
“She should have been our boss! A boss shouldn’t have to take care of pots
and sheets and buying suits for the lads, just because they... didn’t bring a suit
with them.”
“I think that’s quite a strong critique of the programme - that the person
leading the programme has to be available, and has to be a leader and has to
have time for that. Someone else has to do deal with the administration.”
Despite her critique of some of the aspects of the accelerator, Marie noted that
she had been able to build productive relationships with most of the participants.
Halfway through the accelerator Marie she described interacting with Heidi,
Steven, Jamal, Kenny, Peter and Nelson. She noted that being at the same stage
made it easier for her to interact with these individuals She contrasted their stage
of development with that of Isaac and Lewis, whose ventures she felt she had
progressed too far to be of relevance to her. However, she also pointed out that
some of her interaction with Heidi was based on the simple fact that they were
both women and furthermore, the only “Westerners” in the programme.
Marie distinguished between individuals from who she felt she received as much
as she gave (Heidi and Jamal) – and participants who she primarily gave advice
to (Steven, Kenny, Peter and Nelson). By the end of the accelerator Marie only
described Heidi as retaining the ‘give and take’ role she had hoped to see in the
accelerator, while identifying Kenny and Steven (and to a lesser extent Peter) as
participants she continued to give feedback to on more of a one-way basis. Her
description of the peer-learning process suggests that from her perspective,
entrepreneurs ‘earned’ the right to feedback from one another:
“Of the others [apart from Heidi] I felt that Kenny and um, Steven are the ones
who have shown most enthusiasm and who have wanted to work a little
harder than I feel the others have done. So I think it became a little natural
that it felt fun to help them, because they were positive and wanted it
[feedback].”
Jönköping International Business School
196
Marie’s account of her relationship with her fellow entrepreneurs also made it
clear that individuals not only could earn the right to feedback, but could also
‘burn their bridges’. An example of the latter was Nelson’s follow-up of Marie’s
provision of a contact at the Red Cross, which resulted in an embarrassing letter
to them. This made her hesitant to provide additional support.
The above paragraphs suggest that the ‘culture’ or ‘working climate’ of an
accelerator has a significant effect on entrepreneurs’ experiences and learning.
Clearly, not all of their experiences were positive and had a positive impact on
learning. Nonetheless, Marie describes several instances of positive peer pressure
– where she behaved in a more entrepreneurial manner than she would normally
have done. One example is her response to my question about whether she
wished her firm to remain anonymous in my writing up of the study:
“I think you need to stick your chin out more, even if you haven’t got a finished
concept. Otherwise you shouldn’t really be here, at the accelerator. I think I
stick my chin out a little more!” (laugh)
(Duncan): “Has that happened here? Is that what you mean?”
“Yes, I think so.”
(Duncan): “Why? How did that happen?”
“Well, everybody else is so... (laugh) Everyone else has their name on the
ideas that they’re working on, so I feel ‘What the hell, of course!’ Then I guess
we’ll have to see if it works or not, but you have to take a chance... and I really
think that that’s the kind of spirit there is around here!”
Several months after the accelerator Marie referred back to another experience
of ‘sticking her chin out’, namely the entrepreneurs’ regular presentations of their
businesses (“those horrible little pitches”). She commented that with perspective,
she believes that the experience was useful – as she now feels more confident in
giving presentations.
4.4.2.5 After the Accelerator
Five months on from the accelerator a lot of things had happened in Marie’s
startup. Marie described how after the accelerator she continued to talk to others
and to potential customers about her ideas – and continued to receive positive
feedback. Nevertheless, in her own mind the idea did not ‘take off’, as she puts
it and she decided to take some time off from thinking about the new venture
over the summer. Stimulated by a comment made by one of her stakeholders
(“great idea, but what’s next?”), Marie decided to develop her idea further and to
build on her previous experience of awareness-raising and film-making. The
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
197
product that resulted from this process continues to focus on garment workers
and the smaller factories in which they work. However, rather than attempting
to launch a ‘hub’, Marie is now focusing on creating an interactive series of
training films and games, that can be viewed by workers on computers and
smartphones. This development resulted in a change in the company name and
Marie’s confidence in the new idea has led to the registration of the firm as a
limited company.
During the accelerator Marie had attempted to recruit an acquaintance as a
business partner, but had failed. However, upon seeing the new concept, he
became enthusiastic and is now a partner in the business – providing financial
savvy to match Marie’s expertise in the industry and in media. Marie estimates
the initial impact of the new package to be far higher than that of her previous
film-based solutions
82
. By rolling out in China and southern Asia at the same
time, she expects to reach around one million workers in the first year. Marie
estimates that she needs three to five firms to purchase the solution for it to really
gain momentum. Since the accelerator she has been in dialogue with one of the
largest Norwegian hardware wholesalers. They are positive to the initiative and
prepared to fund its development. Marie therefore planned to roll out a first
version of the product during the autumn of 2014, with a more extensive launch
(and hopefully a larger number of committed customers) in the spring of 2015.
While the product is developed and launched the startup is being hosted by the
social business incubator, whose manager suggested Marie apply to the
accelerator.
When asked if the venture would have developed in the way that it has without
input from the accelerator; Marie suggests that it would have eventually arrived,
but probably not as quickly. Above all she underlines the role of the accelerator
in helping her understand that her idea would probably not work in its previous
form – and she points out that there is also a risk that she might have given up
instead:
“I might have come up with the idea anyway, but I think that... that these tools,
that I was given the possibility to work... that I worked intensively on this for
two months… I think was useful. It’s quite possible I would have given up
otherwise.”
Marie also pointed out that she feels much more positive about the accelerator
today than she did immediately afterwards:
82
In her previous job she was able to reach around 600 000 garment workers in a single country over a
six-year period.
Jönköping International Business School
198
“Now that I have a little distance to it, I feel that I got a lot more out of it than I
maybe felt to start with, when it had just finished – because then I was really
only very tired.”
Despite her subsequent positive impressions of the accelerator, Marie notes that
it is the expanded network provided by the accelerator and the speakers that
stand out, rather than her contacts with the other entrepreneurs. Marie says that
she still has occasional online contact with Heidi, Steven and Kenny – but that it
is really only with Heidi whom she shares startup oriented information.
Nevertheless, she emphasizes how important it was for her to find a partner. She
notes the useful role of the accelerator in providing expert advice and a sounding-
board for a limited period, but underlines its inability to compensate for the lack
of a partner in the long term.
4.4.3 The Confident Entrant: Steven (A2)
4.4.3.1 Background and Personality
Steven is a 41 year old entrepreneur who lives and works in Francophone Africa
(making him an ‘indigenous’ social entrepreneur). Thirteen years before
participating in the 2013 accelerator Steven founded his own non-governmental
organisation (NGO). The organisation was initially simply a campaign run by
university students that coincided with the celebration of the new millennium
and that focused on improving prison conditions. The campaign rapidly
expanded into an organisation that began to focus on the needs of vulnerable
children – in particular those orphaned by the HIV epidemic. Steven’s
engagement with children and poor communities in the region helped his
organisation gain the trust of both regional government and aid agencies (for
example: the Ministry of Social Affairs and UNICEF). Consequently, his
organisation frequently partnered with these actors – and received funding from
them – as it delivered support to vulnerable children. In his application to Booster,
Steven reported that his 2012 revenue stream amounted to just over $5 500 USD.
He writes in his application that he works fulltime and survives on a “stipend
(living expenses) from my social enterprise”, but in interviews he makes it clear
that this is not his only source of income:
“It is from the internet business
83
that I generate the funds to pay the rents of
the office, to pay the basic stuff, day-to-day basic operations, to pay utilities.”
Steven studied economics at university and in his first years of social engagement
referred to himself as “an economist... working on poverty alleviation”. He
83
In his application Steven describes his main source of income as “ICT related services (internet café)”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
199
describes the difficulty of finding a good ‘label’ for his occupation – and the
eventual solution he found:
“I was doing a lot of social work, but you see I’m not a social worker, I don’t
want to be described as a social worker. So finally I realised I was working as
a social entrepreneur... it fits me better.”
Steven is a quiet, self-effacing man with a warm smile. He is often quiet during
seminars and is slow to voice his opinions – perhaps because his trip to
Scandinavia was his first time outside of his own country. Initial impressions are
deceptive however and one-on-one conversations with Steven reveal another
side. He continues to be soft-spoken and humble – yet also appears alert, eager
to learn and focused. He seems to care deeply for the children and communities
with whom he interacts, and it emerges that he has managed an orphanage since
2010. Despite not having travelled abroad previously, it is interesting to note that
Steven’s network includes a North American professor who uses his venture as
an example of social entrepreneurship – and even bring students over to visit:
“She said: ‘This is a perfect example of social entrepreneur’, she’s always
quoting it.”
Several other of the African entrepreneurs participating in the accelerator share
this aspect of Steven’s experience – with both Peter and Nelson in regular contact
with universities in the United States.
Soon after the founding of Steven’s NGO, he conducted a field survey of the
needs of the communities among which he was working. As his NGO’s website
describes, the survey indicated that government educational programmes were
not reaching the most vulnerable children and that additional support was
needed:
“There are many children who still fall within the cracks and do not benefit
from the educational system [...] Scholarships are provided to pupils or
students mostly on the basis of merits and poor children who need education
and are not in school or not the intelligent pupils in their class are left out. This
creates an unfair system for promoting education for all children.”
In 2003 insights such as the above led Steven’s NGO to pay school fees for the
most vulnerable children and to provide them with core textbooks. Although the
NGO was subsequently involved in several other projects relating to HIV
education and an orphanage, the textbook initiative stuck in Steven’s mind and
eventually became a separate project. It was also the one he was attempting to
launch as he participated in Booster. In this study the textbook initiative is referred
to with the pseudonym Bibliothèques Communitaries (BC). The startup’s website
describes the initiative as a ”satellite library system” whose aim is to:
Jönköping International Business School
200
”ensure that children have books when they need them, especially orphans
and vulnerable children who are victims of education marginalization”
In order to achieve these goals the venture attempts to “enhance a book
distribution network” by using existing infrastructure to create library
environments, including: “community buildings, shipping cargo containers, or
just a cupboard in a room”.
4.4.3.2 Expectations
Steven describes his expectations of the accelerator in terms of “exposure”,
training and the opportunity to have his venture critically appraised by experts.
By “exposure” Steven refers to both the broadening of his own experience (it is
his first time abroad), but also to the publicising of his venture. As was the case
with several of the African entrepreneurs, the initial interview with Steven gives
the impression that he perceives Scandinavia to be a potential source of funding
– and that funding will be relatively easy to source if he can only publicise his
venture:
“We [Steven and his mentor] have other priorities... for example: we want to
have... I want to have the institution registered here […] and to also have a
bank account here. Because we don’t have this structure in place, a lot of our
efforts... many people will not be able to reach us, because the greatest
challenge for many people is how to make a contribution”.
Closely related to this expectation is Steven’s desire to understand how non-
African investors think:
“I wanted to have an understanding of the way of the international
community... I wanted to have an understanding of their understanding about
what we do.”
“I don’t really understand the attitude of investors; that is something I wish to
learn.”
It appears that initially at least, Steven sees the accelerator as a means of gaining
access to funding that he believes exists outside of his home country, but doesn’t
know how to access. However, he also appears to realise (perhaps as a result of
previous experience) that he is presently not in a position to communicate
effectively with international investors – and he hopes the accelerator will equip
him for this.
Despite his initial ‘funding’ orientation, Steven also describes several other
expectations that are linked to the quality of his venture and his capacity to run
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
201
it effectively. He seems to be aware of the dangers of working alone for too long
and of his need for training:
“I knew that so far I’ve been working alone without having the opportunity to
go out for some formal training [...] when I saw this opportunity, I said it would
be good for me to get out of the ditch with the pressure, get to an environment
where I will meet with professionals who can cross-examine objectively what I
do.”
As the above quote illustrates, Steven believes that his venture is vulnerable to
the limitations placed on his own thinking by the startup environment.
Limitations that he links not only to his restricted outlook (the “ditch”), but also
to the stress of initiating a new venture (the “pressure”). He appears to see the
need for not only a move to another environment, but also input from individuals
with startup-related expertise.
4.4.3.3 Experiencing the Accelerator
Echoing the accounts of his fellow entrepreneurs, Steven found the accelerator
an intense experience. He associated the intensity not only with the amount of
work involved, but also the sheer number of impressions generated by the
accelerator – and the fact that speakers at times had divergent opinions:
“At the same time some tutors conflict, because some coaches [...] bring one
aspect of your lecture and talk about it and another coach will come and say
something contrary to whatever that was said. And now we have to fight to
have a balance. Then we see the pressure and stress. It has been highly
stressful in this... for me in particular, because we have to deliver a plan by
the end and we have the obligation to do that.”
At times Steven expressed frustration over this diversity and lamented the lack
of someone with the ‘bigger picture’:
“We had several different coaches coming in, so there was no coach who
could have a... full control of your business plan from the beginning to the
end.”
Steven’s experience suggests that the stress experienced by entrepreneurs stems
from a complex interplay of factors. On the one hand the design of the
accelerator puts pressure on entrepreneurs to perform, by asking them to
complete a common set of assignments – including a business plan. However,
this component of the accelerator can compromise other areas of the accelerator,
such as the role of peer consultation. For example: when asked halfway through
the accelerator, whether there was too much interaction among the entrepreneurs
– or too little, Steven replied:
Jönköping International Business School
202
“We don’t have time for interaction.”
(Duncan): “You don’t have time?”
“We have time for work, which is programmed by NSE. And when we get
home we have to create time for ourselves to do our own homework, run our
own offices, respond to emails, understand what is happening... so we barely
create time for chat. It’s a very intensive exercise.”
“You can imagine: on Saturday we work in the house from... six a.m. to
midnight. Everybody’s on his computer, you work until you pass out, then you
go and... you lie down for a while, you get up and everybody’s quiet in his own
area.”
The above quotes underline the challenge of accelerating ventures already in
existence, or startups that are offshoots of existing organisations. Entrepreneurs
value the opportunity to spend dedicated time on developing their ventures, but
many of them are never entirely ‘free’ from the concerns associated with running
an ongoing small business or NGO.
Steven’s experience of the accelerator is particularly useful in providing insights
about the mentor’s role in the accelerator process, not least because his insights
became more nuanced as the accelerator progresses. Halfway through the
accelerator Steven describes his mentor as a role model, but also as someone who
puts pressure on him to make progress:
“So at the same time my mentor is on me... pressure!”
“So I like the guy, he’s practical. He’s a young man, very ambitious. Just by
talking and looking at the way he works I learn a lot, just from his lifestyle.”
(Duncan): “What do you mean when you... you said ‘just by looking at him’?”
“Yes, his position, his vision, his outlook. Like when we go to talk, he [talks]
about other very successful people and what made them to be successful. So
he takes you completely out of the classroom work and brings you into the
real world and uses real people for you to be able to see through the eyes of
these people.”
Steven’s comment suggests that mentors may perform an important bridging
function between the themes taught in seminars and their subsequent
application. Not least because he complains at the end of the accelerator, about
the overly academic nature of some of the content. As with many of the mentors,
Steven’s mentor maintains regular contact with him by email throughout the
accelerator, even if they have far fewer face-to-face meetings. Halfway through
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
203
the programme they had only managed two physical meetings (with a further one
planned for the day of the interview). Their online communication was however,
much more frequent:
“We share emails about five times a day [...] So I will write, he will read, he will
react immediately and he will give his comment, say: ‘Do it like this’. I will write
back and he’ll say: ‘Why don’t you think you can do it like this?’ [...] So when I
finally got it he said: ‘Great, you’ve got it.’ ”
Steven describes his interaction with his mentor as a process that resulted first of
all in a refining of several areas of his business. For example: simplifying and
reducing his marketing ‘message’ to create more impact. However, he also
describes a process whereby his mentor helped identify the next step in the
process:
“So we started from there and I’ve been able to come out with a clearer vision,
and now he said the next point was for me to prepare a brief introduction that
captures the entire concept in one pitch.”
Despite the role of the mentor in shaping the process and the venture, Steven’s
experience makes it clear that the process is co-created by both the mentor and
the entrepreneur. During the interview halfway through the accelerator Steven
describes his mentor’s plans, but also outlines his own objectives for the coming
meeting:
“Today I want us to look into how we can put in place a fund-raising strategy
[...] and then how we can also have a business plan for the business aspect,
because what I wrote was for the social aspect.”
The above quote illustrates not only the social entrepreneur’s attempts to shape
the accelerator process, but also the role of the accelerator in developing the
hybrid character of the venture. In Steven’s interviews he commented several
times on the value he gained from interacting with individuals without a
background in social enterprise. For example, he commented on the visit of a
speaker from the United Kingdom:
“I think he was objective... he was really objective, but the fact was he didn’t
have the mind of social enterprise. He saw it purely from a business
perspective. I think I learnt a lot from him in terms of running a company.”
Steven’s mentor also had a background in business, but as the accelerator
progressed Steven found this challenging and even felt uncertain about whether
it was appropriate to have someone without a background as a social
entrepreneur as a mentor:
Jönköping International Business School
204
“My mentor is more or less a very focused capitalist businessman, so he
doesn’t really have a strong background in social enterprise [...] and because
of that he doesn’t really understand the business.”
“He’ll give you other valuable information – on the tactical, managerial
information [...] which is really good. I think he should be brought in as one of
the coaches for... strategy management, how to manage your time – he’s
perfect at that. But when it comes to social enterprise he has not got the
background. Because of that [...] I had to do a lot of work by myself and it
gave me lots of pressure.”
It was also clear that Steven sometimes felt unsure as to how he should handle
the tensions between the for-profit and social logics. Should he take on board his
mentor’s advice or the ideas of some of the guest speakers?
“Because of that [the contradictions] I had a challenge to satisfy my mentor or
to be polite, as well as to keep track with the lectures.”
Despite Steven’s suggestion that he had no time to interact with other accelerator
participants, he describes such interaction several times. At times he commented
that the behaviour of other entrepreneurs had a negative effect on both himself
and visiting speakers – for example: when some participants failed to focus
during seminar sessions:
“Somehow I also felt like some of my colleagues were not so focused and I
didn’t feel so comfortable with that, and it also affected his performance.
Yeah, I saw it affecting his focus. I saw some frustrations, but he managed it
and I felt really bad for him. And I went back and I told the colleague that what
he did, I wasn’t comfortable.” (laugh)
At other times, Steven describes the positive impact of being coached by
entrepreneurs with more experience than him, such as Isaac:
“Like my friend Isaac, he said: ‘This concept could be scalable to the rest of
Africa, because they face the same problems’ [...] and with somebody who
has been exposed like him telling you that, gives you more resilience to sit
and figure out how to make it... grow bigger.”
In addition to interacting with visiting speakers, his mentor and his peers, at one
point Steven described his frustration with the type of interactions he was
experiencing at SocNet:
“I’ve had a lot of interaction with the people here at SocNet, it was good. They
were really welcoming and receptive. But it is like I was interacting with the
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
205
wrong community, because the same people at a certain point – there wasn’t
anything coming out of those interactions.”
His comment reflects the challenge faced by accelerator managers, of both
foreseeing the type of contacts that entrepreneurs will find useful – and then
facilitating these contacts. Steven eventually managed to get in touch with the
‘right’ people, but only towards the end of the programme. Fortunately, it was
possible to rebook his return flight, which enabled him to spend a further two
weeks in Scandinavia after the accelerator, to cultivate these contacts.
4.4.3.4 After the Accelerator
Steven’s description of the accelerator’s contribution to his venture focuses
initially on his increased awareness of what he needed to achieve in order to make
his venture sustainable. Halfway through the programme he described how he
became aware of what needed to be done and how he began to work on a
solution:
“I realised that I had to establish the concept in a formal structure. And now...
to build this structure is what has actually got me to a lot of work, because
now I have to figure out a clear, um... value proposition for the... programme. I
had to look at it as an independent entity with a sustainable model, as a
business.”
The above quote illustrates part of the process by which Steven came to the
decision to register Bibliothèques Communitaries as a separate entity to his NGO,
rather than as a project within it. He emphasizes the significant shift in his
thinking that has taken place:
“It’s really done great to my business, because all along I’ve been working as
a charity and now I have to work as a social business.”
“I’ll be having a different business from the former business, so this will
become a new business by itself. I’ll give it a new registration and a new
identity.”
“During the accelerator I had to time to work on that [how to make the library
programme a profitable enterprise] so it is now having its own model different
from the model of the charity, that is a parent organisation.”
Steven says that he now has a business plan that is designed specifically for the
new venture, but also comments on the increasing confidence he feels as a result
of having participated in the accelerator. He links this confidence to having been
able to spend time on the development of his venture:
Jönköping International Business School
206
“I have more self-esteem, I am just confident that I’m now above the
workforce. So I could navigate, I could talk to anybody confidently [...] I’ve
already figured out the strategies because I had enough time within these two
months to actually explore all the angles of the business. If I was back home
with the other company, I wouldn’t have had enough time.”
Nevertheless, Steven suggests that his ability to obtain a new outlook is not only
linked to having time to reflect, but also to having access to other people’s
perspectives:
(Duncan): “Where does this learning come from?”
“I think maybe... it gives enough time for internal reflections... and seeing your
business. I think it’s about this information you have, the way others perceive.”
Steven goes on to describe in more detail the boost to his self-esteem that came
with having had his ideas discussed by others:
(Duncan): “Where does this confidence come from? What made the change?”
“It’s a combination of factors, just the fact that I have a business plan that has
been appreciated by different people and they’ve seen the value is one point
[...] It means there are people who see value and institutions who see value
at this initial stage. So if I could go back and do a proof of concept with
already these eyes watching, it gives me enough confidence for me to move
forward.”
At the beginning of the accelerator Steven described his wish to get out of his
“ditch” in order to get a more objective look at his venture. At the end of the
programme, Steven is disappointed that he was unable to immediately source
funding, but satisfied that he has been able to obtain the panoramic view he had
hoped for:
“[The] accelerator makes you think professionally. It also helps you think
globally. While you are in your own corner, small corner... you look upon
yourself as though you are a king, because there is nobody to criticise you.
And you keep maybe refining the idea at one spot, instead of moving it to the
next level. So the accelerator it has helped to... to think.”
“With the accelerator it has given that opportunity to move out of the other
day-to-day activities and be ready to take it to the next level.”
When asked about things that were missing from the accelerator or less relevant,
Steven comments first of all that he would have appreciated more teaching on
the financial aspects of starting and managing an enterprise. In other words: he
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
207
felt that the education provided was relevant, but not sufficient. With regards to
the teaching of marketing however, he had mixed feelings – and he described the
mismatch between European approaches and the realities of the developing
world:
“I’m looking at how we can make use of online marketing tools, like the tools
we were taught [...] I use Twitter, Facebook – but again, our communities are
still very... I would say they are still not IT savvy. So what we are doing is to
go out and do it the traditional way: talk to people one-to-one [...] and you
know, print fliers on papers, there it is more or less a paper environment.”
Five months after the end of the accelerator, Steven reports having undergone a
tough period. He was recovering from a bout of malaria when I talked to him
and described how the development of his venture had been slowed by his having
to rebuild his management team:
“I had to disqualify the leader of the team because he was trying to double-
cross; to like, also use the idea for himself [...] So I had to change the team –
and again, you know what it takes to change a team, cultivating the team…
and it has been hard work.”
Steven rebuilt his team and recruited two women from a nearby university. He
also purchased a car in order to be able to visit the communities he is engaged
with, but also to provide him with more legitimacy when he visits publishers:
“They don’t need to look at you from a needy perspective, you need to look
like... so one of the reasons I needed the car is because I also needed to
move around and visit these companies in a more responsible manner, so
that, you know, we talk as peers.”
In addition to these challenges Steven also described the difficulty of getting the
first library to function in the community environment:
“There is another business directly opposite our office and this guy is using
the public address system to play loud music, very loud music [...] children
have been coming and collecting the books, but they cannot read in the office
because of the noise [...] so the first problem we want to solve is to stop him.”
Five months after the accelerator Steven was still financing his startup by
bootstrapping and by means of a loan from his sister in North America. After a
year he described the main challenge facing his enterprise as “funding to properly
test the concept”.
The content of the post-accelerator interview and questionnaire suggest that
Steven now spends a large proportion of his time cultivating target communities’
Jönköping International Business School
208
interest in his libraries and developing relations with publishing houses. One
publisher was sceptical of the idea of a book exchange, suggesting that this could
reduce his own book sales. Nevertheless, Steven eventually managed to persuade
another publisher to sponsor the enterprise with some school textbooks to a
value of about $35 USD. In the context of a developing country this sponsorship
is a useful input in terms of library stock, but clearly does not contribute
significantly to the ongoing costs of the enterprise in terms of salaries and
transport.
Steven’s comments after the accelerator give the impression that he is engaged
in a long-term process of engaging with local communities and developing his
enterprise. Initially he was reluctant to promote the library programme due to his
newly formed team:
“When I returned we had a lot of issues with restructure, so I didn’t want to
promote the programme very much until we had an effective team in place [...]
without the team in place, all the burden would be on me and I don’t want to
run this operation all by myself.”
Despite the pressure of finances, a year after leaving the accelerator Steven was
clearly making progress and had established the first ‘genuine’ community library
(the pilot project was located at the NGO office). This generated a lot of publicity
and further good will, which Steven hoped would generate more funding:
“It is about now that our startup is coming into the limelight with the launching
of the first village library. Hopefully a lot of potential sponsors and the
government will pay more attention to the programme.”
A year after the end of the accelerator Steven was in touch with several of the
other entrepreneurs and also his mentor, but described the nature of his contact
as primarily ‘social’ (as opposed to contributing to his enterprise’s development).
There were however, a few exceptions to this and Steven notes that he still has
‘business-related’ contact with accelerator manager Karen. He also described
how he chats to Kenny about once a week on Skype and how Kenny at times
provides him with useful information
84
:
“When he finds some interesting information for me he will let me know, so he
will give me any leads or any information that he thinks can be relevant to my
project, so he gives it to me.”
Steven is also in contact with several individuals who he met while in Scandinavia,
who he hopes will contribute to the enterprise in the long term. One of them is
84
It is unclear whether this is reciprocal: Kenny does not explicitly state that he has received useful
ideas from Steven, even if they are in regular contact.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
209
an African-American restaurant-owner who lives in Scandinavia. He has
expressed an interest in the startup, but has as yet not made any direct
contribution to the enterprise. A woman who Steven met at SocNet plans to travel
to Cameroon with her fiancé in the near future, but again Steven is uncertain of
their plans:
“They want to come and see where it is happening and maybe to go back and
see what they can do.”
4.4.4 The Innocent-Expatriate: Henrik (A1)
4.4.4.1 Background and Personality
Henrik is a twenty-seven year old entrepreneur from a small town in central
Sweden. He has two younger sisters and his father runs his own small business.
His mother was forced to retire early due to ill-health. In secondary school
Henrik studied computer science and foundational courses as an electrician, but
realised immediately after leaving school that he had no desire to pursue a career
in that direction. After secondary school Henrik did military service in the
Swedish armed forces, specialising in defensive monitoring/guarding of key
installations. During this time he received training in guard duty and consequently
began work as a security guard as soon as he left the army. As he commented:
“It was perfect, as back then times were tough and none of my friends had
work, so I got started with that right away.”
Henrik’s choice to do military service is perhaps the first indication in the
interviews, of an adventurous side to his personality. Something that shines
through time and time again, coupled to his willingness to take important
decisions in a short space of time. Henrik describes himself as an optimist and is
clearly a ‘people-person’, giving the impression throughout the accelerator of
being energetic, friendly and open to new ideas. He is also fashion-conscious and
dresses in an up-to-date, stylish and youthful manner. Henrik was one of the
entrepreneurs with the greatest ‘presence’ on social media, and it was easy to
follow the development of his non-profit and social business through his two
blogs. Early on I made an attempt to follow his Twitter feed, but the volume of
traffic was overwhelming. As Andrew commented in an early focus group:
“Because this [social media] is really good to… have a look at just all these
things, to see what is happening. Except Twitter for Henrik… his account… it’s
blinking every five minutes! (laugh)”
Henrik worked as a security guard for six months after military service and had
just earned himself a permanent contract of employment when he felt it was time
Jönköping International Business School
210
to move on and “look for another adventure”. Henrik had always enjoyed
languages and decided to learn Italian, as his grandfather is from Italy. His mother
had her doubts however, pointing out that Italian is a relatively small language
and suggesting that he move to Spain and study Spanish instead.
Henrik studied Spanish for a year before his captain (from his time in the armed
forces) rang him up and offered him a job in the Nordic Battle Group – where,
as Henrik wryly comments: “we were supposed to get permanent employment”.
Within a week Henrik had packed his belongings and was back in uniform.
However, after only a year the posting was concluded and Henrik returned to his
job as a security guard. This time however, he felt that it was a step backwards:
he was more aware of the down-sides to the job and didn’t enjoy it as much as
before. At this point Henrik began to consider starting his own business and
began to think about the kinds of products and services needed in society.
However, as he puts it:
“They all failed as soon as I put them [his business ideas] on paper. It just… it
just didn’t feel right, it didn’t feel like me. So I started all over again and I
thought like this: ‘okay, who am I and what do I need in the things that I do?”
When Henrik began to think in these terms he quickly realised that he enjoyed
working with people, that he needed to feel that he was challenged and
developing as a person – and furthermore:
“…a little adventure. In other words: something new. Throw myself into
something and discover the world.”
The ‘adventure’ that eventually came to dominate Henrik’s next years was the
plight of street children in Latin America. Henrik does not describe the process
of developing a heart for street children in detail. Nevertheless, short excerpts in
different interviews make it clear that, parallel to the process of developing a
vision of his future as an entrepreneur, Henrik also developed a social vision.
Consequently, he chuckles as he recalls the point when the two visions came
together in 2009 – three years before he participated in the accelerator:
“Imagine my surprise when I started a non-profit organisation instead of a
business!”
As with some of the other accelerator participants (such as Gabriella), Henrik’s
engagement in social enterprise stemmed from a frustration with existing
charities and from irritation over some people’s unwillingness to put in the hard
work needed to move from charity to social business:
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
211
“I was so bloody tired of all these charities spending unbelievable amounts of
money on crap […] and such a small amount of the money reaching its
target.”
“Perhaps they think it’s easier to travel somewhere and pay a 1 000 dollars to
some organisation and pat turtles for a week…”
In 2009, determined to develop an organisation that would ensure that all of its
profits reached its target communities, Henrik founded a non-profit organisation
that focused on raising money to support street children. At the same time he
began to save money so that he could travel to Latin America and work with a
Brazilian non-profit organisation. He sold his apartment and invested all his
savings in the trip, also reducing his workload
85
to 75 % in order to be able to
develop his non-profit and participate in a local training programme for nascent
entrepreneurs. Finally in January 2011, Henrik boarded a plane for Brazil
86
and
began his first trip outside of Europe – a trip that began as a journey to work in
an existing organisation, but ended with the founding of a social enterprise.
4.4.4.2 The Venture
Almost as soon as he arrived in Brazil, Henrik experienced culture shock:
“It was a terrible shock… I remember so well sitting next to Jane in the car
and you know… it was burning here and there, and a cow runs over the
road… and a naked man comes walking towards us – and it was just too
much!”
“And then came shock number two […] the Jardim Gramacho garbage dump
is nothing like the rest of Brazil, it’s ten times worse. And… kids are running
around sniffing glue and it’s just… it’s a circus in there!”
Despite his initial reaction of “today and no more”, Henrik began to work in an
existing organisation that provided daytime activities for street children. His new
colleagues were busy with their own activities and Henrik was forced to learn
what he needed to know about his work duties by himself. With time however
he became more familiar with the Jardim Gramacho community and interviewed
several of the people living there. His interviews and his interaction with the
young people in the community convinced him that employment and fair wages
were key needs. During this period Henrik was active on the internet and
networked online with a wide range of organisations and individuals, not least
two Scandinavian social entrepreneurs who introduced him to the world of social
85
Presumably as a security guard.
86
Naturally my account uses the names of a different country and a different garbage dump to the one
referred to by Henrik.
Jönköping International Business School
212
enterprise. Referring to an influential online talk by one of the entrepreneurs, he
described the formation of his new idea:
“[In the talk] they describe how you can run a non-profit organisation, you can
drive a profit-making business and you can actually run them together – and I
actually already had the non-profit operation and I thought… yeah, maybe one
day, maybe I’ll have something like that, and I can develop them and play
them together.”
Henrik describes this new idea as playing an important role in helping him
persevere. He had a lot of ideas for improving the organisation he was working
in, but felt that the top manager was not willing to listen to him. In a sense
therefore, Henrik was forced to start up his own organisation in order to achieve
what he felt was necessary:
“And then I realised, no it didn’t matter how many ideas I had, or projects or
things like that, it didn’t go through. So I thought, ‘okay, if they don’t want to do
it, I’ll have to do it myself.”
Although Henrik realised early on that employment was a key ingredient in
helping garbage dump communities improve their lives, he was unsure of how
to do so. As he worked with the young people in the day centre, he continued to
network with not-for profit organisations and also with Coompanion, a Swedish
third sector organisation that receives state funding to provide advice to
cooperative enterprises. Through his dialogue with their advisors Henrik became
convinced that stories were at the heart of his startup:
“It [the dump] is such an amazing place […] and if it can hit me so hard and
shock me, it must be able to shock others too… and so I thought that that is
what we’ll use, quite simply.”
“The huge contrast: a fashionable tee from a garbage dump.”
Henrik’s business idea revolves around t-shirts that tell a story. The front of his
t-shirts carries the portrait of someone who he interacted with at the garbage
dump. The back carries a pithy quote that captures something of the daily life on
the dump. T-shirts are marketed as fashion objects and priced at around $ 40
USD. Henrik describes how he considered trying to use other materials
associated with the garbage dump (such as old tyres), but confesses that the t-
shirts idea came to him early on and stayed with him.
Following his interaction with Coompanion, Henrik’s advisor suggested that he
submit his idea to their business idea competition. During this period he also
applied for a stipend that a cosmetics company offer for individuals involved in
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
213
sustainable development. Subsequently, in the space of two days Henrik received
news that he had won both awards and as a result, a sum of $ 14 000 USD:
“Those two days were fantastic – and right around then it was my birthday
too!”
The combined prize money enabled Henrik to lay the foundations of his social
enterprise. He was already in contact with a women’s cooperative that had been
laid waste by a hurricane and that was rebuilding to both produce garments and
make prints on existing clothing. Due to his active presence online he also had
over two hundred pre-orders for t-shirts, as an indication of the market’s interest
in his product. Consequently, he now felt able to take two further steps. First of
all, he was able to offer part-time employment to a couple of bright young men
who he had met at the dump – and who are required to study part-time in order
for their employment to continue. Secondly, convinced that he had finally
developed a workable concept, Henrik registered his own private limited
company
87
in Sweden: Garbage Garments.
Although Henrik’s social enterprise appeared to be at a breakthrough point,
reading between the lines of the interviews and his subsequent actions, it appears
that Henrik was still not entirely confident of his own ability to make the
enterprise succeed. He continued to interact with other social entrepreneurs
online and within months of employing his first employees, one of his online
contacts suggested that he might be interested in the Booster accelerator. Henrik
felt that the accelerator fitted in well with the development of his enterprise:
“It came at just the right time… just the right time! I mean, we have the money
we need to get started and um, we’ll soon be in operation; we have a
registered company. All I need now is to put some more ‘flesh on the bones’, I
just need to feel sure about where I stand and where it is that I’m going.”
Once again, Henrik demonstrated his willingness to take major decisions in a
short period of time. A week after being told that he had been accepted to the
accelerator Henrik was back in Scandinavia.
4.4.4.3 Expectations
Henrik was one of the entrepreneurs who skipped the ‘expectations’ question in
the online questionnaire in the first accelerator. Nevertheless, the preceding
quote and his application to the programme reflect not only his desire to work
out the details of operating his new venture, but also his growing awareness of
87
Swedish: Aktiebolag/AB
Jönköping International Business School
214
the challenges of running a social enterprise in a developing country. For
example, Henrik writes:
“ I hope to learn a lot about being a social entrepreneur in a developing
country, maybe find a mentor in the subject.”
“How to be a good employer when dealing with people with a different culture,
level of education, etc. I already have experienced it very different and a bit
difficult sometimes.”
In addition to giving voice to his need for advice about operating in a developing
country, Henrik also identified needs associated with getting his enterprise off
the ground, particularly in the area of marketing and developing business-to-
business relationships with retailers. He summarises his expectations by stating
that:
“Our current need is to get the sales and build hype around the brand.”
4.4.4.4 Experiencing the Accelerator
In comparison with most of the other entrepreneurs Henrik did not instinctively
begin to talk about his experience of the accelerator in interviews, but often
began to talk about his startup and the issues he was addressing. I noticed this in
my first interview, where I interviewed two entrepreneurs in quick succession:
“Interesting interviews, both of them spoke for a long time. Gabriella was
really inspired and talked freely. Henrik was a little more focused on his
company.”
Although I often tried to steer the conversation back to the accelerator process,
I was not always successful and so in discussing Henrik’s experience I more
dependent on my observations, than is the case with other entrepreneurs (who
provided more information in interviews).
My early impressions
88
of Henrik as an outgoing entrepreneur were reinforced
as I observed the interaction of the accelerator participants with one another. On
the very first day I recorded the following reflection about the group:
“Very, very happy, cheerful, joking group. Some people clearly taking the lead
early on. For example, we have Henrik from Garbage Garments clearly not
aggressive but taking the lead, often the first person to speak or taking the
initiative”.
88
Henrik was interviewed very early on in the first accelerator.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
215
In week seven I made a similar observation, suggesting that Henrik maintained
this role throughout the accelerator:
“Fun to see today Henrik as usual taking the lead when the social media
speaker asked people to present themselves. The long silence and then the
first person to speak, Henrik as usual, so he continues to take the initiative
when it comes to actually talking and taking the lead in the group work or in
the group setting”.
The main theme that stands out in Henrik’s reflections on the accelerator is that
of ‘breaking down the business idea and putting it back together’. This process
began in week one and at the end of the week Henrik commented on the mix of
cognitive and emotional processes involved:
“It was a bit tough to take apart the whole idea that we have, the idea that
we’ve worked so hard to bake together into something sustainable. Logically I
know this is healthy and good, it’s just that it takes some time to get the pieces
to fit together again.”
This process continued in week two, with one of the roles of the visiting speakers
clearly that of the scrutineer. Alice, Henrik and Edward described the descent
into chaos at the start of the accelerator:
Alice: “In the beginning it was structured and now it’s… disintegration”.
Henrik, humorously: “A mean man
89
came… now we are trying to find a chain
from the problem to the solution”.
Edward: “Tearing our hearts and ideas into pieces and looking at them again.”
At the end of the accelerator the evaluative attitude displayed by the accelerator
coaches was also becoming second nature for Henrik himself. He described how
he now looks for weaknesses in new ideas and often returns to the question of
whether an idea can earn its keep:
“I’m very sceptical now […] you meet a lot of people with ideas […] and I’ve
now started to evaluate their ideas immediately when I hear them. A
mechanism is started in my head that immediately tries to find errors or
problems in the idea.”
“But also how you can earn money through the idea. ‘Cos that was actually
one of the things they emphasized at Booster. How you earn money.”
89
Referring to one of the visiting speakers / coaches.
Jönköping International Business School
216
Henrik’s comments often reflected his concern about being alone in the startup
process and having to do things that others (with professional skills) could do
better. In week two he commented for example, on the accelerator’s role in
helping him clarify his own identity as a social entrepreneur – but still seemed
uncertain about whether he had the skills needed to manage his enterprise in the
long-term. Consequently, he was initially very enthusiastic about the expanded
network the accelerator was providing him with:
“I’m building my network every day, much faster than in Brazil. I’ve collected
piles of business cards.”
Despite this networking, Henrik seemed to understand that as an entrepreneur
he automatically took on the role of “the spider at the centre of the web” and
that he had to do a lot of things himself. Despite this, he made it clear that he
longed for someone else to take on the tasks he felt he was not good at. The first
insight seemed to be something that he learned at the accelerator. Initially he
gave the impression of hoping to find answers to the questions he was struggling
with. However, at the end of the programme he appeared to realise that he was
not about to find all of the answers. For example, a year after the end of the
accelerator:
(Duncan): “Do you do anything different today, than you did a year ago?”
“Yes, I probably do… really. I think it’s due to the fact that somehow you are
forced to find a system that works for you, how you get things done.”
Henrik also commented on the accelerator’s role in helping him realise that it
takes time to start a new venture:
“I guess the biggest thing I’ve learned is that it takes a lot of time.”
When Henrik’s various comments are linked together they build the picture of a
young social entrepreneur initially unsure of their own capacity to succeed.
Despite behaving in an open and proactive manner throughout the accelerator,
Henrik’s comments reflect a hope that the accelerator would provide him with
solutions to many of the issues he was struggling with. For example: personnel,
smooth operations and leadership. When interviewed several months after the
accelerator he admits to an underlying fear that at the time, delayed the
development of his enterprise:
“Even though I had received orders, I’ve been a bit scared and I’ve kind of
drawn out the process a bit.”
(Duncan): “Why do you think you felt like that?”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
217
“I think it was because I was afraid of criticism.”
At the end of the accelerator Henrik seemed to have a different perspective. On
the one hand he seemed more at peace with the idea of operating without all the
answers – and he also appeared to view the entrepreneurship process more in
terms of an ongoing cycle of trial and error:
“This is the first thing we’re doing and things will change, they’ll improve, we’ll
start getting the systems to work and so on. All the pieces of the puzzle aren’t
put together yet and perhaps they never will be. But it’s nice to get some
insight about what the puzzle will become.”
“Now however, this [the first set of t-shirts] is our first collection and it
functions as something of a test. As long as you have that at the back of your
mind it feels a bit better, you dare a little more somehow. But I guess that is a
big lesson as well: you can’t wait for it to be perfect, because it won’t become
perfect. You never get going if you just hang around waiting.”
Despite coming to accept imperfection, Henrik makes it clear that the startup
process is still not just an exercise in action and reflection, but also an emotional
roller-coaster:
“You kind of have good and bad days, it goes up and down. On the good days
you feel good about the product and on the bad ones you feel doubts about it.
But it kind of gets better.”
Henrik’s description of coming to terms with the uncertainties and imperfections
of social entrepreneurship suggests that one of the roles played by the accelerator
is the provision of a ‘bigger picture’. He emphasizes that the accelerator came at
the right time for his startup, as it enabled him to get a perspective on what he
was doing – despite his preoccupation with the many day-to-day activities of his
new enterprise:
“When I came to Booster I was just getting my enterprise going, I had set a
few wheels in motion and it was extremely timely for me. I got a very good
understanding of what I was up to. I also got a bigger perspective of that
world
90
”.
[responding to the question: “What was the accelerator’s greatest
contribution?”]:
90
Henrik clarifies ”that world” to mean the business world.
Jönköping International Business School
218
“The first thing I think of is, um… it has to do with gaining an understanding of
what you’re doing, I think.”
The understanding described by Henrik apparently had to do with his
development of two types of perspective. First of all, with the development of a
vision of his own enterprise as a ‘whole’ – in contrast to only seeing a large
number of separate startup activities. And secondly, with a perspective that
placed his enterprise in a larger context: that of social entrepreneurship. Henrik
described the development of this latter perspective in the following way:
“I had never worked with something like this before... so it was really
interesting to see... how big it is. I don’t really think that I had realised how big
social entrepreneurship is. So it was important for me to be able to see what
the world looks like.”
Apart from the ‘perspective and ‘people’ side of the programme, Henrik also
talked about the accelerator’s emphasis on being able to communicate one’s idea.
In Booster he associated this emphasis with the regular requirement that
entrepreneurs ‘pitch’ their ideas effectively:
“I think it was damn good that we could pitch... pitch quite a lot – even if I
remember that I thought it was hard at the time: ‘Oh, do we have to pitch
again?’ [laugh] But at the same time, we’ve become damn good at talking for
ourselves! [laugh] I mean, we could wake up in the middle of the night and do
a pitch! And that isn’t so bloody bad, really.”
In common with many of the other entrepreneurs in the first accelerator, Henrik
often commented on his appreciation of being able to meet other people in the
same ‘industry’. For example: when asked to rate the value he gained by
participating in the SOCAP
91
conference (by allocating nine red dots to four
alternatives), Henrik placed four dots in the “individuals
92
” circle that related to
networking and only two in “investment”. When asked about the greatest
contribution of the accelerator (continuing on from his first answer, as detailed
above), the second main contribution listed by Henrik was the following:
“Um, all the people I had the honour of meeting, um... all the inspiration I got
from all those people; from the other participants, but even from you and
Denise and the speakers we got to see and so on. That was really cool!”
91
The ‘Social Capital Markets’ conference attended by the A1 entrepreneurs.
92
Sub-titled: ”The chance to meet new people and make useful contacts with organisations, suppliers,
other entrepreneurs, etc.”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
219
The above quote underlines the role of other accelerator participants as a source
of inspiration for Henrik. He also comments on the role of trust within the
group, in making the accelerator a positive experience:
“We were really open for one another on Booster and that was fantastic.”
Later Henrik also emphasized the role of the other participants as sources of
advice – even when the accelerator became a more stressful environment:
[Duncan] “I talked to Gabriella and Henrik over supper and they had very
different reflections. Gabriella was very unaware of the fact that anybody was
feeling stressed and busy. Henrik had noticed that, but at the same time,
Henrik said it was really nice that everybody was willing to help each other out
with ideas about their own startups”.
Henrik’s experience of the accelerator cohort was a positive one and as noted
previously, the support he received did not only have to do with advice about his
startup. He also received practical help in finding accommodation in the city, and
ended up staying at Edward’s flat for the duration of most of the accelerator –
and the entire summer afterwards. Henrik was also positive to the contribution
of the visiting speakers and in particular to the visit by one of the social
entrepreneurs who he had been in contact with in Brazil:
“I’m thinking Mattias. I thought he was really good. I think most of all because
it was extremely nice to talk to him, as he has done a lot of the things I have
done – we understood each other very well and he had experienced many of
the things I had experienced in Brazil. Mostly what it’s like to work with
vulnerable people. To work with poor people.”
Henrik was not as positive about the role played by his mentor. Five months
after the accelerator I asked him if they were still in contact with one another and
he answered: “A little, not really that much”. When questioned more closely,
Henrik was unenthusiastic about his mentor’s contribution:
“He was really clever and he knows a lot of good people, but I don’t know...
we didn’t get very much done together. I went on a course he gave about
sustainability and I didn’t think it gave me very much, even if it was interesting.
I think it would be more appropriate to learn that later on in the [startup’s]
development.”
When asked if he would have preferred another mentor, Henrik described his
feelings in more detail:
“Maybe another mentor. He is actually really good at what he does, but he
doesn’t know the clothes business, which I needed help in [...] As I said
Jönköping International Business School
220
earlier, there is no single straight and correct route for Garbage Garments to
take, so there it would have been really fun and good to have a mentor who’s
done what I’m doing. From the start, from zero, with the same means as I
have. Maybe not someone who had a million dollars in their wallet before they
even started.”
Although Henrik felt that he could have done with a different mentor, he also
commented on his own uncertainty about how to make good use of such a
resource. He described how he often reflected to himself as he puzzled over a
problem: “Why didn’t I get in touch with my mentor?” He suggested that a lot
of the fault lay with himself (“for some stupid reason I still don’t get in touch”),
but also noted that some decisions need to be taken quickly – so that time can
also mitigate against the taking of such an initiative. Henrik’s comments suggest
that it is one thing for an accelerator to emphasize the need for entrepreneurs to
build networks, but quite another thing to do so:
“It’s like what we talked about, that we need to get ourselves a ‘team of
expertise’. I think it’s easier said than done. I think about getting such a group
together, but how do you do that? What do you need to think about? How do
you maintain contact and so on?”
Despite Henrik’s regret at not getting a more appropriate mentor, it is worth
noting that his mentor did put him in touch with somebody who he hoped he
might be able to have a mentee relation with in the future:
“a really good contact at Sweden’s biggest clothing brand.”
At the end of the accelerator, as the entrepreneurs discussed the graduation
event, it was clear that Henrik was focused on getting as much out of the event
as possible, particularly in terms of contacts. As I observed:
[Duncan] “Interesting to notice the way people were reasoning about inviting
friends or not. Gabriella had invited four friends so she was seeing it very
much as a graduation. Henrik, possibly showing a little bit more
entrepreneurial instinct, had taken a conscious decision not to invite any
friends, because that would prevent him from talking to new contacts or
investors after the presentation. So an interesting contrast there”.
Henrik’s focus appeared to pay off, as later on at the event I observed him
chatting to a woman who had her own Fairtrade clothing business:
[Duncan] “She’d been working with a Fair Trade clothing company and it was
interesting she’d been over to talk to Henrik – or he’d contacted her – and had
a lot of questions about how to grow the company, she had suggestions and
ideas”.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
221
4.4.4.5 After the Accelerator
Several months after completing the accelerator I asked Henrik to comment on
things that he felt were missing from the programme or could be improved. One
of the things that he commented on was what he perceived as the programme’s
lack of practical tools for enterprise management. He noted that the accelerator
had covered the strategic side of business development thoroughly (for example:
the business plan), but that it had not suggested very many practical tools for the
everyday running of the business:
“As soon as you get going you need an auditor and an accountant, or
accounting software if you’re going to do it yourself of course. Customer
software, billing software: I’m thinking of the administrative bit that you often
have to – for the most part – do yourself to start with.”
“...once you get going and don’t have any systems it doesn’t work very well to
take care of these things.”
In addition to this, Henrik also felt that the accelerator had been a bit of a
‘bubble’, a bubble whose bursting was made all the more painful by the doldrums
of the Scandinavian summer holiday period:
“Things are almost dead in Scandinavia in the summertime. It’s almost
impossible to run a company in the summer here.”
“Afterwards I felt as if we had been a little isolated, as if we’d been living in a
little bubble. It felt as if we’d been living in this social entrepreneurship bubble.
We’d been there for almost two months. So it felt strange to come out of it,
definitely. Booster was really good as you got such a good, encouraging
response – especially with Denise as a support the whole time. So yes, I
guess that bubble burst.”
As with several of the Booster graduates, Henrik expressed disappointment at the
lack of follow-up after the accelerator. Describing the cohort as being composed
of “wandering people”, he emphasized the need for an online solution to
overcome the geographical challenge of keeping in touch:
“I think we perhaps needed a forum or a private group on Facebook, where
we could have talked to one another – a bit like a ‘team of expertise’. We live
a long way from one another and I think it would have been a convenient
solution. I think that would have been very good for all of us, especially as we
all trust each other. ”
“I’m thinking of an alumni network or similar.”
Jönköping International Business School
222
To many people’s surprise, after spending the summer in Scandinavia Henrik did
not return to Brazil, but instead began studying entrepreneurship at university.
Henrik describes how while still in Brazil, he applied to the university “as a bit of
a joke to see whether I would get in”. However, when he was admitted he was
forced to take the offer seriously and realised that he needed to take advantage
of the opportunity. He found the initial months hard work and frustrating, as he
attempted to keep his startup going while studying for exams and writing
assignments:
“The thought has really hit me, ‘Is this right for me? Should I really be sitting at
a school desk studying a load of theory, when I already have an enterprise
going that I want to work on?’ ”
Henrik described his attitude to his studies as giving the first term a go and
“probably also the first year” before deciding whether to continue with his
studies. In the end he decided to stay on and when I discussed his choice with
him, he again commented on his desire to find a team to work with in developing
his enterprise:
“The reason I’m studying here is because I want to see what it’s like to be... a
cog in something much bigger. Where there are resources, where there are
professional colleagues who know their stuff, where you don’t have to pull the
whole load by yourself, do you know what I mean? It was more about that.”
When Henrik was interviewed several months after the accelerator, Garbage
Garments had had a slow few months. The women’s cooperative who
manufactured the t-shirts had for example, been forced to relocate due to the
parent organisation
93
being expelled from Brazil. Henrik was also having
difficulties with the two young men he was employing as the enterprise’s local
representatives – and felt uncertain about whether he would be able to employ
them long-term. In Sweden he had also had to abandon the partnership he had
initiated with several individuals, to build the enterprise’s webpage. Despite these
setbacks, a year after the accelerator Garbage Garments had sold almost 500 t-shirts
and Henrik had convinced several well-known public figures to be ‘ambassadors’
for the brand. Henrik had also initiated a partnership with a public relations
bureau for the marketing of the t-shirts and was once again in the final of a
business plan competition.
During the interview a year after his graduation from Booster, it becomes clear
that Henrik is in the race ‘long-term’. He describes the challenges of trying to
93
Henrik’s former ’employer’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
223
launch a fashion brand in the context of an economic depression, but also
describes his own attitude and response:
“We’re living in an economic downturn and people don’t spend so much
money on clothes, at the same time as there is enormous competition – but it
doesn’t affect us that much as we don’t have very many outlays.”
“Now we’re lying – a bit like the wolf – in wait. We will find our way – our prey,
and when the economic downturn has disappeared we’ll be ready to strike. By
then we’ll have taken the time to prepare ourselves and then we’ll just be able
to ride on the wave.”
Two years after the accelerator, it appears that Henrik’s strategy at least enables
his enterprise to survive, if not necessarily to grow. It is still possible to order t-
shirts on his website and on his blog he describes the one year anniversary of his
enterprise: with t-shirt sales, cake and champagne. On his blog Henrik describes
the public event and it appears that he has finally found one of the things he has
been looking for, namely a business partner. Nonetheless, his t-shirts only tell a
single story at the moment, and the webpages of Garbage Garments and his NGO
are only updated sporadically. In a year Henrik will graduate from university and
only time will tell whether Garbage Garments will develop beyond the small, part-
time social initiative that it is at present.
4.4.5 Different horses and different courses
An important question with regards to the social entrepreneurial typology that I
develop at the beginning of this section has to do with relevance. In a study of
learning there is little point in discussing different types of social entrepreneur, if
all of the types learn the same things in a similar manner. This study suggests
however, that this is not the case and that social entrepreneurs’ learning differs
according to their backgrounds and startup stage. In the following paragraphs I
discuss the similarities and differences displayed by the four exemplars described
in the previous section. I discuss these with reference to intentions and attitudes,
the outcomes of learning and the process of learning. I also discuss how the
Booster entrepreneurs related to different aspects of the accelerator; including
mentors, coaches, managers, peers – and ‘space’.
4.4.5.1 Stage and Intent
In my theoretical discussion I noted the important role that ‘intent’ plays in
learning. The social entrepreneurs used as exemplars are linked to different
categories, but were also at different stages in venture development – with the
exception of Marie and Steven. These differences were to a certain extent
associated with different intentions upon arrival at the accelerator, as seen in table
4.4. The table illustrates how early stage entrepreneurs (-1 and 0) are more
Jönköping International Business School
224
‘action-oriented’ than those at a later stage. As the venture progresses, it appears
that entrepreneurs increasingly wish to ‘critically appraise’ their strategies – with
both Barry and Henrik displaying this intention. Henrik’s intent is however, allied
to action – and Marie (at an earlier stage) is clear about what she wishes to achieve
in terms of practical steps.
The importance of distinguishing between expatriate and indigenous social
entrepreneurs – as well as social entrepreneurial type – is seen in the difference
between Marie and Steven. Both individuals are at the ‘concepting’ stage, but
Steven displays a confusing mix of the emphases from the ‘innocent’ and
‘veteran’ categories. He shares Barry’s concern for a critical appraisal of his
enterprise, but also Henrik’s desire for training. My impression is that it is
Steven’s background as ‘indigenous’ on the one hand – and as a non-profit
manager on the other that explains these differences. Steven may be an
experienced non-profit manager within the confines of his local environment,
but as he begins to venture into a more business-oriented, international arena he
feels less confident. Consequently he reports a similar intent to that of the
‘innocent’ category.
Table 4-4: Social entrepreneurs' intentions.
Factor /
entrepreneur
Barry (V-E) Marie (KI-E) Steven (CE-I) Henrik (I-E)
Stage Validation (1) Concepting (-1) Concepting (-1) Commitment (0)
Intent
Critical appraisal
Inspiration
Space to rethink
Funding
Business plan
Idea > action
Advice
Critical appraisal
Training
Exposure
Funding
Learn about
‘global SE’
Develop concept
Training
Mentoring
Determine
‘direction’
4.4.5.2 Outcomes of Learning
When it come to the outcomes of learning (what the four entrepreneurs learned),
some interesting differences emerge (see table 4.5). With regards to identity, all
of the categories of social entrepreneur mentioned appropriating a measure of a
social entrepreneurial identity to some extent – with the exception of
‘knowledgeable improviser’ Marie. This was a clear trend among the social
entrepreneurs with strong professional identities (one of the defining features of
the ‘knowledgeable improviser’ type). Individuals who identified themselves to a
lesser extent with a profession were more inclined to ‘learn’ an identity – even
when they had many years of managerial experience (as in Barry’s case). Here
there was a strong emotional aspect to learning, with Steven and Henrik in
particular emphasising the ‘lonely’ nature of social entrepreneurship in emerging
economies. In contrast, the learning of ‘confidence’ was something that veteran
entrepreneur Barry did not mention – whereas this was something noted by all
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
225
of the others. What was perhaps most surprising, was Barry’s emphasis (as a
‘veteran’) of the importance of emotions-oriented learning, which he described
in terms of inspiration.
It appears that the scope of learning is narrower for the ‘veteran’ and
‘knowledgeable improviser’ categories, than for ‘innocents’ and ‘confident
entrants’. Both Steven and Henrik describe their learning much more in terms of
‘becoming’ a social entrepreneur, than the other two. For Henrik this
development apparently has to do with a move towards a more action-oriented,
pragmatic attitude and pattern of thinking. For Steven it relates to the mental
‘framing’ of his enterprise in terms of a more sustainable, hybrid venture – and
to his learning of associated ‘for-profit’ skills. Barry and Marie frame much of
their learning in venture-related terms and appear to learn ‘what does and doesn’t
work’ with regards to their enterprises, as opposed to their persons. Marie does
mention developing a more ‘in-your-face’ attitude, but does not describe personal
development to the degree that Steven and Henrik do. These differences have
clear implications for the design and management of accelerators. It is probable
that the ‘becoming’ aspect of social entrepreneurship implies a different
educational content and process, than aspects that focus more on the
development of narrow capabilities and the assessment of the venture concept.
Table 4-5: The content and process of social entrepreneurs' learning.
Factor /
entrepreneur
Barry (V-E) Marie (KI-E) Steven (CE-I) Henrik (I-E)
Learning
outcomes
(‘what’)
SE identity
Inspiration
Some fine-
tuning of
venturing skills
Confidence
Network
Learning what
works / doesn’t
Confidence
How to work as
a hybrid venture
Identity:
belonging /
connecting to an
SE community
How to be an
entrepreneur
Seeing the
whole picture:
- Of the venture
- Of the
venture’s
context
Identity:
belonging /
connecting to an
SE community
The
learning
process
(‘how’)
Reflection
Emotion
Action
Dialogue
Reflection
Emotion
Reflection
Dialogue
Emotion
Action
Action
Dialogue
Emotion
Attitude to
learning
Open to
learning, curious
Managing own
learning
Eager to interact
Open to
learning, curious
Managing own
learning
Open to learning
Instructor-led
learning
Eager to interact
Open to
learning, curious
Jönköping International Business School
226
4.4.5.3 Learning Processes
When the learning of the four exemplars is related to the existential learning
process discussed by Jarvis (transforming experience primarily through either
emotions, action or reflection), further differences emerge. As illustrated in table
4.5, most of the social entrepreneurs describe learning through all three
processes. However, it is clear that one or two ‘transformational routes’ often
dominated. The learning processes described by entrepreneurs during and after
the accelerator often reflect their intentions at the start of the programme –
underlining the significant impact of intent on learning. The learning process
described by Barry for example, emphasizes the role of reflection and emotions
– and he came to the accelerator hoping to critically assess his venture and to be
inspired. The learning process described by Marie and Henrik centred more on
‘dialogic action’: learning how to work effectively as an entrepreneur by taking
action in a social context characterised by dialogue. Once again Steven stands out
as the ‘confident entrant-indigenous’. Despite describing working hard to meet
all the accelerator deadlines (action), when he discusses learning it is more often
in terms of reflection and dialogue. Dialogue appears to be a key route by which
he ‘gets his head round’ the new model of enterprise implied by hybridity. In
contrast to Marie and Henrik therefore, he appears to learn through a process of
‘dialogic reflection’. Nevertheless, all four exemplars learn some aspect of social
entrepreneurship through the emotional ‘route’. For Barry the transformation of
experience through emotions appears to be linked to inspiration and meaning.
Marie also learns inspiration in this manner. The emotions-based learning of
Steven and Henrik however, seems to be more oriented to combatting feelings
of loneliness and isolation: it is about ‘belonging’ and identity.
4.4.5.4 The Role of Human Actors in Learning
My third research question focuses on how different actors in accelerators affect
the learning of social entrepreneurs. The four entrepreneurial exemplars in this
chapter described their learning in relation to these actors, in ways that suggest
that they valued different contributions or roles. At times the importance of these
roles is only apparent by their absence – with the exemplars sometimes noting
that they needed a particular form of support during the accelerator, but failed
to receive it. These support roles are summarised in table 4.6.
With regards to the roles of mentors, there are clear differences between the roles
valued by veteran Barry and the other exemplars. As an experienced manager,
Barry felt he only really needed someone to help him learn who to connect to, in
order to take the next step in his startup. I term this role the ‘opportunitor’ as it
relates to the role of providing entrepreneurs with possibilities they can exploit
(such as connections). Without this intervention it is probable that they would
not have been aware of the opportunity – or taken longer to become aware of it.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
227
Table 4-6: Roles Valued by Social Entrepreneurs in the Accelerators.
Factor /
entrepreneur
Barry (V-E) Marie (KI-E) Steven (CE-I) Henrik (I-E)
Stage Validation (1) Concepting (-1) Concepting (-1) Commitment (0)
Mentor role
valued by
entrepreneur
(or desired)
Opportunitor Pace-maker
Opportunitor
Discussant
Pace-maker
Counsellor
Role model
Opportunitor
Counsellor
Coach role
valued by
entrepreneur
(or desired)
Expert Expert Expert
Role model
Expert
Role model
Manager
role
valued by
entrepreneur
(or desired)
Opportunitor
Facilitator
Pace-maker
Cohort cultivator
Pace-maker
Opportunitor
Problem-solver
Facilitator
Peer role
valued by
entrepreneur
(or desired)
Discussant
Inspirer
Discussant
Challenger
Expert
Enthusiast
Discussant
Enthusiast
As with Barry, ‘knowledgeable improviser’ Marie also emphasized her mentor’s
role in learning as that of a provider of connections (‘opportunitor’), but added
the role of sounding-board (‘discussant’). In contrast to Steven and Henrik
however, she did not describe her mentor in terms of an ‘expert’ or an advisor
(the ‘counsellor’ role). Nonetheless, she did value her mentor’s role as a provider
of structure and ‘tempo’ during the accelerator. I refer to this role as that of the
‘pace-maker’ – and it was a role that Steven also identified as a useful mentor
contribution. It appears therefore, that mentors are only expected to take on a
more advisory role when social entrepreneurs are generally inexperienced (as with
‘innocent’ Henrik) – or when they lack experience in the field of social / hybrid
entrepreneurship (the case of Steven). Steven (moving from the non-profit arena
towards hybridity), felt furthermore, that he needed a mentor who was a ‘role
model’. This emphasis was shared by other social entrepreneurs such as Kenny
(A2), who described the importance of having a mentor with experience in the
type of startup they were engaged in.
With regards to coaches’ roles, entrepreneurs generally valued only a few
contributions. Their main emphasis was on the ‘expert’ role, that is: the provision
of in-depth knowledge about a specific aspect of startups. Once again there is a
clear distinction between the more experienced individuals Barry and Marie –
and the less-experienced social entrepreneurs Steven and Henrik. Steven and
Henrik described learning from coaches as a result of perceiving some of them
as ‘role models’. Although Marie also described the impact of these practicing
social entrepreneurs on her learning – in terms of a ‘wholeness creating’
Jönköping International Business School
228
contribution – this coach role seemed to have greater significance in the learning
of less-experienced social entrepreneurs.
When it comes to the manager roles valued by the four exemplars, clear differences
again emerge. Barry and Steven (‘veteran-expatriate’ and ‘confident entrant-
indigenous’) both emphasized managers’ roles in helping them learn who to
connect to (‘opportunitors’). This role is also emphasized by the A3 participants,
many of whom are from the ‘knowledgeable improviser-indigenous’ category.
This is not surprising, given the fact that most of the social entrepreneurs in the
‘indigenous’ category had undeveloped networks in Scandinavia. This meant that
they relied heavily on accelerator staff in order to learn who they could connect
with. Furthermore, managers also played an important role as ‘problem solvers’
for many of the ‘indigenous’ participants. In this role they took care of many of
the practical issues faced by the entrepreneurs, thus enabling them to focus more
on their startups. Interestingly, more experienced entrepreneurs Barry and Marie
both emphasized the importance of managers taking on a ‘pace-maker’ role with
regards to their learning. Steven did not mention this, but discussed the same role
in relation to his mentor. Henrik, the least experienced of the four, did not
mention this aspect at all. This may suggest that insight into the need for structure
in learning, comes with age and experience. Nonetheless, my impression is that
the role of ‘facilitator’ is closely related to that of the pace-maker, as both roles
focus on promoting optimal conditions for learning. Barry and Henrik both
expressed their appreciation for this aspect of managers’ roles. Only Marie noted
the importance of the manager role of ‘cohort cultivator’ (the promotion of a
positive group dynamic). Given the ‘stormy’ group process in A2 this is not
surprising. It is also probable that this managerial role is valuable in accelerators,
but is for the most part invisible and taken for granted. The contribution made
by this role may only become apparent when it is absent.
With regards to the roles of peers in accelerators, the four exemplars often
discussed the cohort’s contribution in a similar manner. The role of fellow
entrepreneurs as ‘discussants’ was often mentioned – and I suggest that this role
forms part of the ‘facilitator’ function, when it comes to learning. Managers
facilitate learning from other accelerator actors by structuring relationships (for
example: by scheduling group interaction). Peers facilitate learning by making
themselves available to one another both in these structured contexts and in
more informal settings. Nonetheless, ‘confident entrant’ Steven appeared to
value peers’ ideas in a more expert-oriented manner. The other three
entrepreneurs discussed their learning in terms of a ‘give and take’ dialogue
between equals, while Steven appeared to value input primarily from more
experienced peers (such as Isaac). It is worth noting however, that although
veteran Barry valued his fellow entrepreneurs as discussants, at the end of the
accelerator he admitted that in terms of learning he was only really inspired by
them – and did not generate very many new ideas from this interaction.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
229
Once again there is a contrast between the roles valued by more experienced
social entrepreneurs and those less experienced. Barry and Marie refer to peers’
roles as ‘inspirers’ and ‘challengers’, while Steven and Henrik both describe peers’
value in terms of the encouraging enthusiasm they show for their ventures (what
I term the ‘enthusiast’ role). The value of peers’ roles can thus be viewed as
having both a dialogical and an emotional aspect. What is important to note
however, is that all of the exemplars transformed experience into learning
through emotions, even if the type of learning achieved was different. Less-
experienced entrepreneurs learned to be confident through their peers’ taking on
of the ‘enthusiast’ role. More experienced entrepreneurs learned to persevere and
to excel, as their peers inspired and challenged them.
4.4.5.5 The Role of Non-human Factors in Learning: ‘Space’
Scholars often discuss entrepreneurs’ development in incubators as relating to
the provision of ‘space’ for development (for example: Hjorth, 2013;
Lichtenstein, 1992). Although many publications discuss incubators in relation
to physical space, the aforementioned scholars note the existence of space that
has a more psychological or developmental character. Their ideas are echoed in
Smith’s (2011) discussion of different types of learning-oriented space in
development programmes for entrepreneurs. My observations are similar to
those of Smith and suggest that the four social entrepreneurs valued different
aspects of accelerator ‘space’. These aspects are illustrated in the table below and
relate to opportunities to reflect, discuss, act and belong.
One of the important ideas that emerged from entrepreneurs’ descriptions of
accelerator ‘space’ is that the same general type of space is valued in a slightly
different way by each exemplar. It also appears that social entrepreneurs spend
dissimilar amounts of time in these different categories of space. My impression
however, is that with the exception of Marie (‘knowledgeable improviser-
expatriate’), it is difficult to know whether differences relate to background or to
venture stage. As noted earlier, the strong professional identity of the
knowledgeable improviser appears to reduce their need to develop a clear identity
as a social entrepreneur – which implies that the ‘identity’ aspect of community
space will be less valued by this category of social entrepreneur.
Accelerators provide entrepreneurs with space to reflect, but it appears that the
focus of reflection varies with both stage and background. Early-stage
entrepreneurs such as Marie and Henrik use reflective space to think about what
they will do in the future. Social entrepreneurs who have progressed further or
who are moving sideways to hybridity, use reflective space to ask “Am I doing
the right thing?” and “Am I doing things right?”. In other words: they reflect on
issues related to effectiveness and efficiency. In terms of proportions, it appears
that social entrepreneurs at the ‘validating’ and ‘concepting’ stages of venture
creation, spend comparatively more time in reflective space during accelerators,
Jönköping International Business School
230
than for example: individuals at the commitment stage. However, the case of
social entrepreneurs who engage in a ‘sideways’ move from non-profit/charity
to hybrid enterprise, appears to introduce an additional factor that is not
accounted for by venture stage or social entrepreneurial type. Social
entrepreneurs engaged in this process appear to spend a large proportion of their
time in accelerators reflecting on the implications of such a shift.
When the four social entrepreneurs discuss their interaction with others in the
accelerator, they very often do so with reference to learning. Consequently,
‘dialogical space’ (the opportunity to interact with others, implying discussion)
appears to be an important contribution of accelerators. In table 4.7 I have noted
that each of the four exemplars discusses ‘space’ in the accelerator in terms of
the opportunity to talk to others – and to learn from them. However, it appears
that there are nuances to this learning. All of the social entrepreneurs, with the
exception of veteran Barry, mention the ‘being challenged’ aspect of learning in
dialogical space. By this I refer to experiences of disjuncture that occur when
entrepreneurs talk to others and meet an expectation that pushes or stretches
them. For example: Steven’s experience of being told by Isaac that he should
consider expanding his venture to all of Africa. It is possible that the absence of
this type of disjuncture in Barry’s experience, may be related to the lack of other
participants with similar (veteran) experience – or at a similar stage of venture
development.
The four exemplars also associate dialogical space with ‘ideas’ – but once again,
the type of idea-oriented learning differs. Barry (veteran at the validation stage)
associates dialogue with a state of mind that facilitates new ideas, while Marie and
Steven (at the concepting stage) describe learning that is linked to better ideas.
Henrik (at the commitment stage) associates dialogue with solutions-oriented ideas,
that is: problem-solving – and with understanding. This latter type of idea was
mentioned by several of the social entrepreneurs and relates to individuals’
sensemaking. As entrepreneurs discuss their ideas with one another they often
experience disjuncture that relates to the ‘splintered’ nature of the different parts
of their enterprises. Material tools (such as ‘business model canvas’) combine
with discussion to convey the idea that the pieces of the puzzle should fit together.
Dialogue is one means by which entrepreneurs experiment with different ways
of ‘putting the puzzle together’: it is a tool for sensemaking.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
231
Table 4-7: Aspects of ‘Space’ described by the four Exemplars.
Factor /
entrepreneur
Barry (V-E) Marie (KI-E) Steven (CE-I) Henrik (I-E)
Stage Validation (1) Concepting (-1) Concepting (-1) Commitment (0)
Reflective
space
= opportunity
to…
Be creative
Re-think
Critically assess
Think things
through
Critically assess
Think
Plan
Dialogical
space
= opportunity
to…
Learn from
others:
Find new ideas
Develop /
maintain affect
Learn from
others:
Be challenged
by others
Create better
ideas
Develop /
maintain affect
Learn from
others:
Be challenged
by others
Create better
ideas
Learn from
others:
Be challenged
by others
Understand my
venture
Solve problems
Develop /
maintain affect
Action
space
= opportunity
to…
Meet key
stakeholders
Develop
business plan
Develop
enterprise
Act despite fear
Develop
business plan
Meet key
stakeholders
Act despite fear
Focus on sales
Experiment
Community
space
= opportunity
to…
Develop identity
Develop /
maintain affect
(trust)
Mirror others’
entrepreneurial
behaviour
(trust)
Break isolation Develop identity
Develop /
maintain affect
Mirror others’
entrepreneurial
behaviour
Break isolation
(trust)
The other paragraphs suggest that although all four of my entrepreneurial
exemplars used dialogical space to develop ideas, the ideas they developed were
subtly different in emphasis. A similar trend is also apparent with regards to the
learning social entrepreneurs associated with ‘action space’. To begin with, it is
clear that veteran Barry appeared to spend less time than his peers in this area.
Although he was clearly working on his startup during the accelerator, his work
seemed to be more of a continuation of a routine he had already begun, rather
than something he would otherwise not had ‘space’ for. In contrast, Marie and
Steven (at the concepting stage), and Henrik (commitment stage) clearly
experienced the accelerator as ‘space to act’. Learning and not action is the main
focus of this study, and so I will not comment extensively on this aspect of
accelerator space. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the three social
entrepreneurs mentioned above did not engage in action apart from learning, but
instead learned in and through action. Furthermore, learning in the context of
Jönköping International Business School
232
action was often linked to the emphases associated with other accelerator
‘spaces’. How this was achieved is discussed below.
The clearest example of the how learning ‘spaces’ interrelate in accelerators is
seen in Steven’s work with his business plan (see section 4.4.3). Steven describes
an intense process of writing (taking action), sending his work to his mentor and
receiving feedback (dialogue) – and then
incorporating feedback into new action
(reflection and new action). The process
is clearly reminiscent of Kolb’s (1984)
experiential learning theory, with the
added dimension of dialogue.
Remembering Steven’s description of his
busy life in Central Africa (a “ditch”), the
value of the space created by the
accelerator becomes clear. Steven has the
opportunity to take action and to learn
from this action with the help of others.
In this particular instance he learns in the
area where three categories of accelerator
space intersect (see figure 4.3).
Henrik describes a learning process somewhat similar to that of Steven, with
regards to the development of his enterprise. Although he characterises his
learning more in terms of experimentation, the ‘spaces’ that provide him with the
opportunity to experiment appear to be the same as in Steven’s case. Henrik is
able to experiment (action) and to reflect on his action, in the light of the
reactions he receives from other actors in the accelerator (dialogue) – as well as
customers.
The above examples discuss entrepreneurs’ learning primarily in relation to their
ventures. Nonetheless, two of the four exemplars discuss learning in terms of
‘behaving courageously’, that is: behaving in a manner they would not have done
prior to the accelerator. Marie and Henrik both describe a process of ‘learning to
be brave’ and associate this aspect of learning with the entrepreneurial culture of
the accelerator. Based on their comments, my interpretation is that this aspect of
Marie and Henrik’s learning involved a process of becoming [a social
entrepreneur]. Part of this process is affective in nature (emotions-based) and has
to do with feelings of both fear and confidence. Neither of the two entrepreneurs
report a cognitive process of learning courage, but instead describe a process that
appears to be more ‘social’ in nature – following a logic of: “members of my
group do it > I belong to this group > I will do it”. This process lends weight to
Jarvis’ suggestion that disjuncture may be resolved primarily through emotions –
dialogic
space
action
space
reflective
space
Figure 4-4: Venture-
oriented Learning at the
Intersection of
Accelerator Spaces
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
233
rather than following the full experiential learning cycle proposed by Kolb and
others.
In terms of accelerator ‘space’ therefore,
person-oriented processes of ‘becoming’
seem to be associated with the three spaces
of ‘dialogue’, ‘community’ and ‘action’ (see
figure 4.5). ‘Reflective space’ may also play
a role in processes of becoming, but in
interviews it is difficult to know whether
individuals are taking the opportunity to
reflect for my sake (as an interviewer) – or
if this reflection also played a part in their
own learning prior to the interview.
In accelerators the practice of recruiting
entrepreneurs as ‘cohorts’ can contribute to
the development of close relationships between participants. This temporary
closeness (which Rebecca-A3 described as “family”) forms part of what I term
“community space”, even if it is not the only part. Community space related to
exemplars’ learning in slightly different ways, but was associated with the
development of identity, the breaking of isolation, an entrepreneurial
‘personality’ and trust.
Although the development of identity can be linked to the social
entrepreneurship ‘label’, community space is not only about the appropriation of
an occupational identity. More experienced entrepreneurs (such as Barry and
Marie) appeared to treat the social entrepreneurial identity ‘on offer’ by the
accelerator in a pragmatic manner: they acknowledge the fact that society
considers them to be social entrepreneurs, but only find this ‘interesting’. They
feel secure in what they are doing regardless of the label, but are willing to use
the label if it benefits their enterprises. In contrast, Steven and Henrik have
experienced the loneliness of working as social entrepreneurs to a higher degree
than Barry and Marie – or are more sensitive to this isolation. For them
community space appears to be associated with ‘learning an identity in order to
belong’. This appeared to be the case for Steven in particular, with Henrik
seeming to have a greater need for an occupational identity different to that of
the soldier/security guard.
Although the appropriation of a social entrepreneurial identity is one aspect of
‘becoming’, community space also appears to facilitate a process of
entrepreneurial becoming that is more oriented towards behaviour. Marie and
Henrik both describe coming to act differently during the accelerator and often
discuss their learning in relation to the attitudes displayed by the cohort (such as
dialogic
space
action
space
community
space
Figure 4-5: Person-
oriented Learning at the
Intersection of
Accelerator Spaces
Jönköping International Business School
234
courage) – or by other ‘inhabitants’ of community space, such as visiting social
entrepreneurs. Veteran entrepreneur Barry does not refer to this type of learning
and nor does Steven. This seems to infer that entrepreneurs are able to ‘catch’
behaviour from other individuals at a similar stage of venture development and
from those with more experience. However, entrepreneurial behaviour does not
appear to be ‘upwardly contagious’ – that is: from less experienced to more
experienced entrepreneurs. This contrasts with Barry’s description of the
inspiration he received from less-experienced participants.
The above paragraphs reflect what is clearly a ‘social’ form of learning. By being
grafted onto a social entrepreneurial community – what Lave and Wenger (1991)
term “legitimate peripheral participation” – accelerator participants begin to
appropriate not only the formal identity of more established community
members, but also their behaviour. The contrast in Marie and Steven’s learning
in community space however, suggests that this process does not occur
automatically and may be de-railed by other factors. In Steven’s case such factors
could include the lack of a clear role-model (his mentor was too ‘business-
oriented’), his ‘perceived task’ (in contrast to Marie he was more concerned with
networking than learning) and possibly conflict (he respected veteran
entrepreneur Isaac, but did not feel respected by him).
Although community space in accelerators is directly associated with processes
of ‘becoming’ (through social learning), it also appears to play a supportive role
with regards to other aspects of psychological space. Although it is linked to the
development of individual identity, community space is inherently ‘other-
oriented’. It also appears to be ‘grown’ by entrepreneurs during the accelerator,
in that participants learn ‘who they can trust’ and ‘learn to trust’ as time goes by.
If entrepreneurs learn that they can trust all – or most – of the members of the
cohort, a larger amount of community space becomes available. The experience
of Barry and Henrik in the first accelerator suggests that community space ‘seeps’
into other categories of space, on the basis of trust. Entrepreneurs who trust one
another initiate discussions at a deeper level (in dialogic space) – and are often
more willing to work together on challenges faced by a single entrepreneur (in
action space). Clearly however, this influence is reciprocal. Discussing venture
challenges with other entrepreneurs and helping out with aspects of their
ventures often has a positive impact on community space.
4.4.5.6 Summary
The main implication of my discussion in the preceding sections is that managers
need to take the backgrounds of social entrepreneurs into account when they
design and manage accelerators. Not only with regards to educational content,
but also in terms of the roles emphasized by managers, coaches and mentors –
and in terms of the activities that accelerator ‘space’ should promote. These
issues are discussed in more depth in chapter five (Explaining Social
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
235
Entrepreneurial Learning) and are therefore not discussed further at this point.
Rather, I conclude by noting that I have answered the question posed at the
beginning of this section. That is: to what extent are the types of social
entrepreneur that I develop relevant to the discussion of social entrepreneurial
learning in accelerators? I believe that I have shown that, allied to the influence
of venture stage, different social entrepreneurial ‘types’ engage in distinct
processes of learning in accelerators – and accomplish different outcomes as a
result.
4.5 Learning in Accelerators: the 7 ‘F’s
In this section the majority of the answers to research question four
94
are
presented. In the literature, accelerator outcomes are often described in a manner
that gives precedence to a relatively small number of ‘macro’ measurements –
such as venture survival, the sale of the venture or the raising of investment (see
section 1.7). Nonetheless, a foundational assumption in the design of accelerators
is that ‘macro’ outcomes such as the above rely on the development of several
other, less obvious ‘fitness’-oriented capabilities. Often these assumptions are
not verbalised and must be deduced from the design of the programme itself,
even if accelerator managers occasionally describe some of their assumptions in
more detail
95
. At other times managers appear unaware of these less obvious
outcomes, or of accelerators’ side-effects. The purpose of this study (to explore
the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators) assumes that there is a
relationship between learning and the long-term development of the enterprise.
For this reason, although I do not entirely ignore the more obvious venture
outcomes (such as venture survival and the raising of investment), I devote much
of this section to a description of the more ‘micro’ outcomes of the Booster
accelerators, as these relate to social entrepreneurial learning.
In one of my early reports to NSE I described accelerator outcomes in terms of
three ‘F’ words (friends, focus and feedback) – and unwittingly mixed process
(feedback) and outcomes (friends
96
). After more systematic study I suggest that
accelerator outcomes as they relate to learning can be summarised in terms of
seven ‘F’ words. Two of these are ‘social’ in nature (‘friends’ and ‘family’) and
five relate more to the venture and the entrepreneur (‘focus’, ‘flexibility’, ‘facility’,
‘faith’ and ‘failure’). A further two terms (‘fame’ and ‘finance’) are outcomes of
the accelerator process, but are not necessarily related to learning. A final term
94
In which ways does the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators affect their development and
that of their enterprises?
95
See for example, my summary of Frank and Isabelle’s ideas in section 4.3.2 “Designing for
development”.
96
I.e.: an expanded network.
Jönköping International Business School
236
(‘fitness’) refers to the combined effect on the enterprise, of entrepreneurs
developing capabilities associated with the first eight
97
. Naturally these terms do
not entirely capture the content of each outcome and in the Booster accelerators,
some outcomes were more common than others. Furthermore, some terms
(such as ‘focus’) refer as much to process as they do to outcome. For example:
the term ‘friends’ (which refers to entrepreneurs’ expanded networks) refers to
an outcome experienced by participants both during and after the accelerator.
Nonetheless, some of the members of this expanded network (peers, coaches
and mentors) clearly contributed to the process of venture development in the
accelerator itself. In other words, the ‘friends’ aspect of the Booster accelerators
can be seen as both an outcome and an instrument.
As I discuss accelerator outcomes that are less tangible in nature, I do not initially
distinguish the A1 entrepreneurs from those in A2 and A3. Instead I highlight
and discuss differences between cohorts and participant typologies as they arise.
Furthermore, as this study is primarily about the process of entrepreneurial
learning, I devote less attention to important accelerator outcomes such as the
building of legitimacy, that are not clearly linked to learning. Outcomes that are
more directly related to the learning of social entrepreneurs are discussed in
sections 4.5.1 to 4.5.7.
4.5.1 FOCUS: Learning What and Why
An important aspect of enterprise development has to do with the entrepreneur’s
ability to understand their venture idea, structure and refine it – and convince
others of its viability. In many accelerators the most visible part of this three-part
process is the third one: the ‘selling’ of the venture idea both in the form of a
verbal ‘pitch’ (to an audience of investors at the end of the programme) – and in
the form of a written business plan. The success of this final part of the
accelerator process relies however, on the developmental processes associated
with the other two. Investors are seldom convinced by pitches or plans that
suggest that entrepreneurs have a weak understanding of their enterprises and of
the factors critical to their success. In the Booster accelerators, entrepreneurs
discussed their business plans both in terms of the process by which they were
developed - and as an independent product (or outcome) of the accelerator
process.
With regards to the process side of the business plan, entrepreneurs often
described how they developed a more holistic understanding of their enterprises
during the accelerator. In other words, they moved from having a limited
perception of their ventures (perhaps only focusing on their product or service),
97
‘Failure’ (the ninth term) is omitted from “fitness”, as although it may be a desirable outcome in the
long-term development of the entrepreneur, it is not an outcome many ventures wish to achieve.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
237
to one that included other key aspects – such as context, customers, financing
and marketing. Often they linked the development of this ‘helicopter’ perspective
to strategic tools such as Business Model Canvas. In particular, entrepreneurs at an
early stage of venture development (generally all of the participants, apart from
those in the ‘expert’ typology) identified ‘understanding their ventures’ and the
related ‘tools for understanding’ theme as important outcomes of the accelerator.
When asked to identify the main contribution of the accelerator a year after its
conclusion; less-experienced, early-stage entrepreneurs typically provided
answers similar to that of Gabriella (A1):
“I did not know how important the business model was, now working on it (and
still a long way achieving it) it has been really useful for me to understand my
own project.”
More experienced entrepreneurs whose ventures had progressed a little further
also commented on the accelerator’s contribution to their understandings of their
ventures. Their comments however, tended to be more nuanced – probably
reflecting differences in the degree of validation they expected (and received) at
the accelerator. In other words, more experienced entrepreneurs whose ventures
were at a later stage of development were asking slightly different questions in
the accelerator. Their questions tended to echo sentiments such as: “I’m pretty
sure my venture idea works at a small scale, but can it grow?”, rather than: “How
can I turn my venture idea into a viable product or service?” Consequently,
although all of the entrepreneurs appreciated the holistic, strategic focus
engendered by the accelerator; the background to this strategic focus was
different. More inexperienced, early-stage entrepreneurs were adopting a
strategic perspective as they moved from idea towards operations – while more
experienced, later stage entrepreneurs were adopting a strategic perspective as
they maintained operations and began to think about growth. All of the
entrepreneurs were also involved in a process of venture validation, even if the
more experienced entrepreneurs often appeared to have a few more answers to
the challenging questions posed by their mentors and the accelerator coaches.
When asked about the accelerator’s contribution at the end of the third
accelerator, ‘’veteran’ entrepreneur Thomas described his experience in the
following way:
“Well, increasing our network… which is what I came here for also. Scanning
the interest of people in this field, social entrepreneurship, and seeing how
they react to our value proposition. That has been validated, so I like that, I
see that people get it, and… support it. It’s also helping us to become
investment ready, which is really the target and goal.”
(Duncan) Okay. How is it helping you though?
Jönköping International Business School
238
“Well, by forcing me to take the strategic role of the company, and change
focus from operation to… So, it’s a structure that helps me achieve what
needs to be done.”
Thomas’ comments reflect the experience of many of the entrepreneurs who
participated in the accelerator while maintaining the operations of their nascent
venture. Their experience suggests that accelerators develop a strategic
perspective through a curious mix of freedom and compulsion. On the one hand
the accelerator ‘liberates’ entrepreneurs by providing them with ‘space’ in which
to engage in enterprise activities they had previously been unable to prioritise. At
the same time however, the accelerator schedule and structure forces
entrepreneurs to address aspects of their ventures that they had not previously
attended to – and given the choice, might have continued to neglect. Heidi’s (A2)
reflections six months after the accelerator illustrate how for some participants,
the writing of a business plan is of value not so much for its value as a planning
or marketing tool, but rather as a tool for structuring entrepreneurs’ thinking
about their ventures:
“I think it was all really good, we did my business plan, which I’m not following
that well but it was helpful to think about all the aspects.”
Other entrepreneurs’ comments reinforce this impression, suggesting that the
accelerator structure (including the development of a business plan) not only
provides entrepreneurs with an umbrella perspective of their enterprise, but also
ensures that they pay attention to the ‘nitty-gritty’ of each component of their
venture. Andrew’s partner Chris
98
(A1) described the contribution of the
programme in the following way:
”The platform was a learning place that made everyone stronger, the ideas
better, even if some ideas do not make it, the experience will shape people
who will make new ones. Building trust and giving a clear vision of what is
needed for an idea to become a business is priceless.”
As noted earlier, this ‘helicopter’ perspective helps entrepreneurs adopt a
strategic (rather than purely operational) perspective on their ventures – so that
they understand their enterprises in a ‘holistic’ manner. Chris’ comment suggests
that this perspective is also useful because it helps entrepreneurs see what is
missing from their ventures. However, his comment also illustrates the
combination of the macro (“a clear vision”) and the micro (“the ideas better”)
perspectives that the Booster programme engendered.
98
Chris did not participate in the accelerator, but was in constant communication with his business
partner Andrew throughout.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
239
Despite the advantages many entrepreneurs associated with their work on a
business plan during the accelerator, it is worth commenting on some of the
downsides described by a few individuals. When the writing of a business plan is
viewed as part of the ‘structuring’ function of accelerators, it appears that the
unreflected application of this structuring tool can have negative consequences.
For example, commenting on the development of her fellow A2 entrepreneurs,
Marie suggested that Steven had spent too much time on his business plan and
too little time networking – an action she attributed to his mentor’s wish for him
to develop a business plan during the accelerator. Despite describing Steven as
one of the more enthusiastic and ‘alert’ participants, she also commented that
she had noticed him working on his business plan during lectures. Her comments
appear be accurate, as Steven himself commented on the stress he experienced
in relation to this activity:
“Then we see the pressure and stress. It has been highly stressful in this… for
me in particular, because we have to deliver a plan by the end and we have
the obligation to do that.”
When asked whether his single-minded focus on the business plan was his own
choice or forced upon him by Booster, Steven said that it was a combination of
the two:
“I think it's both ways. If you complete a process then you feel satisfied,
otherwise you feel like you didn't, you know, take full advantage of the
opportunity. And then the other aspect is also to see a plan that can translate
into a funding document and also to have a document that you can feel
confident to present to investors.”
It is difficult to know whether Steven’s use of most of his time at the accelerator
to write a business plan was effective. It clearly prevented him from networking
during the programme (he asked NSE to change his airline ticket so that he could
stay on in the city for a further week after the accelerator, in order to develop his
network). Nonetheless, a year after leaving Booster he reported sending a copy of
his plan to someone who expressed an interest in supporting his work – so his
efforts may have paid off. What his experience does make clear however, is that
different accelerator activities compete with one another for entrepreneurs’
attention – and that it is often difficult to strike an effective balance between
them.
The above paragraphs discuss how the process associated with writing a business
plan led to valuable outcomes for accelerator participants – and at times, to the
neglect of other aspects of the accelerator. For many entrepreneurs however, the
business plan was valued not primarily because of the process of reflection
associated with it, but more as an accelerator product. Many participants perceived
a sound business plan to be an important factor in attracting investment.
Jönköping International Business School
240
Consequently, for them the ‘space’ created by the accelerator was important in
enabling them to put together a convincing written description of their
enterprises and their plans for the future. At this point however, the particular
challenges of working in the ‘hybrid’ arena of social entrepreneurship made
themselves felt…
The first accelerator adopted an approach to social entrepreneurship that
emphasized the need for enterprises to make a ‘business case’ for their activities.
Consequently, Catrin (who came from a development agency/NGO
background) lamented the lack of support in writing grant proposals. In the
second accelerator a similar emphasis was maintained and most of the
entrepreneurs appeared to appreciate the effort devoted to securing the income
side of the enterprise (more of this in the next section). In particular participants
expressed appreciation for the teaching of one of the coaches on the ‘social value
proposition’ of the enterprise
99
. Isaac (A2) described the impact of this session
in the following way:
”Well, my skills in my social value proposition and… understanding the entire
social value proposition framework was a thing that I did not understand fully.
To me, I just believed that… you just had to come up with a marketing
slogan… for me it was a marketing slogan. But he… outlined and broke it
down to the simplest detail, that the social value proposition is not about
marketing, but it’s supposed to be a way of doing business for the enterprise.”
As an experienced manager, Isaac appeared able to adapt the session on social
value creation to his own applications for funding – and later credited the
accelerator with giving him the conceptual tools to write a successful grant
application. For other entrepreneurs however, the mixing of the for-profit world
with that of the not-for-profit was confusing. As Heidi (A2) commented:
“It sounds like there are really a lot of problems. It doesn’t seem like this
super-good investment opportunity, but it seems like a good impact
opportunity, but that’s more of an NGO kind of thing rather than a… business
plan investment.”
Heidi’s experience suggests that there are challenges associated with structuring
an accelerator programme for social entrepreneurs around a business plan model
intended for for-profit ventures. In A2 Heidi was the only entrepreneur who
commented on this discrepancy, but in A3 several participants expressed
frustration over the fact that they did not receive adequate training in
99
My impression is that the development of a ’social value proposition’ is more about the ’why’ of the
enterprise, whereas tools such as ’business model canvas’ and the business plan, contribute more to an
understanding of the ’what’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
241
distinguishing between a business plan oriented towards traditional investors and
plans oriented towards grants in the not-for-profit sector. I have been unable to
account for why this dissatisfaction was so much more apparent in A3, given the
similarities of the programme and the cohorts to one another. What
entrepreneurs’ comments do suggest however, is that the task of writing a
business plan is often useful in terms of process: individuals are forced to reflect
on the adequacy of their ventures and to address weaknesses. What is also clear
nevertheless, is that many entrepreneurs value the business plan as a product: it is
written primarily for others’ benefit and not for themselves. Problems appear to
arise when entrepreneurs orient themselves on the basis of their business plan or
grant proposal, rather than on the basis of other tools (such as business model
canvas). Such tools appear to focus more on increasing the entrepreneur’s
understanding of their own enterprise, rather than on ‘selling’ the venture to
investors or grant administrators.
4.5.2 FLEXIBILITY: Learning How – an Alternative Mindset
An unexpected outcome that emerged from the interviews with the A2
entrepreneurs was the role of the Booster accelerator in helping participants move
from a purely non-profit/charity position, to one that was more ‘hybrid’ in
character. The cohort in the second accelerator consisted mainly of
entrepreneurs with a background in African NGOs and development agencies –
the majority of which depend on time-limited grants for funding. Consequently,
most of the entrepreneurs in A2 came to the accelerator with a mentality that
was both ‘project’ and ‘grant’ oriented. In other words, they were used to
obtaining money by writing convincing project proposals for development
projects that lasted for a period of one to four years. The entrepreneurs who
identified this outcome belonged almost entirely to the ‘indigenous’ typology and
both less-experienced and ‘veteran’ participants commented on it. For the most
part, the enterprise-oriented ‘charity>hybrid’ shift was associated with three ‘sub-
processes’ of learning and action. One of these had to do with a change in
mindset and two with the way in which entrepreneurs structured their
enterprises. However, these sub-processes should not necessarily be seen as
separate outcomes of learning, but are often related aspects of an overall shift in
behaviour, informed by insight.
With regards to the shift in mindset, entrepreneurs described a multi-faceted move
from a charitable, ‘project-oriented’ mindset towards a ‘business model’
approach. Kenny (A2) described this shift in the following way:
“Before I came, I had a notion that this is a non-profit and that I should keep
seeking grants for people to help us to help others. In the course of… in the
course of my training here, I discovered that no matter whatever mission you
are, for-profit/non-profit, you should be able to design a way that you can
Jönköping International Business School
242
sustain yourself. That even grant-givers, donors whatever… don’t wish for you
to be looking up to them or looking up to others. They want to see your model,
your business model… to be sustainable. And I got that from here and I know
how to be sustainable right now.”
These quotations illustrate the several components of the shift in mindset
described by some entrepreneurs. Isaac and Kenny both describe a mindset prior
to the accelerator that was oriented towards charity-based organising – and hence
a dependence on a short-term cycle of applying for funding, running a project –
and applying for more funding. In contrast, many of the sessions in the
accelerator emphasized the importance of on the one hand, a workable long-term
business model – and on the other, a clear [social] value proposition. Isaac (A2)
described the contrast in thinking in the following way:
“I’m coming from a grants side of funding development projects. So, I knew a
lot [more about] that than impact investment. The value proposition process is
what I didn’t know. So I just knew about writing ‘my mission is this, my
objectives are that’. The real impact proposition, the value proposition was
missing from my vocabulary. And I learnt a lot about that.”
Isaac’s comment suggests that even experienced managers in the field of
development (who had no trouble putting together a mission statement and
identifying project objectives), were challenged when the accelerator asked them
to create a long-term, sustainable business model – and to identify their value
proposition.
After the accelerator, several entrepreneurs described adopting a new way of
organising their enterprises. Some (such as Lewis-A2) described a radical switch
from charity to for-profit:
“One of the impacts it’s had on my business plan, is that initially I did not have
a specific business proposition. What I had was like a goal and objectives,
that kind of a non-profit orientation. And now we are taking the business for-
profit orientation which demands that we don’t only talk of goals and
objectives. No, investors want to hear about goals, they want to hear about
the business proposition and how it will add value – and generate revenue.
So that aspect really… I think if you look at most of our businesses when we
came here, it was more like reading a non-profit kind of proposal. So it has
changed from that. I can say for myself, it has transitioned from that to a for-
profit business plan.”
A more common change among the A2 entrepreneurs was one from a purely
charity-oriented enterprise to one characterised by hybridity. Steven described
what this involved for his enterprise:
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
243
”Firstly it was just a programme within the organisation, it wasn’t an
autonomous structure by itself, I just had it as a sub-programme within the
organisation. But with the accelerate I had to carve it out, as an initiative, as a
social enterprise, because the organisation was a charity. So before, I was
operating it as a programme within the charity. So I think… I did not have a
clear, good map as to how to make the programme to be a new, profitable
enterprise by itself. But during the accelerator I had time to work on that so it
is now having its own model, different from the model of the charity.”
In contrast to Lewis then, Steven continues to conduct some of his ‘social’ work
within his enterprise’s parent organisation, which is a charity. However, the work
that he was developing during the accelerator (community libraries) is now
located within a separate organisation that he hopes can generate enough revenue
to become self-sustaining. Steven’s shift in mindset and business model was
similar to that apparent among many of the ‘indigenous’ A2 entrepreneurs.
Lewis’ shift (from non-profit to for-profit) was more unusual. Nevertheless, both
types of restructuring illustrate an important contribution of social venture
accelerators, namely that of helping charity-funded organisations move towards
a hybrid (or even a for-profit) model of enterprise.
4.5.3 FAITH: Learning How – Confidence, Passion and Courage
Something that emerged in my interviews with entrepreneurs, that is not
apparent in their responses to the more formal questions asked in application
forms, about their expectations – is the accelerator’s function as a source of
affirmation. Few if any participants state in their applications that they want to
participate in the programme in order to ‘test the water’. However, their
interviews make it clear that many entrepreneurs feel very uncertain about their
ventures at the start of the accelerator. As they participate they are trying to find
answers to questions such as: “Is my venture idea a good one?”, “Is this going to
work?”, and “Does anybody apart from me think this is a good idea?”. The
answers to these questions may result in part from cognitive processes (for
example: reflecting on venture feasibility), but it appears that they also have
emotional and practical dimensions.
In terms of emotions, I suggest that ‘confidence’ is a useful ‘umbrella’ term for
summing up emotional outcomes that in my NVivo analysis I coded as ‘feeling
encouraged’, ‘feeling proud’, etc. Two excerpts from interviews and one from a
focus group illustrate how entrepreneurs expressed these emotional outcomes –
and what they attributed them to:
Catrin (A1) [to Barry]: “I really appreciate how you pushed me up a little bit
and made me feel better about myself and what I’m doing, quite selfishly. And
I, whenever I read about your project, like back in the UK still, I was like ‘Wow,
wow! I mean this is exactly what I think Africa needs!’ Like we talk about
Jönköping International Business School
244
alternative energies, but for them there isn’t an alternative. The alternative
right now is walking for days or choking on the fumes and when they’re trying
to cook – so I love the project that you have conceived and come up with and
are driving.”
Heidi (A2): “I think overall, it [the accelerator] provided me with confidence to
continue with Good Glass, knowing that I was doing something people
thought was cool – and that mostly I was managing in line with other people's
suggestions.”
(Duncan to Steven): “Okay, so if you just summarise the contribution of the
accelerator, how would you summarise it?”
Steven (A2): “It gave me more confidence... so I am more convinced about
the innovation, I speak with a lot of confidence and authority now; that is what
I think it has helped.”
The above excerpts suggest both emotional content and process. First of all, all
of the entrepreneurs clearly began the accelerator with doubts about their
ventures and their own abilities to succeed. Heidi for example, is uncertain firstly
about whether what she is doing is worthwhile – and secondly, about whether
she is managing her enterprise effectively. After the programme all three
entrepreneurs feel more confident about their ventures, and also (in the case of
Catrin and Heidi) about their own capabilities. In terms of process, the interviews
with Catrin and Heidi suggest that there is a significant ‘others-oriented’ basis for
entrepreneurs’ belief in themselves and their ventures. Heidi talks of what
“people” think about her venture and her way of managing – and Catrin
describes how her confidence has grown as a result of ‘veteran’ entrepreneur
Barry’s feedback. It appears that as she describes the impact of his feedback on
her own self-esteem, she is also ‘boosting’ Barry’s confidence – by telling him (to
use Heidi’s term) that she thinks his venture is “cool”.
Almost all of the Booster entrepreneurs described some type of increase in
confidence as a result of the accelerator. In interviews with ‘veteran’
entrepreneurs however, terms that reflect emotional outcomes such as ‘feeling
encouraged’ and ‘feeling more confident’ are almost non-existent. This may
reflect the fact that many of their ventures had moved beyond the ‘proof of
concept’ phase – or that they possessed a higher level of self-esteem due to more
experience in management. Nonetheless, two entrepreneurs from the ‘veteran’
category (Barry-A2 and Thomas-A3) suggest that ‘inspiration’ was an important
part of the accelerator for them. Barry for example, cites inspiration as one of his
reasons for participating in the programme:
“I felt that I’d been sitting for so long in my own bedroom, that it was… it felt
healthy to be subjected to… critical assessment. And even hearing what other
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
245
entrepreneurs are doing and becoming inspired and getting a little energy and
so forth.”
Even after completing the programme, Barry described ‘inspiration’ as one
reason for wanting to stay in touch with NSE and the other entrepreneurs. In
A3, Thomas began to discuss the same theme when I asked him about the roles
played by the accelerator staff. He responded:
”They complement each other well, so one plays group psychology on us, the
other one gives us structure, the other one gives… inspiration.”
In contrast to Barry however, Thomas felt that the accelerator needed to have
more inspirational content. He continued by saying:
“The programme would need to be a little bit more visionary… that’s the
element missing. So, that, er… some inspiration to show, ‘Hey we have an
amazing opportunity to use social enterprise for this – and these are the
benefits and this is the potential’ ”.
Other entrepreneurs also mention the importance of becoming inspired during
the accelerator. Nonetheless, the ‘veteran’ entrepreneurs are alone in displaying
on the one hand confidence in their own ventures and abilities (suggesting a
certain emotional resilience) – and at the same time, an awareness of their need
for the inspiration and energy they associate with being exposed to other social
entrepreneurs. These contrasts may reflect different emotional ‘needs’ at
different stages in venture development, with inspiration perhaps increasingly
necessary if social entrepreneurs are to overcome the long-term challenge of
establishing their enterprises. Marie’s (A2) graphic description of the role of
inspiration (or hope) in her own venturing process suggests that this may indeed
be the case:
“Sometimes it’s been really inspiring with some of the speakers, who have
given me a little hope and strength to cope. Because it’s pretty heavy, getting
something going. Now and then you feel ‘Oh hell! How am I going to cope with
this?’ Then you rest for a few days and think about the positive bits.”
In the Booster accelerators, several entrepreneurs appeared to link the
development of ‘courage’ to the encouragement and inspiration they received
from their peers. ‘Courage’ is a difficult factor to discuss, as it is clearly linked to
emotions, yet also appears to require practical action if we are to be certain that
it has actually been developed. Henrik (A1) describes a learning process that has
practical implications, but that also appears to involve both cognitive (i.e.
reflection) and emotional dimensions:
Jönköping International Business School
246
“What I’ve learned about myself – and I think this is really interesting – is that
I’ve been a little scared of sending out t-shirts. Even though I’ve received
orders, I’ve been a little scared and I’ve sort of delayed.”
(Duncan): “Why do you think you felt that way?”
“I think it’s because I was afraid of criticism. Now this is our first collection and
so it kind of functions as a test. If you think of it that way it feels a bit better
actually – and then you kind of dare to do it. And I guess that’s a major lesson,
you can’t wait for it to be perfect, because it doesn’t really become perfect.
You never get going if you keep on waiting.”
In the above process, Henrik (A1) describes feeling an emotion (fear/doubt),
thinking about the emotion and then transforming the emotion through the practical
step of sending out his t-shirts, despite his fear. During A2 Heidi described a
similar process: nervously presenting her products to a retailer (expecting a
noncommittal or negative response) – and being instead surprised by their
positive reaction (“So that was a good feeling.”). As mentioned in section 4.42,
Marie (A2) suggests that courage is also developed through exposure to other
entrepreneurs and their apparent confidence (regardless of whether this is
genuine or feigned). She commented on the fact that she had become more
‘cocksure’ during the accelerator and when asked why this had happened she
attributed it to the other entrepreneurs displaying that attitude.
4.5.4 FACILITY: Learning How – Knowledge and Skill
Although a major contribution of the accelerator to entrepreneurs’ development
had to do with a changed perspective on their ventures, most participants also
described the learning (or enhancing) of particular abilities – or ‘facilities’
100
. At
this point it is worth reflecting on the fact that logically, entrepreneurs might be
expected to learn the skills taught during the accelerator. It is therefore important
to realise that the development of specific venturing skills in different accelerator
programmes will often be related to the content of the programme. As noted in
section 4.1 however, the degree to which skills are learned may be affected by the
characteristics of the accelerator process and the agents that populate it. In the
Booster accelerators, entrepreneurs identified three main areas in which their skills
were enhanced: communication, financial management and impact evaluation.
In many accelerators and incubators a great deal of attention is paid to ‘selling’
the venture in a variety of forms, in view of the overall emphasis on preparing
ventures for growth and investment (Hjorth, 2013). The Booster accelerators were
100
The term ‘facility’ is used in the sense of ability; as reflected in Parragon’s (2002) definition of the
term as meaning “aptitude, dexterity”.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
247
no exception and entrepreneurs from all of the typologies described becoming
more skilled in both the verbal and written marketing of their enterprises.
Specifically this involved verbal ‘pitching’ skills and related computer skills, such
as the preparation of MS PowerPoint slides. It also included the ability to design
websites and use social media tools – and perhaps most importantly, the ability
to ‘package’ their ventures in different ways depending on the audience. ‘Veteran’
entrepreneur Isaac (A2) described his learning in this area, in the following way:
“And then my communication: how you effectively apply the internet, social
media. How you design your information, education and communication
strategy. That experience and exposure made me have the particular skills
and the knowledge of how I could best repackage my proposal. My coming to
the programme helped me repackage my proposal, and by the time I
repackaged it and came back over here [East Africa], I was able to sell my
idea in a way that was very, very, very forward looking – and in a way that
was marketable in the eyes of other partners.”
In the above quote Isaac describes the combination of knowledge and practical
skill that he needed to develop in order to communicate effectively. On the one
hand, an enhanced awareness of differences in expectation between different
types of investor – and on the other, the ability to adapt presentations in order
to communicate effectively with these audiences.
An increase in communication-oriented skills was attested to by all ‘types’ of
accelerator participant. In contrast, enhanced knowledge and skill in the area of
financial management was something that the less experienced entrepreneurs
tended to describe. In A2 and A3 considerably more time was devoted to helping
entrepreneurs understand different forms of revenue generation and prepare
finance-related documents. Unsurprisingly therefore, many participants
described an increase in financial ability after the programme. Nonetheless,
‘veteran’ entrepreneurs tended not to identify skills in financial management as
an outcome, describing instead their enhanced knowledge of alternative revenue
streams. For example, when Isaac was asked about the accelerator’s main
contribution one year after graduation, his answer included:
“Knowledge about fundraising and other modalities of financing my start up.”
Despite the fact that entrepreneurs (with the exception of the ‘veteran’ group)
described learning financial skills during the accelerator, some participants still
felt they needed more. Steven (A2) for example, when asked if anything was
missing from the accelerator wrote:
“Little time devoted to financial and cash flow statements.”
Jönköping International Business School
248
Steven’s comments reflected the feelings of several less-experienced
entrepreneurs and in particular those with a weak business background (the
majority of the ‘African’ entrepreneurs in A2) – or lower levels of education. The
second accelerator raised managers’ awareness of the ‘double-edged’
combination of opportunity and obstacle that is associated with the recruitment
of social entrepreneurs from developing countries. On the one hand, many of
these entrepreneurs appeared to be engaged in ambitious social ventures, with
unique access to vulnerable populations. At the same time, the very
characteristics that allowed them access to these populations (and fuelled their
passion for helping them), also appeared to be linked to significant ‘holes’ in their
entrepreneurial capabilities. Nelson was perhaps the most obvious example of
this, with his background as a child soldier in West Africa resulting in a ‘patchy’
education and undeveloped social skills. Nonetheless, he was engaged in an
ambitious social venture designed to reduce the stigmatisation of ex-child
soldiers and facilitate their integration into society. Although Nelson is an
extreme example, many other entrepreneurs in A2 and A3 shared his experience
of either growing up in (or presently residing in) impoverished communities –
such as urban slums or refugee camps. After the accelerator most of these
entrepreneurs described learning important financial skills, but at graduation
some had clearly learned far more than others.
During interviews, many of the entrepreneurs with a background in NGOs and
similar organisations described skills associated with social impact. As noted
earlier, one of these (the identification of a clear social value proposition) is linked
primarily to outcomes that relate to perspective and communication.
Nevertheless, another outcome relates to the measurement of social impact, with
many entrepreneurs describing an increase in their knowledge and skills in this
area. As the following quote from Kenny (A2) illustrates, the development of
this capability once again seemed to involve both insight and the practical
application of knowledge to the social venturing process:
(Duncan): “And then the second [thing you learned] was…
“Measure impact. I send SMS to people teaching English vocabulary. How do
I know if what they are listening to, they are using – if they benefiting? I just
keep sending! For example: before I was sending, sending all the time… all I
know is that it says, ‘message sent’. Did the person get it: yes or no? Is he
benefiting? Is he improved? Is it changing his life? It was a big issue for me…
During the course of my accelerator, two months, eight weeks; I’ve been able
to see ways on how I could imagine it.”
(Duncan): “And actually measuring the impact then?”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
249
“Yeah. I could now know… for example: I send the word to 1 000 persons. At
the end of this month, the month of March, 800 replies. I ask a question on the
28th of this month. 800 people reply out of the 1 000.”
Having worked in NGOs myself I was initially surprised at entrepreneurs’
enthusiasm over their new-found tools for social impact – in my experience most
projects are evaluated. On reflection however, I realised that a possible
explanation is linked to the conducting of a lot of development work in project
form. Evaluation is not always conducted by those responsible for running the
project – and even when managers are involved, the evaluation may take place at
the end of the project (when managers are preoccupied with obtaining new
funding), rather than on an ongoing basis. For many entrepreneurs therefore,
their new capabilities in measuring social impact were linked to a new
understanding of their enterprises – as ventures that needed to have a sustainable,
long-term model of value creation.
4.5.5 FRIENDS: Learning Who – Expanded Network
In keeping with the observations of scholars such as Feld (2012) and Cohen
(2013b) the Booster entrepreneurs identify the development of their networks as
a key accelerator contribution. Although this outcome is not always framed in
terms of entrepreneurial learning, Johannisson (1993) argues that the ‘know who’
aspect of entrepreneurial competency is important. He suggests that it involves
developing not only knowledge about individuals and organisations that could
benefit the enterprise, but also knowledge about how to make use of these
networks. I emphasized the distinction between these two aspects of learning in
my discussions with accelerator managers – and it is interesting that Hjorth (2013,
p. 39) makes a similar observation in his study of the TCP
101
incubator.
Consequently, although I do not conduct a network analysis in this study,
network development was clearly an important aspect of entrepreneurs’ learning
in the accelerators and is therefore discussed below.
When asked about the most important contributions of the programme, most of
the responses provided by the social entrepreneurs included phrases such as the
following:
“A larger network of people” (Barry, A1)
“Contacts. I met people who helped me a lot and who are still doing it”
(Gabriella, A1)
101
TCP / ’The Creative Plot’ is an incubator in southern Sweden that focuses on startups in the cultural /
creative sector.
Jönköping International Business School
250
“I was able to establish a partnership with [name of NGO and individual]. I
met [her] at one of the NSE Booster events at SocNet” (Nelson, A2)
“Broadened my contact base with suppliers of goods and services relevant to
my startup development stage” (Isaac, A2)
When examined in more detail, entrepreneurs’ responses suggest that several
different types of contact can be found under the ‘umbrella’ term “network”.
Despite the relatively low number of impact investors in Scandinavia, several
entrepreneurs described making contact with individuals or organisations that
were useful to them in terms of finance. This type of expanded network ranged
from contact with charities that were willing to share existing sources of funding
in Scandinavia, to contact with government-sponsored funds associated with
development agencies such as Sida. On the whole however, the African
entrepreneurs in A2 and the ‘expert’ entrepreneurs in all three accelerators were
particularly disappointed at the relatively low level of impact investment available.
Isaac’s response to the “what was missing?” question in the one year follow up
is typical:
“There should have been a well-planned program to enable us as
entrepreneurs to showcase our startups to impact and other investors. The
few pitch events organized – and that those we attended lacked high-profile
investors. International organizations and other entities with the resources for
partnerships should have been invited”.
In addition to the financial role played by entrepreneurs’ learning about the ‘who’
side of enterprise, many individuals also commented that the accelerator had
helped them gain access to people who had insight into particular aspects of their
‘industry’ – or of the geographical area they were targeting. Gabriella (A1) for
example, described how she had come into contact with a firm that manufactured
plastic containers. This contact enabled her to gain a more accurate idea of the
cost of manufacturing her product and also provided input with regards to the
technical parameters she needed to incorporate in her design:
“Though the main company who was up to be part of my startup got problems
to develop the team project, I am still in contact with them and they keep on
giving their advice”.
The above paragraphs suggest that present-day thinking about the contribution
of accelerators with regards to networks, is generally accurate. In all of the
accelerators there was a very real sense of the entrepreneurs ‘coming in from the
cold’: of their moving from a relatively isolated position in which (as social
entrepreneurs) they had little knowledge of who might be relevant to their
enterprises, to a position of greater knowledge and ‘connectedness’.
Furthermore, two of the ‘veteran’ entrepreneurs (Isaac-A1 and Thomas-A3)
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
251
suggested that the accelerator also added value by providing them with access to
‘richer’ content in terms of a social entrepreneurial network, than that available
in their home countries. One aspect of their development as social entrepreneurs
seemed to be associated with their being able to relate to a larger social
entrepreneurial community. In this community they were able to find individuals
with the necessary experience to act as role models and advise them. They
suggested that due to the relative newness of social entrepreneurship in their
home countries (and the resultant small size of the SE community), they had
previously been unable to identify such individuals. Isaac (A1) described his
experience in the following way:
“Scandinavia I think by this time has an advanced social entrepreneurship
fraternity, and so the problems that we’re going through here, social
entrepreneurs in Scandinavia passed through them a long time ago. So the
problems I was having in starting up and moving forward and scaling up my
programme were something that they had already done […] so they were able
to advise me accordingly, and that was extremely helpful.”
In keeping with Granovetter (1973) therefore, one function of accelerators is to
provide entrepreneurs with the network of weak ties they require to develop
opportunities more effectively. This role appears to be especially important in
programmes (such as Booster and TCP) that target less traditional startups – and
where accelerators are required to take on a “door-opening” role (Hjorth, 2013,
p. 41). It appears that in many developing countries the ‘knowledge about who
to talk to’ is simply not available for social entrepreneurs to learn – at least not
to the extent it is found in countries with a stronger tradition of social
entrepreneurship. This is illustrated by Henrik’s (A1) comment in week two of
the first accelerator:
“I’m building my network every day, much faster than in Brazil. I’ve collected
piles of business cards.”
The African social entrepreneurs in A2 were particularly keen to learn about the
‘who’ of Scandinavian investors and social entrepreneurs. Accelerator managers
experienced their interest as unbalanced and ‘exaggerated’ at times – but the work
of Smith-Doerr and Powell (2005) may provide an explanation for their
behaviour. These scholars suggest that when individuals are excluded from
mainstream economic networks, they find ways to overcome this exclusion.
Although they use female and immigrant entrepreneurs as examples, it is
probably that many of the African entrepreneurs find themselves in a similar
position. They are ‘excluded’ in a double meaning: firstly from traditional
economic life (they are social entrepreneurs) and secondly, from the Western
phenomenon of social entrepreneurship and impact investment. In their eyes,
accelerators such as Booster may provide them with access to these networks and
to associated financial resources. At the same time, it is also possible that the
Jönköping International Business School
252
intensive nature of accelerators provides entrepreneurs with short-term access to
the ‘dense’ networks that Dufays and Huybrecht (2013) associate with the
diffusion of ideas.
An interesting aspect of the Booster accelerators that may be a result of the global
recruitment process is the ‘temporary’ nature of the cohort network. Scholars
such as Feld (2012) and Hallen et al. (2013) emphasize the role played by
accelerators in embedding entrepreneurs into a long-term ecosystem of helpful
fellow entrepreneurs. Hallen et al. in particular suggest that accelerator ‘alumni’
become an increasingly useful resource for new cohorts, as they represent an
existing and ‘committed’ network. This type of development is notably absent in
the Booster accelerators, despite my suggestion to NSE managers that they spend
more time maintaining contact with graduates. In the absence of a centrally
coordinated network, entrepreneurs could nonetheless be expected to take their
own initiatives with regards to networking after the accelerator – but this does
not appear to have happened. One year after the accelerator, entrepreneurs from
both A1 and A2 report that they only have sporadic contact with other graduates.
They also report that even where they do stay in touch, that contact is of a
primarily ‘social’ (as opposed to ‘business’) nature. Naturally there are a few
exceptions: with Barry’s ‘adoption’ of Gabriella as an informal mentee an unusual
example in A1 – and Peter’s ongoing contact with Kenny and Marie in A2. Peter’s
comments on the nature of this ‘alumni networking’ suggest that the graduate
network may be an untapped resource:
“[I have contact with] Kenny - we keep networking, information-sharing about
upcoming opportunities for the good of our startups, like GSBI
102
[…] Young
Leaders forum. Marie - we don’t talk directly but she has made referrals for
organisations to us, for information sharing and networking”.
4.5.6 FAMILY: Learning Who – Being a Social Entrepreneur
At the beginning of my study, one of the theoretical frameworks that I
considered using to inform my analysis was that of situated learning – and in
particular, theories related to ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998; Wenger,
Trayner, & de Laat, 2011). Although this no longer forms the backbone of my
study, many of the ideas of situated learning are clearly relevant to the education
of social entrepreneurs and to accelerators, as testified to by Susan Howorth’s
(2012) use of these theories in her discussion of the education of practicing
entrepreneurs. In the Booster accelerators I usually initiated my first interview by
asking participants how they usually introduced themselves to others – as a way
of gaining insight into how they construed their own identities. I was then able
to reflect on any changes in this identity as the accelerator progressed. Interviews
102
Global Social Benefit Institute
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
253
suggest that for some entrepreneurs it is important to ‘become’ a social
entrepreneur, while others appear disinterested. For example: in A1 Gabriella
rapidly appropriated the ‘social entrepreneur’ identity associated with the
accelerator, while Edward was dismissive of it. Importantly, both of them were
experienced professionals in the design industry
103
, with the main differences
between them perhaps that of age (Edward was in his twenties, Gabriella in her
mid-forties) – and background (Gabriella immigrated to Scandinavia as an adult).
During the A1 accelerator Edward commented on the term ‘social entrepreneur’
in the following manner:
“I still don’t really see myself as a social entrepreneur. What drives me is more
the challenge, to dig into things… how ideas can be taken further and have
more… impact. If you look at my education I’m an art director and I do that
kind of job too, but no… I don’t know. I don’t go around calling myself a social
entrepreneur. I hardly call myself an entrepreneur.”
A year after the accelerator Edward had abandoned his startup and his attitude
towards the term ‘social entrepreneur’ had changed very little:
“Today I'm engaged in another startup, that probably matches all the criteria
for actually being a social enterprise, but we never talk about ourselves using
those terms.”
In contrast to Edward, his partner Alice described the introduction of the term
‘social entrepreneur’ as “an unbelievably welcome term” – perhaps reflecting the
difficulty she had experienced in describing to colleagues and friends what she
was going to do in the accelerator (“hippy advertising”!) Similarly, Gabriella (A1)
also appropriated the term ‘social entrepreneur’ for herself eagerly. Early on in
the accelerator she enthused over the term, describing how she had
communicated her new identity to her friends in Argentina:
(Duncan): Had you heard this term ‘social entrepreneur’?
“No, never! I wrote to my friends in Argentina, those who are my customers.
My customers are sort of my friends [laugh], and they work with NGOs… a lot.
I sent a letter to one of them and asked, ‘Do you know what a social
entrepreneur is? Because now I’m part of it!”
Gabriella continued by describing her friends’ situation as part of the NGO
community in Argentina – describing in passionate and colourful terms the ‘up
and down’ existence of the NGO manager: the constant applying for money,
103
I.e.: ’knowledgeable improvisers’ from the perspective of Cope & Watts (2000).
Jönköping International Business School
254
working intensely when a grant was received and then reducing activities
drastically as funds run out. She appears to have a missionary zeal for bringing
her friends into the social entrepreneurial fold:
“I want to go to Argentina as soon as possible to tell them and to think about
how we can change things or work in a different way, I want to do that.”
Unfortunately two years later – despite Gabriella’s enthusiasm, Frida (the A3
accelerator manager) commented to me that she believed Gabriella had now
given up on her venture, even if it still exists on paper. It therefore appears that
although the appropriating (or not) of a social entrepreneurial identity may be an
interesting factor in the accelerator process, it is probably not a decisive one in
terms of venture survival and impact.
Despite inconclusive evidence concerning the impact of the development of a
social entrepreneurial identity on venture performance, it is worth noting that for
many entrepreneurs their identity as ‘alumni’ of the accelerator was important.
This was particularly so in A2 and A3 among entrepreneurs working in
environments with a weak infrastructure for social entrepreneurship – but even
the A1 cohort commented on their wish for such a network. For example,
Henrik:
“It would be fun to have some kind of Facebook group or something, a forum
for everyone who did Booster. I’m thinking of an alumni network or something
similar.”
The A2 entrepreneurs from developing countries were especially concerned with
maintaining a long-term relationship with NSE – something that managers
initially seemed to have difficulty comprehending. In my A2 report I commented
on this and Karen’s response was that NSE did not have the resources necessary
to engage in the kind of follow-up the entrepreneurs desired. After A1, Karen’s
response to my questions about follow-up was that she expected it to be self-
organising and that if the entrepreneurs felt it was important they would organise
it themselves. Consequently, in terms of consciously establishing a ‘community
of practice’ and following up accelerator participants, there was clearly an initial
mismatch between the expectations/wishes of the entrepreneurs and NSE’s own
capacity and prioritising. After the A3 programme a Facebook group was created
for the Booster alumni, administered by the programme managers.
4.5.7 FAILURE: Learning When – and If
Accelerator publicity often emphasizes the contribution of their programmes to
enterprise development. Nonetheless, my survey of the Booster accelerators
suggests that programmes can occasionally play an important role in ‘terminating’
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
255
ventures (or entrepreneurs) that are unlikely to succeed. Edward in A1 was
perhaps the clearest example of this process, responding to the question about
the accelerator’s main contribution in the one year follow-up, in the following
way:
“I learned how difficult it is to move from idea to having a working prototype”.
Edward’s partner in GoodLink was Alice, who took more time to arrive at the
conclusion that their venture idea was not going to work. Alice tried to keep the
venture going in her spare time for several months after Edward’s exit. In
contrast, after the accelerator Edward rapidly came to the conclusion that, based
upon his new understanding of what was required in order for the venture to be
a success, he was not prepared to go on. He described his main reason for
abandoning his startup as having both an affective and resource-related aspect:
“Lack of motivation and resources to execute the idea”.
When Edward’s experience is compared to that of Marie (A2) and Andrew (A1),
it is possible to discern three distinct types of ‘closure’ outcome in accelerators.
Edward’s closure was based on his learning about the ‘pain’ associated with
developing a new social venture – and his judgement that he was not prepared
to pay the price. Andrew’s experience (closure after several months of attempted
venture development after the accelerator) was based on his assessment that his
venture was not making progress, despite participation in the accelerator. Marie’s
experience suggests a third model of closure, in that following the accelerator she
felt unconvinced by the model she had developed and therefore replaced it with
another one. Naturally it is difficult to demonstrate an irrefutable link between
participation in an accelerator and the decision to terminate a startup, or abandon
a product and/or a business model. Nonetheless, it is clear that in several cases
the ‘closure’ decision was taken shortly after participating in the Booster
programme. It is also difficult to judge whether closure was justified – but if we
assume that it was, then the accelerator has clearly saved both the entrepreneur
and society considerable resources.
4.5.8 FAME: Legitimacy and Exposure
In addition to the learning-oriented outcomes discussed in the preceding section,
several other outcomes of the Booster accelerators were emphasized by the
entrepreneurs. The most important of these are the related outcomes of
‘legitimacy’ and ‘exposure’.
Despite the title of this dissertation, the experience of many social entrepreneurs
in developing countries is that of being ‘on an island’. Social entrepreneurship is
a relatively new phenomenon and even if it gaining acceptance in many Western
Jönköping International Business School
256
societies, in emerging economies the idea of ‘hybrid’ enterprise is a new one.
Writing of the South African context Kobus Visser (2011, p. 244) notes for
example, that: “the experience in South Africa is one of narrow-mindedness and
isolation […] the role of social enterprise is neither recognized nor rewarded at
any level”. Consequently, social entrepreneurs often struggle to make themselves
understood by government authorities and similar institutions, which are only
familiar with ‘pure’ forms of enterprise: for-profit businesses and charities. Isaac
(A2) described this situation in the following way:
“It’s very difficult to establish a social enterprise of the nature of my enterprise
in Africa, and you see most of the time many people don’t believe you, and
that being the case, what happens is that you are all alone fighting to
succeed. Fighting to gain recognition first of all, fighting to launch your
programme. Number two, fighting to get identified and accepted by the
donors, and by other funding and financing institutions.”
It is possible that social entrepreneurs in developing countries are unusually
isolated from entrepreneurs with similar ventures. However, the accelerator
literature (for example: Feld, 2012), suggests that even in Western contexts
entrepreneurs suffer from a lack of recognition and that a key function of
accelerators is to provide them with legitimacy – or ‘fame’, if we are to employ
an ‘F’ word. Acceptance to (and participation in) a programme suggests to
onlookers that participants are bona fide entrepreneurs.
In the Booster accelerators it was at times clear that the social entrepreneurs
understood the important role of legitimacy more than the accelerator managers.
In A2 for example, the ‘African’ entrepreneurs regularly asked managers to invite
representatives from their embassies to accelerator events. Often the managers
complied with their requests, although my impression is that they were initially
puzzled by the request. Kenny’s (A2) experience after the accelerator however,
suggests that accelerators do confer a large degree of legitimacy on participating
entrepreneurs:
“Actually at the accelerator… at the accelerator people believed in what I was
doing, but when I came back people believed more because I had more
authority: ‘He has been trained, you understand; he knows what he is doing’. I
got more involved with acquaintances, more respect, and all that. Like: ‘Oh
you’ve gone for training!’ and ‘You’re doing okay!’ – and stuff like that.”
Some entrepreneurs began to make use of their increased legitimacy while the
accelerator was still going on. Marie (A2) for example, used her participation in
the accelerator as an excuse to ask individuals to advise her or to take an active
role in her venture:
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
257
“I feel that I need to get a grip of this now and actually approach those who I
want to have with me in this [her venture]. I think I get a little more courage
from the accelerator. I take advantage of it quite a lot too, I say: ‘Now I’m at
this point in my project’.”
Another ‘fame’-related outcome of the accelerator that is closely related to
legitimacy, is that of ‘exposure’. Most entrepreneurs were very much aware of the
publicity surrounding the accelerator and were eager to take advantage of it in
order to market their enterprises. Edward (A1) described the accelerator as a
“platform” and Thomas (A3) talked about his experience in the following way:
“Most importantly, coming back to a developed country… and being able to
network with professionals, strategically. People who… learn about us – and
it has an outreach affect that is useful, that we’re not just in our own world
there doing what we do. That now we get the opportunity to reach more
people, inspire people, and… build bridges and create synergies with people.”
Comments from entrepreneurs after the accelerator suggest that they are hopeful
that their status as ‘alumni’ will continue to help them stay in the public’s (and
investors’) eyes, months and even years after their graduation. Frequently, when
asked about what NSE can do to support them in the future, they are unable to
identify concrete training needs – but do ask that the organisation continue to
publicise their ventures on their website and in the ongoing activities of NSE.
4.5.9 FINANCE: Investment and Revenue
4.5.9.1 Accelerator 1
In this section I briefly comment on the development of the Booster ventures after
the accelerator, in terms of income. This is not the main focus of this study, but
enables readers to make a more informed assessment of the relative impact of
entrepreneurs’ learning on enterprise development. Subsequently, in sections
4.5.10 and 4.5.11, aggregated data on survival and growth, and sourced
investment and revenue
104
are shown for all of the A1 and A2 ventures in relation
to entrepreneur type and venture stage.
Very few of the A1 ventures reported growth a year after the accelerator. It is
difficult to determine if this was the result of a lack of investment, or if their lack
of progress discouraged investment. Regardless of the cause, one year after the
first accelerator, few entrepreneurs reported being able to raise investment (see
104
In this section I distinguish between income that is sourced externally from investors, funders or
loans (’investment’) and income that ventures generate from sales or similar ’internally driven’
processes (’revenue’).
Jönköping International Business School
258
table 4.8). Henrik reported that he had managed to increase his revenue streams
after the accelerator and almost two years later he is still marketing (and I assume
selling) his product on the Garbage Garments webshop. Barry was initially
successful in raising funding and managed to raise enough investment to receive
a second round of matched funding from the Sida Innovations against Poverty
programme. However, one year after the accelerator he was already foreseeing
difficulties in raising further funding and commented:
“Current funding will last until September
105
and we are unlikely to get more
funding […] as the income doesn't cover the costs the prospects are not
good.”
“Our product needs to be modified, version 2, based on all input we have
gotten from customers, but we have no funding for this.”
These comments suggest that one year after the accelerator Barry was already
beginning to feel the effects of the general lack of investment in alternative
energy ventures that hit Scandinavia in 2013 (Fröberg, 2013). It appears that this
lack of funding was an important factor in changing his level of engagement in
CellSun from that of a full-time occupation to that of a part-time, or side-line
activity.
Table 4-8: Investment & Revenue - Accelerator 1.
Entrepreneur Venture Investment after 2 years
Alice GoodLink none
Edward GoodLink none
Andrew C-Cure none
Barry CellSun raised investment
Catrin Imbani raised investment
Gabriela Brottle none
Henrik Garbage Garments increased revenue
4.5.9.2 Accelerator 2
Although the ventures that participated in A2 were in considerably better health
than the A1 ventures a year after the accelerator, the A2 ventures experienced
mixed outcomes in terms of investment and revenue (see table 4.9). Bottle Art did
not report investment, but described a significant increase in revenue from sales
105
I.e.: about 1 ½ years after leaving the accelerator.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
259
– even if Heidi continues to donate her management services to the enterprise
free of charge. Isaac’s venture expanded rapidly after the accelerator, as he
received the large amount of funding from USAID that he applied for while at
Booster. Jamal reported no investment or other type of funding, while Kenny
reported obtaining a loan of € 3 000 from a local NGO.
Table 4-9: Investment & Revenue - Accelerator 2.
Entrepreneur Venture Investment after 1 year
Heidi Bottle Art No investment, increased
revenue.
Isaac MobiClin Major project funding.
Jamal AgriTech No investment.
Kenny Afri-Text Obtained loan from NGO.
Lewis BioVolt Status unknown
Marie Better Work Negotiating with investors.
Nelson Pistols to Ploughs Some project funding.
Peter AfriPads Significant project funding.
Steven Bibl. Communitaries Minor donations/sponsorship.
Marie hoped to finalise a partnership agreement with a large Scandinavian
importer in the months following the one year follow up, but had not yet been
able to source investment. Pistols to Ploughs obtained funding for a pilot project
from an NGO that Nelson met at the accelerator. AfriPads (Peter-A2) received
funding of €180 000 from Sida’s matching fund programme for social innovation
and a further $ 7 000 USD from the United Nations. Steven (A2) in contrast, had
only received minor sponsorship from a local publisher.
4.5.10 FITNESS: Venture Survival and Growth
In this section, I provide details of venture survival and growth for accelerators
one and two. As this dissertation is based on a longitudinal study only limited
data are available however, for accelerator three.
4.5.10.1 Accelerator 1
As noted previously, recruitment to the first accelerator took place in a relatively
short period of time. This, coupled with NSE’s lack of experience in running
accelerators, seems to be reflected in the performance of the participating
ventures, as summarised in table. 4.10. Table 4.10 does not show all of the
information pertinent to the ventures included, nor reflect the uncertainty
associated with some of the data. Alice and Edward were the entrepreneurs least
Jönköping International Business School
260
interested in participating in interviews in A1 and this reluctance was also
reflected in later responses to questionnaires. However, in Alice’s last response
she commented that she was operating the venture in her spare time and that her
partner taking care of finances (Edward) had left the venture. GoodLink is not
listed on her LinkedIn profile and the only reference to the venture on the
internet is the old film made about their product during the accelerator.
Table 4-10: Venture outcomes-Accelerator 1.
Entrepreneur Venture Status after 2 years
Alice GoodLink Very low level of activity
Edward GoodLink Startup abandoned
Andrew C-Cure Startup abandoned
Barry CellSun Still operating, but side-line
Catrin Imbani Still operating
Gabriela Brottle Very low level of activity
Henrik Garbage Garments Still operating, but side-line
Consequently, it appears that the venture has either been abandoned or is
operating at a very low level. Nonetheless, despite giving up on GoodLink, Alice’s
venture partner Edward had not altogether abandoned the idea of creating social
impact through enterprise. Commenting on his decision to leave GoodLink he
wrote:
“Today I'm engaged in another startup that probably matches all the criteria
for actually being a social enterprise.”
One year after A1, Andrew reported that he had abandoned C-Cure. Prior to this
I heard that his partner in the venture had left the startup and begun to work for
a large electronics firm. Imbani is still in business and has managed to source Sida
financing through the Innovations against Poverty programme. However, on Catrin’s
LinkedIn profile she states that she was involved with Imbani only until February,
2013 – seven months after the end of the accelerator. Gabriela’s venture still
exists on paper, but one year after the accelerator she was very down and
commented:
“Last November I was feeling that the project was so near to be real, but last
May the whole thing felt down in a hole. I have found it hard to go on with it
now, mainly because I got very disappointed”.
Almost two years after the accelerator it is clear that Gabriella is making very
little progress and NSE manager Frida commented that she thinks that she has
given up on Brottle. Henrik in contrast, maintains a low, but constant level of
activity in Garbage Garments (see case study) – and has recruited a partner to the
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
261
venture. Barry’s venture seemed to be the most promising in the months
following the accelerator, but almost two years afterwards he now lists another
occupation and organisation under “Experience” on LinkedIn. This suggests that
he has recently been forced to make CellSun more of a side-line occupation – a
suggestion supported by the lack of updates on his venture’s webpage and
Facebook page.
4.5.10.2 Accelerator 2
Data is not available to enable a ‘two year after’ analysis of the A2 ventures and
a ‘one year after’ analysis is provided instead (see table 4.11).
Table 4-11: Venture outcomes-Accelerator 2.
Entrepreneur Venture Status after 2 years
Heidi Bottle Art Still operating, some growth
Isaac MobiClin Significant growth
Jamal AgriTech Still operating, but side-line
Kenny Afri-Text Still operating, some growth
Lewis BioVolt Status unknown
Marie Better Work Still operating, some growth
Nelson Pistols to Ploughs Still operating, some growth
Peter AfriPads Still operating, some growth
Steven Bibl. Communitaries Still operating, some growth
As was the case with the A1 entrepreneurs, the outcome table does not do justice
to the different type of development experienced by the accelerator participants.
With the exception of Lewis (who did not reply to any of the follow-up emails
and questionnaires) and Jamal, all of the entrepreneurs reported experiencing
some kind of growth after the accelerator. In contrast to A1, no one reported
abandoning their ventures – even if Jamal’s responses suggest that he has made
little or no progress since leaving the programme.
Heidi reported that Bottle Art had moved into new premises and had employed
several new employees. She summarises the progress made in the year after the
accelerator in the following words:
“We opened a shop - hired four more full-time employees. We have expanded
our product line, moved our workshop, increased production, created
partnerships with retail outlets and other small production workshops that
make things for our shop”.
Jönköping International Business School
262
Isaac’s venture expanded rapidly after the accelerator, as he received the large
amount of funding from USAID that he applied for while at Booster – as well as
a smaller amount from the United Nations in response to a sudden spate of
flooding in Indonesia. Consequently, he spent the following year travelling
around Africa and Asia, recruiting personnel, and setting up his mobile clinics
and local offices in the countries in question.
Jamal moved into a local incubator soon after the accelerator and began
partnering with his coach there. He also made a visit to the farmers he was
targeting in South Asia, but did not receive the response he expected. In his
response to the question about current challenges in the one year follow-up he
wrote:
“Difficulties in engaging the farmers. I travelled there and talked to them. It
was hard to mobilise them. There are also other forces opposed to people
becoming more independent – rich people in the area who need the farmers
for cheap labour.”
More than a year after the accelerator Jamal is still struggling to identify exactly
how his venture will operate and who he will partner with. Kenny reports that
his texting service is still in operation and that he has been able to recruit new
individuals to his team. He is also developing his product and has been able to
secure a loan from a local NGO. Marie’s venture continues to develop, despite a
radical restructuring during the summer after the accelerator – during which she
both changed the name of her venture and decided to develop a different
product. After this change her mentor was convinced of the feasibility of the new
idea and is now a partner in the venture. She is also close to finalising an
agreement with a large Scandinavian wholesaler (who imports goods from
factories in Asia and China) and is negotiating with several other large firms.
Nelson’s venture continues to operate, but it is difficult to obtain reliable
information about his activities. Throughout the accelerator his emphasis was on
raising money for his venture and he appeared to expend far less effort on
developing his business plan and social value proposition. The five month
follow-up interview was difficult to conduct due to a poor internet/telephone
connection and provided little new information about his venture’s development.
The same was true of the one year follow-up questionnaire, in which he lists the
challenges facing the venture as simply: “Seek funding for Business”. Despite
this apparent obsession with funding, Nelson’s reply to the questionnaire makes
it clear that he came into contact with a Scandinavian NGO while at the
accelerator, that is prepared to partner with him. The NGO agreed to fund a
pilot project and after a planned visit to West Africa, hopes to partner with Pistols
to Ploughs in scaling up the project.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
263
Peter’s venture continues to operate and is in a phase of expansion and product
refinement. AfriPads was expanding its network of female entrepreneurs and sales
representatives as Peter responded to the one year follow-up and had received
significant funding. Peter is also in negotiations with impact investors from the
United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Steven’s venture (Bibliothèques Communitaries) expanded after the accelerator,
setting up its first ‘genuine’ community library
106
and becoming increasingly
visible as an actor in Steven’s home country. Steven emphasizes the community-
oriented nature of his enterprise and suggests that this may have been a factor in
its slow development:
“My start up is a community driven programme and it requires some
community mobilisation efforts. This takes time because grass root
communities react differently to the concept”.
Regardless of the reason for its pattern of development, Bibliothèques
Communitaries has been able to source significantly less funding than most of the
other ventures, only reporting a small donation from a local publisher.
4.5.11 Venture Type and Stage, and Performance
When venture performance is assessed in relation to the type of entrepreneur
initiating the venture and to venture stage, several patterns emerge (see table
4.12).
First of all, in terms of survival, enterprises initiated by indigenous social
entrepreneurs appear to stand a greater chance of staying in business after the
accelerator process, when compared to all other types of enterprise. All of the
ventures whose status is ‘startup > part-time’ and ‘startup abandoned’ are
associated with expatriate social entrepreneurs. Even expatriate social
entrepreneurs with long experience (such as Barry), reported reducing their
engagement in their enterprises to that of a ‘part-time’ or ‘side-line’ occupation
as time went by. In contrast, the only enterprise run by a more experienced
indigenous entrepreneur
107
(Isaac), experienced significant growth after the
accelerator.
Social enterprises founded by expatriate entrepreneurs who engage in a startup
on the basis of their professional experience/identity (the ‘knowledgeable
106
The pilot library was located at the NGO office.
107
Lewis (A2) is also classified as ‘veteran-indigenous’, but did not respond to requests for follow-up
interviews, nor fill in the survey one year after the accelerator.
Jönköping International Business School
264
improvisers’) also appear less likely to survive and more likely to develop into
part-time occupations. It is possible however, that stage is a factor in these
outcomes, as many of the social entrepreneurs in the ‘knowledgeable improviser-
expatriate’ category entered the accelerator at the vulnerable ‘concepting’ phase
of venture development. In contrast, many of the indigenous social entrepreneurs
in this category had already progressed to the ‘commitment’ or ‘validation’ stages.
Unfortunately survey data is not yet available for most of these (A3) ventures,
but interviews suggest that all of the ventures associated with this group are still
in business – and in many cases, thriving.
Despite the general tendencies outlined above, several exceptions can be found,
among both the ‘expatriate’ and ‘knowledgeable improviser’ entrepreneurs. Marie
(A2, KI-E) had spent many years in the regions at which her product is targeted,
and her enterprise developed healthily after the accelerator. Heidi’s venture (A2,
I-E) also reported significant development after the programme. Although she
did not have the professional experience of
Marie, Heidi is similar to her in having many years of experience in the region
where her social enterprise is located – and her familiarity with the region may
be enhanced by the fact that she lives there.
When the performance of the Booster enterprises in terms of sourced investment and
revenue is related to entrepreneur ‘type’, and to venture stage; a less distinct pattern
emerges (see table 4.12). Both ‘indigenous’ and ‘expatriate’ entrepreneurs
succeeded in raising ‘substantial’ or ‘moderate’
108
investment after the accelerator,
but it is important to note that for two of the ‘expatriate’ entrepreneurs this is a
truth that requires modification. Barry (A2, ‘veteran-expatriate’) was able to raise
initial funding, but was subsequently unable to raise enough funding to grow his
enterprise. Imbani, the enterprise that Catrin (A1, ‘innocent-expatriate’) was
associated with while at the accelerator, received funding from Sida more than a
year after the accelerator – but by that time Catrin was no longer associated with
the enterprise. When the stage enterprises were at during the accelerator is
brought into the equation, it is clear that the two enterprises that had reached a
more advanced stage – attaining what Start-up Commons (2014) terms
“minimum viable product” and “validation” – were able to source significantly
higher levels of funding. Both of these enterprises were led by ‘indigenous’
entrepreneurs. Only one venture that was at the ‘pre-startup’ stage during the
accelerator (Marie /Better Work) reported sourcing significant investment within
a year of graduation.
108
Defined as at least $ 5 000 USD.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
265
N
a
m
e
/
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
A
c
c
.
P
r
o
v
e
n
a
n
c
e
C
a
t
.
S
t
a
t
u
s
a
t
s
t
a
r
t
*
*
S
t
a
t
u
s
a
f
t
e
r
1
y
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
B
a
r
r
y
/
C
e
l
l
S
u
n
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
V
-
E
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
L
e
w
i
s
/
B
i
o
V
o
l
t
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
I
s
a
a
c
/
M
o
b
i
C
l
i
n
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
s
c
a
l
i
n
g
(
2
)
r
a
p
i
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
T
h
o
m
a
s
/
T
o
u
r
F
a
i
r
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
i
c
e
/
G
o
o
d
l
i
n
k
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
n
o
n
e
A
n
d
r
e
w
/
C
-
C
u
r
e
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
n
o
n
e
E
d
w
a
r
d
/
G
o
o
d
l
i
n
k
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
n
o
n
e
M
i
r
i
a
m
/
B
e
t
t
e
r
W
o
r
k
A
2
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
t
e
a
d
y
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
l
a
/
B
r
o
t
t
l
e
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
K
I
-
E
i
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
-
2
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
n
o
n
e
O
l
g
a
/
R
o
u
g
h
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
s
A
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
t
i
e
n
c
e
/
F
a
i
r
C
a
r
e
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
b
e
c
c
a
/
S
p
r
e
a
d
I
T
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
V
i
n
a
y
/
S
u
n
p
o
w
e
r
A
3
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
i
a
K
I
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Z
a
y
d
/
P
u
r
e
t
e
c
h
A
3
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
s
t
K
I
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
r
i
n
/
I
m
b
a
n
i
A
1
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
C
E
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
l
e
f
t
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
n
o
n
e
H
e
i
d
i
/
B
o
t
t
l
e
A
r
t
A
2
N
o
r
t
h
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
E
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
t
e
a
d
y
g
r
o
w
t
h
n
o
n
e
S
t
e
v
e
n
/
B
i
b
l
.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
a
i
r
e
s
A
2
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
o
m
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
i
n
o
r
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
N
e
l
s
o
n
/
P
i
s
t
o
l
s
t
o
P
l
o
u
g
h
s
A
2
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
o
m
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
s
o
m
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
P
e
t
e
r
/
A
f
r
i
P
a
d
s
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
o
m
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
W
i
l
l
i
s
/
A
f
r
i
C
h
o
c
A
3
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
H
e
n
r
i
k
/
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
G
a
r
m
e
n
t
s
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
I
-
E
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
m
i
n
o
r
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
N
a
d
i
a
/
F
e
m
i
c
h
a
r
g
e
A
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
J
a
m
a
l
/
A
g
r
i
T
e
c
h
A
2
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
I
-
E
i
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
-
2
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
n
o
n
e
K
e
n
n
y
/
A
f
r
i
-
T
e
x
t
A
2
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
I
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
o
m
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
i
n
o
r
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
*
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
a
n
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
n
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
w
h
o
i
m
m
i
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
s
a
n
a
d
u
l
t
.
*
*
S
t
a
g
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
r
t
u
p
C
o
m
m
o
n
s
(
2
0
1
4
)
Table 4-12: Venture performance related to category, stage and
performance.
Jönköping International Business School
266
A challenge with regards to the analysis of indicators of venture performance
(such as survival, growth and investment) is that it is difficult to know which
factors are the causes and which are the results. For example: were ventures
abandoned due to difficulties in sourcing investment, or is the lack of investment
simply a consequence of entrepreneurs terminating their startups? Despite this
difficulty, it is possible to distinguish a pattern for ventures operating in
developing countries and led either by ‘indigenous’ entrepreneurs or ‘expatriate’
entrepreneurs living in developing countries (for example: Heidi-A2). These
ventures tend to survive longer, but attract only low or very moderate amounts
of investment/funding – even if some also report increases in their revenue
streams. For more reliable conclusions to be made however, a more extensive
quantitative analysis is necessary – and as this study emphasizes the learning
process in accelerators, this is not a task that I embark on here.
4.5.12 Conceptualising Accelerator Outcomes
In the preceding sections the main outcomes of the Booster accelerators have been
identified. For each outcome I have attempted to ‘dig beneath the surface’ in
order to provide readers with a richer and more nuanced understanding of each
area. I concluded by discussing the more obvious outcomes of the Booster
accelerators, for example: venture survival, growth and investment. These
outcomes are tangible in nature and therefore relatively easy to identify. In the
initials sections however, I introduced several outcomes of learning that are more
intangible and harder to measure (for example: expanded network, clearer ideas
and increased confidence). Despite the ‘fuzzy’ nature of these outcomes, initial
reports from the A2 and A3 entrepreneurs in particular, suggest that they
enhance venture performance. Nevertheless, this study clearly demonstrates that
the intangible benefits associated with accelerators are incapable of ensuring
venture success in isolation. This is most apparent in the contrasting outcomes
experienced by the two ‘veteran’ entrepreneurs Barry and Isaac. Despite the fact
that both individuals participated in very similar accelerators, had long experience
and extensive networks, and were highly committed to their ventures – one
venture succeeded and the other did not. Some of the factors associated with
failure are discussed in section 5.8.
The outcomes associated with the Booster accelerators are depicted in the figure
below. The outcomes depicted by the triangles in the figure suggest that
accelerator outcomes are not only related to the development of new knowledge,
but also to other factors. These other aspects may involve knowledge, but in
order to capture their meaning more sufficiently it is necessary to recognise that
other factors are involved. For example: an expanded network is not only the
result of an entrepreneur’s learning about the existence of other actors, but also
these actors’ awareness of the entrepreneur and their willingness to interact with
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
267
them. For this reason I suggest that it is useful to refer to accelerator outcomes
in terms of both enhanced knowledge and capabilities (Obrecht, 2011).
In figure 4.6 some outcomes are outlined in bold lines, while others are not. This
is done in order to differentiate between outcomes that were clearly seen in the
accelerators studied – and outcomes that were not so pronounced. For example:
most entrepreneurs commented on the role the accelerator played in helping
them clarify their ideas, but relatively few individuals were able to source
financing after the programme. Similarly, all the entrepreneurs commented on
the contribution the accelerator made in the form of an expanded network
(‘friends’) – but comments that related to belonging to a community of practice
(‘family’) of social entrepreneurs were less common
Despite differences in the frequency of a contribution being named by
entrepreneurs, I believe it is nevertheless important to include each of them in
the ‘outcomes’ diagram. An awareness of the different areas in which accelerators
have the potential to contribute to nascent ventures can assist managers as they
design future programmes. This understanding could help managers to ‘niche’
their accelerators, by focusing development efforts on particular areas such as
network or skills development – or the exposure of participating ventures to a
particular audience. Managers could emphasize the particular contributions of
their programmes by using different-sized triangles to illustrate areas that their
Figure 4-6: Main Outcomes of the Booster Accelerators
Jönköping International Business School
268
accelerators pay particular attention to – or neglect. This in turn, would enable
entrepreneurs to make more informed choices when considering applying to a
number of accelerators.
Having identified the main outcomes of the entrepreneurship education
‘intervention’ discussed in section 4.3, I now move on to discuss the ‘why’ of
social entrepreneurial learning in accelerators. What are the underlying processes
that explain the outcomes of accelerator education?
269
5 Explaining Social Entrepreneurial
Learning in Accelerators
5.1 Overview
In this section I develop a theory of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators. In
chapter two I synthesised theories of entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurship
education and adult education in the figure reproduced below.
Intent
Learning-oriented
DESIGN
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE &
CAPABILITIES
Long-term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Creating
disjuncture
Transforming
disjuncture
Acting-
Feeli ng-
Thinking
Intent
The ENTREPRENEUR
Immersion in
Learning Process
Figure 5-1: A preliminary model of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators
Jönköping International Business School
270
The figure is a basic conceptualisation of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of entrepreneurial
learning in accelerators and provides what Whetten (1989, p. 491) describes as a
“framework for interpreting patterns, or discrepancies in our empirical
observations.” As he points out however, in order to make a theoretical
contribution it is necessary to begin to explain the processes associated with the
‘what’ and the ‘how’. In subsequent sections I therefore discuss my empirical
observations using this figure as a conceptual ‘scaffold’. As I do so, I refine and
modify the figure by first of all adding ‘meat’ to its ‘bones’ – and secondly, by
modifying it where necessary.
5.2 Background and Stage: the Two ‘Givens’
Jarvis (2010) suggests that the ‘life-world’ of the adult has a significant effect on
their learning. In keeping with Dewey (1938) he argues that individuals generally
make sense of new situations by referring to previous experiences. In the context
of accelerators the adults in question are entrepreneurs – and in this study social
entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs’ accounts of the accelerator process suggest
that initially, two main factors affect their learning: their backgrounds and their
ventures’ stage of development.
5.2.1 The Entrepreneur and their Life-world
The complexity of the individual’s life-world is overwhelming and it is naturally
impossible for a short academic text to do justice to its impact on the
development of the person. Despite this complexity, entrepreneurs’ accounts of
the accelerator process underline the idea that individuals do not enter the
programme as ‘empty vessels’, but rather with intricate patterns of experience
that affect their learning in distinctive – and at times unexpected ways.
As noted in chapter four, one of the outcomes of the second Booster accelerator
had to do with the creation of a more ‘business’ oriented mindset among the
entrepreneurs. The majority of participants in A2 came from an African
background and had been active in ‘third sector’ organisations such as non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and charities. In A1, Catrin (a Western
European) shared this orientation, suggesting the existence of a particular third
sector ‘mindset’ that is linked not only with particular geographical settings (the
developing world), but also with particular organisational contexts. Frequently,
this mindset assumes that organisations prosper on the basis of funding, rather
than investment – and by means of a cycle of projects, rather than an ongoing,
sustainable business model. Despite the accelerators emphasis of the business
case it was clear in both accelerators that ‘old habits die hard’. For example: after
several weeks in A1, when asked about her particular needs Catrin asked for more
input on writing successful grant applications. In A3 Willis was asked the same
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
271
question and asked for more contacts with funders
109
. In A2 requests such as
these coincided with entrepreneurs’ comments that they were undergoing a
radical change in how they thought about their enterprises. These comments
appear to contradict one another and may indicate a contrast between what
Argyris and Schön (1996) term the “theories in use” and “espoused” theories of
the entrepreneurs. It is also possible however, that the comments reflect a
genuine inner struggle and an ongoing, iterative (as opposed to linear) process of
change.
The impact of a ‘life-world’ that is linked to development aid and third sector
organisations also seems to be related to the entrepreneur’s attitude to this world
and their perception of the accelerator’s place in it. Gabriella (A1) for example,
had many friends who worked in NGOs and clearly had vicarious experience of
the ‘hand-to-mouth’ life of project-based charity organisations. Consequently she
was dissatisfied with the NGO/charity model and as she learned more about
social entrepreneurship, she perceived it as a radical break with this negative
experience. In contrast, it appeared that many of the entrepreneurs who had a
background in NGOs understood the accelerator to be an additional actor in the
development aid field, rather than an actor in a distinct organisational arena. This
was particularly clear in the case of the entrepreneurs who were participating in
an accelerator for the second time (Nelson and Peter in A2 and Willis in A3).
Nelson and Willis had both participated in the programme run by the Unreasonable
Institute and Peter had completed the Global Social Benefit Accelerator at Santa Clara
University. Their understanding of the Booster accelerator appeared to be that it
was not so much a radical alternative to aid-funded NGOs, but more of an
additional actor in the same field – and not least, an excellent way of expanding
their network of funders.
Building on the above examples, I suggest that entrepreneurs’ ‘life-worlds’ have
on impact on their learning in terms of magnifying or minimising their
experiences of disjuncture. Writing as a social constructionist, Jarvis (1987)
argues that the experiences that individuals are exposed to do not in themselves
contain meaning, but that individuals attribute meaning to their experiences. In
accelerators, entrepreneurs’ perception of social entrepreneurship as a radical
alternative to development aid is more likely to be perceived as a significant
disjuncture when it contrasts with the experience of the entrepreneur. From the
perspective of Piaget (1952) this in turn may stimulate a process of
accommodation (the restructuring of mental models), rather than of assimilation
(the modification of what seems to fit existing mental models). However,
entrepreneurs who are relatively satisfied with the NGO/charity system – and
who understand the accelerator as an actor in this system – may initially be less
109
In both of these cases there is a small but significant difference between on the one hand: ”grant
application” and ”business plan”, and on the other hand: ”funder” and ”investor” (or venture capitalist).
Jönköping International Business School
272
disposed to experience the degree of disjuncture necessary to engage in
accommodative, as opposed to assimilative learning. Entrepreneurs who are
dissatisfied with the NGO/charity system (such as Gabriella-A1), appear to be
more pre-disposed to engage in a restructuring of their mental models. However
it is also possible to interpret the behaviour of the social entrepreneurs through
the lens of Hjorth’s (2011) Deleuzian theory. From that perspective one could
argue that for the social entrepreneurs with an extensive background in
aid/charity, a considerably larger “provocation” was required in order to create
the affect needed for ‘deterritorialisation’ to take place.
What is useful about Hjorth’s conceptualisation of the idea of ‘provocation’ is
that it enhances our understanding of the ‘black box’ of disjuncture that
educational theorists such as Piaget and Jarvis identify as the building block of
learning. By introducing concepts such as deterritorialisation and decoding, it is
easier to catch a glimpse of the micro processes associated with these
experiences. However, the contrasting experiences of Gabriella – and Nelson,
Peter and Willis (as described above) are important to analyse further. At first
glance Gabriella might seem to be the entrepreneur with the highest potential for
taking on board the ideas of social entrepreneurship. She has relatively little
‘territory’ to rid herself of and can quickly progress to the decoding phase of
learning. However, the very fact that she has so little luggage to encumber her in
this transition, also means that she takes very little with her on her ‘new’ journey
– and indeed, with the passing of time her social entrepreneurial journey proved
to be fairly short. Nelson, Peter and Willis on the other hand were required to
undergo a more radical process of deterritorialisation (the “uprooting” from old
“habits and practices”- Hjorth 2011, p.57), before they could engage in decoding
and subsequently experimentation. Nonetheless, it is arguable that the depth of
experience that accompanied them on the learning process – once transformed,
was important to the development of their enterprises.
In addition to their professional backgrounds, aspects of the entrepreneurs’ life-
worlds that affected learning in the accelerator also include gender, ethnicity,
religion and entrepreneurial experience. With regards to gender, Marie (A2)
commented on her instinctive interaction with Heidi:
“Heidi and me, we’ve helped each other and given one another feedback [...]
but we were the only women and... I guess, the only Westerners.”
The interaction facilitated by shared gender appears to be reinforced by factors
such as ethnicity and culture. Among the A3 entrepreneurs for example, Patience
tended to interact more with Rebecca – who was not only female, but also came
from the same country. This dynamic is clearly similar to that in A2, where Marie
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
273
and Heidi associated their interaction with both gender and culture
110
. In addition
to this however, there was also a clear gender division in A3 when it came to
interaction, despite the NSE’s successful attempt at recruiting an equal number
of males and females. Nonetheless, in A3 Patience commented on the way in
which shared faith enriched her relationship with her mentor (they were both
Christians) – suggesting that additional factors can contribute to interaction.
Even the sharing of a simple habit such as smoking (A3: Willis and Vinay)
appears to stimulate interaction.
The behaviours discussed above illustrate the impact that the life-world of the
entrepreneur has on their interaction with other individuals. In more abstract
terms it appears that when entrepreneurs enter accelerators, they are alert to
signals from other participants that suggest commonality. Interaction is initially
based on basic (or obvious) characteristics, such as gender and ethnicity. The case
of Patience and her mentor however, suggests that if alternative sources of
commonality are discovered, effective interaction can develop at a quicker pace.
This idea implies that activities that foster the discovery of commonalities among
accelerator participants may be an effective way of fostering interaction.
In addition to the factors discussed above, Diamanto Politis (2005) suggests that
entrepreneurs are characterised by different career orientations. I suggest that
these orientations (linear, expert, spiral and transitory) frequently interact with
the entrepreneurial typologies developed in section 4.4 – and affect
entrepreneurs’ intentions and learning. Although the study of career orientations
is not the main focus of this study, it appears that they do influence the
accelerator outcomes. Henrik’s behaviour prior to entering the accelerator for
example, suggests that he values variety – and that his career orientation may be
‘transitory’ in character. The strong identification of Edward and Alice with their
professions suggests that they have an ‘expert’ career orientation – and it is
possible that this orientation is common to entrepreneurs in the ‘knowledgeable
improviser’ category. Barry displays many of the characteristics of the ‘spiral’
career orientation (emphasising creativity and personal development) – while
Isaac and Lewis’ concern with status implies a ‘linear’ (hierarchical) orientation.
Nonetheless, an additional ‘others-oriented’ career orientation appears to be at
work in many of the Booster entrepreneurs, suggesting that the four career
orientations discussed by Brousseau et al. (1996)
111
may not adequately explain
the orientations of social entrepreneurs. The definition of this ‘fifth’ career
orientation lies however, outside of the scope of this study. Nonetheless, my
110
These two female entrepreneurs did not come from the same country, but shared a common
’Western’ culture.
111
Politis’ (2005) discussion builds on the ideas of these scholars.
Jönköping International Business School
274
empirical material clearly suggests that career orientations exist and that they are
an important part of entrepreneurs’ ‘life-worlds’ when they enter accelerators.
A final way in which the entrepreneur’s life-world affects their learning in an
accelerator has to do with their entrepreneurial experience. Bandura (1965; 2006)
suggests that individuals are able to learn ‘vicariously’ by observing others directly
or, as they become more capable, by learning about others through text or
narrative. Blenker and Christensen (2010) discuss the roles that practicing
entrepreneurs can play in entrepreneurship education and suggest that in
education for entrepreneurship; entrepreneurs can take on the roles of mentor,
reality check or role model. The experience of the entrepreneurs in the Booster
accelerators extends the ideas of these scholars by suggesting additional factors
that facilitate vicarious learning. Once again the idea of similarity is central.
Several entrepreneurs comment that their interaction with practicing
entrepreneurs helped them learn, primarily because of perceived common
ground. In A1 for example: Henrik enthused about the visit by a well-known
Scandinavian social entrepreneur:
“I thought he was really good. Mostly I think because it was so unbelievably
good to talk to him, as he had sort of done the same things as I’ve done, we
understood each other really well and he had experienced a lot of what I had
experienced in Brazil.”
In A3 Rebecca made a similar comment after a study visit to a successful
Scandinavian social enterprise. However, her comment reflects not so much
shared startup experience, but rather experience in the same environment:
“I was amazed with the idea and it inspired me to be more innovative. They
have a solution at almost at every stage… So I was inspired, yeah. And they
also have a branch in East Africa and the scenario that they described was
very familiar. So, I kind of identified myself faster with them and I liked their
solution.”
The above examples illustrate not only the contribution of practicing
entrepreneurs to entrepreneurship education, but also the role played by the
individual’s previous experience
112
in enhancing (or reducing) opportunities for
vicarious learning. Rebecca refers to her awareness of areas of commonality as
part of a process of ‘identifying’ with visitors. For both Henrik and Rebecca
shared experience seems to infer relevance – and relevance in turn encourages a
positive attitude to learning. Importantly, Rebecca suggests that commonality
accelerates ‘identification’ and hence, learning.
112
Part of what Jarvis refers to with the term “lifeworld”.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
275
In the context of student-oriented entrepreneurship education, Blenker and
Christensen (2010) emphasize that care must be taken when involving practicing
entrepreneurs in teaching activities. They suggest that the individuals be selected
who are appropriate to the purpose – or the envisaged end result – of the
education. This clearly implies that the educational strategy espoused by Blenker
and Christensen involves a ‘future-oriented’ logic. This is perhaps inevitable, as
their discussion relates primarily to the education of students with little
entrepreneurial experience. My study suggests however, that a different logic
operates when nascent [social] entrepreneurs participate in education. Nascent
entrepreneurs appear to assess the relevance of education (in this case the input
of practicing entrepreneurs), by being alert to comments that indicate shared
experience. This implies that when interaction with practicing entrepreneurs is
included in the education of nascent entrepreneurs, a ‘past-oriented’ strategy
needs to be combined with the ‘future-oriented’ strategy discussed by Blenker
and Christensen. Nascent entrepreneurs seem to assess the relevance of inputs
from practicing entrepreneurs with reference to past experience, before they are
willing to take on board ideas that are more oriented towards the future.
5.2.2 Entrepreneurial Stage, Industry and Context
Among the Booster entrepreneurs, the impact of the individual’s life-world was
not limited to factors such as ethnicity, gender, religion and experiences of
entrepreneurship. In addition to these aspects; factors such as entrepreneurial
stage, industry and geographical context also affected individuals’ interaction.
After the first accelerator, entrepreneurs were asked what was most important to
them as they interacted with their peers: being in a similar industry or being at a
similar stage of enterprise development. Their response was remarkably
consistent, with entrepreneurs who expressed a preference saying it was more
important to be at a similar stage of development. Isaac (A2) expressed a similar
preference, but nevertheless emphasized the importance of industry-specific
input:
(Duncan): “I’m also thinking about the industry versus the stage thing… does
it matter if you’re from different industries, if you’re at the same stage in the
business process? Or is it even better to be putting like, health entrepreneurs
together…?”
“Not really. Social enterprise, the concept is the same. You may be attacking
a different problem, but the concept of developing an enterprise is the same.”
[…] But away from that, separate industry specific coaching sessions must be
organised and these individual coaching sessions must target or must look at
where each enterprise is in the development stage.”
(Duncan): “So if I understand the way you’re talking about it, it should be more
industry focused and less focused on the stage of the enterprise. If you have
Jönköping International Business School
276
to choose between the two, would you prefer to be talking to another
entrepreneur at the same stage as you or somebody at a different stage but in
the same industry? What is the best?”
“I’d rather be talking to an entrepreneur at the same stage as me. That’s more
relevant.”
Naturally some social entrepreneurs commented that it was also useful if their
peers were working in a societal context similar to theirs (for example: in sub-
Saharan Africa). Some said that they had found it useful to interact with others
who were using similar technologies (for example: mobile phones), but Barry
(A1) was adamant that recruiting entrepreneurs from the same industry would
have a negative impact on the cohort’s creativity and diversity. These findings echo
the experience of the entrepreneurs studied by Hjorth (2011) in the TCP
incubator. In the TCP context, incubator managers emphasized the idea that
cohort heterogeneity was a key factor in both establishing a culture of dialogue –
and also speeding up the creation of this culture. These ideas have clear
implications for practitioners and suggest that when recruiting startups,
accelerator managers need to aim first of all for a homogenous group in terms of
participating ventures’ stage of development. It is also useful if entrepreneurs are
targeting markets with similar characteristics. However, recruiting entrepreneurs
from the same industry does not appear to have a positive impact on accelerator
dynamics and may even reduce (or delay) the development of an effective
learning climate. These observations are supported by Susan Smith’s (2011, p.
230) research, in which she emphasizes that the creation of “peer-to-peer
learning space” is dependent on entrepreneurs being in the same “boat”. This
study adds to her findings however, by suggesting that some aspects of the
entrepreneur’s ‘boat’ (such as ‘stage’) are more important than others, with
regards to the development of learning-oriented interaction.
Entrepreneurs’ ideas about the ideal make-up of the accelerator cohort suggest
that the recruitment process is extremely important to the subsequent
functioning of the accelerator – and not only because good selection procedures
will enhance startup performance. Rogers (1969) suggests that individuals tend
to engage more intensely in learning that is relevant – and therefore meaningful
to them. This study suggests that for interaction with peers to be perceived as
meaningful by accelerator participants, the accelerator needs to recruit
entrepreneurs in a similar situation. Participants’ comments suggest that for
nascent social entrepreneurs it is the shared experience of being at a similar stage
in the founding a new enterprise that is perceived as most meaningful. Although
entrepreneurs tend to interact with one another on the basis of gender and shared
culture/ethnicity, when they discuss the relevance of peer interaction a shared
‘stage’ of venture development takes precedence over other factors.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
277
Rogers’ (ibid.) discussion of the role of perceived relevance on the learning
process is a useful complement to Jarvis’ ideas. It partly explains the ‘same stage’
principle of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators that is one of the
contributions of this study. Nonetheless, insights from the literature on
cooperative learning suggest that entrepreneurs may feel that they risk losing out,
if their peers are at a different stage of development. Johnson, Johnson and Smith
(2007) argue that learning is enhanced when individuals believe that their own
success in learning is linked to the successful learning of their peers. They term
this phenomenon “positive interdependence” and contrast it with a situation of
“no interdependence”. In accelerators A1 and A2 the entrepreneurs whose
enterprises had reached a later stage of development (Barry and Isaac) described
their learning in terms very similar to those that Johnson et al. (ibid.) use to
describe a situation of no interdependence. For example, Barry (A1) described
his reason for advocating a ‘same stage’ recruitment in the following way:
“I think it’s good if you’re at the same stage. If someone is commercialising
and someone else is… well, I guess you could learn from one another, but
then you’ll be completely uninterested in each other’s problems.”
Johnson et al. (2007) characterise learning in a context of no interdependence as
“a situation in which individuals perceive that they can reach their goal regardless
of whether other individuals in the situation attain or do not attain their goals”
(ibid., p.17). In A1, veteran social entrepreneur Barry interacted with his peers at
a level similar to that exhibited by the other entrepreneurs, even if he commented
that he received very little back apart from inspiration. In A2, Isaac (also a
‘veteran’) was forced to rely on his mentor and on visiting speakers for new
learning. In contrast to Barry however, he was less inclined to engage in
interactions where he felt that he was more often on the ‘giving’, rather than the
‘receiving’ end.
Entrepreneurs’ comments on their interactions with one another suggest that the
literature on cooperative learning may provide future studies of accelerators with
important insights. In particular, the notion of positive cathexis (the “investment
of positive psychological energy in objects outside of oneself”) appears to be
useful (Johnson & Johnson 2007, p.17). A more complete account of
entrepreneurial learning in accelerators might be created if Jarvis’ ideas are
complemented with those of Revan’s (1969) – on the role of meaning and
relevance in education – and with the ideas of cooperative learning scholars.
These additions appear to offer credible explanations of the underlying
psychological factors that affect learning in the context of a group (or cohort) of
learners.
By adding detail to the conceptual scaffolding described at the beginning of this
chapter, it is now possible to refine the part of the initial figure that was labelled
Jönköping International Business School
278
“The Entrepreneur”. My discussion of the impact of entrepreneurs’ life-worlds
on the accelerator process suggests that it is problematic to model accelerators
from the perspective of a single individual. Instead it is more useful to focus on
the characteristics of the cohort. Consequently, the initial scaffolding can now be
modified to take this understanding into account (see figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2 illustrates my suggestion that some characteristics of accelerator
cohorts are more important than others and furthermore, that they influence
outcomes in different ways. The black horizontal bars indicate factors that relate
primarily to the potential for peers to contribute to the development of other
participants’ ventures. [Shared] stage is printed in bold to emphasize its overriding
importance in stimulating peer interaction that relates to venture development.
The white horizontal bars indicate cohort characteristics that were observed to
influence the probability of peers forming bonds that facilitated effective
interaction – and hence, learning. It is important to note however, that some of
these factors are less universal in operation and may only be important when
other factors come into play. Gender for example, did not appear to have a
significant impact in the first accelerator (which was ethnically more
homogeneous than the two subsequent cohorts). It appeared to have more of an
impact in the second and third programmes – while in the second accelerator
gender and culture coincided, making it difficult to know which of the two
factors had the most impact on the group dynamic.
To summarise therefore: initial experiences of commonality (gender, culture,
ethnicity) appear to provide a basic, yet clearly significant foundation for peer
interaction. These basic sources of commonality represent the first ‘stage’ of a
two-stage learning ‘rocket’ where the contribution of peers to the second stage
Figure 5-2: Entrepreneurial characteristics that
influence interaction in accelerator cohorts
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
279
(effective venture development) is primarily influenced by the experience of
being at a similar stage of venture development.
5.3 The Perceived Task
Boud and Walker (1991, p. 15) suggest that among adult learners, intent has a
significant impact on learning – providing “a particular orientation within a given
situation […] a reason why learners come to the particular learning event […] a
particular focus of consciousness: the direction of our perception along particular
lines”. Entrepreneurship scholars discuss among other things the development
of the intent to start a new venture (Krueger, 2009a; Mair & Noboa, 2006), but
these discussions tend to focus on a more macro, long-term vision of venturing.
Although there were some exceptions in the Booster accelerators (for example:
Edward A2), the majority of participants had already developed an intent to
found an enterprise. Consequently, they were participating in the programme
with the overall intent to found a social enterprise – but came to the accelerator
with a more specific task (or set of tasks) in mind. For example: to connect with
investors, write a business plan or develop some aspect of their venture.
Interviews with accelerator participants suggest that the tasks entrepreneurs have
in mind as they enter the programme have a significant impact on the accelerator
process. This was particularly apparent with regards to some of the A2
participants with a background in African NGOs. Several of these entrepreneurs
apparently believed that in Scandinavia funding and investment would be easy to
obtain. Consequently, when asked about their needs, concerns and expectations
in an early focus group; fundraising, investment and the setting up of an office
in Scandinavia (to nurture funders/investors) were among the entrepreneurs’
priorities. For example:
Isaac: “I need to get assistance on how to set up office presence in
Scandinavia and use it as a gateway to access funding from Europe.”
Nelson: “To get connected to funders and investors for my project.”
These expectations contrasted with the needs identified by other entrepreneurs
in A1 and A2. These participants focused more on outcomes that had to do with
learning and networking – even if they did not omit the investment aspect
altogether. For example:
Catrin (A1): “Business model, individual coaching, writing grant applications
(prioritised); marketing to customers, product/service design, networking,
team-building, leadership (useful, but not a priority).”
Jönköping International Business School
280
Jamal (A2): “To get help with the business plan. To get interaction and
reflections from fellow participants and others. To establish business
partnership and connections. To get information about available funding.”
Hjorth (2013) suggest that fourth generation incubators make heavy demands on
the skills of their management teams, who he portrays as institutional
entrepreneurs attempting to cater to the particular needs of each incubatee. The
managers in the Booster accelerators were faced with similar challenges as they
met a diverse set of expectations from the social entrepreneurs in each
programme. Consequently it emerged that an important managerial task was that
of ‘managing expectations’. Although managers had attempted to do this during
the recruitment process, in A2 in particular it was clear that they had been unable
to do so. Consequently, they were faced with the uncomfortable task of bring
several of the entrepreneurs ‘down to earth’. As the A2 manager Karen
commented:
“When you talk to Lewis he comes with a lot of different inputs, but I still have
the feeling that he… it’s a bit of a Utopia, he sees that which he wants above
all else.”
The matching of entrepreneurs’ expectations with the capacity of the
accelerator and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial ecosystem seems
to be important, as not all entrepreneurs were able to come to terms with
the reality of the accelerator offering. Lewis for example, was highly critical
of the A2 accelerator’s failure to take care of participants’ practical issues
(such as cooking) – and halfway through the programme he was clearly
concerned at the prospect of finishing the accelerator with ‘only’ his
learning as an outcome:
“We have to move forward and really get the required financing to start the
business, because it would be… self-defeating, if out of this we go without
financing the business.”
After leaving the accelerator Lewis appeared to cut himself off from NSE and
the other social entrepreneurs, with the exception of Isaac – ignoring requests
for interviews and the one-year follow-up questionnaire. He represents perhaps
the most extreme example of how expectations affect entrepreneurs’ attitudes to
the accelerator, even if traces of disappointment over the difficulty of raising
investment are found in several other interviews. During the A2 accelerator,
managers were acutely aware of the African entrepreneurs’ unrealistic
expectations with regards to finding investment – and they discussed and
attempted to manage these. With the benefit of hindsight however, it is possible
to see that other A2 entrepreneurs also had expectations of the accelerator that
were not fulfilled – for example: with regards to the quality of interaction
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
281
between entrepreneurs. Heidi and Marie were particularly concerned about the
failure of the cohort to provide a high level of peer coaching, but their
expectations were not managed as actively by accelerator managers as those of
the ‘funding-oriented’ participants.
What is important to understand about the task-orientation of entrepreneurs is
that it appears to influence their participation in the accelerator. It is difficult to
isolate the effect of entrepreneurs’ expectations on the accelerator process from
the impact of other factors such as the practical concerns in A2. Nonetheless,
the task-orientation of participants did seem to have an impact on the way in
which entrepreneurs approached the programme. Nelson for example, seemed
to perceive the entrepreneurial task during the accelerator as primarily one of
sourcing funding. Lewis seemed to be intent on sourcing funding, but was also
keen to increase the legitimacy of his venture and hoped to develop his business
skills. Subsequently, in the accelerator environment, Nelson appeared less keen
to maximise his learning in seminars – even if he seemed to ‘wake up’ now and
again, when a subject he perceived as particularly relevant came up. Lewis took
copious notes during seminars and even recorded many of them – but neither of
the two appeared particularly interested in contributing to other entrepreneurs’
ventures, nor of taking on board ideas from the other social entrepreneurs. In
week 7 of A2 I made the following field note after a chat with accelerator
manager Karen:
“The strain of running the accelerator (and participating in it) is showing and
Karen is very tired and feels unable to live up to the diverse expectations of
the entrepreneurs. She commented that she is finding the behaviour and
attitudes of two entrepreneurs (Lewis and Isaac) especially irritating, as they
seem unable/unwilling to take feedback, despite being good at providing it for
others.”
The apparent ‘disengagement’ of some entrepreneurs in A2 was something that
irritated not only the accelerator managers, but also other entrepreneurs. This
irritation was not only an emotional burden, but also affected the learning of
other accelerator participants and their willingness to engage with the rest of the
cohort in an inclusive manner. Marie’s experience in A2 has already been
described (section 4.4.2), but Heidi (A2) also described similar feelings. However,
she added an account of her strategy for coping with her irritation:
“I was getting quite frustrated at the beginning […] and I mean it doesn’t really
have anything to do with me so it shouldn’t really bother me, but when
everyone’s just talking about funding and… connecting with people and I was
like ‘did you read any of the emails? Have you looked at the website? [laugh]
This isn’t what it’s about, you know’. Or for me that’s not what it’s about”.
Jönköping International Business School
282
“But I’ve got over it basically. Whenever we have the seminars and people
they... their phone’s still going off, people are on their computer the whole
time. And I just sit in the front, so I can’t see them and then… whatever, if
they’re looking bored and not paying attention and whatever, I’ll just do the
best that I can to get as much as I can out of it.”
These quotations illustrate primarily the negative impact that other
entrepreneurs’ attitudes can have on the learning environment of the accelerator.
Naturally, when entrepreneurs display a positive attitude the learning
environment improves dramatically, both in the seminar sessions and often in
the more informal peer-to-peer interaction. Entrepreneurs’ disillusioned
comments in week 4 of A2 contrast for example, with Rebecca’s comment in
week 4 of the third accelerator:
“In a few weeks we have become like siblings!”
Naturally, when accelerator participants were irritated with one another they were
less likely to interact with those whom they found irritating. The entrepreneurs
did not explicitly describe avoiding other participants or ‘freezing them out’ –
but by asking them who they tended to talk to most, clear patterns of interaction
and ‘non-interaction’ surfaced. Entrepreneurs tended to talk to those individuals
who they felt were attentive and learning-oriented – and also receptive to others’
ideas. Conversely, they seldom described interacting with those individuals who
they portrayed as arrogant, disinterested and concerned only with the progress
of their own ventures. Entrepreneurs’ understandings of their ‘primary task’ in
the accelerator appeared to affect their engagement in seminars and with their
peers – and as a result, their own learning and that of others. Importantly, there
is a possibility that as entrepreneurs progress through the accelerator they may
come to view their primary task differently. However, this was not obvious in
the Booster accelerator, even if entrepreneurs (such as Isaac) – who were initially
sceptical of programme activities – came to appreciate them more as time went
by.
When the content of the above paragraphs is summarised in graphic form, I
suggest that in the accelerator context, Boud and Walker’s (1991) ‘intent’ is more
accurately captured by the term ‘perceived task’. The entrepreneurs’ understandings
of what they wish to achieve through the accelerator affects their attitude to
learning and towards their peers. This relationship and the new factor ‘attitude’
is depicted in figure 5.3 and expanded on further in the next section.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
283
5.4 Perceptions of Value and Effectiveness
In the above paragraphs I have described the impact of entrepreneurs’
perceptions of the task at hand on their attitudes towards learning and
interaction. My interviews and observations of the three Booster accelerators
suggest however, that ‘perceived task’ is not the only factor that influences
attitude. Two other factors also appear to influence entrepreneurs’ attitudes: the
way in which they view programme content and their perceptions of their peers.
Figure 5-3: An expanded model of factors that influence
entrepreneurs' participation in the education process
Jönköping International Business School
284
5.4.1 Perceived Value of Content
As with entrepreneurs’ understandings of their primary task during the
accelerator, interviews suggest that participants’ views of the value of the
educational content of the accelerator can vary as the programme progresses.
However, to a certain extent it also appears that attitudes to the content of the
accelerator were influenced not so much by the confidence of the participants in
their own abilities, but rather by the position they chose to adopt to the content.
Barry (A1) was one of the most experienced entrepreneurs, yet appeared to be
very open to new ideas and to the critiquing of his venture by individuals with
less experience than himself. A similar attitude was displayed by Peter (A2) who
despite having been through the St. Clara programme described his attitude in
the following way:
“I’m open to learning, so I didn’t have that [a low patch]. Everything to me
counts […] when you reflect over it, take what is relevant and leave what is
not relevant. So when I was coming, I came empty. So everything that you
give me it’s like – I come like an empty car. You go to a fuel station, they put
gasoline in you, once the car is full, you go.”
Isaac (A2) and Lewis (A2) in contrast, were more critical of the educational
content of the accelerator – and their first impressions may have been influenced
by the fact that it was a woman running the programme
113
. Consequently, and in
contrast to his fellow ‘veteran’ Barry (who attended most of the seminars), Isaac
was initially clearly selective with regards to the seminars he attended. However,
with time his sceptical attitude changed and he came to appreciate the content of
the accelerator more, as Karen describes:
“I talked to him in the second week and said I completely understood that he
had made quite a lot more progress than most of them and has a lot of
education and that maybe all the lectures won’t give that much […] Then he
said ‘No problem, don’t worry about that.’ I said that we would understand if
he felt he had to go home to take care of business.
Then he said he wanted to stay, because he gets a lot out of this and has
found another perspective – that there are other ways of finding funding then
just applying for development aid.”
113
During A2 some of the entrepreneurs suggested that the reason some of their colleagues were
sceptical of the content was due to the managing of the accelerator by a woman. The possibility of this
interpretation being correct is supported by the (positive) comment of another African entrepreneur in
A3, who during the first week expressed surprise that such a good programme had been put together by
a female team.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
285
The data gathered in the three accelerators suggests that entrepreneurs display
four basic types of attitudes/behaviour, with regards to interacting with the
formal educational activities of the programme. Firstly, less experienced
‘innocent’ participants such as Gabriella (A1) found everything interesting:
“My idea was a little aside in my working life. Now thanks to Booster, the
project is more alive than ever. I could not have reached so much information
and so much interesting feedback from people with the right knowledge, if I
had kept on working on my own.”
A second type of behaviour was displayed by more experienced entrepreneurs
such as Peter, Marie and Edward (‘knowledgeable improvisers’ and ‘confident
entrants’). They appeared to attend most of the sessions, but paid more attention
to new material (Peter: “you reflect over it, take what is relevant and leave what
is not relevant”). The most experienced entrepreneurs (‘veterans’ Barry, Isaac and
possibly Lewis) displayed a third type of behaviour, in that were more selective
with regards to accelerator content and often chose to skip a session in order to
concentrate on other tasks. Nonetheless, experience (i.e. familiarity with the
content on offer) does not entirely explain the attitudes of all of the entrepreneurs
towards the programme content. Social entrepreneurs who perceived their
primary task at the accelerator to be that of sourcing funding (Nelson, Isaac and
Lewis) often displayed a fourth type of attitude/behaviour, namely a general
disinterest in the content of seminars, regardless of topic.
5.4.2 Perceived Value of Cohort
Social entrepreneurs’ attitudes to the accelerator programme appeared to be
influenced not only by their perceptions of their primary task and the value of
the programme’s educational content, but also by their initial perceptions of the
value of their peers. In all the accelerators, entrepreneurs naturally came to value
interaction with certain of their peers more than others. For example: in a focus
group in the final week of A1, Barry talked about Catrin’s venture being most
similar to his own and therefore the most interesting for him. Nonetheless, in
both A1 and A3 entrepreneurs’ attitudes to the accelerator seemed to be
influenced by their assumption that everybody in the cohort was of value and in a
position to contribute to one another’s’ ventures. Although entrepreneurs did
not explicitly voice this assumption, the inclusive atmosphere of trust described
by Henrik (A1) seems to take this for granted:
”I think it’s [the accelerator] been very good for all of us, especially as we all
trust each other. We were very open to one another in Booster and that was
fantastic.”
Jönköping International Business School
286
As noted earlier, the atmosphere in A2 contrasted greatly with that in A1 and A3.
In trying to identify the reasons for this difference, it appears that one root of
disunity was the attitudes of some of the entrepreneurs to one another. In
particular there appeared to be a social divide among the African entrepreneurs,
based on the status attached to Isaac and Lewis’ experience in large projects and
the United Nations. Both men were at pains to describe their previous experience
of top management in the introductory sessions of week one – and Lewis
emphasized that he was at the same ‘level’ as Isaac in a subsequent interview:
“Somebody that I have interacted with, based on his background, is Isaac.
Me and him have been consultants: community development, training and
also public health areas, so we’ve had a lot of commonalities. […] and those
commonalities really are relating our experiences at a different level.”
“We [Isaac and Lewis] interact a lot and we really look at issues and we share
a lot. Not that I don’t want to share with others. You always find someone at
your level.”
The positioning by Isaac and Lewis of themselves at the ‘top’ of the
entrepreneurial pecking-order in the A2 accelerator, was not appreciated by other
entrepreneurs. Many individuals found this positioning offensive, particularly
those at the ‘bottom’ – such as Peter, who continued to farm part-time despite
graduation from university. Peter described the tension in the group in the
following manner:
“Something else… people are bossy, others want to show that they know a
little bit. I don’t like that crap, so as I told you I’m to myself. But I’ll not talk it
out, I will not share, I will just…”
(Duncan): “Ignore it?”
“Yeah. Ignore it. Which is common, I think that I’ve seen that it is common in
our group. We have people who want to be high… and then others, you know,
want to be like [makes ‘stuck up’ noises] and you’re like: ‘All right, okay, but
that’s you!’ We all have different… characters.”
The significance of the perceived positioning of individuals in the group is
important, not so much because it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behaviour – but rather
because of its impact on the group dynamic. In A2 it was clear that, in contrast
to A1, there was very little venture-oriented peer-to-peer interaction when the
entire cohort was present. At a check-in in week seven I made the following
observation:
“The entrepreneurs responded with total silence to Karen’s question about
their business plans and looking around the room, there were quite a few
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
287
folded arms (Kenny, Lewis: suggesting a closed, defensive attitude?). Karen
appeared to unconsciously reflect this attitude as she in turn folded her arms
as she continued to speak. Jamal made a few non-committed comments, as
did Heidi – and Jamal’s role as one of the spokesmen for the group was clear.
Nelson was busy on his computer Skyping, but stopped after about 10
minutes as the discussion became more engaging.”
To a certain extent the above observation may reflect the ‘roller-coaster’ nature
of the accelerator process. Accelerator managers commented on the challenge of
managing the unpredictable emotional ‘swings’ in the cohort – pointing out that
a few evenings before the awkward discussion described above, the group had
celebrated Isaac’s birthday in an apparently cheerful manner. Nevertheless,
Peter’s comments suggest that one of the sources of the underlying tension in
the group was the perception of several entrepreneurs that they were not ‘valued’
by Isaac and Lewis. As noted previously, Karen also felt that the pair was willing
to give feedback to others, but not to receive it. It appears therefore that an
attitude of ‘give and take’ is important, if a “dialogic culture focused on learning”
is to develop among the accelerator cohort (Hjorth, 2013, p. 38). This reciprocity
in turn appears to build on the perception among entrepreneurs, that all of their
peers have at least something useful to contribute. Where this attitude is missing,
the evidence from A2 suggests that the cohort rapidly splinters into smaller
constellations of peers.
When the factors discussed in the above paragraphs are included in my graphic
portrayal of the accelerator process, detail is added to the additional component
of ‘attitude’ that was added in the last section (see figure 5.4). In the context of
the TCP incubator Hjorth (2013) emphasized the need for potential incubatees
to display “coachability” during the screening process. This aspect is clearly part
of the attitudinal component of the entrepreneur’s ‘life world’ as they enter
accelerators. However, although it may only be necessary for entrepreneurs in
incubators to display openness to learning from managers and other ‘senior’
incubator figures – in accelerators there appears to be a need for entrepreneurs
to display an openness to learning from other individuals in the cohort.
Jönköping International Business School
288
Figure 5-4: Factors that influence entrepreneurs' attitudes
towards learning-oriented activities in accelerators
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
289
5.5 Splace for Learning
In his study of the TCP incubator, Hjorth (2013) concludes by suggesting that
future incubators will become effective by focusing on ‘space’ rather than ‘place’.
In other words on the ‘climate’ of the programme, rather than the location of
entrepreneurs in a physical location. While I agree with this emphasis, my study
strongly suggests that it is not easy to disconnect the one from the other. In this
section I discuss various aspects of the ‘space’ created for social entrepreneurs
by the Booster accelerator. To begin with my discussion focuses on the ‘climatic’
or ‘cultural’ aspects of the programme, but as I progress it will become clear how
the physical, material aspects of ‘place’ make themselves felt. Consequently, a key
implication of this section is that effective accelerators succeed by working with
‘splace’. “Splace” is a term used by architecture student Paul Hajian (1982, p. 3)
to discuss “the qualities of the places we love, those essences that make space
place”. However it is a term also used by Flossie Peitsch (2012, p. 260), who
defines it among other things as a “context within which one can construct
meaning”. Peitsch cites human geographer Edward Relph (1976) in arguing for
the inseparability of place and space. Relph argues that “however we feel or know
or explain space, there is always some associated sense or concept of place”
(Relph 1976 cited in Peitsch, 2012, p. 258). As will be seen in the following
paragraphs, the evidence collected in this study suggests that Relph’s observation
is accurate.
From the perspective of learning theory, I suggested in chapter two that a key
objective in non-formal entrepreneurship education is the creation and
resolution of disjuncture. This infers that accelerator design needs to focus on
facilitating situations that help entrepreneurs experience these two processes.
However, it is important to recognise that learning is not the only goal of
accelerators. The ‘focus’ part of the accelerator contribution centres as much on
enhancing the entrepreneur’s ability to devote time and effort to their venture, as
it does on learning. To coin Hjorth’s (2013, p.51) term, it is important to create
“space” for both learning and doing. Similarly, although learning about the ‘who’
is part of the networking ingredient in accelerators, it is not the only part.
Consequently, accelerator design usually involves a compromise between several
different objectives, only one of which is learning.
In this section most of the answers to research question two
114
are developed.
However, as will become clear in later sections it is difficult to completely isolate
the impact of accelerator design from other factors. The ‘people’ factor addressed
114
In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by the non-human ‘objects’
(primarily educational design) that are associated with entrepreneurship education in accelerators?
Jönköping International Business School
290
by research question three
115
is especially important; as mentors, coaches,
managers and peers provide the ‘filling’ for the various ‘vessels’ that make up
accelerator design. On the one hand it is possible to depict the activities of these
four groups of individuals by means of the structured diagrams – or schedules –
of accelerator activities (see section 4.3.3). At the same time it is important to
remember that these individuals are independent agents who sometimes behave
in an unpredictable manner within this frame. As will be seen, they may even
create their own frames. Nonetheless, in this section accelerator design is
discussed based on the assumption that individuals’ behaviour can be managed
to a certain extent – by means of (among other things) non-human, material
objects. In the next section (5.6), the limits to this predictability are noted – and
the impact of the ‘human’ side of accelerators discussed.
5.5.1 Managing the Formal – Non-formal mix
In chapter two I noted La Belle’s (1982) argument that both formal and non-
formal contexts of learning typically include some of the characteristics of all
three emphases (formal, non-formal and informal). This suggestion is mirrored
in the Booster programme, where there it is possible to identify several core
‘formal’ activities (primarily the regular lectures and the obligatory assignments),
interspersed with non-formal and informal activities. In chapter four I described
how the Booster programme generally follows the traditional accelerator
educational model of ‘lecture by expert’, followed by ‘individual coaching by
expert’ and ‘application by individual’. Lectures are held at specific times for the
whole group (mirroring the educational model of formal settings), but from then
on the educational process becomes increasingly that of non-formal contexts of
learning. In the individual coaching session with the ‘expert’, the entrepreneur
and the session speaker have an equal say in what is brought up for discussion.
After this session the onus is entirely on the entrepreneur with regards to what to
focus on from the session – and when to focus on this content (if at all). This
progression from an expert-driven process to one that is learner-driven is
depicted in figure 5.5.
The lower part of the figure – depicting the gradual move from expert-driven to
learner-driven learning at the ‘micro’ level in the accelerator – can also be used
to model the accelerator process from a more macro perspective. Although this
progression was never entirely achieved in the Booster accelerators in terms of
formal design, in practice managers tended to ‘relax’ their expectations of
entrepreneurs as the accelerator progressed – with regards to lecture attendance
115
In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by their interaction with the different
human actors within accelerators (managers, mentors, coaches and peers)?
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
291
Formal
lecture
Indivi dual
coaching
Indivi dual practice
Formal
Non-formal
Figure 5-5: The move from a formal to a non-formal learning
orientation
and even assignments. Entrepreneurs were expected to attend all activities in the
first four to five weeks of the accelerator. However, as managers became more
aware of the status of entrepreneurs’ ventures and of their particular
development needs, this expectation was toned down. In some cases an effort
was also made to arrange extra sessions to cover emergent learning needs that
had not been foreseen at the start of the programme. Marie (A2) suggests that
this progression from general to specific is important:
“Towards the end you didn’t want to have those general lectures, but rather to
dig into the details. Then it might have been better to have been able to
choose what you wanted help with. After a while perhaps you could tailor it a
little more. The basics to start with, work with the basics for the first three
weeks and then specialise in whatever you feel you need the most.”
A similar process of refinement also appears to be necessary as the accelerator
progresses, in terms of the intensity of the more ‘formal’ programme ingredients
(such as lectures and individual coaching sessions). In accelerator one in
particular, managers were forced to revise the programme schedule towards the
end of the accelerator – in the face of entrepreneurs’ protests that they were no
longer able to fit the accelerator ‘puzzle’ together. It was apparent that a series of
accelerator activities (assignments, networking and venture development
activities) peaked during the last two to three weeks of the programme – and that
few entrepreneurs could cope with this pressure.
From a theoretical perspective, the impact of the intensive nature of accelerator
programmes on learning may be explained by reference to several processes –
and in particular to the twin processes of creating and resolving dissonance. Jarvis
(1987) emphasizes the idea that for learning to occur, individuals must first
recognise the existence of dissonance and secondly, respond to it. In his
discussion of ‘non-learning’ in non-formal educational settings, he suggests that
when practitioners have “too many commitments” they may be prevented from
Jönköping International Business School
292
considering the lessons available to them in a learning situation (ibid., p.139). He
terms this type of non-learning “non-consideration”. This type of non-learning
is reflected in entrepreneurs’ descriptions of their experiences in accelerators –
and it has important implications for programme design. To begin with, it
underlines the importance of striking an appropriate balance between the
creation of dissonance and its resolution. Entrepreneurs make it clear that they
can only cope with a limited amount of information during their short ‘stay’ at
the accelerator, even if it is unclear as to what this limit is
116
. In order for learning
to be effective therefore, it appears that accelerators first of all need to be
designed so that the most strategic areas of dissonance are brought to the
attention of entrepreneurs. However, programmes also need to be designed so
that it is realistically possible for entrepreneurs to both consider dissonance and
resolve it. Furthermore, this process of learning needs to be designed so that it
occupies a space in the accelerator that is proportionate to other tasks, such as
networking or the practicalities of venture development. As Barry (A1) makes
clear, if this balance is not achieved, accelerator activities begin to compete with
one another:
“In a lecture, it’s not just if it’s boring that I think about other things, it’s almost
the opposite. It has to be inspiring, because if it’s boring I start to think about
my to-do list and so on”.
Entrepreneurs’ experience seems to suggest that accelerators need to be designed
in a manner that facilitates significant experiences of dissonance early on in the
programme, or at least in the first four to five weeks (assuming an eight-week
programme). This design parameter would theoretically allow for accelerator
staff to support entrepreneurs in resolving this dissonance during the remainder
of the programme. It may also be important to compartmentalise ‘packages of
dissonance’ to particular periods of time in the accelerator programme. This
possibility is discussed further in the section ‘forests and trees’.
The above paragraphs describe how the Booster accelerator programmes are
designed to facilitate a learning process that progresses from being primarily
expert-driven to being increasingly learner-driven. This can give the impression
of an increasingly unstructured learning environment, but this is only true to a
certain extent. At the end of A1 several entrepreneurs suggested that future
accelerators incorporate clearer, obligatory ‘assignments’ into the programme.
Even ‘veteran’ managers such as Barry underlined the usefulness of being given
‘homework’ and the important role played by having someone else follow up on
it:
116
And naturally, the limit can be expected to vary between individuals.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
293
“I would suggest that you look at the model [name of a Scandinavian
incubator] has for its startup course, with meetings once a week that are very
intense, followed by homework until next week’s session. Then the next
session is started with a review of the homework and discussions around it”.
Comments such as these led accelerator managers to be clearer about their
expectations of entrepreneurs in subsequent programmes – expectations that
specified both what needed to be achieved and by when it needed to be done.
When asked about their feelings about this apparently formal, ‘school-like’
ingredient in the otherwise non-formal learning environment, entrepreneurs
were without exception positive. As Rebecca (A3) commented
117
:
“At the end of the day we are looking at a situation where it’s benefiting my
enterprise. So… everything should have a time limit. Because you cannot tell
me ‘Okay, you send me your business plan after going back to East Africa’. It
would be a different setting”.
“We achieve, but in our own kind of sluggish way. You might say that within a
week – but within a week, which particular day? So I really appreciate that
about our programme and I think it’s something positive, if you’re to progress.”
The Booster entrepreneurs emphasized the role that structure played in keeping
them on target and helping them make progress. Several entrepreneurs also
commented on the probability of tasks not getting done in their home
environments. Consequently, it appears that accelerators first of all facilitate
learning by creating space for the transformation of experience through action.
Accelerators provide space for entrepreneurs to do things that they never get
round to doing in the everyday lives of their startups – and this action is
frequently associated with learning. Importantly however, the character of the
space that accelerators create is initially structured and not simply empty.
Furthermore, programme structure is not based entirely on educators ideas of
what needs to be learned (a formal learning environment), nor only on
entrepreneurs’ instincts about what they need to learn (a learner-driven, informal
context). Instead, learning space in accelerators is non-formal in character,
striking a delicate balance between the experience of educators and the needs of
the nascent venture.
117
Rebecca made these comments in two different interviews, with four weeks between them –
suggesting that for her, this was an important characteristic of the accelerator.
Jönköping International Business School
294
5.5.2 Working with the ‘Forest’ and the ‘Trees’
A comment made by entrepreneurs in all of the accelerators had to do with the
difficulty of working on so many different areas of their ventures at once. The
intensive nature of the Booster programme often resulted in several speakers
visiting the accelerator in a single week and at times giving lectures on very
different aspects of social entrepreneurship. This was especially so in A1. In A2
and A3 it was possible to plan speakers’ visits more strategically – but at the same
time, managers also decided to invite speakers back to the accelerator after two
to three weeks. The spacing of their visits was intended to give the entrepreneurs
time to put into practice what had been taught in the first session, so that speakers
had more ‘material’ to work with on their return. In both A1 and A2 however,
entrepreneurs complained that the design of the programme tended to ‘splinter’
their attention. As a result they had trouble in remembering the content of earlier
sessions and experienced difficulty in making progress with so many ‘balls’ in the
air at once. Barry (A1) therefore recommended that NSE adopt the more
modular approach he had experienced in another startup course:
“It frees up time for everyone to work on their ideas and develop them further
with the new knowledge that has been acquired, before starting the next
subject/session/lesson”.
From a theoretical perspective, entrepreneurs’ comments suggest that substantial
thought needs to go into the timing and number of educational activities that
focus on the creation of disjuncture. Clearly, during the Booster accelerator social
entrepreneurs experienced a series of disjunctures in a relatively short period of
time, yet felt unable to resolve all of them to their satisfaction. Cohen (2013a)
describes a similar experience of “mentor overload” in her study of ‘general
technology’ accelerators in North America. Indeed, it seem probable that it was
this ‘peppering’ of participants with experiences of disjuncture, that led to almost
all of the entrepreneurs describing their experience of the accelerator as ‘intense’.
In A1 Henrik made it clear that he associated “lots and lots of information” with
physical tiredness and a risk of “burn-out”. Kenny’s colourful comments in A2
also suggest that the intensity of the accelerator may not always be conducive to
effective learning:
“Here… [referring to weeks 6-8 on his diagram of the stress levels in the
accelerator] too many deadlines, too much rush, too many… it creates this
[making rapid banging noise]. Until now I’ve not recovered!”
As noted before, a major challenge in accelerators is to create an effective balance
between the recognition of disjuncture and its resolution. Entrepreneurs’
comments suggest however, that this process is not only a question of quantity,
but also of balance and structure. In other words: although it may not be possible
to completely ‘isolate’ the different activities of a nascent venture from one
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
295
another, most participants agreed that it was helpful to focus on one area at a
time and as far as possible, to ‘finish’ that area before moving on to a new area.
Entrepreneurs’ comments about the importance of ‘compartmentalising’
learning appear to be in tension with one of the contributions they associated
with the accelerator, namely: the development of an overview of their ventures
and insight into their ‘place’ in society. This perspective seems to emerge in three
distinct ways. First of all, accelerator participants (particularly in A1) increasingly
came to understand themselves as part of a global movement of social
entrepreneurs. In A1 more sessions were devoted to introducing social
entrepreneurship as a specific category of entrepreneurship and it was clear that
several entrepreneurs incorporated this ‘message’ into their own identities. At
times the development of a social entrepreneurial identity was ‘reactive’ in
character and grounded in frustration with what they perceived as the
ineffectiveness of other solutions to societal challenges (such as charities). For
example, early on in A1 Gabriella commented:
“I worked all the time with NGOs and in Argentina, they still work with the
same system of funding and they have to look for money, sometimes money
comes, sometimes it doesn’t”.
“All my friends in Argentina […] I send my projects or my posters that they
ask me to do – as NGOs. I sent a letter to one of them and asked, ‘do you
know what a social entrepreneur is? Because now I’m a part of it!’ (laugh)”
The development of a social entrepreneurial identity illustrated by Gabriella’s
comment emerged primarily in A1 and reflects aspects of what Etienne Wenger
(1998) terms a ‘community of practice’. Nevertheless, Gabriella’s development
of identity was unusually ‘reactive’ in character. Other A1 participants (such as
Henrik) discussed the development of a social entrepreneurial identity more in
terms of discovering a ‘label’ for their activities (“the understanding about what
it is we are doing”). Interestingly, in A2 fewer sessions focused on providing
entrepreneurs with a background in social entrepreneurship and participants
rarely commented on their status as social entrepreneurs. This implies that
accelerators are able to influence the way in which entrepreneurs ‘frame’
themselves and their ventures. In terms of design therefore, accelerators can give
participants a sense of being part of a bigger movement by helping them interact
with both other members of their cohort and more experienced social
entrepreneurs. In Booster, meetings with the latter often took place at ‘events’,
such as the social entrepreneurship evenings at SocNet. Nonetheless, it appears
that greater impact is achieved by combining the experience of meeting other
social entrepreneurs with factual sessions that explain this experience.
The second way in which the Booster accelerators helped entrepreneurs gain a
perspective on their enterprises, was by providing them with the tools to see their
Jönköping International Business School
296
ventures as a ‘whole’, as opposed to only seeing parts of it – and in particular
those parts that demanded attention. Heidi (A2) for example, describes both
what tends to happen in the everyday life of a startup and the difference the
accelerator programme makes:
“You really need to… take time with these things. And that’s why it’s really
good to be here. Because otherwise, you can say, ‘I need a communications
strategy. I’m going to communicate, okay. That’s my strategy!’ (laugh) But
here, then you really have to think what… even if you don’t write it down, have
a… You know? It needs to be… cohesive and go with all your business, all
these things.”
Heidi’s comment illustrates the ‘focus’ contribution of accelerators, in that she
describes how the programme forced her to focus attention on important areas
of her venture, for a long enough period to make a difference. Interviews with
other entrepreneurs (for example: Marie-A2) suggest that accelerators’ provision
of time is an important factor in enabling participants to get to grips with the
details of their ventures, while also attempting to see the ‘bigger picture’. ‘Focus’
is therefore a factor that is both liberating and constricting in its effects.
Entrepreneurs are ‘freed’ from the pressures of their every-day venture operations,
but at the same time they are freed to a fairly stringent set of requirements and
expectations. They are not only expected to spend time developing the nitty-
gritty ‘pieces’ of their ventures – but furthermore, to assemble all these pieces
together in a single, cohesive unit. Many of the Booster entrepreneurs found the
‘business model canvas’ tool helpful in integrating the diverse set of narrow
themes addressed by visiting experts. By introducing this tool at an early stage in
the accelerator, managers provided entrepreneurs with what David Ausubel
(1960) terms an “advance organiser”. However as noted earlier, participants
118
also underlined the role of the visits by practicing entrepreneurs in helping them
‘capture’ the essence of their enterprises.
Entrepreneurs’ experiences suggest that for optimal learning to occur in
accelerators, they need to be designed in a manner that constantly cycles between
the ‘forest’ and the ‘trees’. As learning theorist Winifred Hill (1997, p. 150)
comments: “Given the complexity of structure […] there is a constant danger of
not seeing the forest for the trees, of […] missing the most important aspect of
what one is trying to learn”. In accelerators entrepreneurs need to be able to work
on specific aspects of their ventures, without losing their sense of the bigger
picture. Nonetheless, the bigger picture of the enterprise is one that not only
exists in the present, but also in the future – implying that there is a need for
entrepreneurs to manage what Barbara Bird (1995, p. 59) terms “temporal
tension”. Experiences from Booster suggest that it is relatively easy to help
118
For example: Marie (A2).
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
297
entrepreneurs with specific areas of venture development, primarily through
visits by experts in those fields. Support in achieving an impression of the venture
as a whole is a more difficult task and seems to be achieved by a combination of
factors, including material tools that help create ‘wholes’ (such as business model
canvas) and ‘structure-breaking’ visits by experienced entrepreneurs. This
suggests that the creation of ‘forest’ is not only achieved by ‘advance’ organisers
as suggested by scholars such as Ausubel (ibid.), but also by ‘ex post facto’
organisers. That is: individuals or tools that help entrepreneurs place previous
episodes of learning into context. These aspects of accelerator design resemble
the sensemaking strategies discussed by Weick (1995), who also emphasizes the
‘backwards looking’ character of learning.
The third way in which the NSE programme helped accelerator participants gain
perspective was by enabling them to see alternative courses of action. Often
entrepreneurs came to the accelerator ‘locked into’ a particular mindset or course
of action, but left with an understanding that a broader set of alternatives existed.
As Marie commented in A2:
“I became aware of different roads that I could take, with regards to how you
can… I haven’t applied for any money, but still you see ‘Yes, there are
actually these possibilities…’ Yes, a bit like that.”
In terms of design, the generation of alternative courses of action seems to be an
‘instinctive’ contribution of accelerators. Simply by coming in from their ‘islands’
entrepreneurs are exposed to a large number of alternative models – whether in
theoretical terms (options presented by experts) or through the practical
examples they are exposed to. The latter examples are often seen in the
accelerator cohort, or in entrepreneurs that visit the accelerator – or to whom
the cohort pays a visit. Naturally, mentors and other entrepreneurs may also
suggest alternative courses of action, as individual entrepreneurs interact with the
various actors present in the accelerator ‘ecosystem’.
5.5.3 Managing the Dynamics of Place – and Space
Although I have characterised accelerator programmes as non-formal contexts
for entrepreneurial learning, it is clear from entrepreneurs’ experiences that
significant amounts of learning also take place in informal settings. Marswick and
Watkins (2001, p. 25) suggest that informal learning “may occur in institutions,
but it is not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of
learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner”. In the Booster accelerators,
important contexts in which this type of learning occurred were the areas in
which entrepreneurs interacted when they were not participating in formal
accelerator activities. For example: SocNet and their accommodation. Despite the
‘learner-driven’ character of informal learning, it is important to note that
Jönköping International Business School
298
accelerator activities can be designed to facilitate informal learning, by providing
conducive environments and opportunities for entrepreneurs to interact
effectively with one another. Booster managers recognised the need for
consciously promoting interaction in each of the accelerators, but initially
underestimated the need to promote interaction throughout the programme – and
even afterwards. This insight is reflected in the inclusion of team-building
sessions at the beginning of each accelerator, sessions that were however phased
out as the programme progressed. Marie (A2) was especially critical of this
omission:
“There was nothing [interaction] scheduled and nobody wanted it. I think it’s
both the group and the [accelerator] leadership. […] If we are to be able to
give stuff to one another, then you have to put it into the schedule.”
Marie’s comment suggests that interaction is not only a result of effective design,
but also entrepreneurs’ attitudes (more of this in the next section). It does appear
however, that because interaction is one of the prerequisites for informal
learning, in the Booster accelerators more effort could have been made to facilitate
interaction among entrepreneurs in the later stages of the accelerator.
When it comes to the impact of the SocNet ‘space’ on informal learning the
entrepreneurs’ comments were generally positive. This suggests that the placing
of accelerator participants in an environment conducive to interaction with like-
minded peers was an effective strategy for enhancing learning. As noted earlier
however, learning is only one of several goals associated with accelerators.
Consequently, several entrepreneurs described the SocNet environment as being
conducive to interaction, but not to concentrated work (such as writing a
business plan). In a focus group that discussed the role played by SocNet; Edward,
Catrin and Alice (A1) described its function in the following manner:
“I would say it was good to have that space, but it didn’t really work for me or
for us. To sit there really getting things done.” (Edward)
“So quite often, if I go to SocNet it’s because I know I don’t have really
focused, serious work to do.” (Catrin)
“The whole atmosphere is still very much inviting – for just the fact that you’re
like, standing up and not sitting, like… so most people will feel they can
approach you and start talking.” (Alice)
What the above quotes do not clarify is the dynamic interplay between the SocNet
environment and entrepreneurs’ interactions with others. Many entrepreneurs
worked from their accommodation when they wished to ‘get things done’.
Naturally therefore, towards the end of the accelerator – as deadlines approached
and they were trying to complete tasks – they tended to spend less time at SocNet
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
299
and more time in their accommodation. This in turn reduced the amount of
interaction they were exposed to. In A3 this tendency was apparent as early as
week four, with Nadia commenting that s/he wished there were more scheduled
activities at SocNet. Her response when I asked her to explain why (“this would
commit people to come here and to work more here”) suggests that many of the
Booster entrepreneurs were already conducting a large proportion of their work
from their accommodation. Nadia was not sharing accommodation with the
other A3 entrepreneurs and clearly felt that her interaction with the cohort was
reduced by this behaviour. From a design perspective therefore, the trend
described above suggests that as accelerators progress, it becomes increasingly
necessary for managers to consciously facilitate informal learning.
In the first accelerator the question of accommodation appeared to be a non-
issue. The cohort was fairly homogenous in terms of ethnicity and background,
and the social entrepreneurs interacted well with one another in formal, non-
formal and informal settings. In the second and third accelerators, it became clear
that ‘secondary’ space
119
had a greater impact on interaction than was anticipated.
In particular it was clear that the ‘borders’ created by accommodation often
carried over into the cohort, reinforcing differences of ethnicity and gender. In
A2 this provoked the creation of at least two sub-groups within the cohort, based
primarily on ethnicity (the Africans and the ‘other’s). In A3, the cohort also
displayed a tendency to interact on the basis of sub-groups, even if this behaviour
was less obvious than in A2 and was based on both gender and ethnicity. The
development of the group dynamic in both A2 and A3 strongly suggests
however, that the design of ‘secondary’ spaces such as accommodation has a
significant impact on interaction – and consequently, on informal learning.
The idea that physical spaces can influence entrepreneurs’ learning fits well with
the experiences of the entrepreneurs studied by Hjorth (2013) in the TPC
incubator. Physical space at TPC was characterised as unconducive to creativity
and networking
120
– and manager Debora noted that she was forced to “broker”
relationships between participants “due to the logistics of space” (Hjorth, 2013,
p. 28). Hjorth only discusses the impact of what I term ‘primary’ space in his
study – and interestingly, suggests that managers need to emphasize ‘space’ over
‘place’. I agree with the logic underlying his suggestion and it is worth noting that
Susan Smith (2011) also prefer to discuss learning in terms of socially constructed
‘spaces’, rather than in relation to physical ‘place’. However, both the Booster
experience and his own study at TPC strongly suggest that in many contexts it is
119
This term assumes that SocNet can be referred to as ’primary’ space. Susan Smith (2011) suggests
that spaces are ‘enacted’ by learners and consequently does not discuss place and space in the same
manner I do. Her concept of ‘social space’ is however, very similar to what I term ‘secondary’ space.
120
An entrepreneur commented: “I don’t spend much time here, because the place itself is dead boring”
(Hjorth 2013, p.33).
Jönköping International Business School
300
difficult to create ‘space’ for entrepreneurial development, without taking into
account the impact of physical ‘place’. Consequently, in the next section I add
‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ [physical] spaces to my diagram of the accelerator
process
121
, as factors that provide a setting for programme activities. Interaction
does not take place in a vacuum, but in particular physical environments that
influence the character and outcomes of the accelerator process.
5.5.4 The Dual Nature of Time
Until now I have discussed ‘splace’ in terms of the physical environments in
which accelerator activities take place. The locations associated with accelerators
can either facilitate interaction (by locating the programme at SocNet accelerator
participants were able to interact with a larger group of social entrepreneurs) –
or they may constrain interaction (entrepreneurs’ interactions were shaped along
gender lines at their apartments). Nonetheless, it is also possible to conceptualise
space as a temporal phenomenon that facilitates and constrains entrepreneurs’
activities, in a less obvious – yet just as effective manner – as physical space.
Hallen et al. (2013) suggest that from a theoretical perspective, the short duration
of accelerators has the potential to affect entrepreneurial development negatively,
both in terms of learning and tie formation. My study confirms this to a certain
extent, as several entrepreneurs make it clear that the pressure to make progress
during a limited period of time affected their behaviour. In A1 for example,
entrepreneurs asked managers to remove planned sessions so that they could
devote more time to completing key aspects of their ventures (such as business
plans). Entrepreneurs also displayed a tendency to spend more time by
themselves in the last weeks of the accelerator, in order to complete tasks. This
move by the social entrepreneurs back towards their ‘islands’ could mean that
opportunities for learning are lost – if we assume that interaction with experts
and peers is the primary vehicle of learning in accelerators. However, it is also
possible that by engaging in practical work entrepreneurs may still be engaging
in the resolution of disjunctures created in earlier stages of the accelerator. From
the perspective of Jarvis (1987) therefore, it is possible that entrepreneurs resolve
disjuncture through action in the latter stages of accelerators. In other words,
although opportunities for the creation of disjuncture appear to become fewer
as the accelerator progresses, this does not mean that learning has ceased.
Instead, it is possible that different types of learning characterise different stages
of the accelerator. The creation of disjuncture and its resolution through
reflection and emotion may characterise the earlier stages (weeks one to five),
with the resolution of disjuncture through practice becoming increasingly
dominant as the accelerator progresses (weeks six to eight).
121
See figure 5.6.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
301
Despite Hallen et al.’s (ibid.) suggestion that the short duration of accelerators
may affect entrepreneurs’ performance negatively, the experiences of the Booster
social entrepreneurs suggest that ‘time’ has primarily a positive impact on venture
development. Almost all the entrepreneurs commented on the importance of
being able to dedicate time to the development of their startups – time they
would not otherwise have made available. As Jamal (A2) commented:
“I think I was given enough time to develop the idea, work on my business
plan and so on, so it’s given me quite a lot.”
The suggestion by Hallen et al. (2013) - that entrepreneurs in accelerators may
engage in sub-optimal learning - is based on the idea that if they had not
participated in the accelerator, they might have learned other things during the
same period. Social entrepreneurs’ reflections after the Booster accelerator
however, suggest that the learning that takes place in accelerators is qualitatively
different from the learning that takes place in the day-to-day life of nascent social
entrepreneurs. This difference is emphasized by Barry (A1) who was surprised
by it:
“It wasn’t conscious, but I notice it now when I’m sitting here on this course
[…] there are parts of my brain that are otherwise far too inactive that relax
and cut loose.”
As noted earlier, some scholars have suggested that the ties formed in
accelerators may be too weak to be of any use in transferring significant learning
among participants. This study suggests however, that although this may be a
risk, many entrepreneurs were able to develop surprisingly ‘thick’ ties during the
eight week programme – and that these ties did not thicken only towards the end
of the accelerator, but relatively early on
122
. My findings are therefore more
similar to those of Cohen (2013b) – whose study noted that peer bonds in
accelerators form quickly, but deeply.
What I found surprising in the Booster experience, is the short-term nature of the
ties formed during the accelerator. For the entrepreneurs interviewed by Hallen
et al. (2013), the expanded network facilitated by the accelerator was a key long-
term contribution
123
. Although it is too early to assess the impact of the A3
programme, follow-ups of the first two accelerators suggest that entrepreneurs
were able to form relationships of surprising intensity in a short period of time –
but that they maintained very few of these relationships after the programme.
This may be a result of the global nature of the Booster cohorts when compared
122
Rebecca’s (A3) quote reflects the speed of this process: “In a few weeks we have become like
siblings!”
123
For example, one entrepreneur is quoted as saying: ”The network is the thing that’s really lasted.”
Jönköping International Business School
302
to the cohorts of more traditional accelerators, but could also be linked to the
perception of NSE staff that they did not have the resources needed to help
graduates keep in touch with one another.
From a design perspective, the experiences of the Booster entrepreneurs suggest
that managers need to be aware of how time influences entrepreneurs’ learning.
Knowing that the pressure of time influences entrepreneurs to interact less with
one another towards the end of a programme, might lead managers to include
more structured forms of interaction during this period and to reduce the
number of formal, content-oriented activities. Understanding time as a resource
might also lead managers to structure programmes in such a way as to provide
entrepreneurs with sufficient time to accomplish key objectives, such as business
plans. On this note it is worth reflecting on the fact that several of the social
entrepreneurs (Peter, Nelson and Willis) were participating in an accelerator for
the second time. When I asked Willis why, he said that he needed to participate
in at least two programmes in order to gain a more complete understanding of
the concepts they introduced. His comment lends weight to my earlier suggestion
that there seems to be a limit to the amount of knowledge participants can
absorb, during the duration of an accelerator.
When the time factor is included in my conceptual ‘scaffold’ it is possible to
depict its dual nature (i.e. as both a source of stress and as a resource) in the
manner depicted in figure 5.6. In the figure, the multi-faceted nature of
‘entrepreneurial learning splace’ is first of all depicted by locating the vital process
of learning ‘as a whole person’ (through emotion, action and reflection) at the
core of the overall context for learning. Learning takes place through the
experience and resolution of disjuncture, but is always situated not only in
temporal space (time) – but also in human and material
124
‘space’.
Drawing on Smith (2011) I suggest that ‘space’ in accelerators is oriented towards
dialogue, reflection, community-building and action. Smith suggests that four
‘human’ concepts of learning space exist and proposes a further concept, that
of “peripheral space”. However, she does not identify what I term ‘action-
oriented space’. I omit the former category and add the latter one, based on my
interpretation of the empirical data gathered during my study. Smith also uses the
term “social space” to refer to what I term ‘space for community building’. The
development of ‘human space’ is discussed in more detail in section 5.6. Before
that however, I will briefly comment on the impact of pedagogy on
entrepreneurial learning in accelerators.
124
Material space could also be referred to as ’place’, but I retain the term ’space’ to emphasize that it is
one of several types of ’space’, all of which enhance or detract from the entrepreneur’s ability to learn.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
303
.
5.5.5 Pedagogy for Nascent Social Entrepreneurs
Initial impressions of entrepreneurs’ comments about the learning process in the
Booster accelerators seem to support the general mood of opinion among scholars
of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning. That is: the idea that
learning for and in entrepreneurship is most effective when it is based on an
experiential philosophy. Entrepreneurs were often critical of speakers who they
felt spent too much time talking about theoretical concepts, rather than practical
application. When discussing how to improve the accelerator in an A1 focus-
group, Edward made a comment that illustrates this:
Figure 5-6: A model of learning ‘splace’ in accelerators, depicting the interplay
of ‘human’ space, time, and primary and secondary physical space.
Jönköping International Business School
304
“More individual coaching I think. Maybe fewer lectures, more individual
coaching and above all… lectures versus workshops. Like some speakers
we’d rather have had in a workshop. So that instead of talking, act
125
. Jackie
for example: good lectures, but I would rather have had her in a workshop
where we sort of worked with our… business models.”
Comments such as the above were common and suggest that in accelerators,
relatively short lecture sessions – followed by practice and coaching, are often
effective in achieving knowledge-oriented objectives. Several of the social
entrepreneurs from developing countries had relatively short experiences of
formal education (i.e. primary and secondary school, and college or university).
These individuals appeared to ‘switch off’ in lectures earlier than their peers,
suggesting that an even more appropriate structure might have been a series of
concept-practice ‘sandwiches’. In other words: the structuring of instruction so
that a lecture that would normally be given in a single one-hour session, would
instead be given in four fifteen minute portions – with each part followed by
practical work, coaching and discussion. Such an didactical strategy would take
into account Gagné’s ‘conditions of learning’ concept, which refers to (among
other factors), “the initial capabilities of the learner” (Gagné, 1984, p. 21).
Despite entrepreneurs’ clear preference for action-oriented learning, their
comments suggest that it is important not to confuse their demand for relevance
with a preference for a form of education based on ‘do, then reflect’ – nor with
a desire for basic skills training. In A1 an attempt was made to structure
entrepreneurs’ learning by means of weekly reflections, but few participants were
willing to structure their learning in this (for them) artificial manner. As Alice
commented:
“Personally I would still cut down on the reflection part. But again, I’m giving it
a chance to prove itself useful before disregarding it actively […] this is very
new and somewhat uncomfortable for my way of working”.
In section 2.1.3 I noted that several scholars suggest that effective
entrepreneurship education should be based on strategies such as those of the
‘reflective practitioner’ or ‘action learning’. Entrepreneurs’ comments do not
contradict these recommendations, but they do modify them somewhat. Instead
of following a clear ‘act then reflect’ cycle (the reflection on action of Argyris &
Schön, 1978), the Booster entrepreneurs seemed to engage in both activities
simultaneously. Their practice seems to be more accurately reflected by Schön’s
(1983) later discussion of how professionals reflect in action. In A2 I was
fascinated by Nelson’s account of his learning process during a lecture
126
. He
125
The Scandinavian [sic] word used here can also be translated as “do!”.
126
There is no audio recording of this account, but I made a note of it shortly afterwards.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
305
described how he listened to the lecture (apparently drifting in and out, attention-
wise), while working on his website and asking questions of his mentor at the
same time, via email (during this particular session his mentor was online. During
a period of no more than two hours, four to six emails that referred to
modifications he was making to his website (as he received input from the
lecture) were sent – and responded to. This illustrates the capacity many Booster
entrepreneurs seemed to have, for ‘thinking on their feet’: evaluating new
knowledge, applying it to their ventures and then re-evaluating it – in quick
succession.
Interviews with entrepreneurs suggest that a philosophy of experiential education
does not necessarily require the emphasis of primary experience over secondary
(or vicarious) experience. The acquisition of practical skills and the reinforcement
of operations-oriented knowledge (such as financial analyses) seemed to be
facilitated by educational structures that interwove the acquisition of new
knowledge with its application. In other words: education based on what Jarvis
(2010) terms ‘primary’ experience. Nonetheless, knowledge that seemed to play
a more strategic role in venture development (such as a move towards hybridity or
the development of a social value proposition), seemed to be acquired through
both primary and secondary experience. This infers that what practicing social
entrepreneurs evaluate in the context of education, is not so much the mode of
education (learning by doing or learning from others), but rather its relevance. This
supports Gibb’s (2002) advocacy of a ‘need-oriented’ educational strategy when
working with practicing entrepreneurs.
To scholars familiar with the practices of entrepreneurs and small business
owners, Gibb’s educational strategy may appear self-evident. Nevertheless, this
study contributes to our understanding of what nascent entrepreneurs mean by
the term ‘relevance’. First of all, it is important to understand that ‘relevant’ is an
adjective that is subjective, rather than objective in character. A coach or mentor
may look at the entrepreneur’s venture and identify a specific contact or body of
knowledge as of relevance. However, if the entrepreneurs themselves do not
consider this input useful, then from an educational perspective, the input has
not yet achieved the relevance necessary to catch their attention. Furthermore,
entrepreneurs are not that different from other adults and consequently, as Boud
and Walker (1991) suggest, relevance is largely determined by purpose (or intent).
If an entrepreneur arrives at an accelerator primarily in order to raise investment,
they are unlikely to pay attention to managers’ suggestions that they contact
someone with valuable technical experience – unless somebody can convince
them that this contact is aligned with their intentions. Alternatively, it may also
be possible to support entrepreneurs in expanding their intentions and consequently,
the ‘filters’ that define what is and is not relevant to them.
Jönköping International Business School
306
Two final factors that seems to strengthen or weaken entrepreneurs’ perceptions
of relevance; have to do with credibility, and emotion and empathy. The Booster
entrepreneurs appeared to assess speakers from both a cognitive and emotional
standpoint. With regards to the cognitive aspect they seemed to prioritise speaker
‘credibility’ above the ‘plausibility’ of the session content. For example: in A3 an
external speaker held a session entitled ‘social, environmental and corporate
governance’. She had a background in large organisations and the A3
entrepreneurs were unanimous in critiquing the session for being too theoretical
and too distant from their own experience. They did not so much suggest that
what she said was untrue (assessing content plausibility), but rather that it was
unlikely to be useful to their own ventures – implying a perceived lack of
credibility due to the contrast in context. In the Booster accelerators, practicing
entrepreneurs often seemed to make an initial assessment of the value of a
session’s content, by referring to the credibility they attached to the speaker.
Credibility appeared to be established on the basis of similarities of experience,
for example: with regards to having started a venture, developed an effective
product or service, and having worked in a developing country.
The above paragraph gives the impression that the assessment of speaker
credibility is primarily a ‘cold’, cognitive process. Entrepreneurs’ comments
however, underline the role played by emotion in establishing credibility and
hence, the potential for relevance. Kenny (A2) provides a particularly clear
account of what a mentor needed to bring to the accelerator, in order to relate
effectively with him:
“He will see my struggle, he will see my pains. You understand? He will
understand… he will appreciate my efforts more. […] If you don’t like
business, for example, I’ll tell you what I’ve been through in my course of
being an entrepreneur. You will not value it, you will think it’s nonsense.”
What Kenny appears to be expressing is the idea that pedagogy for nascent social
entrepreneurs needs to be characterised by empathy. He seems to be saying that
he will be more inclined to listen to individuals who make him feel understood.
Indeed, the input he is appealing for seems to be almost therapeutic in nature.
Meetings with experienced entrepreneurs are valued not just because they are
associated with good advice at a cognitive level, but also because these individuals
are more likely to not only recognise the pain associated with entrepreneurship,
but also to value (or appreciate) it. The experience of several of the Booster
entrepreneurs is similar to the experiences identified by Hytti and Heinonen
(2013) in their discussion of identity work among academic entrepreneurs. In
their study, the entrepreneurial intentions of some academic staff were often
related to the extent to which experienced entrepreneurs shared their painful, yet
successful experiences of starting a new firm. Kenny’s comments suggest that if
experienced entrepreneurs interact with accelerator participants in an empathetic
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
307
manner, they are more likely to judge their input as relevant – and consequently,
are more prepared to engage in vicarious learning. This aspect of relevance is
however primarily affective (or emotion-related) in nature. Furthermore, it also
appears to promote the intention-oriented accelerator outcomes that I have
grouped under the label ‘faith’. By discussing the pain and anxiety of social
entrepreneurship, experienced entrepreneurs do not ignore the affective aspects
of education. Instead, they appear to infuse the painful experiences of less-
experienced entrepreneurs with meaning, enabling them to transform these
experiences into intention and insight.
An interesting difference between the Booster entrepreneurs and the prospective
academic entrepreneurs studied by Hytti and Heinonen (2013), is that the Booster
entrepreneurs were rarely enthusiastic about sessions with “heroic”
entrepreneurs who glossed over the challenges of entrepreneurship. In Hytti and
Heinonen’s study, male academics appeared to relate more to entrepreneurs who
adopted this approach in their visits – while females welcomed the more
“humane” approach of entrepreneurs who were open about the problems they
had faced. This contrast suggests that there is not a single, ideal pedagogy of
entrepreneurship education. For example: the roles that experienced
entrepreneurs are able to play in entrepreneurship education may not only be
related to the purposes of educators (as suggested by Blenker & Christensen,
2010), but also to the characteristics of the learner. Practicing social
entrepreneurs for example, appear to require experienced entrepreneurs to adopt
approaches that express empathy – whereas prospective entrepreneurs (such as
students) often have fewer entrepreneurial experiences for visitors to emphasize
with. Clearly, an approach that is effective in the education of prospective
entrepreneurs, may be less effective when working with practicing entrepreneurs
– or even counterproductive.
When the non-formal character of accelerator education is linked to a recognition
of the subjective nature of entrepreneurs’ perceptions of relevance, it becomes
clear that a pedagogy appropriate to practicing entrepreneurs also need to be
oriented towards contingency. Honig (2004) discusses the concept of
contingency primarily in relation to the role of business plans in entrepreneurship
education. Nonetheless, his ideas are also applicable to the more general theme
of pedagogy in non-formal approaches to education (such as accelerators). Honig
argues that neither entrepreneurs nor educators are able to predict a venture’s
development and that venture documents (such as business plans) therefore need
to be able to cope with this uncertainty. A similar argument can be made for non-
formal approaches to entrepreneurship education. Managers gather extensive
information about entrepreneurs’ backgrounds and about their ventures, but can
never predict the exact path along which a venture will develop. They are
therefore faced with the choice of either attempting to persuade entrepreneurs
of the relevance of their pre-accelerator design choices (i.e. the initial, rigid
Jönköping International Business School
308
schedule of accelerator activities) – or they can attempt to accompany
entrepreneurs on a somewhat less-structured journey of discovery.
In section 5.5.1 I suggested that learning in effective accelerators is characterised
by a gradual move from a formal strategy of instruction to one that is non-formal.
Non-formal pedagogy however, does not consist in simply abandoning
entrepreneurs to an instructional ‘vacuum’. To be effective it needs to involve a
deepening of the educator’s awareness of their situation and of emergent
opportunities for learning. In A3 for example, as managers became more familiar
with the ambitions and needs of the entrepreneurs, they arranged additional study
visits for some individuals. Furthermore, although the visits of most of the
speakers were scheduled before the start of the accelerator, it appears that some
coaches adopted a pedagogy of ‘structured contingency’ as they worked with the
entrepreneurs. Drawing on the comments entrepreneurs made about effective
coaches, this strategy appeared to first of all entail the coach familiarising
themselves with the entrepreneurs’ ventures before the visit. During their
subsequent visit, as they talked about their area of expertise, this knowledge
enabled them to ask ‘informed’ questions about entrepreneurs’ ventures, in
relation to their topic. Often an entrepreneur’s response would align sufficiently
with the topic under discussion, so as to become part of the session. In effect,
coaches who adopted this pedagogical strategy were bringing a large number of
figurative ‘Lego bricks’ to the educational table. Figuratively speaking, they
engaged with accelerator participants by placing their bricks
127
on the table and
asking the entrepreneurs to add their own bricks to the pile. Coaches would then
select some of the entrepreneurs’ bricks to add their own in order to develop the
topic – or add each entrepreneur’s ‘brick’ to their own, one after the other.
Entrepreneurs’ comments suggest that this was an effective approach:
“It was useful. It was good that the coach made it simple and applicable for
each case. It was good that she was detailed.” (Olga-A3)
“[name of coach] studied all our websites and gave hands-on tips on how to
improve them.” (Nadia-A3)
The above comments illustrate the idea that a ‘contingency-oriented pedagogy’
can involve both a ‘macro’ and a ‘micro’ perspective. At the macro level, the non-
formal approach allows managers to provide entrepreneurs with content that was
not designed into the programme at the start of the accelerator. At the micro
level the content of a session whose general theme was pre-determined varies,
depending on which of the entrepreneurs’ ‘bricks’ the coach decided to build
upon (and the number of bricks made available). What is important to
understand in both cases is that the process and the outcomes associated with a
127
That is: key insights or capabilities, based on their particular field of expertise.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
309
pedagogy of contingency, are emergent in character. Williams, Mackness and
Gumtau (2012) associate this type of learning with a paradox, in that learning is
“ordered yet unpredictable”. An important contribution of this study is its
identification and discussion of this unpredictability. In section 4.3.7
128
I
identified the variance in accelerator outcomes, despite strong similarities in
programme structure. In the next section I attempt to explain this variance,
suggesting that it occurs because entrepreneurial learning in accelerators is not
simply the product of management design, but instead the product of a complex
process of co-creation.
5.6 Co-creating Entrepreneurial Learning
One advantage of studying a series of accelerators run by the same organisation
– yet populated by different entrepreneurs – is that this research strategy
facilitates a discussion of the relative impact of programme design. To use the
language of Giddens (1984) it becomes easier to distinguish the impact of the
‘structure’ from that of the ‘agent’. Although the design of the Booster accelerators
evolved to a certain extent from A1 to A3 – and despite the fact that different
managers coordinated the three programmes, accelerator design was more
characterised by continuity than by change. Consequently, a large part of the
variance in both accelerator processes and outcomes appears to be linked to
differences between the entrepreneurs who participated in them. Hallen et al.
(2013) suggest that accelerators will tend to become more effective over time, as
they learn to “better structure their content and activities”. To a certain extent
my study supports this conjecture. However, the contrast in quality of interaction
between A1 and A2 – despite a refinement in programme design – suggests that
accelerator outcomes are affected by more than simply structure and networks.
A key contribution made by this study is the evidence it provides for the co-creation
of learning in accelerators. Learning is developed through the interaction of the
relatively constant population of managers, mentors and coaches – with the
constantly changing combinations of entrepreneurs. This process is discussed in
more detail in the following sections.
5.6.1 The Distinctive Roles of Mentors and Coaches
In several publications (Cohen, 2013m; Hallen et al., 2013), scholars discuss
entrepreneurs’ interactions with the individuals formally associated with
accelerators using the single term “mentor”. Cohen for example, uses this term
to describe both the single individual with whom entrepreneurs interact for the
duration of the programme and the variety of visiting speakers
129
with whom they
128
Similar structures, dissimilar interaction.
129
Her ”four or five mentors a day” (p.23).
Jönköping International Business School
310
interact on a one off basis. Consequently, one contribution of this study is its
distinguishing of the several different types of ‘outside expert’ roles in
accelerators.
In Booster entrepreneurs were allocated a single person upon entering the
programme, whose role it was to be their personal advisor for the duration of
the accelerator. Accelerator managers used the term ‘mentor’ to refer to these
individuals and this is the meaning given to this term in this section. The mentor’s
role was intended to be a broadly developmental one, providing the entrepreneur
with someone who was uniquely dedicated to the success of their venture for at
least the duration of the accelerator. Brockbank and McGill (2006) suggest that
two types of developmental role are associated with this type of long-term
relationship. One that focuses primarily on identifying opportunities for
development (“development alliance”) and one that functions to provide
opportunities (“traditional mentoring”). They suggest that both of these types
fall under the general umbrella of mentoring, but that the first type is more
mentee-led, while the second type tends to be more organisation-driven.
Although it is not the primary purpose of this study to discuss the different roles
mentors can take on, the Booster mentors often tended to emphasize one of the
above functions. Some entrepreneurs noted that their mentor’s main
contribution was to provide them with useful contacts (the traditional mentor
role, according to Brockbank and McGill). Other mentors focused more on
helping entrepreneurs develop themselves or their ventures, by means of
‘awareness-raising dialogue’ (the development alliance model) – and some
mentors contributed in both areas.
In addition to the individuals that follow entrepreneurs throughout the duration
of the programme; accelerators usually recruit a second, larger group of experts.
These individuals interact with entrepreneurs at specific points during the
accelerator and provide them with expert advice on a particular part of their
ventures (for example: financial management or marketing). Brockbank and
McGill (2006) suggest that, in common with long-term mentoring activities,
short-term developmental interaction can also be distinguished as either person-
oriented or organisation-led. They term person-oriented interventions
“counselling” and suggest that it relates primarily to problem-solving.
Organisation-led processes are termed “coaching” and focus mainly on skills
development.
In the Booster accelerators, visitors to the programme could be seen to fulfil both
of the above roles and frequently this was facilitated by the design of accelerator
activities. A typical visit by an ‘expert’ began with a lecture-type session of
instruction that was designed to improve entrepreneurs’ skills in a certain area
(the coaching role). In a subsequent session (usually in the afternoon of the same
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
311
day), the expert met with the entrepreneurs individually to discuss the application
of the skills introduced in the previous session, in their particular context. This
follow-up session was typically characterised by an approach that focused on
application and problem-solving (the counselling role). Despite the two different
roles taken on by short-term visitors, it appears nevertheless that they engaged in
a very different kind of interaction with accelerator entrepreneurs than that
engaged in by mentors. ‘Expert’ visitors to accelerators tended to ignore the
‘forest’ of the entrepreneur’s venture and devoted their attention almost entirely
to their own particular ‘tree’. Indeed one entrepreneur commented wryly that
each visitor appeared to think that their own particular area was the most
important. Mentors on the other hand appear more able to assist entrepreneurs
in ascertaining the relative importance of each expert’s contribution to the
particular needs of the startup.
In view of the differences discussed in the above paragraphs, I suggest that it is
important to distinguish between the role of long-term
130
mentor and short-term
expert. I suggest that the term ‘mentor’ be used to refer only to the individuals
allocated to entrepreneurs for the duration of the accelerator, for the purpose of
venture development. This is in keeping with contemporary scholarly practice in
the fields of psychology and leadership. The use of the term however, should not
ignore the fact that mentors can play different roles in venture development.
Previously I suggested that it is important that entrepreneurs be assisted in
gaining a ‘birds-eye’ view of their enterprises, so that they do not become bogged
down in the details of a single part of their startups. Clearly, mentors are in a
unique position to assist with this task and from a theoretical perspective this
role is an important ideal to strive for. In reality, not all mentors fill this role
effectively and may only contribute with very specific feedback that reflects their
(narrow) expertise. Their contribution may also be limited to providing contacts
that enable entrepreneurs to expand their networks, and gain access to additional
knowledge and resources. The most effective mix from the standpoint of the
social entrepreneur, appears to be one where mentors support entrepreneurs’
learning in both ways. That is: learning not only about ‘who’ (in order to gain
access to expertise and investment), but also about ‘what’ and ‘how’ (for example:
by helping them identify the value they seek to create or develop an effective
business model).
I suggest that it is useful to refer to the experts that visit the accelerator for a
relatively short period of time, as ‘coaches’. Nonetheless, as with the mentor
label, it is important to understand that coaches often engage in at least two types
of role: that of problem-oriented counselling and that of skill-developing
130
In the context of accelerators ’long-term’ refers to a period that may be as short as the duration of
the programme, even if some mentors continue to engage with entrepreneurs after the accelerator.
Jönköping International Business School
312
coaching. Nonetheless, when a coach is also an experienced [social] entrepreneur,
these roles are often complemented by that of the role model.
Although mentors and coaches do not vary from accelerator to accelerator to the
same extent as entrepreneurs in terms of personality and behaviour, it is clear
from entrepreneurs’ accounts that they are as much ‘agents’ as they are ‘structure’
in the programmes. What this implies, is that each meeting with a new
entrepreneur – or cohort of entrepreneurs – is unique in terms of the interaction
that takes place. This is particularly so with regards to mentors, who are usually
chosen to ‘match’ specific entrepreneurs in each accelerator. As a result, several
new mentors are often recruited to each new accelerator to address the particular
needs of each social entrepreneur. These mentors bring new approaches to
relating with the social entrepreneurs and to mentoring, which makes it difficult
for managers to ‘standardise’ the content of mentoring. Nevertheless, even in
the case of coaches, interaction may follow different patterns in each accelerator;
as entrepreneurs elicit different responses from the coaches – and vice-versa. In
a programme such as Booster (which recruits social entrepreneurs globally), the
potential for variation is perhaps unusually large – as A2 demonstrated. In the
second accelerator coaches interacted with two entrepreneurs with extremely
different backgrounds. On the one hand, Isaac: with a university education,
polished manners and long management experience in prestigious aid
organisations. And on the other hand, Nelson: the ex-child soldier with little
formal education, little business experience and a weak understanding of Western
social codes. Although I interviewed very few coaches, entrepreneurs’ accounts
suggest that the way in which coaches interacted with them affected their
attitudes and behaviour. For example: when Nelson describes his interaction with
his mentor, he clearly describes her attitude towards him and his venture:
“Most importantly I have had my mentor who is very loving and who cares for
the project that I'm running, who also has developed passion for the project
and wants to work with me”.
The above quote is short, but full of implications. Not only does Nelson describe
his response to his mentor’s attitude (he now considers his interaction with her to
be one of the most important contributions of the accelerator), he also shows
that his mentor’s attitude to his venture has developed over the course of the
accelerator (“…has developed passion”). The idea of the development of a
shared passion is something discussed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) in
their foundational discussion of co-creation processes. They position dialogue as
a key factor in the co-creation process, but suggest that it must “center around
issues of interest to both” (service providers and consumers) if it is to be effective
(ibid., p.9). Nelson’s experience was not shared by all of the entrepreneurs, which
suggests that interaction between mentors/coaches and social entrepreneurs
develops differently in accelerators. This variation supports my suggestion that
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
313
programme design is just one ingredient in the accelerator process. An important
second ingredient is the interaction that is co-created by the different agents in
the accelerators, two of which are mentors and coaches.
5.6.2 Managers’ Roles
A useful contribution of this study is its discussion of how social entrepreneurs’
interaction with mentors, coaches and peers contributes to their learning. Studies
of incubators (for example: Hjorth, 2013; Lichtenstein, 1992) at times emphasize
the role of programme managers
131
in enhancing the learning of incubatees, but
pay less attention to the impact of other relationships. Naturally however,
managers also influenced entrepreneurs’ learning in the Booster accelerators. Staff
took on several different roles over the three year period that is discussed in this
study, but the number of staff involved in the accelerators also varied. The
implications of this variation are discussed below.
The five main roles that managers in the Booster accelerators took on were those
of designer, facilitator, problem-solver, opportunitor and cohort cultivator. As described in
section 4.3.2, managers were responsible for designing a set of activities that
would help entrepreneurs develop their ventures. This ‘designer’ role is worth
noting, as it contrasts markedly with the prominent role played by Cohen’s
(2013a) “director experts” – as advisors to the entrepreneurs. In Booster a lot of
the design work was done prior to the accelerator, but as each accelerator
progressed and entrepreneurs’ particular needs surfaced, there was an
opportunity to customise and refine the programme. In section 5.5.1 I suggested
that as time goes by in accelerators, there is often gradual shift from a formal to
a non-formal learning environment. Importantly, this shift implies a change of
emphasis in managers’ roles. as they come to rely less on ‘predicting’
entrepreneurs’ needs (the role of the traditional designer) – and more on
obtaining an accurate impression of these needs and adapting programme design
in order to create an environment conducive to their solution (the role of the
facilitator). This change in roles reflects Sanders and Stappers’ (2008, p. 15)
discussion of “generative design thinking”. These scholars discuss how co-design
involves a ‘mixing up’ of roles and emphasize a new role for researchers and
designers, as providers of “tools for ideation and expression” (p.12). In the
Booster context, the ‘emergent design’ implied by this thinking was most obvious
in A1 and A3, but was less apparent in A2. In the second accelerator, a third role
– that of the ‘problem solver’ – severely limited managers’ ability to engage in the
facilitator role.
In A1 and A3 NSE was able to recruit several assistants to help with the
practicalities of running the accelerator. These individuals helped with tasks that
131
See for example: Hjorth’s (2013, p.46) discussion of managers as “institutional entrepreneurs”.
Jönköping International Business School
314
ranged from setting up coffee breaks to booking accommodation and travel. In
A3, one was even involved as a coach – while her companion coordinated the
‘networking’ side of the accelerator. In A2 however, only one assistant was
initially available and the practical responsibility for the day-to-day coordination
of the accelerator rested on manager Karen’s shoulders. This drop in staffing
coincided with the decision to recruit social entrepreneurs from developing
countries, with all the practical and cultural complications that this entailed. After
the accelerator, Karen described her frustration over being forced into a
‘problem-solver’ role, which in A2 involved an apparently continuous process of
‘fire-fighting’. This role did not prevent Karen from engaging in design activities
– most of which took place before the accelerator – but it did prevent her from
operating effectively in the ‘facilitator’ role.
A role that is at times similar to that of the ‘problem solver’ is that of the ‘cohort
cultivator’. This role is similar to the ‘group facilitator’ role described by
Lichtenstein (1992) in his study of the Enterprise Development Centre
132
(EDC)
in Boston. It refers to the effort managers put in to helping entrepreneurs get to
know one another and form productive relationships. In all three Booster
accelerators managers devoted several days to proactive team-building at the
beginning of the programme, but were criticised by several entrepreneurs in A2 for
not sustaining this effort in the weeks that followed. In A2 in particular, it was
difficult to maintain the initial proactive stance of ‘cultivation’ in the face of the
conflicts among the entrepreneurs and managers were forced to engage in
activities more similar to ‘weeding’ (i.e. conflict resolution). A3 entrepreneurs
however, commented on the contribution made by managers in not only
fostering good relationships (by stimulating and monitoring group processes),
but also by designing for a positive group dynamic (the inclusion of a session on
intercultural communication).
In my method section I discussed my own role as a ‘bearer of organisational
knowledge’. This role was clearly also taken on by managers in the second and
third accelerators. Managers were keen to learn from the accelerator process and
to assess the relative merits of different sessions, coaches and mentors – as well
as their own performance. Substantial efforts have been made to document the
Booster processes, but naturally a great deal of tacit knowledge has been
accumulated in the heads of the two managers involved in A2 and A3.
The final role that Booster managers clearly engaged in was that of the ‘pace-
maker’ (or ‘task-master’). This role is similar to that taken on by manager June
Lavelle in Lichtenstein’s (1992) study of the Fulton-Carroll incubator in Chicago.
It is more directive in nature than the ‘cohort cultivator’ role and focuses on
helping entrepreneurs progress through the accelerator programme. In practice
132
At the time of Lichtenstein’s study this was an incubator.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
315
it involved managers engaging in activities such as asking entrepreneurs about
their progress and reminding them about deadlines. At times mentors took on a
similar role, but interviews clearly indicated that not all mentors adopted a ‘bigger
picture’ perspective of the entrepreneurs’ ventures – suggesting that it was
important that managers took on this role.
The distinct roles and functions of managers, mentors and coaches can be
conceptualised in the following way (see figure 5.7).
NETWORKS
Managers
c
o
u
n
s
e
l
l
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
c
o
h
o
r
t
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
o
r
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
l
v
e
r
r
o
l
e
m
o
d
e
l
p
a
c
e
m
a
k
e
r
Mentors
Coaches
e
n
t
h
u
s
i
a
s
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
o
r
Intent
e
x
p
e
r
t
Figure 5-7: Tutor roles in the Booster Accelerators.
Jönköping International Business School
316
In this figure I note first of all the existence of three main learning-oriented actors
in accelerators: managers, mentors and coaches. I label these actors “tutors”,
given the orientation of the term towards educators who work with “a single
pupil or a very small group” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). Although the
entrepreneurial community surrounding the accelerator is not discussed in this
study, it does play a role in entrepreneurial learning and is depicted in the diagram
as a ‘network’ that the accelerator is embedded in. The various functions of the
tutorial actors within the accelerator (for example: counselling and expert
coaching) are included in the diagram. However, they are not restricted to any
specific category – even if the figure reflects the tendency of managers to take on
a greater range of roles than mentors and coaches. This reflects my observation
that although some functions are more commonly associated with a particular
group, at times other categories of tutor also carry out these functions. For
example: although mentors often take on the ‘opportunitor’ role (the provider of
connections or similar opportunities for development), this role is at time taken
by both managers and coaches. It is also important to note that although
managers invite mentors and coaches to the accelerator, it is difficult to achieve
complete agreement with regards to what should be achieved through their visits.
This is represented in the diagram by the presence of a ‘shadow’ intent on the
part of mentors and coaches.
5.6.3 The Impact of Cohort Characteristics on Learning
The interactions testified to by the entrepreneurs in the three Booster accelerators
suggest that the effectiveness of accelerator education is a result not only of
programme design, and the behaviour of mentors and coaches – but also of the
various ways in which social entrepreneurs act (and react), as they participate in
the accelerator. The diversity of ways in which individuals interact with a similar
accelerator design and an apparently similar pattern of relationships, lends weight
to my argument that accelerator outcomes are influenced as much by processes
of co-creation, as they are by programme design. In the Booster accelerators at
least three patterns of co-creation emerged that were particularly related to the
characteristics of the entrepreneurial cohort. These are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
5.6.3.1 Tone-setters: the Role of Influential Individuals
In all three accelerators one or two individuals appeared to play a greater role
than others in creating a particular ‘atmosphere’ within the accelerator –even if
this was less pronounced in A1. In A1 Henrik appeared to play a significant role
in creating a climate of cheerful energy and curiosity. In A2 two alternative
climates appeared to battle for supremacy, with Marie apparently the champion
of an open environment of equality and mutual engagement. The alternative
climate did not appear to have a clear champion, but seemed to be characterised
by one-up-manship, dissatisfaction and distrust. A3 was similar to A1 with
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
317
regards to the positive ‘feel’ to its group dynamic, even if it at times appeared that
Thomas was a little more proactive than his peers in taking steps to resolve
conflict. Two pairs of similar incidents illustrate my argument that agency trumps
design in the accelerator process. The first incident illustrates the vital importance
of entrepreneurial agency to the accelerator process, while the second one (in the
next section) illustrates the role of emotion in hindering learning.
As noted in section 4.3, in the third accelerator NSE staff decided to provide
entrepreneurs from with a daily allowance, in order to allow them to devote more
energy to the startup process and to minimise the conflicts associated with food
preparation in A2. Despite these changes and a reduction in the distance between
entrepreneurs’ accommodation and SocNet, in interviews with A3 entrepreneurs
it emerged that the potential for conflict still existed. In A2 a combination of
factors contributed to conflict among the large group of African entrepreneurs,
one of which (the refusal of some individuals to do their share of household
chores) appeared to be central. This conflict was partly resolved, but tainted the
atmosphere in the accelerator for the duration of the programme. In A3 the
climate in the group appeared to be energetic and cheerful, but when I discussed
the group dynamic with Thomas it emerged that Willis had attempted to get Zayd
and Vinay to do all his cooking for him
133
. In contrast to A2 however, Thomas
took immediate action to challenge this behaviour – apparently curtailing a
pattern of interaction that could have had a negative impact on the group
dynamic. Programme design in both accelerators was very similar, but the
development of the climate in the cohort was affected in very different ways by
the behaviour – and ‘counter behaviour’ of individual entrepreneurs.
5.6.3.2 Failing to learn: the role of emotion
In A1 and A2 two well-qualified entrepreneurs participated (Barry and Isaac), yet
the two individuals were associated with very different processes. In A1 Barry
adopted an attitude of openness and curiosity, apparently willing to receive
feedback from entrepreneurs with far less experience than him. Although he did
not get as much from the accelerator as he had hoped for, as a result of his
experience he was able to make a substantial contribution to the group – and
later took on the role of mentor for Gabriella. In contrast, interviews with A1
entrepreneurs suggest that Isaac was perceived as ‘too big for his boots’ by the
majority of the A2 entrepreneurs. This impression influenced both the climate in
the group and even managers’ attitudes towards him. Although the following
quote does not refer to Isaac alone, it is clear from other interviews that he is one
of the individuals ‘ignored’ by Peter:
133
A strikingly similar pattern of behaviour to that displayed by some of the A2 entrepreneurs.
Jönköping International Business School
318
“Something else… people are bossy, others want to show that they know a
little bit. I don’t like that crap, so as I told you I’m to myself. But I’ll not talk it
out, I will not share, I will just… ignore it. Which is common, I think that I’ve
seen that is common in our group”.
What is important in the above quote is not so much Isaac’s perceived attitude,
but rather the impact of his [perceived] attitude on other entrepreneurs’ learning.
Barry and Isaac were both experienced managers and it is probable that Isaac’s
peers in A2 could have learned as much from interacting with him, as Barry’s
peers did in A1. Drawing on Jarvis’ theory of adult learning however, it appears
that a similar experience of disjuncture (“Oh, this person knows more than me!”)
generates two very different outcomes. It appears that in both cases the
disjuncture is initially resolved by giving meaning to emotions
134
. This suggestion
is in line with Hytti and Nieminen’s (2013) discussion of entrepreneurial learning.
Drawing on Morris et al. (2012) they note that events produce “affective
reactions” in entrepreneurs and that these reactions are linked not only levels of
engagement, but are also characterised by either “positivity or negativity” (ibid.,
p.119). In Booster, Peter’s language (“that crap”) clearly shows that Isaac’s
perceived attitude is associated with a negative meaning
135
that has effectively
blocked Peter’s willingness to learn from him – even if Peter naturally feels that
he has learned something about Isaac. This example supports two arguments that
I make in this study. Firstly, my submission that managers, mentors, coaches and
entrepreneurs co-create accelerator processes together. And secondly, the
suggestion that entrepreneurial learning is significantly influenced by emotion.
5.6.3.3 Failing to learn: the role of previous educational experiences
In section 2.2.3 I noted Le Cornu’s (2005) suggestion that there is really no such
thing as ‘non-learning’. Even when individuals do not form radically new
interpretations of their experiences they still learn, even if this implies only the
slightest reinforcement of previous interpretations. Consequently, it is perhaps
more useful to coin Hallen et al.’s (2013) term “sub-optimal’ learning to refer to
instances when entrepreneurs learned less than envisaged by accelerator
managers, or perhaps developed different interpretations. In the Booster
accelerators as noted previously, stress was a factor that appeared to foster sub-
optimal learning – especially in the second half of the programme. However, it
also appeared that entrepreneurs reacted in different ways to the non-formal
environment that the accelerator provided for learning.
134
See section 2.2.2.3 ‘Transforming experience’.
135
This is the term Jarvis proposes. Based on their article, it is possible that Hytti and Nieminen would
instead employ the term “negative affective state”.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
319
Non-formal learning contexts rest uncomfortably between the structured,
teacher-centred expectations of formal learning environments and the
unstructured, individually-determined freedom of informal learning.
Furthermore, as I have noted; learning in the Booster accelerators tended to
progress from taking place in a more structured environment, to developing in a
slightly less structured form, as time went by. My impression is that this is a
typical feature of accelerators and that it is also an effective design parameter,
when the shift operates effectively. Most of the entrepreneurs appeared
untroubled by the accelerator’s non-formal approach to learning and adapted to
it. This was particularly so with the more experienced entrepreneurs, who often
had a clearer idea of their own capabilities and the knowledge or skills they
needed to develop. Isaac (A2) described his approach to workshops and
assignments in the following way:
“Sending somebody assignments through email is all theory, but the reality of
it is that they can only do so much.
(Duncan): “Did you have to prioritise between them, in one way or another,
or… did you sort of say, ‘This one I won’t do, because it’s just impossible and
this one is more important’?”
“Absolutely. For me, I look at first what is important for me. And I look at what
is important for my business. […] For instance, if you put me in a class where
somebody is coaching the basics of budgeting, that becomes irrelevant for
me. Absolutely irrelevant. I mean, it doesn’t add any value to my… enterprise.
So I decided to prioritise. And how I did it is by not taking certain assignments.
I didn’t see any relevance, quite frankly. […] I prioritised and decided to take
on only the few that mattered.”
Isaac’s comment suggests that he has understood the nature of non-formal
learning and the importance of his own role as a conscious ‘co-designer’ of the
learning process in the accelerator. He appears to perceive himself as having at
least as much say as the accelerator managers, with regards to the tasks he engages
in. He is also clearly prioritising between accelerator activities – to the point of
choosing not to do some assignments. His attitude to education was very similar
to that displayed by the entrepreneurs in A1 (who all had ‘Western’ backgrounds).
In A2 and A3 however, many of the entrepreneurs with African backgrounds
appeared more hesitant to prioritise among activities and in particular, to do so
by not participating in a workshop or not completing an assignment. One
explanation for this hesitancy could be entrepreneurs’ perception of the
accelerator as a ‘formal’ learning arena, similar to their previous experiences of
education. Peter (A2) described this contrast in the following way:
“There is an element of practicality as in – it’s hands on, that’s the difference.
It’s hands on in terms of the mentors, the coaches, they give you
Jönköping International Business School
320
assignments. You do them, but way back some of us have been taught how to
cram – you cram to pass. We are not taught how to… to do the thing your
way.”
Although my impression was that Peter had adapted well to the non-formal
environment of the accelerator, he commented several times, in different
interviews, on the contrast between his experiences of learning at university and
the approach that characterised the accelerator. My impression was that although
he recognised the non-formal character of learning in the accelerator, he did not
adapt to it to the extent of choosing not to participate in activities he found less
relevant. When I asked him to identify ‘low patches’ in the accelerator he made
the following comment:
“I’m open to learning, so I didn’t have that [a low patch]. Everything to me
counts. Everything to me counts – but as I said, when you reflect over it, take
what is relevant and leave what is not relevant. So when I came I came
empty. So everything that you give me it’s like – I come like an empty car.
You go to a fuel station, they put gasoline in you, once the car is full, you go.”
Peter’s comments suggest that he performed a mental ‘screening’ of accelerator
activities: participating in everything, but ‘ignoring’ input he felt was less relevant.
Veteran entrepreneurs Isaac (A2) and Barry (A1) however, seemed to engage not
only in the mental screening described by Peter, but also in a ‘physical’ (or
practical) screening. They recognised that assessing an activity as ‘irrelevant’
could have practical implications (don’t participate) – and they acted on their
assessments. Both strategies appeared to be effective in helping entrepreneurs
focus on the areas of greatest relevance to them, during the accelerator. What
appeared to cause problems however, was the tendency of some entrepreneurs
to treat a non-formal approach to learning as if it were formal. In A2, this
appeared to be the reasoning underlying the behaviour of entrepreneurs such as
Kenny and Steven. These entrepreneurs did not appear to assess accelerator
activities in a proactive manner and instead seemed to approach workshops and
assignments in a ‘school-like’ manner. As Steven commented:
“We don’t have time for interaction.”
(Duncan): “You don’t have time?”
“We have time for work, which is programmed by NSE. And when we get
home we have to create time for ourselves to do our own homework.”
Steven’s comment suggests that he is framing learning in the accelerator in terms
of a more formal approach (he uses the term “homework” and says that learning
“is programmed by NSE”). Kenny appeared to adopt a similar perspective and
both entrepreneurs seemed to view the structures for learning in the accelerator
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
321
(for example: assignments and deadlines) as taskmasters that needed to be
satisfied, rather than aids to development. Consequently, they attempted to
complete all the tasks assigned to them and participated in almost all of the
scheduled workshops. Their approach was associated with feelings of pressure
and overload, as witnessed to by Kenny’s diagram of the pressure he experienced
during the accelerator
136
- and by his interpretation of his drawing:
“Here [pointing to stress line on diagram]… too many deadlines, too much
rush, too many… It creates this [making rapid banging noise]. Until now I’ve
not recovered!”
My interpretation of entrepreneurs’ behaviour is that previous experiences of
learning can have a significant impact on the behaviour that entrepreneurs adopt
in accelerators. Entrepreneurs who fail to recognise the distinction between
formal and non-formal learning contexts – and who adopt a traditional student
role – are less likely to distinguish between relevant and less-relevant input and
to take action on their assessments. This can lead to high levels of stress, as it is
usually difficult to complete all the tasks associated with accelerators in a
satisfactory manner. Furthermore, by paying attention to ‘everything’,
entrepreneurs are less likely to spend sufficient time on strengthening the specific
areas of weakness (or strategic opportunity) associated with their particular
venture.
5.7 Social Entrepreneurship and Accelerators
As I near the end of my discussion of social entrepreneurs’ learning in
accelerators, it is natural to ask whether there is anything ‘special’ about
accelerators that educate social entrepreneurs. To what extent is my study
relevant to accelerators that focus on for-profit ventures – and what findings are
more restricted to ‘social’ ventures? This is a difficult question to answer with
any certainty, as few studies of accelerators have ‘dug below the surface’ and
discussed the accelerator process in detail, from the perspective of the
entrepreneur. Randall Stross’ (2012) account of day-to-day life in Y Combinator is
an exception, but his account is primarily descriptive in character. Similarly, there
are important differences in accelerator design and accelerator cohort, between
the programme he studied and Booster. Despite these contrasts, there seem to be
many similarities between the two accelerators with regards to process. Stross
describes for example, a similar emergence of ‘sub-groups’ within the cohort –
and Booster entrepreneurs would empathise with the constant pitch training that
the Y Combinator entrepreneurs also faced. Furthermore, the critical assessment
of participating enterprises is a common thread in both accounts. It also appears
136
On Kenny’s diagram the line representing stress rose rapidly towards ’high levels’ from week five
onwards, only dropping again in week eight.
Jönköping International Business School
322
that similar dynamics affect cohort selection. This study suggests that
entrepreneurs who have clear alternatives to a career in social entrepreneurship
(for example: the ‘knowledgeable improvisers’ and many of the ‘expatriate’ social
entrepreneurs), may be more likely than ‘indigenous’ entrepreneurs to consider
other career paths when the going gets tough. Managers at Y Combinator describe
their recruitment strategy as focusing on twenty-five year-olds. The logic
underlying this strategy revolves not around age, but because of entrepreneurs’
lack of alternative options: “no safe retreat” and “total commitment” (Stross,
2012, p. 22). Hjorth (2013) also comments on the importance of assessing
entrepreneur commitment when recruiting to incubators. This study therefore
contributes to our knowledge of both social entrepreneurship and accelerators,
by developing our understanding of the degree of commitment associated with
different categories of social entrepreneur. This knowledge can be expected to
help accelerator managers recruit social entrepreneurs in a more informed
manner.
The uniqueness of accelerators for social entrepreneurs appears to centre upon
three different factors. The centrality of the social value proposition, the affective
(or emotion-oriented) dimension of the accelerator and the move towards
hybridity. Unsurprisingly, in view of the nature of social entrepreneurship, a key
ingredient in Booster was its emphasis on helping entrepreneurs clarify, evaluate
and communicate the social value they seek to create. Frequently, the issue of
scaling was also addressed. These emphases can be expected to be found in other
accelerators for social ventures, as the creation of social value undergirds funders’
willingness to provide ‘patient capital’ – or grants. This aspect of the Booster
accelerators is seldom found in traditional accelerators, which tend to focus on
the commercial viability of participating enterprises.
Despite the central role of the ‘social value proposition’ in accelerators for social
ventures, the Booster experience suggests that programmes can ‘niche’ themselves
by emphasising two different aspects of their offerings. First of all, accelerators can
support entrepreneurs in clarifying their ventures’ contribution and marketing
themselves. This was clearly something done at Booster and it is important not to
under-value the accelerator’s role in helping entrepreneurs sharpen their focus.
This was achieved by firstly, helping participants identify the core contribution
of their ventures – and secondly, by encouraging them to channel more energy
in that direction. However, a distinct contribution that accelerators could make
(which was not quite as apparent at Booster) has to do with the effectiveness of
ventures’ activities. In their applications entrepreneurs are asked which social
challenge they are addressing, yet those who assess the applications sometimes
lack the expertise necessary to judge the future impact of their products or
services. For example: in the case of Steven and his library initiative (designed to
help schoolchildren gain access to textbooks), the accelerator mainly focused on
helping him develop a sound business plan, communication skills and convincing
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
323
financials. Relatively little attention was paid to the foundational questions “Are
libraries an effective tool for providing access to textbooks?” and “Are there
better alternatives?”. Similarly, the coaching Steven received was not geared
towards more effective libraries, but rather their establishment. Frequently,
recruitment to the accelerator is based upon the assumption that an
entrepreneur’s idea works and that by scaling it, it will provide an effective
solution in a particular environment. The disadvantage of ‘global’ accelerators –
in comparison to ‘local’ programmes such as Y Combinator – is that it is difficult
for recruiters to assess the impact and viability of a product or service that is
destined for an environment they are unfamiliar with.
The gist of the above paragraphs is that accelerators for social ventures are
distinct from traditional programmes when it comes to their focus on the
creation of social value. Furthermore, it is probable that accelerators can niche
their offerings on the basis of what they emphasize within the social value
‘theme’. Are they primarily concerned with scaling up (and possibly
commercialising) social ventures, or do they focus more on developing effective
[social] services and products – that is: social innovation? The two emphases do
not exclude one another, but accelerators may be more effective if they focus
primarily on one or the other.
A second distinctive characteristic of accelerators for social ventures (based on
the Booster experience) is the pivotal role played by ‘emotional’ learning. By this I
refer to the ‘faith’ and ‘family’ outcomes of the accelerator, reflecting
entrepreneurs’ accounts of how they developed confidence during the
programme, became inspired and developed a social entrepreneurial identity.
Nascent entrepreneurship is an ‘emotional’ affair, regardless of whether its intent
is to create financial or social value (Doern & Goss, 2012). Nonetheless, Maija
Renko (2013) suggests that nascent social ventures are characterised by their
founders’ distinctive “affective commitment” to a particular cause or social
group. She portrays this emotional ‘driver’ as more intense than the emotions
associated with the startup ideas of more traditional entrepreneurs. What few
scholars discuss though, is how social entrepreneurs maintain affective
commitment – and the consequences of being unable to do so. Many of the
Booster entrepreneurs associate the founding of a social venture in a developing
country with loneliness, isolation and incomprehension on the part of other
actors. Consequently, they often describe their experience of ‘leaving their island’
and participating in the accelerator, with enthusiasm – and they express concern
that they will be ‘forgotten’ when the programme ends.
In the Booster accelerators ‘inspiration’ was an accelerator outcome that
entrepreneurs commented on, regardless of category. The ‘family’ outcome
(identity and belonging) in contrast, appeared to be particularly valued by
entrepreneurs who felt they lacked the [social] entrepreneurial community that
Jönköping International Business School
324
the accelerator and SocNet represented. Both aspects however, seem to relate to
the larger theme of ‘meaning’: the experience of being involved in something
worth doing and of belonging to something bigger than oneself. The Booster
accelerators therefore, appear to have functioned as ‘meaning-makers’ and
‘meaning-maintainers’ for many participants. Entrepreneurs gained energy and
emotional resilience from the twin ‘messages’ expressed in most accelerator
activities: “What you are doing is worthwhile!” and “We belong together and what
we are doing is worthwhile!” Entrepreneurs’ comments suggest that these are not
secondary accelerator outcomes, but important emotional experiences that play
a significant role in helping them maintain focus and resilience.
A third distinctive outcome associated with the Booster accelerators is the
development of a hybrid identity by many participating ventures. Although this
is an outcome that not all accelerators for social ventures will produce, it would
clearly be an unusual outcome in a traditional accelerator. Writing in the context
of incubators, Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens (2012) suggest that enterprise
support programmes can gain competitive advantage by aligning their
competencies with their strategic position. In the context of social enterprise it
is possible to distinguish ventures that already have a clear hybrid identity from
those that are in the process of developing one (or wish to do so). This study
suggests that for accelerators serving social enterprises, one ‘strategic position’
could be that of facilitating a move from a non-profit, grant-oriented identity to
that of hybridity – or even full commercial viability.
5.8 There is More to Success than Learning!
A challenging outcome of my study of the Booster accelerators is one of its
‘secondary’ findings, namely its highlighting of the important role played by the
entrepreneurial ‘ecosystem’. In section 5.7 I noted the relative isolation of social
entrepreneurs in developing countries and the role played by accelerators in
reducing this isolation. Nonetheless, one of the more discouraging aspects of my
study relates to the difficulties experienced by ‘veteran’ entrepreneur Barry (A2).
Barry seemed to have everything going for him: many years of experience in top
management, openness to learning, ‘free’ R&D, an extensive network in
developing countries and access to initial funding. Despite these apparent
advantages, he has now returned to ‘conventional’, waged employment. In
contrast, Isaac (operating in the more traditional environment of grant-funded
development aid) seems to be prospering. Outcomes such as these suggest that
ventures operating in the ‘middle ground’ between for-profit business and not-
for-profits may be more vulnerable than enterprises that position themselves
clearly in one or the other. Impact (or ‘patient’) investment is a relatively new
phenomenon in Scandinavia and it appears that only a small proportion of
ventures that would benefit from this type of capital are able to obtain financing.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
325
It is also possible to partially explain negative outcomes with reference to the
wider investment climate for ‘new’ industries – such as alternative energy. While
I was conducting my study the journalist Jonas Fröberg (2013) discussed the rise
and fall of several ventures in the ‘cleantech’ industry. He noted that six firms
had been identified as the ‘hottest’ ventures in 2008, but that only four of them
were still operating with their original focus
137
in 2013. He commented:
“None of the ventures has shown a profit or been able to commercialise their
product.”
Fröberg suggested that cleantech firms have difficulty in obtaining the
investment necessary to scale. He also related this difficulty to the drastic
reduction in investment in cleantech firms in Scandinavia, in the past decade –
with Swedish investment sinking from 171 million Euros in 2009 to only 46.2
Euro in 2012. Fröberg cites an industry expert, who not only commented that it
takes time to establish a new industry, but also identified the ‘catch 22’ challenge
faced by the cleantech industry. That is: the difficulty of experiencing on the one
hand a rise in the number of new ventures being established, while at the same
time recognising private investors’ preference for investing in ventures at a later
stage of development.
Although social enterprises cannot necessarily be grouped together as an
‘industry’, they do seem to face many of the challenges confronted by cleantech
ventures. On the one hand, investors and funders are unfamiliar with the
phenomenon of social enterprise – and this seems to be associated with a
hesitancy towards investing in early-stage ventures. This idea is backed up by
Renko’s (2013) study of the challenges faced by nascent social entrepreneurs. She
concluded that “little support exists for those trying to make their way through
the early hurdles of building new social ventures offering radically new solutions”
(p.1061). At the same time, the total amount of capital available seems to be
insufficient. For this reason, organisations such as the International Labour
Organization (2012) underline the need for governments to improve the
“business-enabling environment”, if firms are to be able to operate in an
environmentally and socially sustainable manner. There is little use in third sector
organisations recognising firms with honours such as the World Wildlife
Foundation’s “Climate Solver” award
138
, if other aspects of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem do not facilitate the development of these types of enterprise.
137
Of the remaining two: one had gone bankrupt and the other restructured into a property business.
138
One of several awards given to Barry’s product.
Jönköping International Business School
326
5.9 Modelling Social Entrepreneurial Learning
in Accelerators
In this chapter I have developed the provisional model of entrepreneurial
learning in accelerators that I introduced in chapter 2 (see figure 5.8).
The original model was based on theories of learning derived from the literature
on adult learning, entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education.
Although the original framework conceptualises the learning process in an
informed manner, without studying entrepreneurs’ learning in an actual
accelerator it does not enable us to identify the relative impact of the factors
Intent
Learning-oriented
DESIGN
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE &
CAPABILITIES
Long-term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Creating
disjuncture
Transforming
disjuncture
Acting-
Feeli ng-
Thinking
Intent
The ENTREPRENEUR
Immersion in
Learning Process
Figure 5-8: The Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in
Accelerators introduced in Chapter 2.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
327
Figure 5-9: A Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators.
Networks
Primary space
Secondary space
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE
&
CAPABILITIES
Acting?
Feeling?
Thinking
Percei ved
Task
Attitude
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
d
i
s
j
u
n
c
t
u
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
d
i
s
j
u
n
c
t
u
r
e
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
1
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
2
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
3
TIME
? a resource
TIME
? a threat
Intent
Managers
Mentors
r
o
l
e
1
r
o
l
e
2
r
o
l
e
3
Coaches
LEARNING SPLACE
d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
o
n
Long?term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Jönköping International Business School
328
involved. Nor does it provide a nuanced picture of the learning process, in
relation to the variation that can be expected to be found in accelerators – with
regards to individual factors (such as background) and firm-related factors (such
as stage).
I have developed each part of the provisional model in a modular manner, adding
detail to each of factors associated with the learning process. Although I cannot
reproduce all of this detail in a single diagram, it is possible to show how my
study of the Booster accelerators has enabled me to modify the original concept –
and this development is seen in figure 5.9. As the figure shows, my empirical
material has enabled me to first of all add detail to several of the components of
the original diagram. For example: it is now possible to distinguish between
different educator roles and I have refined the general idea of entrepreneurial
intent to that of “perceived task”. More importantly however, my empirical study
has enabled me to make substantial changes to my preliminary model. My
understanding of entrepreneurial learning as co-created has for example, made
me portray learning as a process that, despite its construction by the individual,
is powerfully embedded in the accelerator cohort. Similarly, my original depiction
of the learning process as primarily linked to the accelerator’s capacity to design
learning experiences (the creation and transformation of disjuncture) has also
changed. The revised figure reflects my new understanding of the learning
process as both socially and materially ‘embedded’ (hence the term “splace”). I
have also been able to distinguish several learning-related outcomes – depicted
as triangles in the “new or expanded knowledge and capabilities” part of the
diagram.
When the revised model of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators is related to
my discussion of social entrepreneurial ‘types’ in section 4.4, it is possible to use
the model to discuss variation in the accelerator process. My impression is that
the revised model of the entrepreneurial learning process reflects entrepreneurs’
experiences in the Booster accelerators, regardless of entrepreneurial ‘type’ and
stage. Nonetheless, because entrepreneurs entered the accelerator with dissimilar
backgrounds and were at different stages of the entrepreneurial process, the
factors that affected their learning took on differing levels of significance. To
clarify this suggestion I discuss this idea below, with reference to two of the
Booster entrepreneurs.
Veteran social entrepreneur Barry (A1) came to the accelerator in the hope of
cultivating contacts with investors, to get ‘energy’ and to subject his venture to
outside scrutiny. These expectations (represented as “perceived task” in the
model), affected the manner in which he participated in the accelerator and the
area(s) of ‘splace’ that were important to him. Naturally, his expectations were
also linked to the roles that accelerator ‘tutors’ needed to fulfil in order for him
to learn effectively. In practical terms therefore, Barry’s background and
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
329
expectations were primarily associated with an emphasis of the “community” and
“reflection” aspects of accelerator ‘splace’. In view of his experience and the stage
he was at in venture development, the ‘tutor’ roles that would have best matched
his expectations were those of the facilitator, opportunitor and expert coach.
Confident entrant Steven (A2) also came to the accelerator in the hope of finding
investment, but was also eager to develop his enterprise with the help of
experienced advisors. Anxious to promote the legitimacy of his venture he
naturally emphasized the “community” aspects of ‘splace’, while also seeking the
advice of more experienced entrepreneurs (“dialogue”). As an African travelling
abroad for the first time he naturally made substantial use of tutors’ roles as
“problem solvers”. However, as the manager of a non-profit moving into the
world of sustainable business he was also heavily dependent on tutors filling the
roles of counsellor and expert coach. His decision to stay on in Scandinavia after
the accelerator suggests that tutors did not fill the role of “opportunitor” to his
satisfaction.
In the preceding paragraphs I have not mentioned the issue of accelerator
outcomes (the ten ‘F’s). It is however, reasonable to expect a match between the
expectations of social entrepreneurs (their “perceived tasks”) and the type of
outcome they experience in relation to their learning. For example, it was
reasonable for Barry to expect to learn capabilities associated with ‘finance’ and
‘focus’ during the accelerator. He felt no need however, to engage in the learning
associated with outcomes that other social entrepreneurs valued – such as ‘faith’
and ‘family’. It is nevertheless important not to over-emphasize the importance
of an exact match between entrepreneurs’ expectations and the outcomes
subsequently associated with their learning. One of the very foundations of
learning is ‘dissonance’: an encounter with the unexpected that offers the
potential for significant development. In Booster at least two outcomes of learning
were unexpected (in terms of ‘perceived task’), but nonetheless valuable. In A1
for example, Edward’s learning was associated with the unexpected decision to
abandon his startup (‘failure’). In A2 many of the African entrepreneurs came to
Scandinavia perceiving their task to be that of learning who to obtain investment
from (‘finance’). At the end of the accelerator however, many of them had begun
an unforeseen journey towards hybrid enterprise (‘flexibility’).
When the revised model of the learning process in accelerators is considered
from the perspective of ‘stage’ and the social entrepreneurial ‘types’ discussed in
section 4.4, two important implications emerge. The first implication has to do
with ‘coherence’ and relates to the need for accelerators to adopt a systemic
approach to programme design. By this I refer to the need for matching all of
the aspects of the learning environment to the ‘perceived task’ of the
entrepreneur, and the outcomes managers and entrepreneurs hope to achieve
through learning. Entrepreneurs with particular sets of expectations and at
Jönköping International Business School
330
certain stages of venture development, will often require corresponding areas of
accelerator ‘splace’ in order to learn effectively. Their learning will also be
enhanced if their characteristics and expectations are matched with the tutor roles
most suited to the enhancement of their learning.
The second implication of the revised model has to do with process
management. The co-created nature of learning in accelerators implies a shift in
emphasis on the part of educators, from prediction to control (to use the
language of effectuation). It is more important that tutors be skilled in facilitating
dynamic processes, rather than in implementing well-planned projects. In order
to function effectively, tutors need to be adept in the skills associated with non-
formal learning environments. This requires on the one hand, a perceptive and
sensitive awareness of the needs of not only the individual entrepreneur, but also
the accelerator cohort. It also demands an ability on the part of tutors, to take on
different roles – not only in relation to the characteristics of each individual
entrepreneur, but also to the learning they are engaged in at particular times
during the accelerator.
331
6 Conclusions & Contributions
This study has developed our understanding of social entrepreneurs’ learning in
accelerators in several ways. Naturally, some of its findings corroborate what is
already known about entrepreneurial learning and accelerators, even if this study
frequently adds detail or nuances to what other scholars have discussed.
However, this study does make several unique contributions to our
understanding of entrepreneurial learning and accelerators, particularly with
regards to the learning of social entrepreneurs and the roles accelerators play in
the development of social ventures. In this chapter I begin by discussing the main
theoretical contributions of this study, before moving on to discuss how my work
is helpful to practitioners and policy-makers. After this, some of the limitations
of this study are noted. Finally, I conclude that by conducting a detailed study of
social entrepreneurial learning in accelerators, this dissertation increases our
awareness of areas that we have not yet investigated with similar rigour – and
which require further study.
6.1 Theoretical Contributions
6.1.1 Contributions to Entrepreneurial Learning Theory
This dissertation’s contribution to the entrepreneurial learning literature centres
on four main areas: entrepreneurial learning in non-formal learning
environments, the role of ‘intent’, the learning of nascent entrepreneurs and the
learning of social entrepreneurs.
Extant scholarship at times depicts entrepreneurial learning as a homogenous
phenomenon: entrepreneurs are assumed to learn in a particular manner simply
because they are entrepreneurs. Frequently, scholars suggest that entrepreneurs
learn primarily from experience (Krueger, 2009c; Rae & Carswell, 2001).
Differences in background, industry, venture stage and other factors are not
always taken into account. Furthermore, scholars often fail to discuss the role of
context in entrepreneurial learning, despite a movement among entrepreneurship
scholars in recent years, that emphasizes this factor (Welter, 2011; Zahra, Wright,
& Abdelgawad, 2014). The aforementioned scholars argue that entrepreneurs are
always embedded in particular contexts – and it clearly arguable that they also
move from one context to another during the process of venture creation. A first
contribution of this study is consequently its introduction of the concepts of
formal, non-formal and informal learning environments to the entrepreneurial
learning literature. The use of these concepts enables scholars to distinguish
important characteristics of the contexts in which the learning of the individual
Jönköping International Business School
332
entrepreneur takes place. It becomes clear that scholars most commonly discuss
entrepreneurial learning in informal environments, despite the fact that a
significant number of entrepreneurs participate in more structured educational
programmes. Building on this distinction, this dissertation discusses
entrepreneurial learning in a particular, non-formal learning environment –
namely the accelerator.
By studying entrepreneurial learning in a non-formal context, this dissertation
has shown that the learning of entrepreneurs is associated with a variety of
learning processes, not all of which are experiential in nature. In particular, this
study suggests that in the non-formal environments associated with accelerators,
entrepreneurs’ learning is highly social in nature. Entrepreneurs make extensive
use of dialogue as they learn – and often learn aspects of identity by being in the
company of other entrepreneurs. Furthermore, although learning is at times
associated with action; I have shown that in the accelerator context,
entrepreneurs often associate learning with processes of reflection. This finding
brings into question the apparent assumption among scholars, that entrepreneurs
have a particular preference for an action-oriented style of learning. This study
raises the possibility that it is instead the learning context that influences
entrepreneurs’ learning styles, rather than individual preference. This possibility
is undergirded by another of this study’s findings – namely, that when
entrepreneurs move from informal learning contexts into more formal
environments, they at times ‘regress’ in terms of learning style - and adopt
instructor-oriented behaviour.
In adult learning theory, scholars emphasize the decisive role of intent in learning.
Entrepreneurship scholars however, tend to discuss the development of
intention, rather than its impact on learning – or discuss intent in general terms,
as the ambition to start a business (Hopp & Sonderegger, 2014; Piperopoulos &
Dimov, 2014). This study suggests however, that entrepreneurs are intentional at
a much more ‘micro’ level and are often very aware of what they wish to achieve
through a particular activity or interaction. Consequently this dissertation
expands scholars’ understanding of the role of intent[ion] in entrepreneurial
learning. By framing intention as the “perceived task” of the entrepreneur, this
study highlights how entrepreneurs’ attitudes to learning are shaped by the
relevance they attach to educational activities. Scholars have previously discussed
the narrow learning foci of small business owners in general terms (see for
example: A. A. Gibb, 1983), but this study begins to unravel the sub-factors that
help determine entrepreneurs’ perceptions of relevance. Relevance is framed as
“perceived value” and is shown to relate to both educational content and human
actors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Importantly, this study notes that in
contrast to entrepreneurship educators – who tend to adopt a ‘future-oriented’
view of relevance – practicing entrepreneurs often determine relevance in a
Conclusions & Contributions
333
manner that integrates a ‘past-oriented’ perspective that focuses on ascertaining
the credibility of the people they interact with.
As noted earlier, scholars at times discuss entrepreneurial learning without taking
into account factors such as context. This study discusses entrepreneurial
learning as a process that is influenced by venture stage. Although all of the
entrepreneurs in this study were at an early overall stage of venture development
(i.e.: nascent entrepreneurs), it was still possible to identify stage-related
differences in the content of learning and the learning process itself. This
suggests that in non-formal learning environments, entrepreneurs engage in
cycles of reflection and action as they work with their startups. In the
conceptualising and validation stages learning seems to be associated with intense
processes of dialogue and reflection, whereas in more ‘practical’ stages (such as
commitment), entrepreneurs learn through the action-oriented processes more
commonly discussed by scholars. That is: through experiential learning.
Nonetheless, even where this is true this study suggests that scholars seeking to
explain the process of experiential learning will benefit from drawing on the work
of contemporary theorists such as Jarvis, rather than on the older work of
Kolb
139
. This dissertation contributes to the entrepreneurial learning literature by
introducing the ideas of Peter Jarvis, as a means to understand entrepreneurs’
learning processes that the Kolb cycle does not explain adequately. For example:
entrepreneurial learning that develops through the resolution of experiences of
disjuncture by both affective (emotions-driven) and cognitive (reflection-driven)
pathways.
In addition to discussing entrepreneurial learning in relation to a particular
category or stage of entrepreneurship
140
, this dissertation also contributes to
theory by discussing the particular case of social entrepreneurial learning. As noted
earlier, this study emphasizes the idea that entrepreneurial learning is a
heterogeneous phenomenon associated as much with variation, as with similarity.
Evidence for this suggestion is provided by my discussion of the distinct learning
outcomes associated with the learning of nascent social entrepreneurs, as well as
by a smaller body of evidence that suggests they engage in slightly different
learning processes. This study suggests that in terms of outcomes, effective social
entrepreneurs learn to identify and give voice to a distinctive and convincing
‘social value proposition’. More importantly, I identify a learning outcome that
relates to a conceptual shift among some categories of nascent social
entrepreneur, whereby they learn to operate as sustainable, hybrid enterprises –
rather than as project-oriented charities or non-profits. In terms of the learning
139
That is, on his depiction of the learning process as following the cycle of Concrete experience,
Reflective observation, Abstract conceptualization and Active experimentation (Kolb, 1984).
140
That is: nascent entrepreneurship.
Jönköping International Business School
334
process, this study provides initial evidence for the centrality of affect in social
entrepreneurial learning. It appears that for social entrepreneurs, emotions do
not only play a role in inspiring individuals to begin the venturing process – but
also in continuing with it. Experienced social entrepreneurs are often aware of
the need to maintain affect and manage their learning in order to achieve both
emotional and cognitive outcomes.
6.1.2 Contributions to Business Incubation Theory
When this study is viewed from the perspective of the literature on business
incubation, several contributions emerge. First of all, this dissertation expands
our understanding of a relatively new type of incubation – accelerators – about
which scholars know relatively little. Scholars have called for studies of
accelerators that provide a more detailed understanding of the accelerator
process – and for studies of accelerators that recruit different categories of
enterprise (Hallen et al., 2013). This dissertation responds to this call by
conducting a detailed study of entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators – and by
focusing on a programme that recruits a particular type of enterprise (social
ventures). By gathering and analysing ‘rich’ data in an abductive manner, a
process-oriented model of entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators is developed.
This model contributes to our understanding of how entrepreneurs learn in the
context of accelerators, by first of all identifying the main factors that influence
entrepreneurs’ learning – and showing how they relate to one another. However,
the model also contributes to the development of scholarly knowledge about
accelerators, by providing a conceptual framework that future studies can refine
and expand.
By framing accelerators as non-formal environments for entrepreneurs’ learning,
this study expands scholars’ understandings of how context influences learning.
The distinction that I make between three types of learning environment
141
is
useful for understanding how and by whom venture-oriented learning is initiated.
Maria-Carmen Pantea (forthcoming) also discusses the importance of social
context with regards to the learning of youth entrepreneurs in non-formal
contexts. Nonetheless, this study contributes to scholars’ knowledge by moving
beyond the conceptualisation of accelerators as non-formal contexts for learning
– to a discussion of how accelerators’ learning environments change as time goes
by. In particular, with reference to the gradual shift from more formal, instructor-
initiated learning – to a non-formal, learner-led form of interaction.
One of the more prominent contributions of this dissertation is its discussion of
learning ‘splace’. Here this study contributes to not only the literature on
incubators and entrepreneurial learning, but also to entrepreneurship education
141
That is: formal, non-formal and informal.
Conclusions & Contributions
335
scholarship. Although the concept of ‘learning spaces and places’ is clearly
relevant to scholars of entrepreneurial learning, the subject has not been
extensively discussed in the literature
142
. In contrast, the concept of space is
attracting increased attention among incubator scholars (Hjorth, 2013).
Consequently, this study contributes to entrepreneurial learning scholarship by
adding the concept of learning spaces to existing knowledge. I suggest that this
is a useful contribution, because the concept of space is not dependent on the
existence of formal or non-formal learning environments. Instead, entrepreneurs
can be expected to make use of different categories of space in both informal
and more formalised contexts. With regards to the literature on incubators, this
study contributes by adding considerable detail to scholars’ discussions of how
space and place are associated with venture development. Here my use of the
term “splace” underlines the interdependence of psychological ‘space’ and
physical ‘place’. This dissertation also expands on previous work by showing how
time both enhances and restricts entrepreneurs’ perceptions of incubator ‘splace’.
In the more formal learning environments of higher education it is probable that
students’ learning can be optimised if educators pay attention to each aspect of
‘splace’. Many educators already emphasize activities that encourage students to
spend time in ‘reflective’, ‘dialogic’ and ‘action’ space – but accord less attention
to ‘community’ space. This study contributes to scholars’ knowledge by
providing a conceptual tool with which they can assess the relative emphasis in a
learning activity, of each of the four aspects. Additionally, my discussion of
‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ physical spaces contributes to the literature by
highlighting the role played by the places in which learning takes place. Scholars
of entrepreneurship education frequently discuss pedagogy as if the only factors
in learning relate to instructor-, student- and technique. This study makes it clear
that education does not take place in a vacuum and that the characteristics of
physical spaces have an impact on learning.
The above paragraph hints at this study’s contribution to the literature, in terms
of incorporating what Erdélyi (2010) terms a “material” perspective, into a theory
of the learning process in non-formal environments, such as accelerators.
Nonetheless, this dissertation also expands our understanding of incubator
processes by identifying several key human ‘roles’ that facilitate learning. In doing
so this study first of all creates a nuanced understanding of the roles referred to
by scholars such as Cohen (2013a), and Miller and Bound (2011), using the
generic terms “director experts” and “mentors”. This study shows how several
of the more specific roles (or ‘functions’) that I identify, may be filled by different
actors within the accelerator ecosystem. This places more emphasis on the task
of ensuring that someone fills each of the roles, rather than on the rigid linking of
142
Smith (2011) discusses space and is an exception, even if the key-words in her dissertation suggest
that she does not position herself as a scholar of entrepreneurial learning.
Jönköping International Business School
336
each role to a particular actor. Furthermore, this study also shows how the
learning of different categories of social entrepreneur – at different stages of
venture development – requires the emphasis of different educator roles, or
combinations of role.
Diverse categories of social entrepreneur – and different stages of venture
development – are logically associated with variations in the learning that
entrepreneurs wish to achieve by participating in accelerators. This study extends
scholars’ understanding of how accelerators enhance venture development, by
identifying ten ‘F-words’ that reflect different aspects of their impact. Many of
these factors relate to foundational aspects of entrepreneurial capability that are
not always identified in studies that use more quantitative measures of incubator
performance
143
. These factors provide a useful framework that other scholars
might use in future studies of accelerators, but also serve to highlight less
obvious, but nonetheless valuable programme effects. Outcomes such as
entrepreneurial “failure” and “facility” may have a positive societal impact in the
long-term, but can be difficult to identify with more simplistic, short-term
measures.
Zahra (2007) and Davidsson (2005) note that scholars sometimes make a
contribution by reinforcing knowledge about a particular phenomenon – often by
examining it in a new context. Several of this study’s contributions enhance
knowledge in this manner, suggesting that some accelerator processes and
outcomes (for example: the development of clear ideas and legitimacy) change
very little, even when a different category of enterprise is in focus. Similarly, in
keeping with the studies of scholars such as Cohen (2013a), Hallen, Bingham and
Cohen (2013), and Miller and Bound (2011); this study provides additional
evidence for their finding with regards to the main outcomes and ingredients of
accelerators. Some of the ‘F-outcomes’ discussed in section 4.5 are also identified
by these scholars, albeit using different terminology. Hallen, Bingham and Cohen
for example, identify legitimacy (fame) and expanded networks (friends) as key
outcomes that facilitate entrepreneurs’ access to resources. They also suggest that
accelerators become more effective as they gain experience, an idea that is
supported by this study. Both Cohen (2013a), and Miller and Bound (2011)
identify a process of refinement and a concentration on a core business
proposition (focus) as an important ingredient in the acceleration process. Stross
(2012) and Cohen (ibid.) also note that entrepreneurs can ‘pivot’ during the
accelerator process to embrace alternative venture ideas. This development is
very similar to the ‘flexibility’ contribution identified in this study in that it
involves a widening of vistas, even if this takes place in the for-profit sector.
143
For example: sourced investment and/or venture growth.
Conclusions & Contributions
337
A final contribution made by this study to the incubator literature – but perhaps
one of its more important findings – is its conceptualisation of the learning
process in accelerators as co-created. As Hjorth (2013) points out, policy-makers –
and indeed, many scholars – often discuss incubator practice on the basis of an
unspoken assumption that it is possible to distinguish a single, optimal design.
This study clearly shows that learning processes in incubators are the product of
the interaction of a large number of factors, among which the intention of the
entrepreneur is particularly influential. By modelling the learning process in
accelerators, this dissertation extends our understanding of incubator processes
by not only noting that learning is co-created, but also by providing a coherent
explanation of how this process evolves.
6.1.3 Contributions to Social Entrepreneurship Theory
In this study I make contributions that engage with more than one scholarly
‘conversation’. One such contribution has to do with my development of Cope
and Watt’s (2000) entrepreneurial career typology (i.e.: their identification of
entrepreneurs as ‘innocents’, ‘knowledgeable improvisers’, ‘confident entrants’,
and ‘veterans’). Although it is clearly possible to develop their model further, this
study incorporates insights from scholars of ‘international’ social
entrepreneurship and uses these to develop the model further. My new typology
enables scholars to distinguish distinct types of social entrepreneur, on the basis
of not only their past experience (managerial or professional), but also on their
degree of ‘embeddedness’ in the societies they target. Although I frame my
contribution in terms of an enhancement of knowledge in the nascent field of
international social entrepreneurship (Desa, 2012), it is clearly possible for other
scholars to use the added factor of embeddedness at a more local level. For
example: it may be more easy for a social entrepreneur with a background in
inner cities, to grow a successful venture in that context – than for someone with
an ‘outsider’ background.
I have chosen to ground this particular discussion in the social entrepreneurship
‘arena’. Nonetheless, in discussing social entrepreneurial learning in relation to
previous experience and venture development, I am also contributing to
conversations about entrepreneurial identity and entrepreneurial intentions.
Markowska (2011) discusses the development of entrepreneurial competency in
relation to entrepreneurs’ balancing of business-oriented and professional
identities. I extend some of her findings by showing how the professional
identities of social entrepreneurs at times limit the propensity of individuals, to
adopt the social entrepreneurial identity ‘on offer’ in accelerators. This study
provides further empirical support for her suggestion that professional ties are
able to influence entrepreneurs’ development ‘at a distance’, without immediate
physical proximity.
Jönköping International Business School
338
6.1.4 Contributions to Entrepreneurship Education Theory
I began this dissertation by arguing for the ‘bringing together’ of the at times
distinct emphases among entrepreneurship educators, on either ‘education’ or
‘training’. This study has reinforced my conviction in this area, as the Booster
entrepreneurs clearer engaged in a significant amount of abstract, conceptual
reflection (surely a process associated with ‘education’?) – despite scholars’
portrayal of their learning as predominantly pragmatic and experiential. This
study contributes to our understanding of entrepreneurship education by
emphasising the common ground that exists between potential entrepreneurs
144
and practicing entrepreneurs, with regards to the centrality of relevance.
Entrepreneurs and students both interact with educators in an intent-filled
manner and their learning is shaped by whether or not they perceive content and
process to be relevant to their ‘perceived task’. This study shows that in the
context of accelerators, social entrepreneurs learn from a variety of didactical
approaches. I suggest therefore, that the effectiveness of an approach relates not
so much to the means by which knowledge is developed (lecture or workshop),
but to the perceived relevance of the knowledge to the learner’s intent. The
implication for entrepreneurship educators – regardless of ‘audience’ – is that it
is more important to interact with learners with a view to creating relevant
learning – than it is to focus on the ‘instrument’ of learning.
I have already discussed the concepts of formal, non-formal and informal
learning environments as a contribution to literature on entrepreneurial learning.
Nonetheless, by introducing these concepts I also make a contribution to
entrepreneurship education scholarship. Rather than making an artificial
distinction between ‘training’ and ‘education’ based on who is doing the learning
(students or entrepreneurs) – or on the instruments used in education (lectures
or workshops), it may be more useful to focus on the characteristics of the
learning environment. This study positions the formal – non-formal continuum
as a more useful means of classifying different types of entrepreneurship
education. Instead of attempting to artificially classify learning-oriented activities
as either ‘education’ or ‘training’, I suggest it is more useful to position them
along a scale based on structure and learner-centeredness.
6.2 Contributions to Practice
One of the advantages of conducting interactive research is that research findings
often have an impact on practice before they are published in academic circles.
This was clearly the case with this dissertation and accelerator managers witness
144
Usually students.
Conclusions & Contributions
339
to the impact that my study has had on the development of the Booster
programme.
In more concrete terms this study has a wide range of implications for
practitioners. With regards to the recruitment of entrepreneurs to accelerators, this study
underlines the importance of enlisting individuals or ventures at a similar stage
of development – but not from the same industry. In the context of social
entrepreneurship the importance of ‘industry heterogeneity’ may need to be
interpreted as the avoidance of cohorts that only recruit individuals with a
background in charities or NGOs. As the learning process in accelerators is co-
created, managers need to focus more on recruiting a group that can interact
effectively and create value for one another – rather than the most promising
individuals. Because learning is enhanced by ‘positive heterogeneity’ managers
also need to pay particular attention to entrepreneurs’ intentions with regards to
participation in accelerators. It is important that programmes have the capacity
to fulfil individual’s expectations, but it is just as important that entrepreneurs
come to the accelerator with an attitude of openness – not only to receiving
feedback, but also to providing it.
With regards to the accelerator process itself, this study contributes to practice
by emphasising managers’ roles as ‘facilitators of splace’. ‘Positive splace’ is at the
core of accelerators and is all about opportunity: entrepreneurs are given the
possibility to do something they are otherwise unable to do – or would not be
able to do in such a short space of time. By identifying key educator roles and
linking these to different categories of entrepreneur, this study enables educators
to maximise their contribution to the development of splace. As splace is co-
created, manager behaviour cannot guarantee positive outcomes – but can make
their development much more likely. This study helps managers become aware
of the different factors that contribute to the development of splace – and this
awareness can lead to proactive action. For example: by being aware of the
existence of primary and secondary ‘place’ – and of how these factors affect the
cohort – managers can take steps to enhance their positive effects and minimise
their detrimental aspects. By being aware of the different combinations of roles
that need to be filled in relation to distinct entrepreneurial types and stages,
managers can ‘map’ existing educator roles and ensure that they not only adopt
appropriate roles at different times – but also adapt their roles to the particular
needs of each entrepreneur.
By identifying a large number of ‘micro’ learning processes and outcomes, this
study enables practitioners to develop particular programme strengths and
emphases. It will often be difficult – or even undesirable – for accelerators to
excel in developing all nine of the ‘F-words’ associated with venture ‘fitness’. By
becoming more aware of the potential learning associated with accelerators,
managers are able to ‘niche’ their programmes – or to adapt them to the
Jönköping International Business School
340
characteristics and ambitions of different cohorts (Vanderstraeten &
Matthyssens, 2012). As with many phenomena it is difficult to discuss factors
that have not been ‘named’ – even if managers are instinctively aware that
learning is taking place. This study gives managers the conceptual tools they need
to discuss learning objectives with accelerator participants. However, it also
enables prospective participants to make more informed decisions when applying
to accelerators or when thinking about the timing of their participation.
6.3 Implications for Policy
Accelerators are trendy. The success of high-profile programmes has inspired not
only investors, but also the public sector to launch their own initiatives.
Nonetheless, these initiatives are seldom based on an informed understanding of
the potential, risks and character of accelerators. This study is one piece in a larger
‘puzzle’ of research that enables policy-makers to take more informed decisions
about support. For policy-makers faced with decisions about whether or not to
fund accelerators, this dissertation provides a useful basis for conducting ‘due
diligence’. Accelerator managers can be expected to show an awareness of the
particular outcomes of learning their programmes have the potential to achieve
– and the factors needed to facilitate these outcomes. They can also be expected
to understand the types of role, instruction and ‘splace’ needed to address the
needs of diverse categories of entrepreneur. This study provides policy-makers
with the conceptual foundation needed to address ‘intelligent questions’ to
organisations seeking support in order to develop new accelerators.
This dissertation is also useful for policy-makers because it suggests that
accelerators are useful tools not only for enhancing entrepreneurs’ learning at a
specific stage of development (hence the term “seed accelerator”), but also at
other stages. Because of the experimental nature of the first Booster programmes,
an unorthodox ‘mix’ of entrepreneurs was recruited – at several different stages
of development. This study suggests that accelerators are able to enhance the
learning of entrepreneurs at many different stages of development, even if cohort
dynamics improve when entrepreneurs are at the same stage. This finding opens
the door for further experimentation – and the use of accelerators as focused
instruments that can address entrepreneurs’ learning needs in a variety of
industries and at many different stages.
This study focuses on accelerators for social entrepreneurs and an important
finding relates to how managers of charities and NGOs learn to become more
financially sustainable – and more focused. This ‘sideways’ move towards
hybridity is an important accelerator contribution. It suggests that from the
perspective of policy-makers with responsibility for development aid (for
example: Sida and DFID), accelerators may be useful tools for helping
organisations in emerging economies attain a greater measure of self-sufficiency
Conclusions & Contributions
341
and effectiveness. This study underlines however, the important role that
‘embeddedness’ plays in influencing venture outcomes. Only a small proportion
of expatriate social entrepreneurs appear able to convert accelerator learning into
healthy enterprises in emerging economies. At the same time, although
‘indigenous’ enterprises are linked to higher survival rates, only a small
proportion have been able to capitalise on accelerator learning and grow their
enterprises.
The challenges discussed in the preceding paragraph highlight a final
contribution that this study makes to policy-maker knowledge, namely the vital
role played by entrepreneurial ecosystems. A recurring complaint among the Booster
entrepreneurs had to do with the lack of investment at the end of the programme.
Entrepreneurs left the accelerator with refined, ‘do-able’ ideas – but were
generally unable to turn these ideas into reality. This trend underlines the need
for policy-makers to view accelerators as one important part of a greater
entrepreneurial ecosystem. For accelerators to be effective the venture
environment needs to provide programmes with optimal conditions both before
and after acceleration. Accelerators need to be run in a context characterised by
extensive and productive networks if participants are to be able to experience
sufficient disjuncture – and to transform this disjuncture into effective learning.
At the same time, resources need to be available in an appropriate form at the
end of programmes, to enable entrepreneurs to build on their learning. In the
context of social entrepreneurship the term ‘appropriate’ is especially important.
Many of the Booster entrepreneurs were making the move from charity to hybrid
enterprise. However, the social entrepreneurial learning ecosystem had not made
the same journey and development agencies continued to interact with graduates
on the basis of a ‘publicly-funded grant’ mentality. Money was made available
(for example: in the form of the Innovations against Poverty matched grants).
However, funding was associated with such a level of detail in applying for
support – and reporting progress – that the entrepreneurs who received grants
felt uncertain about whether the effort was worth it. Social entrepreneurs who
have received support from the European Social Fund report a similar mismatch
between the needs of the entrepreneur and the traditions of public
administration. Consequently, this is clearly a part of the social entrepreneurial
ecosystem that policy-makers need to address.
6.4 Limitations
As with any quantitative or qualitative discussion of learning, the findings of this
study are limited by the author’s ability to pose relevant questions to the social
entrepreneurs who participated in the study – and to interpret their responses
correctly. This process was particularly challenging due to the heterogeneous
sample of social entrepreneurs (in terms of nationality), in particularly the second
and third accelerators. Consequently, it is possible that a researcher with another
Jönköping International Business School
342
cultural background would have interpreted entrepreneurs’ responses in a slightly
different manner. Although I sought to minimise this possibility by means of
interviews with accelerator managers, ‘sounding boards’ and in-depth discussions
with the social entrepreneurs; I have naturally been unable to completely account
for the impact of my own world-view in the stories I tell.
A second limitation of this study relates to the first and has to do with the
theoretical ‘lens’ through which I interpret entrepreneurs’ accounts. This study
relies very much on the work of scholars of learning (such as Jarvis), who adopt
a constructivist view of learning. Although I often integrate aspects of social
learning theory in my discussion, I have not switched lenses completely – and so
it is probable that a social learning theorist (such as Wenger), would have
identified different aspects of learning than I have. A similar critique can also be
made of my development of a social entrepreneurial typology in section 4.4. Few
typologies are able to take into account all of the factors affecting behaviour and
my categories are no exception. I have for example, accorded more weight to the
ideas of Cope and Watts (2000) – and devoted less attention to Politis’ (2005)
ideas about career orientations. A more developed typology might be able to take
the two aspects into account, as there is evidence in my empirical data of the
influence of both.
A final
145
limitation of this study has to do with its generalisability. In this study
my ambition has been to achieve what Firestone (1993) terms “analytical
generalizability”. My aim is to generalise to a theory (as opposed to a population),
which naturally implies that my findings achieve relevance through analytical –
as opposed to statistical – inference (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Although my study
develops theory that is to some extent characterised by the logical coherence and
parsimony that Pfeffer (1982) associates with ‘good’ theory, my findings are
limited in the sense that they are not generalizable to a ‘population’ of
accelerators. The Booster accelerators were in some ways different from
accelerators that recruit ‘traditional’ for-profit entrepreneurs – and the
Scandinavian context contrasts with the environment in which many accelerators
operate (such as North America). Factors such as these should prevent academics
and practitioners from assuming that factors that were important (or negligible)
in this study, will have exactly the same influence in other programmes.
Nonetheless, this limitation underlines one of the main findings of this study –
namely; that because of the process of co-creation, no two accelerators will ever
be exactly the same.
145
By this I mean ’last in the list’, as there are naturally other limitations to this study that I have not
discussed here.
Conclusions & Contributions
343
6.5 Future Research
This study has focused on some aspects of social entrepreneurs’ learning in
accelerators at the expense of others and as noted above, is not without its
weaknesses. Although it has moved significantly ‘closer’ to entrepreneurs’
experiences in comparison with other studies, it still relies excessively on
individuals’ retrospective accounts of the accelerator process. Consequently, it is
probable that an even more detailed ‘micro’ account of the accelerator process
would emerge, if other data-collection techniques were adopted. Kusenbach
(2003) for example, advocates the phenomenological technique of the ‘go-along’
for developing an understanding of subjects’ everyday lives, emphasising among
other things the approach’s usefulness for collecting information about how
individuals interact with ‘space’. Naturally, similar techniques such as shadowing
(Czarniawska-Joerges, 2007) and “diary dialogue” (Bergman & Johannisson,
2011), could generate the rich, ‘minute-by-minute’ data that would help scholars
gain a deeper understanding of the accelerator process.
By prioritising insight into social entrepreneurs’ experiences of the accelerator
process, this study has devoted comparatively little energy to the study of the
activities of managers, mentors and coaches. Cohen (2013a) has discussed
managers’ roles in more detail – but as noted earlier, this study suggests that the
roles adopted by accelerator managers vary from programme to programme (and
perhaps even from accelerator to accelerator, within the same programme).
Consequently, future research could develop knowledge about entrepreneurs’
learning in accelerators by examining differences in the roles taken on by these
three categories of advisor, in different programmes and with reference to
venture outcomes. It would also be useful to develop knowledge about social
entrepreneurs’ particular requirements with regards to educational content and
process, at different stages of development and in different industries. In
particular, further research is needed into the learning needs of practicing social
entrepreneurs – especially those working in developing countries. The
development of a social entrepreneurial ‘arena’ reflects that of the business
community at large, in terms of its increasingly global character (Zahra, Newey,
& Li, 2014). Consequently, it is probable that practitioners will be have to
integrate insights from the literature on international entrepreneurship into their
activities, if accelerator programmes for social entrepreneurs are to develop and
maintain their effectiveness.
Two additional areas of research merit future study, only one of which has been
discussed at any length by accelerator scholars. A phenomenon that is hardly
mentioned by scholars (with the exception of ‘demo day’) is the accelerator
‘event’. Many accelerators hold several different types of event over the course
of their programmes; ranging from grandiose, well-rehearsed events for investors
– to more informal get-togethers for local entrepreneurs. These events appear to
Jönköping International Business School
344
provide accelerator participants with opportunities for networking, brain-
storming and similar activities. Very little is known however, about the role these
events play in the development of the entrepreneur and their venture.
Another theme that scholars could usefully explore is that of ‘individual vs. team’
participation. Cohen (2013a) suggests that accelerators which recruit venture
teams to their programmes (as opposed to individual entrepreneurs) associate a
wide range of benefits with this practice – including improved organisational
communication, deeper knowledge of one another and better comprehension of
the knowledge ‘on offer’. I am not aware of any studies of accelerators (or of
entrepreneurial learning) that have conducted comparative studies of the learning
associated with these two options. Such a study would lend new meaning to the
emphasis inherent in the title of this study, namely: that no entrepreneur is an
island!
345
References
Abbott, A. (1992). What do cases do? Some notes on activity in sociological
analysis. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case?: exploring the
foundations of social inquiry (pp. 53-82). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ahl, H. J. (2002). The Making of the Female Entrepreneur; JIBS Dissertation Series
No.15. (PhD), Jönköping University, Jönköping.
Akola, E., & Heinonen, J. (2008). From Methods to Outcomes – Analysing
Entrepreneurship Training Programmes in Five European Countries.
Entrepreneurship, learning and networking, 47-68.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Constructing Research Questions: Doing Interesting
Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology - New Vistas for
Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications Inc.
Anderson, C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in
a stress setting: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 446.
AoM. (2013). Professional Development Workshop: Accelerating Research on
Accelerators Annual Meeting Program: Academy of Management.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach.
Reading, MA: Addision Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory In Practice: Increasing Professional
Effectiveness. San Francisco: ERIC.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, method and
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and
retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of educational psychology, 51(5),
267.
Ayres, L., & Knafl, K. A. (2008). Typological Analysis. The SAGE Encyclopedia
of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. In L. M. Given
(Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 901-903).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Azmat, F., & Samaratunge, R. (2009). Responsible entrepreneurship in
developing countries: understanding the realities and complexities. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(3), 437-452.
Baird, R., Bowles, L., & Lall, S. (2013). Bridging the “Pioneer Gap”: The Role of
Accelerators in Launching High-Impact Enterprises: Aspen Network of
Development Entrepreneurs / Village Capital.
Jönköping International Business School
346
Bandura, A. (1965). Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial learning. Advances in
experimental social psychology, 2, 1-55.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and
social context: Cambridge University Press.
Bechard, J.-P., & Toulouse, J.-M. (1991). Entrepreneurship and education:
viewpoint from education. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 3-
13.
Beck, D. (2008). Context-based Social Entrepreneurship Education: A systemic action
research on SEED programs, Indonesia. Paper presented at the Oikos PhD
Summer Academy.
Beine, M., Docquier, F., & Rapoport, H. (2008). Brain Drain and Human Capital
Formation in Developing Countries: Winners and Losers*. The Economic
Journal, 118(528), 631-652.
Benner, P. E. (1994). The tradition and skill of interpretive phenomenology in
studying health. In P. Benner (Ed.), Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring,
and ethics in health and illness (pp. 99-129). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Benner, P. E., & Wrubel, J. (1989). The primacy of caring: Stress and coping in health
and illness: Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman.
Benson, G. L. (1992). Teaching entrepreneurship through the classics. Journal of
Applied Business Research (JABR), 8(4), 135-140.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: Doubleday New
York.
Bergman, F., & Johannisson, B. (2011). Enacting Soc(ie)tal Entrepreneurship –
Challenges and Practices. Paper presented at the ICSB, Stockholm.
Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal
of Business Venturing, 9(3), 223-242.
Bird, B. (1995). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial competency. Advances in
Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 2(1), 51-72.
Bjorvatn, K., & Tungodden, B. (2009). Teaching Business in Tanzania:
Evaluating Participation and Performance. NHH Dept. of Economics, Discussion
Paper No. 15.
Blenker, P., & Christensen, P. R. (2010). Hunting the entrepreneurial expertise:
entrepreneurs in education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of Research in
Entrepreneurship Education: International perspectives. Vol. 3 (Vol. 3, pp. 43).
Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2011). The questions
we care about: paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education.
Industry and Higher Education, 25(6), 417-427.
References
347
Bloom, G. M. (2006). The Social Entrepreneurship Collaboratory (SE Lab): A
University Incubator for a Rising Generation of Social Entrepreneurs In A.
Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change
(pp. 271-306). New York: Oxford University Press.
Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility: a critical introduction (2
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Blundel, R (2007). Critical realism: a suitable vehicle for entrepreneurship
research? In: Neergaard, H. & Ulhøi, JP (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research
methods in entrepreneurship (pp.49-74). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Borella, P. (2012). Startup Sauna: Accelerating Startups from Northern Europe
& Russia. Espoo: Aalto University Center for Entrepreneurship / TEKES.
Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise: Routledge.
Botkin, J. W., Elmandjra, M., & Malitza, M. (1979). No limits to learning. London:
Pergamon Press.
Boud, D. J., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into
learning: Routledge.
Boud, D. J., & Walker, D. (1991). Experience and Learning: Reflection at Work. Adults
Learning in the Workplace. ERIC / Deakin University. Victoria (Australia).
Bowen, G. A. (2008). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12-23.
Bradbury, S. (2013). Chattanooga's Gig Tank entrepreneurs ready to tout their
businesses Times Free Press.
Brock, D. D. (2008). Social entrepreneurship teaching resources handbook Available at
SSRN 1344412 Retrieved fromhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344412
Brock, D. D., & Steiner, S. D. (2008). Social entrepreneurship education: Is it achieving
the desired aims? Paper presented at the United States Association for Small
Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE).
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2006). Facilitating reflective learning through mentoring and
coaching. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Brockhaus, R. H. (2001). Foreword. In R. H. Brockhaus, G. E. Hills, H. Klandt,
& H. P. Welsch (Eds.), Entrepreneurship education: a global view. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing.
Brookfield, S. D. (1988). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larson, R. (1996). Career
pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. The Academy of
Management Executive, 10(4), 52-66.
Jönköping International Business School
348
Brundin, E., & Nordqvist, M. (2008). Beyond Facts and Figures: The Role of
Emotions in Boardroom Dynamics. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 16(4), 326-341.
Brännvall, R., & Johansson, J. (2012). Innovation in underserved markets: a study of
innovation capabilities in social business ventures. Njord Consulting.
Buchanan, I. (2010). The place of social enterprise in UK contemporary policy.
In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills Approach (pp.
7-18). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Buckley, M. R., Wren, D. A., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1992). The role of managerial
experience in the management education process: status, problems, and
prospects. Journal of Management Education, 16(3), 303-313.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Calverley, J. (2010). SMEs in Asia. Toronto: Standard Chartered Bank
Carrier, C. (2007). Strategies for teaching entrepreneurship: what else beyond
lectures, case studies and business plans? In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of
research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 143-159). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring start-up event
sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 151-166.
Casasnovas, G., & Bruno, A. V. (2013). Scaling Social Ventures: An Exploratory
Study of Social Incubators and Accelerators. Journal of Management for Global
Sustainability, 1(2), 173-197.
Cell, E. (1984). Learning to learn from experience. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Chambers, E. (2000). Applied ethnography. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2 ed., pp. 851-869). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications Inc.
Chang, J., Benamraoui, A., & Rieple, A. (2014). Learning-by-doing as an
approach to teaching social entrepreneurship. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 51(5), 1-13.
Chrisman, J. J., McMullan, W., Ring, J. K., & Holt, D. T. (2012). Counseling
assistance, entrepreneurship education, and new venture performance. Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 1(1), 63-83.
Chrisman, J. J., & McMullan, W. E. (2004). Outsider Assistance as a Knowledge
Resource for New Venture Survival. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(3),
229-244.
Cohen, S. L. (2013a). How to accelerate learning: entrepreneurial ventures participating in
accelerators. (PhD), University of North Carolina.
Cohen, S. L. (2013b). What Do Accelerators Do? Insights from Incubators and
Angels. innovations, 8(3-4), 19-25.
References
349
Commission of the European Communities. (2008). “Think Small First”: A
“Small Business Act” for Europe. Brussels: Commission of the European
Communities.
Coombs, P. H., Ahmed, M., & Israel, B. B. (1974). Attacking rural poverty; how
nonformal education can help. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Cooper, S., Harrison, R., & Mason, C. (2001). Entrepreneurial histories and
geographies: A reappraisal of the role of the incubator organization. Paper presented at
the Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference.
Cope, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative
phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604-623.
Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000). Learning by doing–an exploration of experience,
critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), 104-124.
Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000). Learning by doing–an exploration of experience,
critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), 104-124.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
CSN. (2013). Åldersgränser. fromhttp://www.csn.se/utomlands/krav/aldersgranser
Curran, J., & Stanworth, J. (1989). Education and training for enterprise:
problems of classification, evaluation, policy and research. International small
business journal, 7(2), 11-22.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (2007). Shadowing: and other techniques for doing fieldwork in
modern societies: Copenhagen Business School Press DK.
Dahlstedt, M., & Hertzberg, F. (2012). Schooling entrepreneurs:
Entrepreneurship, governmentality and education policy in Sweden at the
turn of the millennium. Journal of Pedagogy, 3(2), 242-262.
Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L. & Karlsson, J. (2002) Explaining society:
Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.
Davidsson, P. (2005). Special Topic: The Power of Replication. Researching
Entrepreneurship, 175-188.
Dawson, A., & Hjorth, D. (2012). Advancing family business research through
narrative analysis. Family Business Review, 25(3), 339-355.
De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K., & van der Sijde, P. (2003). Education
and training for entrepreneurs: a consideration of initiatives in Ireland and
The Netherlands. Education+ Training, 45(8/9), 430-438.
Deakins, D., & Freel, M. (1998). Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process
in SMEs. The Learning Organization, 5(3), 144-155.
Jönköping International Business School
350
Dees, J. G. (2011). Social ventures as learning laboratories. Tennessee's Business,
20(1), 3-5.
Desa, G. (2012). Resource Mobilization in International Social Entrepreneurship:
Bricolage as a Mechanism of Institutional Transformation. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 36(4), 727-751.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dey , S. (2013, July 20). Mentoring, the new seed capital investors bring to start-
ups: Early-stage investors plug the gaps in the start-up ecosystem. Business
Standard. Retrieved fromhttp://www.business-standard.com/article/
companies/mentoring-the-new-seed-capital-investors-bring-to-start-ups-
113072000729_1.html
Dick, R. (1990). Convergent Interviewing (3 ed.): Interchange.
Doern, R., & Goss, D. (2012). From barriers to barring: Why emotion matters
for entrepreneurial development. International small business journal.
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to
business ethics: Harvard Business Press.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive
approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560.
Dufays, F., & Huybrechts, B. (2013). Connecting the dots for social value: A
review on social networks and social entrepreneurship.
Economic Commission for Europe. (2000). Best practice in business incubation.
Geneva: United Nations.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management
field research. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy
of Management. The Academy of Management Review (pre-1986), 14(4), 532-550.
Elmes, M. B., Jiusto, S., Whiteman, G., Hersh, R., & Guthey, G. T. (2012).
Teaching Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation From the Perspective of
Place and Place Making. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4),
533-554.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity Theory as a Framework for Analyzing and
Redesigning Work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.
Erdélyi, P. (2010). The Matter of Entrepreneurial Learning: A Literature Review. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Organizational Learning,
Knowledge and Capabilities (OLKC), Northeastern University, Boston, MA,
USA.
References
351
Erikson, T. (2003). Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences
among potential entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 10(1), 106-112.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (2003). Narrating Social Structure: Stories of Resistance
to Legal Authority. American journal of sociology, 108(6), 1328-1372.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2007a). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: a general
perspective (Vol. 1). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2007c). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: contextual
perspectives (Vol. 2). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2010). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: international
perspectives (Vol. 3). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Feld, B. (2012). The power of accelerators Startup Communities: Building an
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City (pp. 109-119). Hoboken: Wiley.
Fenwick, T. J. (2001). Experiential Learning: A Theoretical Critique from Five
Perspectives. Centre on Education and Training for Employment (Information
Series No. 385).
Fetterman, D. M. (2009). Ethnography: Step-by-step. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Fiet, J. O. (2000a). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(2), 101-117.
Fiet, J. O. (2000c). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(1), 1-24.
Finkle, T. A. (2007). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty from
1989-2005. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 10, 1-25.
Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as
applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.
Florida, R., Mellander, C., & Stolarick, K. (2008). Inside the black box of regional
development—human capital, the creative class and tolerance. Journal of
Economic Geography, 8(5), 615-649.
Forrest, S. P., & Peterson, T. O. (2006). It's called andragogy. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5(1), 113-122.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman
Publishing.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Freire, P. (1998). Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Fröberg, J. (2013, July 5). Sex heta bolag inom miljöteknik blev sex iskalla. Svenska
Dagbladet. Retrieved fromhttp://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/teknik-
och-telekom/sex-heta-bolag-inom-miljoteknik-blev-sex-iskalla_8321088.svd
Jönköping International Business School
352
Gadotti, M. (1996). Pedagogy of praxis: A dialectical philosophy of education: SUNY
Press.
Gagné, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of
human performance. American psychologist, 39(4), 377.
GAN. (2013). The Network. fromhttp://gan.co/the-network
Garavan, T. N., & O'Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship Education and
Training Programmes:: A Review and Evaluation–Part 1. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 18(8), 3-12.
Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about
entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28.
Ghauri, P. (2004). Designing and conducting case studies in international
business research. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 109-124). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Gibb, A., & Ritchie, J. (1982). Understanding the process of starting small
businesses. International small business journal, 1(1), 26-45.
Gibb, A. A. (1983). The small business challenge to management education.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 7(5), 3-41.
Gibb, A. A. (1993). The enterprise culture and education: Understanding
enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and
wider educational goals. International small business journal, 11(3), 11-34.
Gibb, A. A. (1997). Small Firms' Training and Competitiveness. Building Upon
the Small business as a Learning Organisation. International small business journal,
15(3), 13-29.
Gibb, A. A. (2002). Creating conducive environments for learning and
entrepreneurship: living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty
and complexity. Industry and Higher Education, 16(3), 135-148.
Gibb, A. A. (2007). Creating the entrepreneurial university: do we need a wholly
different model of entrepreneurship. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research
in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 67-103). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration:
University of California Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday
Anchor.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
References
353
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on
entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small
business management: a ten-year literature review. International small business
journal, 15(3), 56-77.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology,
78(6), l.
Griffith, J. (2010). Leadership and management skills development in social
enterprises. In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills
Approach (pp. 99-111). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases
of naturalistic inquiry. ECTJ, 30(4), 233-252.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1999). At the border of narrative and
ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), 561.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2009). Analyzing narrative reality: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gunn, R., & Durkin, C. (2010a). Stakeholder participation and involvement in
social enterprises. In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A
Skills Approach (pp. 45-57). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Gunn, R., & Durkin, C. (Eds.). (2010c). Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills Approach.
Bristol: The Policy Press.
Habermas, J. (1974). On social identity. Telos, 1974(19), 91-103.
Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation
research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55-82.
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of
sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2).
Hajian, P. (1982). The essence of splace. (Master of Architecture), Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Massachusets.
Hallen, B. L., Bingham, C. B., & Cohen, S. L. (2013). Do Accelerators Accelerate? A
Study of Venture Accelerators as a Path to Success. Working paper.
Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning: a review and
research agenda. In R. T. Harrison & C. Leitch (Eds.), Entrepreneurial learning:
conceptual frameworks and applications (pp. 3-23). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: Researching
the interface between learning and the entrepreneurial context.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 351-371.
Headd, B. (2003). Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure
and failure. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 51-61.
Jönköping International Business School
354
Heinonen, J., & Akola, E. (2007). Entrepreneurship training and entrepreneurial
learning in Europe: results from the Entlearn project. Tampere: Turku school
of economics. Tampere.
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and training:
Ashgate Publishing.
Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and Mental Models:
Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Innovative and Entrepreneurial Activities.
Journal of Management, 21(6), 1057.
Hill, W. F. (1997). Learning: A survey of psychological interpretations (6 ed.). New York:
Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman.
Hjorth, D. (2011). On provocation, education and entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(1-2), 49-63.
Hjorth, D. (2013). Don't sit on it! A study of what no longer can be called
incubation. Lund: The Creative Plot, Ideon Innovation.
Hochberg, Y. V., & Kamath, K. (2012). US Seed Accelerator Rankings: Kellogg
School of Management, Northwestern University.
Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2010). Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Networked
Learning. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Networked
Learning, Aalborg.
Hoffman, D. L., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. (2012). Analysis of Accelerator
Companies: An Exploratory Case Study of Their Programs, Processes, and
Early Results. Small Business Institute® Journal, 8(2), 54-70.
Hoggan, C. (2014). Transformative Learning Through Conceptual Metaphors:
Simile, Metaphor, and Analogy as Levers for Learning. Adult Learning, 25(4),
134-141.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-
based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3),
258-273.
Hopp, C., & Sonderegger, R. (forthcoming). Understanding the Dynamics of
Nascent Entrepreneurship—Prestart-Up Experience, Intentions, and
Entrepreneurial Success. Journal of Small Business Management.
Howorth, C., Smith, S. M., & Parkinson, C. (2012). Social Learning and Social
Entrepreneurship Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
11(3), 371-389.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Hytti, U., & Heinonen, J. (2013). Heroic and humane entrepreneurs: identity
work in entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 55(8/9), 886-898.
References
355
Hytti, U., & Nieminen, L. (2013). Enacted experiences: analysing drama in
entrepreneurial training. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 14(2), 117-128.
Hytti, U., & O’Gorman, C. (2004). What is “enterprise education”? An analysis
of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four
European countries. Education+ Training, 46(1), 11-23.
Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of
learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396-406.
ILO. (2012). Moscow Conference highlights convergence of countries’ policies
and the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda [Press release]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/media-centre/press-
releases/WCMS_195589/lang--en/index.htm
International Trade Administration. (2013). Small & Medium-Sized Exporting
Companies: Statistical Overview, 2010. Retrieved January 15, 2013, fromhttp://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/smeoutlook/index.asp
Isaacs, E., Visser, K., Friedrich, C., & Brijlal, P. (2007). Entrepreneurship
education and training at the Further Education and Training (FET) level in
South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27(4), 613-630.
Jamieson, I. (1984). Schools and enterprise. In A. G. Watts & P. Moran (Eds.),
Education for enterprise (pp. 19-27). Cambridge: CRAC, Ballinger.
Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context (3 ed.). London: Croom Helm.
Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice (3 ed.).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Jarvis, P. (2006a). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. New York:
Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2006m). Towards a philosophy of human learning: an existentialist
perspective. In P. Jarvis & S. Parker (Eds.), Human learning: An holistic approach
(pp. 1-15): Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2010). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice (4 ed.).
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Jenkins, A. (2012). After Firm Failure: Emotions, learning and re-entry. (PhD),
Jönköping University, Jönköping. (JIBS Dissertation Series no. 84).
Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). Content and thematic analysis. In D. F. Marks &
L. Yardley (Eds.), Research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 56-68).
London: Sage Publications.
Johannisson, B. (1992). Entrepreneurs as Learners: Beyond Education and Training.
Paper presented at the Conference Internationalizing Entrepreneurship
Education and Training, Dortmund.
Jönköping International Business School
356
Johannisson, B. (1993). Entrepreneurial competence and learning strategies. In
R. Larsson, L. Bengtsson, K. Eneroth, & A. Malm (Eds.), Research in Strategic
Change. Lund: Lund University Press.
Johannisson, B. (2005). Entreprenörskapets väsen. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Johansson, B. (1993). Infrastructure, accessibility and economic growth.
International Journal of Transport Economics, 20(2), 131-156.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative
learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology
Review, 19(1), 15-29.
Johnstone, B. A. (2007). Ethnographic methods in entrepreneurship research. In
H. Neergaard & J. P. Ulhøi (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in
entrepreneurship (pp. 97-121).
Jones, C., & Matlay, H. (2011). Understanding the heterogeneity of
entrepreneurship education: going beyond Gartner. Education+ Training,
53(8/9), 692-703.
Jordan, T. (2011). Skillful Engagement with Wicked Issues A Framework for
Analysing the Meaning-making Structures of Societal Change Agents.
INTEGRAL REVIEW, 7(2).
Katz, J. A. (1995). Managing practitioners in the entrepreneurship class.
Simulation & Gaming, 26(3), 361-375.
Kautonen, T. (2008). Understanding the older entrepreneur: Comparing third
age and prime age entrepreneurs in Finland. International Journal of Business
Science and Applied Management, 3(3), 3-13.
Kautonen, T., Down, S., & South, L. (2008). Enterprise support for older
entrepreneurs: the case of PRIME in the UK. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14(2), 85-101.
Kickul, J., Janssen-Selvadurai, C., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). A Blended Value
Framework for Educating the Next Cadre of Social Entrepreneurs. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 479-493.
Kierkegaard, S. (1959). A Kierkegaard anthology. New York: Modern Library.
Kirby, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the
challenge? Education+ Training, 46(8/9), 510-519.
Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2014). Social entrepreneurial learning and human rights
education In M.-C. Pantea, R. Diroescu, & M. Podlasek-Ziegler (Eds.), Young
people, entrepreneurship and non-formal learning: a work in progress (pp. 239-254).
Brussels: SALTO-Youth Participation Resource Centre.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
References
357
Kloosterman, R. C., & Rath, J. C. (2003). Immigrant entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad
in the age of globalization: Oxford and New York: Berg.
Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education. New York: Association
Press New York.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards a Theory of Applied Experiental
Learning. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Group Processes. Chichester: Wiley.
Kolb, D. A., Lublin, S., Spoth, J., & Baker, R. (1986). Strategic management
development: using experiential learning theory to assess and develop
managerial competencies. Journal of Management Development, 5(3), 13-24.
Krueger, N. F. (2009a). Entrepreneurial Intentions are Dead: Long Live
Entrepreneurial Intentions. In A. L. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.),
Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind (Vol. 24, pp. 51-72): Springer New York.
Krueger, N. F. (2009c). The micro-foundations of entrepreneurial learning and…
education: the experiential essence of entrepreneurial cognition. In G. P. West
III, E. J. Gatewood, & K. G. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of university-wide
entrepreneurship education (pp. 35-59). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(3).
Kulothungan, G. (2010). What do we mean by ‘social enterprise’? Defining social
entrepreneurship. In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A
Skills Approach (pp. 19-28). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Kumar, K., & Ormiston, J. (2012). Bounding research settings. In R. G. Seymour
(Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods on Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 106-123).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education:
Development, Trends, and Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
29(5), 577-598.
Kurt, L. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology the go-along as ethnographic
research tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455-485.
Kyrö, P. (2006). The continental and Anglo-American approaches to
entrepreneurship education—differences and bridges. In A. Fayolle & H.
Klandt (Eds.), International entrepreneurship education, issues and newness (pp. 93-
111). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
La Belle, T. J. (1982). Formal, nonformal and informal education: A holistic
perspective on lifelong learning. International Review of Education, 28(2), 159-
175.
Jönköping International Business School
358
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular
(Vol. 3): University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ladzani, W. M., & Van Vuuren, J. J. (2002). Entrepreneurship training for
emerging SMEs in South Africa. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(2),
154-161.
Lall, S., Bowles, L., & Baird, R. (2013). Bridging the “Pioneer Gap”: The Role of
Accelerators in Launching High-Impact Enterprises. Innovations: technology,
governance globalization, 8(3-4), 105-137.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social - an introduction to actor-network-theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Le Cornu, A. (2005). Building on Jarvis: Towards a holistic model of the
processes of experiential learning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 37(2), 166-
181.
Lennon, M. (2013). The startup accelerator trend is finally slowing down.
Retrieved from:http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/19/the-startup-
accelerator-trend-is-finally-slowing-down/
Levinsohn, D. S. (2013). Disembedded and beheaded? – a critical review of the
emerging field of sustainability entrepreneurship. International Journal of
entrepreneurship and small business, 19(2), 190-211.
Lewis, D. A., Harper-Anderson, E., & Molnar, L. A. (2011). Incubating Success.
Incubation Best Practices That Lead to Successful New Ventures. Michigan:
U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration /
Institute for Research on Labor, Employment, and the Economy, University
of Michigan.
Lewis, V. L., & Churchill, N. C. (1983). The five stages of small business growth.
Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30-50.
Lichtenstein, G. A. (1992). The significance of relationships in entrepreneurship: A case
study of the ecology of enterprise in two business incubators. (PhD), University of
Pennsylvania.
Liñán, F. (2007). The role of entrepreneurship education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.),
Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 230-247).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Madsen, E. L., Borch, O. J., & Wiklund, J. (2006). Developing dynamic
capabilities in small firms: The role of entrepreneurial orientation,
entrepreneurial activities and firm resources. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, 26 (16), Article 3.
References
359
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A source of
explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create
a Social Venture are Formed'. Social Entrepreneurship, 121–135.
Man, T. W. Y. (2007). Understanding entrepreneurial learning: A competency
approach. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8(3), 189-
198.
Man, T. W. Y., Lau, T., & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competitiveness of small and
medium enterprises: a conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial
competencies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(2), 123-142.
Marketing Charts. (2014). Demographics of US College Graduates in 2013.
Retrieved September 15, 2014, fromhttp://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/demographics-of-us-college-
graduates-in-2013-39773/
Markowska, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial Competence Development: Triggers, Processes &
Consequences. (PhD), Jönköping University, Jönköping. (JIBS Dissertation
Series no. 71).
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New
directions for adult and continuing education, 2001(89), 25-34.
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of
human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship
education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211-224.
Martin, F. (1997). Business incubators and enterprise development: neither tried
or tested? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 4(1), 3-11.
McGee, J. (2013). Meet the Jumpstart Foundry teams that will pitch to investors
this month. Nashville Business Journal. Retrieved from:http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2013/08/07/jumpstart-2013-
companies-take-on.html
McMullan, C. A., & Boberg, A. L. (1991). The relative effectiveness of projects
in teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 9(1),
14-24.
Merriam-Webster. (2014). The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary. Retrieved
November 26, 2014, fromhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Jönköping International Business School
360
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New directions for
adult and continuing education, 1997(74), 5-12.
Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory
in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman Jr, H. J. (1978).
Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review,
546-562.
Miller, P., & Bound, K. (2011). The Startup Factories: The rise of accelerator
programmes to support new technology ventures. London: NESTA.
Miller, T. L., Wesley, C. L., & Williams, D. E. (2012). Educating the minds of
caring hearts: Comparing the views of practitioners and educators on the
importance of social entrepreneurship competencies. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 11(3), 349-370.
Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3), 5.
Mirabella, R., & Young, D. R. (2012). The development of education for social
entrepreneurship and nonprofit management: Diverging or converging
paths? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(1), 43-57.
Miron, D., & McClelland, D. C. (1979). The Impact of Achievement Motivation
Training of Small Businesses. California Management Review, 21(4), 13-28.
Mishler, E. G. (1995). Models of narrative analysis: A typology. Journal of Narrative
& Life History.
Moingeon, B., & Edmondson, A. (Eds.). (1996). Organizational learning and
competitive advantage: Sage.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., Schindehutte, M., & Spivack, A. J. (2012). Framing
the entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 11-
40.
Mullins, J. (2009). Launching a new venture. fromhttp://www.london.edu/newsandevents/news/2009/03/Launching_a_ne
w_venture_957.html
Mumford, A. (1999). Effective learning. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel
& Development.
Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives,
teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education+ Training, 52(1), 20-47.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known
Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.
Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. G. (2014). Teaching Entrepreneurship: A
Practice-Based Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
References
361
Neergaard, H., Tangaard, L., Krueger, N. F., & Robinson, S. (2012). Pedagogical
Interventions in Entrepreneurship from behaviourism to existential learning. Paper
presented at the Institute for small business and entrepreneurship, Dublin,
Ireland.
Nelson, J., Ishikawa, E., & Geaneotes, A. (2009). Developing inclusive business
models: A review of Coca-Cola’s manual distribution centers in Ethiopia and
Tanzania. Harvard Kennedy School and International Finance Corporation.
Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream.
Edinburgh: Canongate Books Ltd.
Obrecht, J.-J. (2011). On the relevance of the concept of entrepreneurial
capabilities. International Journal of entrepreneurship and small business, 13(2), 107-
125.
Ojala, A., & Heikkilä, J. (2011). Entrepreneurship training for new ventures.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 297-310.
Oliver, P. (2003). The student's guide to research ethics. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Oxford Dictionaries. (2015). fromhttp://oxforddictionaries.com
Pantea, M.-C. (forthcoming). On entrepreneurial education: dilemmas and
tensions in nonformal learning. Studies in Continuing Education.
Parragon. (2002). Queen's English Dictionary and Thesarus of the English Language.
Bath: Parragon.
Peitsch, F. (2012). The Immortal Now Reflections on Learning, Life and Work (pp.
255-272): Springer.
Pepin, M. (2012). Enterprise education: a Deweyan perspective. Education+
Training, 54(8/9), 801-812.
Perren, L., & Ram, M. (2004). Case-study Method in Small Business and
Entrepreneurial Research: Mapping boundaries and perspectives. International
small business journal, 22(1), 83.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). New York:
International Universities Press New York.
Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (forthcoming). Burst Bubbles or Build Steam?
Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and
Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Small Business Management.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007a). Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic
Review of the Evidence. International small business journal, 25(5), 479-510.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007b). Simulating Entrepreneurial Learning Integrating
Experiential and Collaborative Approaches to Learning. Management learning,
38(2), 211-233.
Jönköping International Business School
362
Pittaway, L., & Thorpe, R. (2012). A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A
tribute to Jason Cope. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9-10), 837-
859.
Platt, J. (1992). Cases of cases... of cases. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.),
What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 21-52). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual
framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399-424.
Politis, D., & Gabrielsson, J. (2005). Exploring the role of experience in the
process of entrepreneurial learning. Lund Institute of Economic Research. Working
Paper Series, 2005/1.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business
Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co?creation experiences: The next
practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Preuss, L. (1999). Ethical Theory in German Business Ethics Research. Journal of
Business Ethics, 18(4), 407-419.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone, the collapse and revival of civic America. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Rae, D. (2004). Practical theories from entrepreneurs' stories: discursive
approaches to entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 11(2), 195-202.
Rae, D. (2005a). Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 323-335.
Rae, D. (2005c). Mid-career entrepreneurial learning. Education+ Training,
47(8/9), 562-574.
Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2001). Towards a conceptual understanding of
entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 8(2),
150-158.
Ravasi, D., & Turati, C. (2005). Exploring entrepreneurial learning: a comparative
study of technology development projects. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1),
137-164.
Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Marketing
Under Uncertainty: The Logic of an Effectual Approach. Journal of Marketing,
73(3), 1-18.
Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2005). Knowing What to Do and Doing What You
Know: Effectuation as a Form of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Journal of Private
Equity, 9(1), 45-62.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness: Pion London.
References
363
Renko, M. (2013). Early Challenges of Nascent Social Entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1045-1069.
Reynolds, P., & Miller, B. (1992). New firm gestation: Conception, birth, and
implications for research. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 405-417.
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to
create radically successful businesses: Random House Digital, Inc.
Riessman, C. K. (1994). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Ltd.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, Ltd.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science
students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Rivetti, F., & Migliaccio, M. (2014). Accelerator Programs: Promoting Entrepreneurship
Through Learning. A Comparative Case Study. Paper presented at the Insitute for
Small Business and Entrepreneurship; The Future of Enterprise: The
Innovation Revolution, Manchester.
Rogers, A. (2004, November 24, 2014). Looking again at non-formal and
informal education – towards a new paradigm. Retrieved November 24,
2014, fromhttp://infed.org/mobi/looking-again-at-non-formal-and-
informal-education-towards-a-new-paradigm/
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Colombus: Charles E. Merill Publishing
Company.
Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn. 3rd edition, Merrill: New
York
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910.
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes
of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18.
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (Eds.). (2009). Learning and expanding
with activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and
sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 20(4), 222-237.
Jönköping International Business School
364
Scheiber, L. A. (2014). Social capital and the target population. Social Enterprise
Journal, 10(2), 121-134.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Allen &
Unwin.
Schütz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
London: Basic books.
Scott-Jones, J., & Watt, S. (2010). Ethnography in social science practice. London:
Routledge.
Scott, M., & Bruce, R. (1987). Five stages of growth in small business. Long Range
Planning, 20(3), 45-52.
SEC. (2010). Social Enterprise Coalition. Retrieved 10/11/2010, 2010, fromhttp://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/
Sida. (2010, 2010-07-15). Business for Development (B4D) – programme of
collaboration with industry. Retrieved 2010-09-17, fromhttp://www.sida.se/English/Partners/Private-sector/Business-for-
Development-B4D/
Simpson, L. C. (1995). Technology, time, and the conversations of modernity. New York:
Routledge.
Smith-Doerr, L., & Powell, W. W. (2005). Networks and economic life. In N. J.
Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (Vol. 2, pp.
379-402).
Smith, B. R., Kickul, J., & Coley, L. (2010). Using simulation to develop empathy
and motivate agency: an innovative pedagogical approach for social
entrepreneurship education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in
entrepreneurship education: international perspectives (Vol. 3, pp. 13-24). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:
Theory, method and research: London: SAGE Publications Limited.
Smith, K. B. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy
classification. Policy Studies Journal, 30(3), 379-395.
Smith, S. M. (2011). SME leaders’ learning in networked learning: An Actor-network
theory and Communities of Practice theory informed analysis. (PhD), Lancaster
University, Lancaster.
Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A
Paradoxical Leadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs: Challenges,
Leadership Skills, and Pedagogical Tools for Managing Social and
Commercial Demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3),
463-478.
References
365
SSE. (2013). Learning approach. Retrieved September 10, 2013, fromhttp://www.the-sse.org/course-components
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. London: Sage.
Stanworth, J., & Gray, C. (1992). Enterprise Education: Action-Based Research
with Training Policy Implications. International small business journal, 10(2), 11-
23.
Startup Commons. (2014). Startup Key Stages. Retrieved September 29, 2014,
fromhttp://www.startupcommons.org/startup-key-stages.html
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style?
American psychologist, 52(7), 700-712.
Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Strauss, A. L. (1995). Research issues and an interactionist theory of action. Mind,
Culture & Activity, 2 (1).
Stross, R. (2012). The Launch Pad: Inside Y Combinator. New York: Penguin.
Taylor, D. W., & Thorpe, R. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: a process of co-
participation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2), 203-211.
Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical
review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 26(2), 173-191.
Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2013). A theory in progress? Issues in
transformative learning theory. European journal for research on the education and
learning of adults, 4(1), 33-47.
Thalsgård Henriques, C. (forthcoming). Study of the Copenhagen-based incubator
Symbion. (Ph.D), Copenhagen Business School.
Thiru, Y. (2011). Social Enterprise Education: New Economics or a Platypus? In
G. T. Lumpkin (Ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth;
Special Volume on Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Vol. 13, pp. 175-200).
Thompson, J. L. (2008). Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship: where
have we reached?: A summary of issues and discussion points. Social Enterprise
Journal, 4(2), 149-161.
Timmons, J. A., & Spinelli, S. (1994). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the
21st century (8 ed.). Boston: Irwin.
Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2007). The distinctive challenge of educating social
entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on
entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2),
264-271.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: a guide for organizational and social
research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jönköping International Business School
366
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Vanderstraeten, J., & Matthyssens, P. (2012). Service-based differentiation
strategies for business incubators: Exploring external and internal alignment.
Technovation, 32 (12), 656–670.
Vanevenhoven, J. (2013). Advances and Challenges in Entrepreneurship
Education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 466-470.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications Inc.
Weil, S., & McGill, I. (Eds.). (1989). Making sense of experiential learning.
Buckingham: Open University Press / Society for Research in Higher
Education.
Welsch, H. P. (2010). The Twelve Tribes of Entrepreneurship. In W. W.
Gasparski, L. V. Ryan, & S. Kwiatkowski (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: Values and
Responsibility (pp. 37-61). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and
ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value
creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework.
Netherlands: Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open Universiteit.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Williams, R., Mackness, J., & Gumtau, S. (2012). Footprints of emergence.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 49-90.
Winkel, D. (2013). The Changing Face of Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of
Small Business Management, 51(3), 313-314.
Visser, K. (2011). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: context, relevance and
extent. Industry and Higher Education, 25(4), 233-247.
Visser, W. (2010). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of
business. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 5(3), 7-22.
Worsham, E. L. (2012). Reflections and Insights on Teaching Social
Entrepreneurship: An Interview with Greg Dees. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 11(3), 442-452.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
References
367
Young, W., & Tilley, F. (2006). Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The
shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(6), 402-415.
Zahra, S. A. (2007). Contextualizing Theory Building in Entrepreneurship
Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443-452.
Zahra, S. A., Newey, L. R., & Li, Y. (2014). On the Frontiers: The Implications
of Social Entrepreneurship for International Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137-158.
Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. (2014). Contextualization and the
advancement of entrepreneurship research. International small business journal,
32(5), 479-500.
Zigmond, N. (2000). Reflections on a Research Career: Research as Detective
Work. Exceptional children, 66(3), 295-304.
369
Appendices
1. ‘Friday Feedback’ Questionnaire (A1)
1. What is your name?
2. What are your strongest impressions from the past week? (please describe
feelings, surprises, important issues that have come up – and things that
you have learned/are learning)
3. What do you feel is the greatest challenge/issue that you and your emerging
enterprise are facing just now? (name several issues if you wish)
4. If you have a question or comment, or if you feel worried or irritated about
an issues, please write a little about this below.
5. What do you feel is the biggest change that could be made in the Booster
programme to improve it?
6. If you wish, please feel free to make further comments below – if you feel
these do not correspond to the above questions.
Jönköping International Business School
370
2. Interview Guide for Interview 1 (A1)
Sensitizing concepts
Identity, Belonging, Learning
Introduction
1. Background to interview, interview purpose and content
2. Information about confidentiality / anonymity
Background
3. Where do you come from/where did you grow up
4. What did your parents do (occupation)
5. Were you parents “socially engaged” in any way?
Previous work experience
6. Have you worked previously (prior to this start-up)?
7. With what? Where?
Venture development
8. Tell me the story of how the idea for (name of new firm/product) came about and
how you came to be involved with Booster.
Previous understanding of social entrepreneurship
9. Do you know anybody who you would call a social entrepreneur?
10. Who? What do you they do?
11. Do you consider yourself to be a social entrepreneur?
Conclusion
12. Opportunity for comments and/or questions.
Appendices
371
3. Interview Guide: Week 4 (halfway)
Introduction
Thank-you for taking time for this interview!
Today's interview should take between 30 and 45 minutes.
The main thing we want to know is how you feel you are getting on in the accelerator
- and what we can do to make it more relevant to your needs.
But I am also interested in learning more about your particular approach to working in
the accelerator. Perhaps you are doing something that helps you get more out of
your time here?
If it's alright with you I record the interview, so that I can focus more on what you are
saying instead of only taking notes?
Does that sound reasonable?
Some background
1. If you were to introduce yourself and your work to somebody, what would you call
yourself? (e.g.: profession)
2. How did you find out about the accelerator?
3. What it was that made you apply to participate in the Booster programme?
4. What stage is your start-up at? Or, how far had you progressed before coming
here?
Your experience
5. Please tell me about your experience of the accelerator so far...
- and when I say "accelerator" I mean everything associated with it, not just the
formal sessions.
6. Is there anything that you have found particularly challenging (or difficult) so far?
7. What have been the highlights of the past 4 weeks?
8. Have there been any ‘low’ patches, or experiences you would rather not have
had?
9. Based on your experience at the moment, if you were to describe Booster’s
impact on the development of you and your business, what would you say is its
main contribution so far?
Jönköping International Business School
372
Interaction
An important idea in Booster is that of ‘interaction’: interaction not only with your
mentor, but also with the other Booster participants, visiting speakers and people at
SocNet.
10. Have you found any particular individuals to be particularly helpful during the past
weeks?
11. How much do you talk to the other entrepreneurs about your start-up?
12. In which ways do you find it helpful to talk to the other entrepreneurs?
13. Do you find any of the other entrepreneur’s ideas particularly useful? (- and why?)
- Or maybe someone else’s ideas almost never useful? (- and why?)
14. Could the accelerator be structured in another way, to help you get more out of
the experience / skills of your fellow entrepreneurs?
15. How do you feel so far about the mentor who has been allocated to you?
Structure
16. What do you think about the way in which the accelerator is structured so far?
e.g.: is there a good balance between visits by speakers and time to work on your
start-up, or network?
17. What do you think of the ‘deliverables’ and ‘deadlines’ that NSE have set up?
18. How useful have you found the sessions on Word & Excel?
Events
19. So far there have been several events. Have you found any of them useful? –
and if so, in which way?
wk 1: Start-up Day @ [name of city] School of Entrepreneurship
wk 2: Kick-off event
wk 3: Mingle with business lab
wk 3: Social enterprise visit
wk 4: Speed-dating w/mentors
Appendices
373
Suggestions for improvement
20. Can you think of any ways in which the accelerator could be improved?
e.g.: do we need to adjust the content, or perhaps the accelerator process?
- Perhaps you are aware of something or someone that is making it difficult for
you to learn effectively?
Your specific needs / goals
21. Is there anything specific in terms of content or support that you haven't received
so far, and that you would really like to get in the coming weeks?
22. Do you have any particular goals that you wish to achieve in the coming weeks?
Booster staff
23. What role have the Booster staff (names of staff) played in the development of
your start-up in the past weeks?
- Can they do anything differently in order to help you more?
Conclusion
I think that's about all my questions for today...
24. Do you have anything that you wish to add, that I have missed or that you want to
comment on?
- Maybe you want to ask me a question?
Once again, thank-you very much for taking the time to talk to me!
Jönköping International Business School
374
4. Interview Guide: Week 8
146
Introduction
Thank-you for taking the time to talk to me, I know you are very busy!
Today I want to get your final impressions of the accelerator, focusing on 4 main
areas... (impact, process, interaction and learning)
1. But first, tell me a little about your experience of the accelerator, what has it been
like for you?
Impact
"the role of the accelerator in the context of the entire development of my social
enterprise"
If you take a step back in your imagination and look at the big picture: "the development
of your enterprise over time from birth to maturity"...
2. How would you describe the impact of these past 8 weeks in Scandinavia on you
and your enterprise?
- What parts of the bigger puzzle has Booster helped put in place?
- In which way (if any) are you or your enterprise different, at the end of A1?
3. What have you achieved in the past 8 weeks?
- Had you hoped to achieve anything that you didn’t achieve?
Process
4. If you were to draw 3 lines to illustrate how much interaction, learning and pressure
you have experienced during the programme, what would it look like?
(learning in green, interaction in blue, pressure in red)
5. Do you want to comment on what you've drawn?
146
Graduation week
Appendices
375
Interaction
One of the main ideas in business accelerators is that to help you and your business
to develop, we try and help you interact with accelerator staff, with your mentor, the
other entrepreneurs, etc., etc.
6. Can you tell me a little about who you have interacted with most during the
accelerator - and the interactions you found most helpful for your development?
7. Did you find that any particular events or contexts were especially good for
interaction?
8. What was it like to have a mentor assigned to you, for the duration of the
accelerator?
Learning
‘learning experiences’
Finally, if we just talk briefly about the approach to learning which the accelerator has
adopted...
9. What you think about the way in which the accelerator was structured, with regards
to helping you learn?
- Were there any speakers or sessions – or ways of structuring the different themes
in the accelerator – that made it easier for you to learn? - or harder?
10. If you think about the speakers or sessions that sticks with you most, what was it
that made it/them effective?
Conclusion
I think that’s almost it from my perspective...
11. But before we finish: what do you think NSE could do to improve the accelerator?
12. What do you think about the composition of the cohort: who should we recruit?
(stage, industry, etc)
13. Is there anything you wish to add? Perhaps you have a question for me?
Next step
After a few months I will send you a copy of your interviews so you can comment on
them if you wish.
I will contact you in about 6 months’ time for a second follow up:
-to get an update
- to get reflections on the impact of Booster with more perspective
Thank-you and good luck!
Jönköping International Business School
376
5. Interview Guide – Six-month Follow-up
Introduction
Thank-you for taking the time to help us with our follow-up of the Booster accelerator!
The interview today focuses on 4 themes:
• Your situation today (and that of your enterprise)
• A look back at the past 5-6 months since your left the accelerator.
• Your networking.
• The future.
Current situation
1) Are you still working on the start-up idea you worked on while at Booster?
a) If NOT:
i) Why not?
ii) What are you doing instead?
b) If YES:
Please tell me a little about your situation today? (please include some information
about each of the areas below):
- progress on sourcing finance / investment
- progress on building a team
- how have the sales (or delivery) of your product/service developed?
- what social impact do you feel you are having?
- any other developments in your start-up that you would like to mention.
What “stage” in the start-up process are you at today? (e.g.: idea stage,
developing product/service, testing your business model (pilot), scaling up, etc)
Looking back...
Now that you have had time to digest some of your impressions from the
Accelerator:
If you look back at the past year (in which the accelerator has only been one of
many happenings – a “chapter in the book” of your start-up):
2) In which ways do you feel that you or your start-up have developed?
a) What was it that made this development take place? How did this happen?
Appendices
377
3) Did NSE / Booster have any part in the development that you describe?
a) And if so, what role did the accelerator play?
4) Do you feel that you do anything different today in relation to your start-up, if you
compare your behaviour to what you did before the accelerator? Or perhaps you
think in a different way?
5) Do you feel that the accelerator provided you with the support that you needed,
in relation to your start-up’s stage of development?
a) Do you feel that you needed a different type of support? Or should the
support have been provided in a different manner?
6) Do you feel today that any of the accelerator activities were especially valuable?
(which ones?)
a) If so, why does this / do they feel important to you?
Network & mentor
7) Have any happenings or any individuals been especially important for your own
development, or your enterprises development in the past months? (and if so,
describe these briefly)
a) Why have these happenings/these individuals been important? (i.e.: what
impact have they had?)
8) Do you still have contact with your mentor?
a) If you answer no:
i) Why not? (please provide some details)
ii) Would you like to have more contact?
b) If you answer yes:
i) How often do you have contact?
ii) How do you contact one another? (e.g.: physical meeting, Skype,
telephone)
iii) Does this contact help you or your enterprise develop, or is your
contact more of a social nature?
9) Do you have contact with anybody else who you met during the accelerator?
a) Who do you have contact with?
b) In which way do you contact one another? (e.g.: Facebook, physical
meetings, Skype)
c) What do you usually talk/write about?
d) Does the contact help your or your enterprise develop in any way? (and if
so, how?)
Jönköping International Business School
378
Future
10) What do you feel is the next step that you need to take in developing your start-
up? (and why?)
11) Which questions and challenges are you struggling with at the moment?
12) Is there anything in particular that you feel you need to learn how to do, in order
to take the next step?
13) Is there any support (knowledge, infrastructure, tool, etc) that NSE could provide
you with now or in the near future, that would help you work more effectively with
your start-up? Or help you take the next step in its development?
Summary
14) Has anything else happened in your life since you left the accelerator that you
feel has had an impact on your enterprise?
15) Is there anything you have a question about, that you would like NSE (or me) to
answer – or is there anything else that you would like to add?
Thank-you very much for taking the time to answer these questions!
Appendices
379
6. Questionnaire – 12 Month Follow-up
It is about a year since you graduated from the Booster Accelerator - and soon a new
group of entrepreneurs will take part in a third Accelerator.
However, we haven't forgotten you and every now and again we hear news from you,
or about you. Nevertheless, we would like to get a more structured idea of what you
are doing now, and whether or not you are still involved in your start-up. So we hope
you don't mind taking a few minutes to fill in this survey. It is very important for us, as
without your feedback we will have difficulty in assessing the long-term impact of the
Accelerator.
Thank you very much for your help with this!
1. What is your name?
2. What is the status of the start-up that you were engaged in when you participated
in the Accelerator? (choose the answer that most closely mirrors your situation)
? My start-up is still alive and is making a profit.
? My start-up is still alive and is clearly making progress towards breaking
even.
? My start-up is still alive, but is not making progress (e.g.: developing
product/service, team, sales, etc.)
? My start-up is still alive, but I have left the start-up team.
? I have shut down my start-up.
? I have put my start-up on "hold" (e.g.: I am busy with other things, but
haven't given up).
? None of the above.
If you wish you can comment on your answer below...
3. If you are no longer involved in the start-up that you were engaged in when you
participated in the Accelerator, what are the main reasons for closing down /
leaving the team?
Jönköping International Business School
380
4. If you are still engaged in your start-up, what progress have you made since the
end of the Accelerator?
? I have recruited other individuals to my start-up team
? I have developed my product / service offering
? I have tested my product / service
? I have sold my product / service to customers
? I have found investment / funding
? I am in regular contact with investors / funders
? I have developed my business "system" (marketing, financial management,
sales, etc.)
? I have increased my revenue streams
? I have increased my profit/bottom-line income
? I have increased my social impact (if yes, please specify how in the box
below).
? Other (please specify)
5. If you are still engaged in your start-up, which of the following alternative best
describes your current situation?
? I spend most of my working week on running or developing my start-up.
? I am self-employed and spend about half of my working week on my start-
up, and the other half on activities that bring in money on a regular basis.
? I am self-employed and spend most of my working week on activities that
bring in money on a regular basis, I work on my start-up in my spare time.
? I am employed by another organisation and work on my start-up in my spare
time.
? I am in part-time/full-time education and spend most of my working week
studying, I work on my start-up in my spare time.
? Other (please specify)
6. A year has now passed since the Booster accelerator finished.
With the benefit of hindsight, what was the main contribution that the Accelerator
made to your start-up?
7. With the benefit of hindsight, what was missing from the Booster Accelerator
programme, which would have helped you with your start-up?
8. If you are still engaged in your start-up, what are the main challenges that you are
facing at the moment?
Appendices
381
9. Has anything really exciting happened in your start-up in the past year? (if so
please provide a brief description)
10. Have you encountered any significant set-backs in the past year? (if so please
provide a brief description)
11. Which of the following individuals do you still keep in touch with - and in which
roles
147
? (i.e.: do you just keep in touch for social reasons, or do you also discuss
ideas/issues that have to do with your start-up)
12. If you have been able to obtain funding, how much have you been able to source
and in what form?
? investment from an individual (e.g.: 'angel' investor)
? investment from an organisation (e.g.: venture capitalist)
? project funding from an NGO or development agency
? loan from an NGO or development agency
? bank loan
? crowd funding
? gift / loan from friends/family
? gift / donation from private individual(s)
? gift / donation from a business/organisation
? other (please specify in space below)
Approximate amount (please specify currency: USD, SEK, etc.). If "other" what is
the source of your funding?
13. Additional comments, questions or ideas...
THANK YOU very much for taking the time to answer these questions.
Take care, good luck and stay in touch!
147
On the questionnaire all of the names of the social entrepreneurs were listed. Respondents were
asked to indicate whether the contact was primarily of a social or venture-related character.
Jönköping International Business School
382
7. Stress, Interaction & Learning Diagram
The Booster entrepreneurs were asked to draw three lines on an A4 sheet of paper
divided into ‘eight-weeks’ (on the horizontal axis). The vertical axis represented
a continuum of low to high and the three differently coloured lines represented
stress, learning and interaction. The diagram below is that of Patience (A3).
383
JIBS Dissertation Series
No. 001 Melander, Anders (1997): “Industrial wisdom and strategic change – The
Swedish pulp and paper industry 1945-1990”, (Business Administration).
No. 002 Marmefelt, Thomas (1998): “Bank-industry networks and economic evolution
– An institutional-evolutionary approach”, (Economics).
No. 003 Wiklund, Johan (1998): “Small firm growth and performance –
Entrepreneurship and beyond”, (Business Administration).
No. 004 Braunerhjelm, Pontus (1999): “Knowledge capital, firm performance and
network production”, (Economics).
No. 005 Frankelius, Per (1999): “Företagande över tid – Kontextuellt perspektiv och
visuellt beskrivningsspråk”, (Business Administration).
No. 006 Klaesson, Johan (2001): “A study of localisation economies and the transport
sector”, (Economics).
No. 007 Hatemi-J, Abdulnasser (2001): “Time-series Econometrics Applied to
Macroeconomic Issues”, (Economics).
No. 008 Alhager, Eleonor (2001): “Mervärdesskatt vid omstruktureringar, Iustus
förlag AB”, (Law).
No. 009 Hugoson, Peter (2001): “Interregional Business Travel and the Economics of
Business Interaction”, (Economics).
No. 010 Pettersson, Lars (2002): “Location, Housing and Premises in a Dynamic
Perspective”, (Economics).
No. 011 Paulsson, Thomas (2002): “Decision Making, Risk, and Utility –
Assessments and Applications of Alternative Decision Models”, (Economics).
No. 012 Brundin, Ethel (2002): “Emotions in Motion – The Strategic Leader in a
Radical Change Process”, (Business Administration).
No. 013 Wiklund, Hans (2002): “Arenas for Democratic Deliberation – Decision-
making in an Infrastructure Project in Sweden”, (Political Science).
No. 014 Florin Samuelsson, Emilia (2002): “Accountability and Family Business
Contexts - An Interpretive Approach to Accounting and Control Practices”,
(Business Administration).
No. 015 Ahl, Helene J. (2002): “The Making of the Female Entrepreneur – A
Discourse Analysis of Research Texts on Women’s Entrepreneurship”, (Business
Administration).
No. 016 Olsson, Michael (2002): “Studies of Commuting and Labour Market
Integration”, (Economics).
Jönköping International Business School
384
No. 017 Wigren, Caroline (2003): “The Spirit of Gnosjö – The Grand Narrative and
Beyond”, (Business Administration).
No. 018 Hall, Annika (2003): “Strategising in the context of genuine relations: An
interpretative study of strategic renewal through family interactions”, (Business
Administration).
No. 019 Nilsson, Ulf (2003): “Product costing in interorganizational relationships – A
supplier’s perspective”, (Business Administration).
No. 020 Samuelsson, Mikael (2004): “Creating new ventures: A longitudinal
investigation of the nascent venturing process”, (Business Administration).
No. 021 Bruns, Volker (2004): “Who receives bank loans? A study of lending officers’
assessments of loans to growing small and medium-sized enterprises”, (Business
Administration).
No. 022 Gustafsson, Veronica (2004): “Entrepreneurial Decision-Making:
Individuals, tasks and cognitions”, (Business Administration).
No. 023 Agndal, Henrik (2004): “Internationalisation as a Process of Strategy and
Change – A Study of 16 Swedish Industrial SMEs”, (Business
Administration).
No. 024 Ejermo, Olof (2004): “Perspectives on Regional and Industrial Dynamics of
Innovation”, (Economics).
No. 025 Barenfeld, Jesper (2005): “Taxation of Cross-Border Partnerships: Double-
Tax Relief in Hybrid and Reverse Hybrid Situations”, (Law).
No. 026 Hilling, Maria (2005): “Free Movement and Tax Treaties in the Internal
Market”, (Law).
No. 027 Brunninge, Olof (2005): “Organisational self-understanding and the strategy
process”, (Business Administration).
No. 028 Blombäck, Anna (2005): “Supplier brand image – a catalyst for choice:
Expanding the B2B brand discourse by studying the role corporate brand image
plays in the selection of subcontractors”, (Business Administration).
No. 029 Nordqvist, Mattias (2005): “Understanding the role of ownership in
strategizing: a study of family firms”, (Business Administration).
No. 030 Karlsson, Tomas (2005): “Business Plans in New Ventures: An Institutional
Perspective”, (Business Administration).
No. 031 Johnson, Andreas (2005): “Host Country Effects of Foreign Direct Investment:
The Case of Developing and Transition Economies”, (Economics).
No. 032 Nyström, Kristina (2006): “Entry and Exit in Swedish Industrial Sectors”,
(Economics).
No. 033 Salvato, Carlo (2006): “Micro-Foundations of Organizational Adaptation. A
Field Study in the Evolution of Product Development Capabilities in a Design
Firm”, (Business Administration).
JIBS Dissertation Series
385
No. 034 Gråsjö, Urban (2006): “Spatial Spillovers of Knowledge Production – An
Accessibility Approach”, (Economics).
No. 035 Dahlqvist, Jonas (2007): “Assessing New Economic Activity – Process and
Performance in New Ventures”, (Business Administration).
No. 036 Andersson, Martin (2007): “Disentangling Trade Flows – firms, geography
and technology”, (Economics).
No. 037 Nilsson, Désirée (2007): “Essays on Trade Flows, Demand Structure and
Income Distribution”, (Economics).
No. 038 McKelvie, Alexander (2007): “Innovation in New Firms: Examining the role
of knowledge and growth willingness”, (Business Administration).
No. 039 Garvi, Miriam (2007): “Venture Capital for the Future - Implications of
Founding Visions in the Venture Capital Setting”, (Business
Administration).
No. 040 Rosander, Ulrika (2007): “Generalklausul mot skatteflykt”, (Law).
No. 041 Hultman, Jens (2007): “Rethinking adoption – Information and
communications technology interaction processes within the Swedish automobile
industry”, (Business Administration).
No. 042 Hilling, Axel (2007): “Income Taxation of Derivatives and other Financial
Instruments – Economic Substance versus Legal Form: A study focusing on
Swedish non-financial companies”, (Law).
No. 043 Sjölander, Pär (2007): “Simulation-Based Approaches in Financial
Econometrics”, (Economics).
No. 044 Hang, Min (2007): “Media Business Venturing: A Study on the Choice of
Organizational Mode”, (Business Administration).
No. 045 Lövstål, Eva (2008): “Management Control Systems in Entrepreneurial
Organisations – A Balancing Challenge”, (Business Administration).
No. 046 Fridriksson, Helgi-Valur (2008): “Learning processes in an inter-
organizational context – A study of krAft project”, (Business
Administration).
No. 047 Naldi, Lucia (2008): “Growth through Internationalization: a Knowledge
Perspective on SMEs”, (Business Administration).
No. 048 Wiberg, Daniel (2008): “Institutional Ownership - the Anonymous Capital:
Corporate Governance and Investment Performance”, (Economics).
No. 049 Eklund Johan E. (2008): “Corporate Governance, Private Property and
Investment”, (Economics).
No. 050 Glemdal, Michael (2008): “Gubben på kullen - Om den smärtsamma
skillnaden mellan politiska intentioner och praktiska resultat”, (Political
Science).
Jönköping International Business School
386
No. 051 Bohman, Helena (2008): “Trade, Knowledge and Income Distribution”,
(Economics).
No. 052 Rendahl Pernilla (2008): “Cross-Border Consumption Taxation of Digital
Supplies - A Comparative Study of Double Taxation and Unintentional Non-
Taxation of B2C E-Commerce”, (Law).
No. 053 Mellander, Charlotta (2008): “The Wealth of Urban Regions - On the
Location of Creative Individuals and Firms”, (Economics).
No. 054 Johansson, Monica (2008): “Organizing Policy - A Policy Analysis starting
from SMEs in Tuscany and the County of Jönköping”, (Political Science).
No. 055 van Weezel, Aldo (2009): “Entrepreneurial Strategy-Making Mode and
Performance: A Study of the Newspaper Industry”, (Business Administration)
No. 056 Hellerstedt, Karin (2009): “The Composition of New Venture Teams: Its
Dynamics and Consequences”, (Business Administration).
No. 057 Hunter, Erik (2009): “Celebrity Entrepreneurship and Celebrity Endorsement:
Similarities, differences and the effect of deeper engagement”, (Business
Administration).
No. 058 Gerson, Anna (2009): “Compensation of Losses in Foreign Subsidiaries within
the EU: A Comparative Study of the Unilateral Loss-Compensation Mechanisms
in Austria and Denmark”, (Law).
No. 059 Dahlström, Tobias (2009): “Causes of corruption”, (Economics).
No. 060 Languilaire, Jean-Charles (2009): “Experiencing work/non-work -
Theorising individuals' process of integrating and segmenting work, family, social
and private”, (Business Administration).
No. 061 Nguyen Tan, Phat (2009): “Transfer Pricing: The Vietnamese System in the
Light of the OECD Guidelines and the Systems in certain Developed and
Developing Countries”, (Law).
No. 062 Karlsson, Ann Britt (2009): “Institutionalisering av ansvar i kommunal
revision – Lärande organisering”, (Political Science).
No. 063 Johansson, Sara (2010): “Knowledge, Product Differentiation and Trade,
(Economics).
No. 064 Ots, Mart (2010): “Understanding value formation - A study of marketing
communications practices at the food retailer ICA”, (Business Administration).
No. 065 Raviola, Elena (2010): “Paper meets Web: How the institution of news
production works on paper and online”, (Business Administration).
No. 066 Palmberg, Johanna (2010): “Family Ownership and Investment Performance”,
(Economics).
No. 067 Borgström, Benedikte (2010): “Supply chain strategising: Integration in
practice”, (Business Administration).
JIBS Dissertation Series
387
No. 068 Wikner, Sarah (2010): “Value co-creation as practice: On a supplier’s
capabilities in the value generation process”, (Business Administration).
No. 069 Karlsson, Peter (2011): “Issues of Incompleteness, Outliers and Asymptotics in
High-Dimensional Data”, (Statistics).
No. 070 Helin, Jenny (2011): “Living moments in family meetings: A process study in
the family business context”, (Business Administration).
No. 071 Markowska, Magdalena (2011): “Entrepreneurial Competence Development:
Triggers, Processes & Consequences”, (Business Administration).
No. 072 Cui, Lianguang (2011): “Innovation and network development of logistics
firms”, (Business Administration).
No. 073 Norbäck, Maria (2011): “Making Public Service Television: A study of
institutional work in collaborative TV production”, (Business
Administration).
No. 074 Dzansi, James (2011): “Essays on Financing and Returns on Investment”,
(Economics).
No. 075 Månsson, Kristofer (2012): “Issues of multicollinearity and conditional
heteroscedasticy in time series econometrics”, (Statistics).
No. 076 Balkow, Jenny (2012): “In the Middle: On Sourcing from China and the Role
of the Intermediary”, (Business Administration).
No. 077 Karlsson, Hyunjoo Kim (2012): “Dynamics of macroeconomic and financial
variables in different time horizons”, (Economics).
No. 078 Bjerke, Lina (2012): “Knowledge flows across space and firms”, (Economics).
No. 079 Högberg, Andreas (2012): “Corporate Governance, Legal Origin and Firm
Performance: An Asian Perspective”, (Economics).
No. 080 Wictor, Ingemar (2012): “Born Globals: Rapid International Growth in New
Ventures”, (Business Administration).
No. 081 Skoglund, Per (2012): “Sourcing decisions for military logistics in Peace Support
Operations: A case study of the Swedish armed forces”, (Business
Administration).
No. 082 Haag, Kajsa (2012): “Rethinking family business succession: From a problem to
solve to an ongoing practice”, (Business Administration).
No. 083 Zeebari, Zangin (2012): “On Median and Ridge Estimation of SURE
Models”, (Statistics).
No. 084 Jenkins, Anna (2012): “After firm failure: Emotions, learning and re-entry”,
(Business Administration).
No. 085 Ghazawneh, Ahmad (2012): “Towards a Boundary Resources Theory of
Software Platforms”, (Informatics).
Jönköping International Business School
388
No. 086 Backman, Mikaela (2013): “Regions, Human Capital and New Firm
Formation”, (Economics).
No. 087 Casanovas, Inés (2013): “Online Education in Universities: Moving from
Individual Adoption to Institutionalisation of an Information Technology
Innovation”, (Informatics).
No. 088 Nilsson, Pia (2013): “Price Formation in Real Estate Markets”,
(Economics).
No. 089 Sallander, Ann-Sophie (2013): “Ömsesidiga överenskommelser enligt
skatteavtal”, (Law).
No. 090 Trenta, Cristina (2013): “VAT in Peer-to-peer Content Distribution –
Towards a Tax Proposal for Decentralized Networks”, (Law).
No. 091 Boers, Börje (2013): “Organizational identity construction in family businesses
a dualities perspective”, (Business Administration).
No. 092 Mansoor, Rashid (2013): “Assessing Distributional Properties of High-
Dimensional Data”, (Statistics).
No. 093 Hartmann, Benjamin (2013): “Consumption and Practice: Unfolding
Consumptive Moments and the Entanglement with Productive Aspects”,
(Business Administration).
No. 094 Hartmann, Berit (2013): “Bridging the GAAP? IFRS in accounting practice”,
(Business Administration).
No. 095 Månsson, Kristofer (2014): “Essays on Nonlinearities and Time Scales in
Macroeconomics and Finance”, (Economics).
No. 096 Larsson, Johan P. (2014): “Nonmarket Interactions and Density
Externalities”, (Economics).
No. 097 Öner, Özge (2014): “Retail Location”, (Economics).
No. 098 Johansson, Anette (2014): “Ways forward – effectual and causal approaches
to innovation in the Swedish magazine industry”, (Business Administration).
No. 099 Almlöf, Hanna (2014): “Bolagsorganens reglering och dess ändamålsenlighet:
En aktiebolagsrättslig studie om ägarledda bolag”, (Law).
No. 100 Jafari, Hamid (2014): “Postponement and Logistics Flexibility in Retailing”,
(Business Administration).
No. 101 Warda, Peter (2015): ”Knowledge, Location and Trade”, (Economics).
No. 102 Weiss, Jan F. (2015): ”Essays on Externalities, Regulation, Institutions, and
Firm Performance”, (Economics).
No. 103 Parada Balderrama, Maria José (2015): “Developing Governance Structures
in the Family Firms: From adoption to institutionalization”, (Business
Administration).
JIBS Dissertation Series
389
No. 104 Laurell, Hélène (2015): “The Role of Industry Context for New Venture
Internationalization”, (Business Administration).
No. 105 Levinsohn, Duncan (2015): “No Entrepreneur is an Island: an Exploration
of Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators”, (Business
Administration).
doc_902058329.pdf
During this detailed criteria in regard to no entrepreneur is an island an exploration of social entrepreneurial.
No Entrepreneur is an Island
An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurial
Learning in Accelerators
DUNCAN S. LEVINSOHN
2
Jönköping International Business School
P.O. Box 1026
SE-551 11 Jönköping
Tel.: +46 36 10 10 00
E-mail: [email protected]
www.jibs.se
No Entrepreneur is an Island: An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurial Learning in
Accelerators
JIBS Dissertation Series No. 105
© 2015 Duncan Levinsohn and Jönköping International Business School
ISSN 1403-0470
ISBN 978-91-86345-61-7
Printed by ARK Tryckaren AB, 2015
3
”Na terra dos cegos quem tem um olho é rei.”
Portuguese proverb
1
.
“When we are dreaming alone it is only a dream.
When we are dreaming with others,
it is the beginning of reality.”
Dom Hélder Câmara
1
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
5
Acknowledgements
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
Ecclesiastes 4:12
One of the findings of this dissertation is that even the most experienced of social
entrepreneurs are dependent on the encouragement and inspiration they find in
the company of others. I share this particular aspect of their experience – and at
the end of what feels like a very long journey, I would like to express my heartfelt
appreciation to some of the many people who have walked with me.
In Swedish there is a word that has no real equivalent in English, namely
livskamrat: ‘life-friend’. Helena, you are my life-friend in the deepest meaning of
the word. Without your love and support I would not have been able to make
this journey – nor would it have been worth making. Thank you for all your
practical help year after year: for the conference days you have spent alone with
our children and in the past year, for making it possible for me to spend Saturdays
at my desk. Far more valuable however, has been your generous attitude; your
willingness to support me in achieving something that has been important to me.
I look forward to continuing our journey together, hopefully at a slightly slower
tempo!
What would a doctoral student be without his or her supervisors? At school I
hated chemistry, but over the past years I have been grateful for its role in making
my time as a doctoral student harmonious and productive. Thank you Ethel and
Anders, for accompanying me on my academic journey of ‘becoming’. I
appreciate you both, not only for your sharp intellects and your determination to
get the best out of me – but also for your humour and concern for my wellbeing.
Our regular interrogation sessions in room B6050 have been an enormous help
in my development and have revealed new dimensions of the ‘good cop, bad cop’
approach to dialogue – I only wish I could figure out who was who! Thank you
as well for recruiting Benson Honig to your team. Meatloaf sings “Two out of
three ain’t bad”, but over the past years I have been blessed with three out of
three! Benson, thank you so much for making my stay in Hamilton and at
McMaster such a positive experience. My time in Canada with you sharpened my
intellect – and after dinner in your home, you have forever sharpened my
appetite!
There are many academic role models out there and not all of them are positive.
My three supervisors have shown me the ‘sunny’ side of academia and modelled
a generous, yet rigorous intellectual curiosity. However, you are not alone in this
role. I would also like to thank the opponent at my defence – Daniel Hjorth –
and my examining committee, for taking the time to read and assess my work.
6
I am particularly grateful to Ulla Hytti for her insightful and constructive
comments at my final seminar. Your feedback has helped me to both reframe
my study in a more exciting direction – and led me to engage with literature that
has added a deeper dimension to my work. Although I look forward to my
defence with some trepidation, I could not wish for my work to be assessed by a
more distinguished group of scholars. Nonetheless, it is not your intellectual
rigour that I most appreciate – even if you clearly display this – but rather; the
creative, provocative and multicultural aspects of your academic personalities.
Thank you Ethel for putting together such an exciting group!
My time at JIBS has been greatly enriched by many people and by trying to name
you all, there is a risk that I will miss somebody’s contribution. I think those of
you who meet me in the corridor with warmth and a smile, know who you are –
and you know that I value your friendship at work. Of course, those of you who
are (or have been) doctoral students – and have shared the ‘blood, toil, tears and
sweat’ of research with me over the past years – have a special place in my heart.
Nonetheless, not all of my time at JIBS has been spent on research and Anna
Blombäck is worth of a special mention, as my co-teacher on several courses. I
have appreciated your encouragement and trust – and JIBS would be hard put to
find a more talented and deserving Associate Dean for Education. A big thank-
you as well, to all the people at JIBS who make our teaching and research possible
– to our coordinators, administrators, librarians and caretakers. I am especially
grateful to Susanne Hansson for your work. Not just in the past weeks as I added
the final formatting to my dissertation – but also over the years, as you have
arranged doctoral courses and maintained a modicum of structure in a changing
organisational environment.
I wish I could name the managers and social entrepreneurs who populate this
study. I now count many of you as my friends and am extremely grateful for the
warmth, openness and insight with which you shared your experiences.
Last, but not least, I would like to send a huge hug to my family and my ‘non-
work’ friends. I am privileged to have parents who were not afraid to take their
children with them into a colourful and at times insecure environment – and a
father who challenges me by his example, to strive for societal impact as an
academic. My little sister Heather continues to be an inspiration for me and has
probably forgotten more about people-management, than I will ever teach my
students – I look forward to our curry nights every time I am in the U.K! I have
also been blessed with a fantastic mother-in-law, and a large and colourful flock
of children. My biggest hug is reserved for all six of you: Hannah, Emily, Kevin,
Douglas, Martin and Jonathan. You are a constant reminder to me that there are
more important things in life than Ph.Ds. – and that knowledge and wisdom are
two very different animals. Vai com Deus!
7
Abstract
This dissertation explores the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators.
Building on Jarvis’ (2010) existential theory of learning, it conceptualises
entrepreneurial learning as a process in which purposeful individuals encounter
and transform experiences of disjuncture. These experiences are embedded in
both human and material contexts. Learning processes and outcomes are
portrayed as phenomena that are influenced by social entrepreneurs’ interaction
with these environments. Accelerators are depicted as non-formal contexts of
learning, of relatively short duration – in which the structure and content of
education is progressively adapted to the requirements of the individual.
This study represents one of the first attempts to open the ‘black box’ of social
entrepreneurial learning in accelerators. The process and outcomes of learning
are investigated by means of a longitudinal case study involving twenty-four
social entrepreneurs and three accelerators run by the same organisation.
Information about learning was gathered using narrative and ethnographic
techniques, and analysed drawing on an abductive methodology.
An in-depth study of the learning experiences of four social entrepreneurs is
made and a typology of social entrepreneurs is developed. The typology
integrates experience-oriented factors with social entrepreneurs’ degree of
embeddedness in the context addressed by their product or service. These factors
combine with venture stage and the intentions of the entrepreneur, to influence
the learning process – and the outcomes associated with learning. Seven principal
outcomes of learning in accelerators are noted and the learning of social
entrepreneurs is linked to a ‘sideways’ move from a project-based charity
orientation, to a more sustainable emphasis on hybridity. Furthermore, learning
in accelerators is found to be more a product of co-creation than of effective
programme design. The characteristics and dynamics of the accelerator cohort
are found to have a significant impact on learning, with heterogeneity in terms
of industry a key stimulus. In contrast, learning is enhanced when accelerator
participants are at a similar stage of venture development.
This dissertation develops a model of the learning process in accelerators,
emphasising the influence of entrepreneurs’ backgrounds and intentions. Ten
educator roles in accelerators are identified and it is found that these functions
may be filled by more than one of the three main categories of educator in
accelerators (i.e.: managers, mentors and coaches). Opportunities for learning are
created by the interaction of accelerator participants with both human actors and
material objects. The term “splace” is used to refer to these ‘areas of opportunity’
– which allow entrepreneurs to engage in learning through reflection, dialogue,
action or community – or by combinations of these four orientations.
9
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 15
1.1 Setting the Scene ....................................................................................... 15
1.2 Moving towards Involved Enterprise .................................................... 16
1.3 From Enterprise to Entrepreneurship ................................................... 17
1.4 Learning to be Social and Sustainable .................................................... 19
1.5 Enhancing the Learning of Entrepreneurs ........................................... 21
1.6 Educating the Social Entrepreneur ........................................................ 29
1.7 The Rise of Accelerator Programmes .................................................... 33
1.8 Research Purpose ...................................................................................... 48
1.9 A Dissertation Road-map ........................................................................ 50
1.10 A Brief Note on Terminology................................................................. 52
2 Theoretical Perspectives .......................................................................... 53
2.1 The Education of [social] Entrepreneurs .............................................. 54
2.2 A Theoretical Foundation for Learning ................................................ 65
2.3 Bringing it All Together ........................................................................... 88
3 Journeying into Method ........................................................................... 95
3.1 The Beginning of the End – or the End of the Beginning? ............... 95
3.2 Entrepreneurial Methods for Entrepreneurship Research ................. 97
3.3 The Best-laid Schemes o' Mice an' Men .............................................. 100
3.4 Research & Evaluation 2.0 .................................................................... 106
3.5 Making Sense of Method ....................................................................... 110
3.6 Collecting Information about the Accelerator Process..................... 115
3.7 Analysing Information about Learning in Accelerators.................... 121
4 Social Entrepreneurs & Accelerators ................................................... 135
4.1 Chapter Overview ................................................................................... 135
4.2 The Social Entrepreneurs – Part 1 ....................................................... 135
4.3 The Accelerators ..................................................................................... 139
4.4 The Social Entrepreneurs – Part 2 ....................................................... 171
4.5 Learning in Accelerators: the 7 ‘F’s ...................................................... 235
10
5 Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators ........... 269
5.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 269
5.2 Background and Stage: the Two ‘Givens’ ........................................... 270
5.3 The Perceived Task ................................................................................ 279
5.4 Perceptions of Value and Effectiveness .............................................. 283
5.5 Splace for Learning ................................................................................. 289
5.6 Co-creating Entrepreneurial Learning ................................................. 309
5.7 Social Entrepreneurship and Accelerators .......................................... 321
5.8 There is More to Success than Learning! ............................................ 324
5.9 Modelling Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators ............ 326
6 Conclusions & Contributions ............................................................... 331
6.1 Theoretical Contributions ..................................................................... 331
6.2 Contributions to Practice....................................................................... 338
6.3 Implications for Policy ........................................................................... 340
6.4 Limitations ............................................................................................... 341
6.5 Future Research ...................................................................................... 343
References .................................................................................................................. 345
Appendices ................................................................................................................. 369
JIBS Dissertation Series ........................................................................................... 383
11
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Key contextual influences on accelerator design ............................................. 37
Figure 2-1: A basic model of learning from experience (adapted from Jarvis 2006) ...... 75
Figure 2-2: The transformation of experience (from Jarvis 1987, 2006) ......................... 78
Figure 2-3: A Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators. ............. 90
Figure 3-1: Single-case design with embedded units of analysis ..................................... 112
Figure 3-2: Characteristics and targets of 'timely' theory ................................................. 123
Figure 4-1: Startup stages, from Startup Commons (2014) ............................................. 138
Figure 4-2: Categories of social entrepreneur, developed from Cope & Watts (2000) 174
Figure 4-3: A Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators ............ 180
Figure 4-4: Venture-oriented Learning at the Intersection of Accelerator Spaces ....... 232
Figure 4-5: Person-oriented Learning at the Intersection of Accelerator Spaces ......... 233
Figure 4-6: Main Outcomes of the Booster Accelerators ................................................ 267
Figure 5-1: A preliminary model of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators ................ 269
Figure 5-2: Entrepreneurial characteristics that influence interaction in accelerator
cohorts ................................................................................................................ 278
Figure 5-3: An expanded model of factors that influence entrepreneurs' participation
in the education process ................................................................................... 283
Figure 5-4: Factors that influence entrepreneurs' attitudes towards learning-oriented
activities in accelerators ..................................................................................... 288
Figure 5-5: The move from a formal to a non-formal learning orientation .................. 291
Figure 5-6: A model of learning ‘splace’ in accelerators, depicting the interplay of
‘human’ space, time, and primary and secondary physical space. ............... 303
Figure 5-7: Tutor roles in the Booster Accelerators. ........................................................ 315
Figure 5-8: The Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
introduced in Chapter 2. ................................................................................... 326
Figure 5-9: A Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators. ................................ 327
12
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Research Activity during and after the Accelerators. ..................................... 110
Table 3-2: Principle steps in my Adaptation of Framework Analysis ............................ 127
Table 4-1: Overview of the Booster Social Entrepreneurs ................................................. 137
Table 4-2: Thematic content and timing of Accelerator activities. ................................. 146
Table 4-3: The Booster entrepreneurs, showing categories and stage. .......................... 177
Table 4-4: Social entrepreneurs' intentions. ....................................................................... 224
Table 4-5: The content and process of social entrepreneurs' learning. .......................... 225
Table 4-6: Roles Valued by Social Entrepreneurs in the Accelerators. .......................... 227
Table 4-7: Aspects of ‘Space’ described by the four Exemplars. .................................... 231
Table 4-8: Investment & Revenue - Accelerator 1............................................................ 258
Table 4-9: Investment & Revenue - Accelerator 2............................................................ 259
Table 4-10: Venture outcomes-Accelerator 1. ................................................................... 260
Table 4-11: Venture outcomes-Accelerator 2. ................................................................... 261
Table 4-12: Venture performance related to category, stage and performance. ........... 265
13
List of Abbreviations
A.o.M: Academy of Management
BIF: Business Innovation Facility
DFID: Department for International Development (U.K.)
ECE: Economic Commission for Europe
EED: Entrepreneurship education
EL: Entrepreneurial learning
ESIE: Education for Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship
I.a.P: Innovations against Poverty
MDG: Millennium Development Goal
N.f.P: Not-for-Profit
NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation
NSE: Network for Social Enterprise
PDW: Professional Development Workshop
SEC: Social Enterprise Coalition
Sida: Swedish International Development Programme
SOCAP: Social Capital Markets
SVP: Social Value Proposition
UNICEF: United Nations Children's Fund
WCED: World Commission on Environment and Development
15
1 Introduction
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
1.1 Setting the Scene
In 1624 the English poet and reluctant clergyman John Donne penned the above
words while recovering from a severe illness. Students of poetry suggest that it
was the recurring sound of bells tolling for other invalids’ funerals that awoke in
him a stark awareness of his shared humanity with these strangers. An
understanding of his interconnectedness with every individual.
Hundreds of years after his poem was written, society is rediscovering the truth
of Donne’s often-cited strophe “no man is an island”. Today it is not the sound
of a tolling bell that has awoken us to the reality of a connected and
interdependent world, but instead the increasing visibility of indicators of social
and environmental tension in our world. A combination of high-profile industrial
accidents and more gradual changes in ecosystems have alerted people to the fact
that their lives can be changed not only by the activities of their geographical
neighbours, but also by developments on the other side of the globe.
Importantly, many people have also come to realise that this impact is reciprocal.
In an interconnected world we are not only affected by other people’s actions,
but also have an impact on the welfare of others.
Jönköping International Business School
16
In this dissertation the reader is introduced to a number of individuals who
engage in an intensive process of learning. All of these individuals are concerned
about the impact of business on society and are engaged in starting up their own
enterprises. In academic terms they would be classified as ‘nascent social
entrepreneurs’. Some of them are founding enterprises whose primary impact is
on people, while others are more concerned with creating environmental value. Some
startups combine the two. What all three categories have in common is their
status as emerging entrepreneurs and their participation in an eight-week
programme of entrepreneurship education – an ‘accelerator’. The primary
purpose of this study is to explore the learning associated with this accelerator. I
seek to explore the learning that occurs as social entrepreneurs move from the
relatively lonely and unstructured environments in which they seek to create their
ventures – to the more structured and intense setting of a programme of
entrepreneurship education. An important focus in this study is thus the interaction
of these entrepreneurs with the particular approach to entrepreneurship
education represented by the accelerator. Consequently, although this
dissertation primarily focuses on the learning of social entrepreneurs, it is also
about the accelerator programmes they participate in. It tells the story of both.
1.2 Moving towards Involved Enterprise
John Donne explains his sorrow over the death of a stranger by referring to the
concept of shared humanity: “for I am involved in mankind”. In many business
organisations a similar recognition of the interdependence of the firm with
society has taken place during past decades, even if this recognition has resulted
in business leaders taking several very different types of action.
The first and most common business reaction is seen in the dramatic increase in
formalised programmes of corporate responsibility (CR), or corporate social
responsibility (CSR). As the terms themselves suggest, these programmes are
based on the recognition that businesses are in some way ‘responsible’ towards
society – even if the nature of this responsibility has varied over time (Blowfield
& Murray, 2011). Closely linked to these concepts is the stakeholder approach to
strategic management, which very clearly drives firms towards a greater
recognition of the socially embedded nature of the firm (Freeman, 1984; Rowley,
1997). Critics of these approaches however, argue that despite the increase of
CSR activities in business environments, the steps being taken are largely
incremental and fail to tackle firms’ “systemic unsustainability” (W. Visser, 2010,
p. 11).
A second way in which individuals have acted upon their recognition that they
are ‘involved in mankind’ is seen in the rise of the social enterprise. In contrast
to instrumental forms of corporate responsibility - which tend to emphasize
shareholder profit while maintaining ‘licence to operate’ (Donaldson & Dunfee,
Introduction
17
1999), social enterprises prioritise the creation of social value (Mair & Martí, 2006).
In this context the term “social” may imply either a purpose that is oriented
towards human needs or the environment– or a combination of the two (SEC,
2010). Nevertheless, according to Thompson (2008) several other characteristics
are also associated with the field of social enterprise; including the pursuit of
social value via the trading of goods or services, and the existence of a double or
triple bottom-line.
A third way in which a relatively small number of individuals and firms have
attempted to incorporate a vision of shared humanity into their operations, is by
means of what I term ‘synergy-oriented’ enterprise. Under this category a large
number of apparently unrelated business strategies can be grouped together.
What these approaches have in common is a reluctance to prioritise one aspect
of sustainability, or one particular stakeholder over another. Instead, value
creation is pursued in several areas simultaneously. It is suggested that value
creation in one area need not exclude the creation of value at another point –
indeed, it may even enhance it. The best known example of a synergistic
approach to enterprise is Porter and Kramer’s (2011) concept of ‘shared value’.
Nonetheless, upon careful examination it is possible to see that many other
concepts – such as ‘inclusive business’, ‘base-of-the-pyramid strategies’ and
‘sustainability entrepreneurship’ – operate under a similar logic. Although this
logic is perhaps most clearly spelled out by scholars such as Young and Tilley
(2006), these approaches all emphasize the need for firms to move beyond
strategies that achieve value in one area, with only a neutral (or even a detrimental
effect) in another. The aforementioned scholars term this shift a move from
“efficiency” towards “effectiveness” and emphasize the importance of firms
achieving effectiveness at several ‘bottom-lines’ simultaneously. In the case of
inclusive business this may involve a firm achieving acceptable levels of profit,
while at the same time generating income and employment for disadvantaged
individuals. For example: Coca-Cola’s strategy of adopting a labour-intensive
distribution model in Ethiopia and Tanzania (Nelson, Ishikawa, & Geaneotes,
2009). The entrepreneurs whose development is discussed in this study are
engaged in the creation of firms that either belong to this third, synergistic type
of enterprise, or to the second category: the social venture.
1.3 From Enterprise to Entrepreneurship
The above paragraphs briefly introduce three basic categories of what Azmat &
Samaratunge (2009) term “responsible” enterprise. What has not been discussed
however, is the question of how such enterprises come to exist. This is an
important question to ask in view of the important role attributed by many
societies to entrepreneurs and small firms, with regards to the creation of social
and economic prosperity. For example: in 2008 the European Union noted that
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are “providers of employment
Jönköping International Business School
18
opportunities and key players for the wellbeing of local and regional
communities” (Commission of the European Communities, 2008). In 2010 in
the United States, the International Trade Administration (2013) noted that
SMEs accounted for 33.7 % of exported goods. Furthermore, in Asia SMEs
typically accounted for 30-60 % of GDP and around 50 % of formal employment
in the same period (Calverley, 2010). Unsurprisingly therefore, many policy-
makers are fervent, if at times uncritical promoters of entrepreneurship – with
Barack Obama (2006) perhaps most explicit in his expression of the
entrepreneurial ‘creed’: “I believe in the free market, competition, and
entrepreneurship!”
If the figures in the above paragraph reflect even a small measure of the impact
of SMEs on society, then it is clearly important to understand the factors
associated with the establishment and proliferation of new enterprises.
Nonetheless, it is important to distinguish between small business management
and the actual process of establishing a small business. Many entrepreneurship
scholars suggest that new firms are important to society not only because of the
possibility that they may one day grow and employ significant numbers of people,
but also because of their innovative nature. Schumpeter (1943) identifies the
entrepreneur with a process of innovation that involves “creative destruction”,
as new products and processes make contemporary offerings redundant. Miles,
Snow, Meyer and Coleman (1978) are more conservative and argue that some
firms (“defenders”) in fact maintain competitive advantage by engaging in
activities that are not necessarily innovative. Nevertheless, on the basis of
Welsch’s (2010) survey of entrepreneurial typologies, it is clear that many scholars
associate entrepreneurship with some form of innovative behaviour. Indeed, in
the field of sustainability entrepreneurship, Schaltegger and Wagner (2011)
suggest that it is their innovative behaviour that makes small, nascent firms so
valuable. They argue that entrepreneurial firms are often responsible for radical
innovations that are initially less viable in commercial terms, but subsequently
adopted in modified form by larger firms – and marketed on a much larger scale.
Although the firms used to illustrate their discussion are primarily ‘green’
entrepreneurs, Schaltegger and Wagner define sustainability entrepreneurship as
including both social and environmental innovation. I have therefore suggested
that ‘social’ entrepreneurs can be expected to follow a similar pattern of
innovation; with small, new firms often responsible for the most radical social
innovations (Levinsohn, 2013). If this is true, a deeper understanding of the
processes associated with the successful founding of such ventures can be
expected to generate significant social and environmental benefits. One aspect
of venture development is the learning achieved by nascent social entrepreneurs,
learning that may be linked to the processes of entrepreneurship training and
education discussed in this dissertation.
Introduction
19
1.4 Learning to be Social and Sustainable
In this chapter I have so far suggested that many contemporary firms are
adopting a more ‘involved’ stance as regards the role of business in society. Some
firms are making social impact their primary purpose, while others pursue a more
synergistic approach to value creation. I have also argued that small businesses
often have a positive impact on society and that this impact is of particular value
where firms are not only radically innovative with regards to service or product,
but also innovative with regards to the creation of social or environmental value.
This suggestion naturally provokes the question of how society can contribute to
the establishment of these types of firm. What type of business environment is
conducive to the establishment of effective social (or sustainable) enterprises?
What type of person or organisation should receive financial support in order to
establish this type of business? And what kind of education or training will these
firms find useful? Questions such as these are particularly relevant when the high
rate of failure among traditional startups is taken into account, with
approximately half the number of new businesses launched in the United States
ceasing operations after four years (Headd, 2003). It is apparent that nascent
enterprises develop in many different ways and that very different outcomes
result from their entrepreneurial ‘journeys’. As Jenkins (2012) points out, even
firm ‘failure’ is a far more diverse phenomenon than is initially apparent.
The different outcomes and dissimilar paths of development that new ventures
follow is a phenomenon that I link to what Strauss (1993) and Wenger (1998)
term “trajectories”. Although these scholars differ slightly in their use of the term
(studying the development of illness on the one hand, and professional identity
and skill on the other), they both use the term to refer not only to recurring
patterns of development and outcomes, but also to the interactions that produce
these patterns. Business advisors, accelerators and incubators are all examples of
interventions into the trajectories (or development) of nascent firms –
interventions that involve purposeful interaction with the entrepreneur or the
entrepreneurial team. This interaction is usually based on the unspoken
assumption that entrepreneurs are able to learn – and that this learning is in turn
related to positive venture outcomes. Indeed, drawing on Moingeon and
Edmonson (1996), Harrison and Leitch (2005) suggest that in nascent firms the
learning of entrepreneurs is probably as important to the success of the nascent
venture – as organisational learning is to the prosperity of established
organisations.
Because a significant number of entrepreneurial trajectories lead to an exit from
the venturing process, stakeholders such as investors are naturally eager to
promote forms of interaction that prevent new ventures from following patterns
of development that are either unprofitable or unsustainable – or both.
Furthermore, many stakeholders are also keen to promote interaction that
Jönköping International Business School
20
accelerates the development of the new venture from a position of unprofitable,
low-impact activity; to one of sustainability, profitability and high impact.
In the fields of business administration and economics, researchers who have
studied the phenomenon of new venture creation have tended to adopt only one
of two general perspectives. Frequently a choice is made between focusing on
either the entrepreneurial context or on entrepreneurial agency, with fewer studies
recognising the interplay that occurs between the two. Accordingly, economists
often suggest that a region develop industrial infrastructure, clusters, or milieus
that are attractive to creative individuals (Florida, Mellander, & Stolarick, 2008;
Johansson, 1993). Entrepreneurship scholars on the other hand, often advocate
more effective entrepreneurial education or better systems for identifying and
supporting promising individuals and ventures (Carrier, 2007; Krueger & Brazeal,
1994). Increasingly however, scholars recognise that effective intervention often
requires a recognition of the combined impact of “economic, sociological,
psychological and anthropological explanations” (A. A. Gibb, 2007).
As an entrepreneurship scholar I am more interested in the processes associated
with the creation of new ventures, than in the intricacies of regional development.
Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to take the arguments of sociology
seriously and to recognise that the trajectories of individuals and of firms are
always modified to some extent by their interaction with their environment.
Donne’s phrase “I am involved in mankind” reflects not only emotional insight,
but also social reality. It also reflects Strauss’ suggestion that individual agency
(action) is embedded in interaction. This idea infers that the study of interaction
rather than agency is a key task of entrepreneurship research. In other words,
entrepreneurial learning needs to be studied at what Harrison and Leitch (2005)
term the “interface” between the entrepreneur and their context. Once again
therefore, I emphasize that although the primary unit of analysis in this
dissertation is the learning of the individual social entrepreneur, I recognise the
powerful influence of the entrepreneurial context on this learning. Indeed, the
entrepreneurial ecosystem is arguably the only factor that ‘society’ (i.e.: policy
makers and enterprise support systems) can realistically manage in the short term.
For this reason, I begin this study with a discussion of one particular aspect of
the entrepreneurial ecosystem, namely entrepreneurship education and training.
A particular type of entrepreneurship education and training (the accelerator
programme) is framed as an intervention into the learning of the social
entrepreneur. The theoretical foundations for this learning are discussed in
chapter two, but before that I address the question of why it is important to
conduct research into social entrepreneurial learning in the particular context of
accelerators.
Introduction
21
1.5 Enhancing the Learning of Entrepreneurs
One method of supporting individuals as they launch (or prepare to launch) new
ventures is entrepreneurship education (EE) – or entrepreneurship training (ET).
Both approaches operate under the assumption that if the founders of new
ventures learn to be more “competent” (Markowska, 2011) – or “expert”, if we
use the language of effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2008), then they will be more likely
to succeed. For the purposes of this study therefore, entrepreneurship education
is framed as a particular context for – and as an intervention into – entrepreneurial
learning. Pittaway and Cope (2007a, p. 500) suggest that the field of
entrepreneurship education is still in its infancy and that “We do not really know
what ‘entrepreneurship education’ actually is”. Despite this observation, Henry,
Hill and Leitch (2003, p. 123) suggest that entrepreneurship education focuses on
raising awareness about entrepreneurship, while entrepreneurship training is
about “instruction for enterprise”. Martin, McNally and Kay (2013) suggest that
entrepreneurship education initiatives can be distinguished from
entrepreneurship training initiatives on the basis of their academic or non-
academic nature (“academic-focused” and “training-focused”). Although the
above scholars base their ideas on theories of the transfer of learning, Alan Gibb
(1997) suggests that in practice it is difficult to distinguish between education and
training. Indeed, the challenge of distinguishing between the two may explain
Martin, McNally and Kay’s failure to find support for their article’s third
hypothesis – which related to training, distinguishing it from education. Gibb
(1997) notes that some writers suggest that education has to do with knowledge,
and training with skills. He argues however, that in reality the two are so
intertwined as to be nearly inseparable, due to the fact that “the practice of skill
always has a knowledge component and behaviour (embodying knowledge)
nearly always involves interpersonal skills” (ibid. p.16).
Gibb’s ideas imply that education is an activity that takes place in both academic
and non-academic contexts, even if dissimilar environments may be characterised
by different emphases. This infers that it may be more useful to categorise
initiatives that promote learning on the basis of their objectives, target groups
and degree of formality (or structure). Indeed the difficulty of making a
meaningful distinction between entrepreneurship education and training is
illustrated by scholars’ inconsistent use of the terms. Akola and Heinonen (2008)
for example, use the term “entrepreneurship training” to discuss initiatives that
address both practicing entrepreneurs and “potential” entrepreneurs (such as
academics) – despite the distinction advocated in the previous paragraph by
Henry, Hill and Leitch (2003). Isaacs et al. (2007) on the other hand, use both
terms (“entrepreneurship education and training”) to refer to initiatives in South
Africa. Hytti and Gorman (2004) employ the term “enterprise education” to
discuss programmes that either educate about entrepreneurship, foster
entrepreneurial behaviour or enhance the skills of individuals that are willing to
Jönköping International Business School
22
start a new enterprise
2
. The results of their study however, suggest that these
three emphases serve more to categorise emphases within a programme of
entrepreneurship education, rather than to distinguish between programmes. My
own findings are similar to those of Hytti and Gorman in this respect – and in
chapters four and five I describe how social entrepreneurial learning in
accelerators is associated with all three of these objectives.
The gist of my discussion in the above paragraphs is that it is not meaningful to
distinguish between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship training,
when discussing interventions into entrepreneurial learning. For this reason, in
the remainder of this study I use the term “entrepreneurship education” (as
opposed to “entrepreneurship education and training”) to refer to all of the
activities that some scholars refer to as either education or training. Nonetheless,
I argue that it is still useful to distinguish between educational initiatives on the
basis of the individuals (or groups) that they target and the degree of formality
(predetermined structure) associated with them. As will be seen, these aspects are
often linked to one another.
1.5.1 The Challenge of Access to Entrepreneurship Education
Studies of entrepreneurial education often focus on the teaching of
entrepreneurship in schools, colleges and universities – as the contents of the
excellent “Handbooks” edited by Alain Fayolle (2007a, 2007c, 2010) illustrate.
Indeed, it appears that some scholars even take this focus for granted, as
exemplified by Martin, McNally and Kay’s (1997) discussion of the evaluation of
entrepreneurship education. They note that the literature “for good reason
employs essentially all student samples” (p.214). I suggest that this emphasis is
not at all self-evident. Indeed, these scholars’ own survey of the literature
indicates that several writers have studied entrepreneurship education as it relates
to individuals whose primary identity is not that of a student. They cite for
example, Bjorvatn and Tungodden’s (2009) study of the impact of training
among Tanzanian micro-entrepreneurs, and Miron and McClelland’s (1979)
study of three practitioner-oriented training programmes. Furthermore, Pittaway
and Cope’s (2007a) survey of the literature suggests that the practitioner-
oriented
3
‘branch’ of entrepreneurship education makes up almost 20 % of the
total number of publications. These examples suggest that although
entrepreneurship education is often studied in a university or college context, it
does not have to be. In subsequent paragraphs I suggest that an important issue
in the field of entrepreneurship education is that of access. By this I refer not only
to the individuals at whom education is targeted (students or practicing
entrepreneurs), but also to the means by which it is provided (issues of structure
2 This categorisation draws on, among other scholars: (Jamieson, 1984)
3 In their survey this branch is referred to as “management training”.
Introduction
23
and duration). In terms of both the provision of entrepreneurship education and
the study of this provision, I suggest that it is important to achieve a greater
balance between the education of prospective entrepreneurs (usually students) –
and individuals who are already engaged in starting their own businesses (i.e.
practicing entrepreneurs).
The question of access to entrepreneurship education is one that relates to both
age and context. Although there have been some changes in recent years, the
majority of students in fulltime tertiary education are still relatively young. Indeed
it appears that the design of many entrepreneurship education programmes
discourages older
4
individuals from participating. Older individuals – who often
have higher family and financial commitments – are naturally hesitant to take
part in programmes of study that require them to abandon (or substantially
reduce) not only their sources of income, but possibly also the careers upon
which they have embarked. Allan Gibb (1983) suggests that this caution
characterises not only adults in general, but also many enterprise
owner/managers. This implies that older entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs who
are engaged in the founding of a new venture will find it harder to benefit from
programmes of entrepreneurship education that are associated with a substantial
investment of time and money. This difficulty may be accentuated if the
individual belongs to a “tribe” of entrepreneurship (such as corporate or
technology entrepreneurs) whose success depends on the entrepreneur having at
least some measure of experience in their profession (Welsch, 2010).
Unfortunately, as Heinonen and Akala (2007) point out, educators are at times
overly focused on issues of content and delivery. As a result, they at times ignore
the vital question of ‘target’ and end up educating “just about anyone willing to
participate”, rather than addressing issues relating to access to entrepreneurship
education (ibid., p84).
In Western society, age is one factor that appears to influence the access that
individuals realistically have to many programmes of entrepreneurship education
(Rae, 2005c). Put simply, once an individual moves beyond the age traditionally
associated with formal study they are less likely to engage in a full-time
programme of education. In Europe this constraint has been addressed to a
certain extent by the provision of shorter programmes of entrepreneurship
education – as discussed by scholars such as Heinonen and Akola (2008) and De
Faiote et al (2003). In other parts of the world however, the restricting factor of
age is exacerbated by social and economic factors. In many developing countries
a relatively small proportion of individuals have access to tertiary education – and
of those who complete university studies a significant number are subsequently
4 I.e.: older than the typical US college student I.e.: 25 years and older (Marketing Charts, 2014).
Jönköping International Business School
24
employed in other countries
5
, or in governmental agencies (Beine, Docquier, &
Rapoport, 2008). Consequently, if graduates of academic programmes of
entrepreneurship education are to apply their knowledge in their own countries
of origin, they often need encouragement to stay in (or return to) these countries.
Another way in which access to entrepreneurship education might be increased
is to deliver it so that a broader spectrum of people is able to participate. As
noted in the previous paragraph, in Europe practicing entrepreneurs are often
targeted by entrepreneurship educators. In emerging and developing economies
however, the proportion of training programmes delivering entrepreneurship
education is generally much smaller – with Ladzani and Van Vuuren (2002)
suggesting that only 27 % of SME support in South Africa addresses
entrepreneurship-related issues. When entrepreneurship education is provided to
less-frequently targeted groups the results are encouraging – as illustrated by
Bjorvatn and Tungodden’s (2009) study, in which the owner/managers of
Tanzanian micro-enterprises were provided with business-oriented training.
Among other things, this study found that participating entrepreneurs
subsequently demonstrated superior business knowledge to a control group –
and that individuals with less formal educational backgrounds appeared to
benefit most from the training. Studies such as this lend credence to one of the
emphases of this dissertation, namely the idea that entrepreneurship education is
often an effective way in which to enhance the learning of practicing
entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, relatively little analysis has been made of the
provision of practitioner-oriented education for social entrepreneurs, even if
Casasnovas and Bruno (2013) have done some initial work in this area. It is
reasonable to assume however, that the provision of education for social
entrepreneurs is unlikely to be more developed than that of traditional
entrepreneurs – and that there is a need to address the question of how access to
education can be improved.
The above paragraphs suggest that demand of developing countries for effective
businesses requires that access to entrepreneurship education be extended
beyond the traditional business school student. In other words, access to
entrepreneurship education needs to be provided not only before employment,
but also during employment. In many Western contexts there is also a need to
provide entrepreneurship education either after employment, or in the later years
of employment. In some Western contexts (such as the U.K.) the number of
people over 50 exceeds the number of people under 25 – and frequently,
individuals over 50 who become unemployed have difficulty in finding work
again. Consequently, researchers are beginning to discuss how individuals in what
Kautonen (2008) terms the “third” age (over 50), might engage in
entrepreneurship. Indeed, in the United Kingdom significant resources are being
5
I.e.: The ‘brain-drain’ phenomenon.
Introduction
25
invested in supporting these types of entrepreneur (Kautonen, Down, & South,
2008). Although some individuals do return to full-time education in the ‘third
age’, they are comparatively few in number and most countries do not have
effective educational strategies to address their needs. For example: in Sweden
individuals are not eligible for student grants after 55 and have only limited access
to government student loans after 45 (CSN, 2013). It is therefore clear that both
developed and developing countries are in need of alternative ways in which to
provide entrepreneurship education, even if the reasons for this need are very
different.
1.5.2 Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning Environments
The gist of my discussion until now is that the potential of entrepreneurship
education for societal transformation is significantly limited by educators’
preoccupation with addressing primarily the needs of students. In other words,
the learning achieved by practicing entrepreneurs is sub-optimal to a large extent
because they have not been sufficiently targeted by educators. Indeed, Daniel
Hjorth (2013) notes that initiatives that target practicing/emergent entrepreneurs
(such as incubators) rarely discuss their offerings in terms of learning
6
. However,
the experience of Pittaway and Thorpe
7
(2012), Gibb (1993), and Heinonen and
Akola (2007) also suggests that practicing entrepreneurs have not been effectively
targeted by educators. If entrepreneurs’ learning is to be optimised, it is not
enough to simply target individuals using the same methods that work for
individuals in fulltime education. Instead it is important to determine the extent
to which the methods themselves have an impact on the access entrepreneurs
perceive themselves to have, to entrepreneurship education. In this study
entrepreneurship education is portrayed as a particular context for
entrepreneurial learning. Consequently, the issue of access to entrepreneurship
education is one that addresses the question of how optimal environments for
entrepreneurial learning may be developed. I suggest that a useful conceptual
foundation for discussing this question lies in the distinction between formal,
non-formal and informal educational contexts.
Writing from the perspective of educational theory, Coombs, Ahmed and Israel
(1974) suggest that learning may take place in informal, non-formal or formal
settings. They suggest that contexts of formal learning are associated with most
institutions of higher education and tend to be “highly institutionalized,
chronologically graded and hierarchically structured” (ibid., p.8). They contrast
learning in these settings with that which takes place in both non-formal and
6
Hjorth draws on the work of Christine Thalsgård Henriques (forthcoming) in making this observation.
7
These authors refer to entrepreneurs’ lack of enthusiasm for government-backed educational
programmes as a ”problem of engagement” (p.854).
Jönköping International Business School
26
informal settings. At the other end of the spectrum, they suggest that learning in
informal contexts tends to be associated with the individual’s interaction with
friends and acquaintances, and that learning is strongly influenced by factors such
as social class, ethnicity and gender. In between the formal and informal learning
contexts they identify non-formal learning environments. They define these as “any
organized, systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of
the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular sub-groups
of the population, adults as well as children” (Coombs et al 1974, cited in Jarvis,
1987, p. 69). Critics argue that Coombs, Ahmed and Israel fail to distinguish
between education and learning in informal settings – and that they mistakenly
label informal learning as a form of education (A. Rogers, 2004). I agree with this
critique and with Rogers (ibid.) suggestion that it is important to distinguish
between learning in a context in which there is no educational structure at all
(informal learning) – and learning that is developed in a context that involves
learners in educational design and delivery (non-formal and participatory
education).
La Belle (1982) builds on the work of Coombs et al. (ibid.) and underlines the
idea that non-formal education is a distinct approach to the facilitation of learning.
He suggests however, that it is important to understand that the three forms of
learning are not mutually exclusive, even if one particular approach usually
predominates in any given environment. He also emphasizes the idea that formal
education tends to be associated with schools or universities and with “a
sanctioned curriculum”. La Belle notes however, that although non-formal
education is still systematic in character, it is less standardised and often allows
learners to influence programme goals. From the perspective of entrepreneurship
research therefore, it is arguable that scholars of entrepreneurial learning tend to
focus on the informal ways in which practitioners develop entrepreneurial
capabilities (i.e. the day to day learning of the entrepreneur). Scholars of
entrepreneurship education on the other hand, usually focus on the role played by
formal and non-formal learning environments in the acquisition of these
capabilities. I suggest however, that many of the latter scholars discuss the design,
content and delivery of entrepreneurship education in contexts of formal
learning, and that comparatively few publications discuss non-formal
environments. This suggestion is supported by Pittaway and Cope’s (2007a)
observation that around 80 % of the entrepreneurship education literature
focuses on student-oriented entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, when it
comes to research on the process and content of entrepreneurship education;
Gorman, Hanlon and King (1997, p. 67) note that “most of the empirical
literature in this area, examines the implications of teaching strategies, learning
styles, and delivery modes, primarily at post-secondary institutions”.
Although the coordination of education by a post-secondary educational
institution does not necessarily mean that education is structured in a formal
Introduction
27
manner, it is striking to note that this term is frequently associated with
entrepreneurship education by the scholars whose work is surveyed by Gorman,
Hanlon and King (1997). It is also interesting to note that when the term is used,
it is often linked to either scholars’ doubts about whether entrepreneurship can
be effectively fostered by formal education – or to practitioners’ avoidance of
formal entrepreneurship education. Gorman et al. for example, refer to
Stanworth and Gray’s (1992) suggestion that “most small businesses [are] still
prejudiced against participating in formal training”. This comment supports my
argument that questions of access to entrepreneurship education are often linked
to the educational context (formal, non-formal, informal) in which educators
operate.
To summarise: although some study has been made of education for practicing
entrepreneurs (for example: Heinonen & Akola, 2007; Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004)
comparatively little study has been undertaken with regards to non-formal or
participatory approaches to entrepreneurship education. This is particularly the
case when it comes to the provision of education for practicing social
entrepreneurs. This is a significant omission for two reasons. First of all, there is
a risk that scholars who discuss the education of practicing entrepreneurs will
not be informed by the extensive discussions of pedagogy that characterise the
literature on more formal, student-oriented approaches to entrepreneurship
education. However, this omission is also serious in view of my discussion of the
importance to society of increasing access to [social] entrepreneurship education.
For as La Belle (1982) points out, it is the non-formal approach that tends to be
adopted in situations where there is a need to improve access to education.
Consequently, I suggest there is a need for more study of non-formal approaches
to entrepreneurship education, not simply because most studies focus on formal,
student-oriented programmes – but also because of the importance of this type
of entrepreneurship education to society.
1.5.3 Enhancing the Learning of Practicing Entrepreneurs
Gibb (1983) makes it clear that the task of educating entrepreneurs does not
become easier as they grow older and become involved in starting up a new
venture. He suggests that small firms demand training which is not only highly
individualised, timely and provided in small ‘doses’ – but also training that
provides them with skills that they can implement immediately. Additionally,
Gibb notes that small firms are usually “less willing to pay a market price”, which
suggests that entrepreneurship education also needs to be affordable. Naturally,
governments and related institutions are aware of these challenges and have
responded with initiatives designed to provide entrepreneurs with this kind of
timely support. However, many of these initiatives (such as consulting and advice
services) are not necessarily intended to support the learning of entrepreneurs.
Instead, they often provide entrepreneurs with access to expert services that they
Jönköping International Business School
28
themselves do not possess, instead of increasing their capacity (Chrisman &
McMullan, 2004). Consequently, other methods of enhancing entrepreneurial
learning have been experimented with. Two of these – business counselling and
business incubation – have been found to be reasonably effective if designed
appropriately (Chrisman, McMullan, Ring, & Holt, 2012; Cooper, Harrison, &
Mason, 2001). Nonetheless, both approaches have their drawbacks. For example:
both are associated with a long-term
8
process of development and although this
process often increases the quality of a new venture, it does not necessarily
accelerate the rate at which individuals acquire entrepreneurial abilities. In the
case of incubators, there are also clear limitations to their capacity in terms of
hosted ventures. As the Economic Commission for Europe (2000) points out,
business incubators are a relevant, if at times costly solution for a small group
(“handful”) of the entrepreneurs who are unable or unwilling to participate in a
more formal, long-term programme. Most incubators are also linked to specific
geographical locations and this factor limits their clientele to firms in their
geographical vicinity or firms that are willing to relocate to the incubator site.
Consequently Hjorth (2013, p. 51) suggests that the next generation of incubators
will emphasize the role of ‘space’ rather than ‘place’ – and attempt to cater to the
needs of entrepreneurs in their “natural habitat”.
If the unattractiveness to practicing entrepreneurs and older individuals of
formal, long-term programmes of entrepreneurship education is taken as a
‘given’, it becomes increasingly important to identify the ideal characteristics of
less formal initiatives. Based on my discussion in previous paragraphs, it appears
that ‘practicing’ entrepreneurs and ‘prospective’ entrepreneurs who are not
enrolled in full-time programmes of higher education, will be best served by
education that is characterised by the following adjectives:
• Effective: education must lead to clear improvements in the ways in which
people conceptualise, initiate and run their ventures.
• Timely (or relevant): education must be provided at a point in time when the
individual is best able to make use of the information and abilities they
develop.
• Accessible: education must be provided in a manner that allows the individual
to participate, without unrealistic demands on their time or physical location.
The volume of education provided must also match demand.
• Affordable: education must be provided at a reasonable cost, when its long-
term impact on the creation of sustainable ventures is taken into account.
One approach to the provision of non-formal entrepreneurship education that
appears to fulfil several, if not all of the above criteria, is that of the new venture
8
I.e.: inferring a process of years, rather than months.
Introduction
29
(or seed) accelerator. Accelerators are a form of enterprise incubation that involves
entrepreneurs in relatively short, but intense processes of learning and
networking – and I will discussed them in more detail soon. Before this however,
I discuss the factors that influence the provision of entrepreneurship education
to social entrepreneurs.
1.6 Educating the Social Entrepreneur
I began section 1.5 by discussing some of the challenges associated with
entrepreneurs’ learning in the context of traditional
9
entrepreneurship education.
In particular I emphasized the importance of making entrepreneurship education
accessible to a broader range of individuals. For example: not only to prospective
entrepreneurs (a group often represented by business school students), but also
to older individuals and practicing entrepreneurs. In order to reach these groups
I have suggested that non-formal types of education will often be useful. What I
have not discussed however, is the question of whether or not it is possible to
apply a similar strategy to the education of social entrepreneurs. For example: does
the issue of ‘access’ apply to social entrepreneurs’ learning in the same way as it
does to traditional entrepreneurs? Are business schools primarily concerned with
educating individuals who have the potential to become social entrepreneurs (i.e.
students)? Are they less engaged in educating those entrepreneurs who are
already developing a social venture? And if this is so, are factors of geographical
distribution and entrepreneurial circumstances also relevant to the design of
interventions that aim to enhance the learning of these individuals?
In 2004 a special issue on entrepreneurship education was published in the
Academy of Management’s Learning and Education journal. It made little or no
reference to the field of social entrepreneurship and this omission was discussed
by Tracey and Phillips (2007). These scholars argued for the increased integration
of social entrepreneurship into traditional programmes of entrepreneurship
education. They also suggested that social entrepreneurs need to be competent
in all of the areas associated with success in traditional entrepreneurship, but that
three additional emphases needed to be included. Tracey and Phillips suggested
that social entrepreneurs have to learn to manage accountability to a wider range
of stakeholders, a “double bottom-line” (social and/or environmental value
creation in addition to the creation of financial value) – and a hybrid identity.
Their ideas are supported by the work of experienced teachers of social
entrepreneurship such as Gregory Dees. Dees (interviewed by Worsham, 2012)
suggests however, that it is also important that social entrepreneurs develop
emotional intelligence: cultivating the ability to relate in a sensitive manner to
community stakeholders – and not just to individuals with a background in
9
That is: oriented towards for-profit enterprises.
Jönköping International Business School
30
business. He also points out that social innovation requires deeper insight and
skill than many traditional business interventions. This latter emphasis is echoed
in Mirabella and Young’s (2012) survey of social entrepreneurship education, in
which they identify the need for business schools to include more training in
“political” and “philanthropic” skills. Miller, Wesley and Williams (2012) note
furthermore, that practicing social entrepreneurs emphasize several
competencies that business school courses in social entrepreneurship tend to
neglect. These include the marketing and selling of the organisation, a sense of
moral imperatives and ethics, the ability to communicate with stakeholders, and
the ability to challenge traditional ways of thinking.
What is interesting about the articles identified in the above paragraph is that
they appear to take it for granted, that the learning of social entrepreneurs will
take place in the formal academic environment of the college or university. In
common with much of the literature on traditional entrepreneurship education
therefore, most scholars who address the education of social entrepreneurs
neglect the possibility of educating practicing entrepreneurs. A rare exception is
Yaso Thiru (2011), who links a particular type of educational strategy
(“immersion”) to this type of learner. Elmes et al.’s (2012) study of social
entrepreneurship education in South Africa, the work of Chang, Benamraoui and
Rieple (2014) – and Beck’s (2008) study from Indonesia, suggest that this
approach has not only been used in Thiru’s three North American examples
10
.
Nonetheless, in keeping with their ‘for-profit’ colleagues, the above scholars
discuss a form of social entrepreneurship education that focuses primarily on
developing the skills of students. Consequently, the British study of Howorth,
Smith and Parkinson (2012) is unusual in framing itself as a study of social
entrepreneurship education, while focusing on the learning of practicing social
entrepreneurs.
1.6.1 Access to Social Entrepreneurship Education
In section 1.5 I suggested that the design of entrepreneurship education needs to
be informed by the characteristics and contexts of the targeted learners. I
particularly emphasized the idea that the circumstances of practicing
entrepreneurs affect the access they have to education, so that non-formal
approaches to education are often more suited to these individuals. In this section
I suggest that the particular goals of social entrepreneurship also affect
individuals’ willingness to participate in a programme of social entrepreneurship
education.
Many programmes whose aim is to increase the numbers or performance of ‘for
profit’ enterprises, are located in specific geographic locations due to social or
10
Note that one of Thiru’s cases is an incubator.
Introduction
31
political considerations. Stakeholders may wish to encourage new ventures in a
particular neighbourhood or among a particular population. For example: Brad
Feld’s involvement with the TechStars accelerator was rooted in his desire to
improve the startup community at Boulder (Feld, 2012). A geographical location
may also have the ambition of becoming a centre for a particular type of
innovation, such as health care. Many social entrepreneurs however, seek to
address social or environmental challenges in specific geographical areas, or
among specific populations – building on a “local knowledge” that is central to
their contribution (Dees, 2011). Consequently, for many social entrepreneurs
long-term relocation to another site (such as an incubator) might involve
distancing themselves from the very people they exist to serve. To make the
challenge of enhancing their learning even more difficult, the desire of the social
entrepreneur to promote the interests of particular areas or social groups
frequently places them in areas that are underserved by traditional business
services. This was the initial experience of Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh.
The challenge of supporting the learning of social entrepreneurs is augmented by
the fact that in many communities, the number of social entrepreneurs is
comparatively small, when compared to the numbers of conventional startups.
This often means that it is more difficult to obtain the ‘critical mass’ of
participants that is needed to justify an investment in [social] entrepreneurship
education. This was the case in the second of the training programmes studied
by Howorth, Smith and Parkinson (2012) – where participants were “sought out
and strongly persuaded to enrol so that target numbers could be met” (p.376).
The United Kingdom is often portrayed as one of the bastions of social
entrepreneurship and if it is difficult to gather sufficient numbers of social
entrepreneurs in such a context, it is probable that it is even more difficult to
create critical mass in less favourable environments. This implies that significant
challenges will accompany attempts to deliver social entrepreneurship education
to individuals or teams in developing countries – even if these countries may be
those with the greatest need for effective social enterprises.
The issue of gathering a ‘critical mass’ of social entrepreneurs for education has
been recognised by several organisations. Naturally, it is difficult to know
whether their approaches to educating social entrepreneurs have been formed by
a preference for a particular approach, or by their awareness of the factors
outlined above. I believe however, that I have presented credible evidence for
the possibility that the above challenges should influence the way in which
education is delivered.
Two established providers of education to early-stage social entrepreneurs use
the term “accelerator” to refer to their programmes, even if their strategies for
delivering education are slightly different. In the United States the Unreasonable
Institute has run a five week residential course for social entrepreneurs from all
Jönköping International Business School
32
over the world, for several years. The institute targets social enterprises with
proven business models and in 2013 it also began to run courses in Mexico and
Uganda. In the United Kingdom The Young Foundation runs a four month course
that also targets nascent social entrepreneurs, but does so by means of twelve
two-day workshops. It focuses on enterprises that have demonstrated that their
ideas are both effective and scalable. In contrast to the Unreasonable Institute
however, participants in The Young Foundation’s programme are primarily involved
in enterprises that have national as opposed to international impact.
1.6.2 Social Entrepreneurial Learning in a Non-formal Setting
The programmes initiated by the Unreasonable Institute and The Young Foundation
suggest that some educators of social entrepreneurs have taken into account
many of the challenges discussed in the previous section. Not least the idea that
educators of practicing entrepreneurs must adapt their educational strategies to
the circumstances of the entrepreneur. It appears that this adaptation is
associated with a move from a formal to a non-formal mode of education, on
the part of the educator. For scholars of entrepreneurship education however,
the two examples introduced above infer the possibility of achieving a second shift
in the attention of scholars of entrepreneurship education. In other words, not
only an increased emphasis on entrepreneurship education among practicing
entrepreneurs, but also the focusing of attention on interventions that enhance
the learning of practicing social entrepreneurs. As a result, the term “social
entrepreneurial learning” has been used by scholars to refer to the learning of
both practicing social entrepreneurs (Beck, 2008; Scheiber, 2014), and also
potential social entrepreneurs - that is: young people and students (Chang et al.,
2014; Kirchschlaeger, 2014).
Many of the most pressing social and environmental needs of the world are
located in developing countries. In these contexts the relative scarcity of social
entrepreneurs often combines with geographical factors to mitigate against the
gathering of a ‘critical mass’ of individuals that might justify the establishment of
an incubator, or make regular part-time education practical. Despite these
challenges, there is little evidence that a drop in society’s need for capable social
entrepreneurs is about to take place. If this need is to be filled, it is therefore
probable that educators will need to create new, more effective means of
delivering entrepreneurship education – to not only the social entrepreneurs of
tomorrow (primarily students), but also those of today. To cite Donald Kuratko
(2005): “professors […] must expand their pedagogies to include new and
innovative approaches to the teaching of entrepreneurship”. In the ‘for-profit’
sector, short-term ‘accelerator’ programmes have been created to both quicken
and improve the development of nascent business ventures. This study
investigates the efforts of the ‘social’ sector to enhance (or accelerate) the learning
of practicing social entrepreneurs using a similar approach. However, before
Introduction
33
addressing this adaptation the growth of the accelerator ‘movement’ in the for-
profit sector is discussed and its key characteristics identified.
1.7 The Rise of Accelerator Programmes
In recent years increasing attention has been devoted to designing non-formal
methods of entrepreneurship education that are appropriate to the circumstances
in which nascent entrepreneurs find themselves. One indicator of this renewed
interest is the rapid increase since 2005 of the number of short-term accelerator
programmes (P. Miller & Bound, 2011). Accelerators are intensive programmes
of non-formal entrepreneurship education that usually last for six to twelve
weeks – with three months the most common duration (Cohen, 2013m). They
are arguably a form of enterprise incubation and most programmes display many
of the characteristics associated with incubators. This includes the sharing of
subsidised office space and facilities, an emphasis on networking and the
fostering of a climate that facilitates enterprise development (Lichtenstein, 1992).
Participants are almost always nascent entrepreneurs and the accelerator is
designed to quicken the pace of venture development by means of individual
coaching, networking events and seminars on keys aspects of business.
Nonetheless, not all of the programmes which are covered by the definition of
accelerators that I introduce in section 1.7.1 refer to themselves as ‘accelerators’.
The terms “boot camp” and “business lab” are also fairly common – and the
Science Park initiative discussed by Ojala and Heikkilä (2011) is simply referred
to as “a training program”. It is therefore important to acknowledge the fact that
similar types of intensive training programmes may be referred to by different
names, even I submit that the most common term is “accelerator”. What is most
important for the purposes of this study however, is the idea that these
programmes are described by scholars as a form of enterprise support which
address the learning of entrepreneurs (Hallen, Bingham, & Cohen, 2013; Rivetti
& Migliaccio, 2014). Furthermore, as discussed in the next paragraph, the
accelerator phenomenon is both recent and growing.
In their survey of impact-oriented
11
accelerator and incubator programmes;
Baird, Bowles and Lall (2013) noted that 73 % of the accelerators they surveyed
were founded within the last five years (i.e. since 2008). A professional
development workshop (PDW) at the 2013 meeting of the Academy of
Management suggested that 3 000 startups had participated in accelerator
programmes since 2005 (A.o.M, 2013). My own monitoring (using the Google
Alerts tool) suggests that much of this increase is located in North America and
that one to two new accelerators are founded there each month. Nevertheless,
11
That is: programmes that focus on enterprises whose primary goal is that of addressing social or
environmental problems.
Jönköping International Business School
34
the Global Accelerator Network (2013) notes that accelerators exist on six
continents and an Indian journalist points out that the apparent increase in the
number of accelerator programmes is not restricted to the United States. He
suggests that in 2013 the number of accelerators in India increased at the rate of
around one new programme every month (Dey 2013). It is also worth noting that
not all of the increase in accelerator numbers is associated with new, independent
programmes. Many established accelerators expand their operations to other
regions, or even continents – as seen by Plug and Play’s expansion to Jordan and
Canada, and LaunchPad’s expansion from California to Long Island
12
.
Nevertheless, there are some indications that the proliferation of programmes
may be faltering, with new accelerators struggling to source the necessary
expertise and investors associated with success (Lennon, 2013). Despite this
qualification, the fact that the accelerator phenomenon is not only new (A.o.M
use the term “novel”) – but also growing and global, suggests that it is worth
studying. Rivetti and Migliaccio (2014) describe research on accelerators as
“exiguous
13
” and the Academy of Management PDW noted that accelerators
represent a “potentially large, yet heretofore underexploited research
opportunity” (A.o.M, 2013).
1.7.1 Defining Accelerators
Although Lewis, Harper-Anderson and Molnar (2011) note that some industry
professionals use the terms “accelerator” and “incubator” interchangeably,
scholars suggest that accelerators are distinct from incubators in several ways. In
the overview of the 2013 annual general meeting of the Academy of
Management, accelerators were defined as “time-limited entrepreneurship
educational programs that provide cohorts of nascent entrepreneurs with formal
education, mentorship, seed capital and introductions” (A.o.M, 2013). Miller and
Bound (2011) go into more detail and suggest that accelerators are characterised
by five characteristics. That is: an open and highly competitive application
process, the provision of investment, a focus on small teams (as opposed to
individual founders), a relatively short period of programmed events and
intensive mentoring, and the training in ‘cohorts’ of startups – rather than
individual companies. In addition to the above characteristics, Susan Cohen
(2013b) and Paolo Borella (2012) suggest that a sixth distinguishing feature of
accelerators is that they conclude their programmes with a planned ‘demo’ event
that exposes entrepreneurs to investors. Baird, Bowles and Lall (2013) suggest
that accelerators tend to target firms that already have customers and revenue,
while incubators focus more on early stage ventures. Cohen (2013) however,
12
Note that there is also a LaunchPad in Denmark, but I have been unable to ascertain whether it is
associated with the North American accelerators.
13
“excessively scanty” (Merriam-Webster, 2014).
Introduction
35
argues that accelerators usually target early stage ventures – a difference in
perspective that may be due to the different types of accelerators they survey.
Nonetheless, Baird et al. point out that accelerators do not always target ventures
at a specific stage of development, so that what really characterises them is the
provision of a subset of support “at any stage of [venture] development” (ibid.,
p.2). Lewis et al. (2011) agree with Baird et al.’s suggestion that accelerators tend
to focus on ‘mature’ ventures, but point out that some accelerators are simply
modified incubation programmes aimed at launching the ventures of incubator
graduates.
When the above definitions are compared with one another and with practice
14
,
it is clear that some suggested traits are more characteristic of accelerators than
others. For example: most accelerators include events in which entrepreneurs are
introduced to investors, but not all accelerators provide entrepreneurs with
investment. Similarly, although many accelerators prefer to train teams of
entrepreneurs, many do recruit individuals to their programmes. I therefore
suggest that it is useful to employ a ‘two-tier’ definition that includes both
necessary traits (without which a programme would not be considered an
accelerator) and common traits (characteristics that many, but not all accelerators
display).
I define an accelerator as a non-formal programme of entrepreneurship
education that:
• Aims to shorten (i.e. accelerate) the process of moving a new venture from
one stage of development to the next
15
.
• Aims to improve the quality of a new venture’s product or service, and its
financial sustainability.
• Trains entrepreneurs simultaneously as a cohort (rather than providing
training individually as entrepreneurs join the program, as with most
incubators).
14
In order to learn more about the general characteristics of accelerators, I monitored the internet för a
period of about a year using the Google alerts tool; making a note of factors such as duration,
location, affiliation, residency and the provision/non-provision of seed funding.
15
The possibility of accelerators addressing enterprises at more than just the initial phase of venture
development is illustrated by Ojala and Heikkilä’s (2011) study, which involved a programme that
focused on supoorting firms in the internationalisation process.
Jönköping International Business School
36
• Involves an intensive development process of limited duration, with a
maximum programme length of six months
16
.
• Includes a structured programme of enterprise-oriented education.
• Provides entrepreneurs with individualised coaching and/or mentoring.
• Involves the expansion and/or refinement of the entrepreneur’s network.
Furthermore, many (but not all) accelerators are characterised by:
• An open and highly competitive selection process.
• The provision of seed-funding, or the introduction of entrepreneurs to
potential investors.
• A duration of three to four months.
• Shared office space at a common site, with subsidised access to basic
administrative services (internet, telephone, etc.).
1.7.2 Categorising Accelerators
Although the majority of accelerators are characterised by the traits outlined
above, they often differ from one another in terms of focus, participant location,
frequency of interaction and funding. As regards focus and participant location,
some accelerators are conceived of as tools for local or regional development.
They therefore adopt a more general approach to education, and focus primarily
on entrepreneurs in the local community. Manizales-Mas and Working Capital are
examples of this type of accelerator. Manizales-Mas is located in the city of
Manizales, Colombia and Working Capital has accelerators in several Italian cities.
Both organisations focus on local startups. It is however, also possible for
accelerators to focus on startups within a particular industry, sector of the
population, or technology. Y-Combinator
17
focuses, for example: on web and
mobile applications – while New York’s Count Me In targets female
entrepreneurs. In contrast to Manizales-Mas and Working Capital, Y-Combinator
recruits its participants from a large geographical area and brings them to Silicon
Valley for three months of intensive training. These differences suggest that one
way of categorising accelerators is to locate them on a four-field diagram (see
figure 1-1), on the basis of participant location and frequency of interaction. Most
accelerators however appear to base their educational strategies on well-known
16
Some scholars suggest a time ’limit’ of three months, but my own monitoring suggests that a
significant number of programmes run for more than three months (e.g.: UpTech and the Telluride
Venture Accelerator in the U.S.A.) Very few programmes however, last for more than six months.
17
The accelerator credited with starting the accelerator “boom”.
Introduction
37
programmes – such as Y-Combinator and TechStars – and tend to be located in
sectors I or II of figure 1-1 (providing intense, residential education to either
local entrepreneurs or entrepreneurs who travel to the accelerator location). The
programme that I employ as a case study is located in sector II of the figure –
providing intense, residential education to entrepreneurs that travel to the
accelerator location.
Returning to the theme of accelerator focus, it is clear that many accelerators
recruit participants on the basis of the industry to which they belong. In the
United States for example: several accelerators target new ventures in the field of
health-care – for example: Boston’s HealthBox and New York’s Digital Health
Accelerator. Nonetheless, some accelerators focus on both a particular
geographical area and a specific industry – as illustrated by the Northwest Tennessee
Entrepreneur Center programme – which recruits entrepreneurs from the northern
part of the state and from the agricultural sector. The focus of an accelerator
appears to influence its method of delivering education. Programmes that focus
on startups in a particular area (sectors I and III in figure 1); may for example,
find it easier to adapt to the needs of local entrepreneurs.
I.
E.g.: Re-location to local
business centre
II.
E.g.: Residential
programme for non-local
entrepreneurs
III.
E.g.: Evening class
IV.
E.g.: Virtual incubator
Frequency of
interaction
Participant Location
HIGH
LOW
LOCAL DISTANT
Figure 1-1: Key contextual influences on accelerator design
Jönköping International Business School
38
Where entrepreneurs have already begun to pilot a product or service – or where
they have other jobs
18
– the nearby location of the accelerator makes it easier for
participants to maintain normal business operations while taking part.
Furthermore, participants are often able to stay in their own homes while
participating in the accelerator. These factors allow for the possibility of a longer
period of education and less frequent interaction between participants and
educators – even if they do not require such an adjustment.
Accelerators that recruit entrepreneurs from a larger geographical area face
particular challenges. Participants are either required to move to the accelerator
location for an extended period of time (usually two to three months), or they
travel to the accelerator for regular, short ‘bursts’ of education. Some
organisations have experimented with virtual accelerators (for example: Start-
upPlays and World Accelerator), but these initiatives do not appear to have had the
same kind of impact as more established programmes that require physical
participation in their activities. Regardless of the mode of delivery, most
accelerator programmes focus on for-profit enterprises. Only a relatively small
number of accelerators focus on social entrepreneurs or on startups in the not-
for-profit sector – even if this number is growing (Casasnovas & Bruno, 2013).
Nonetheless as noted in section 1.6, the environments in which practicing social
entrepreneurs operate suggests that there is a need for more programmes that
focus on this sector.
When it comes to the funding of accelerators, Susan Cohen (2013b) notes that
accelerators are now funded on both a for-profit and not-for-profit (N.f.P) basis.
She suggests however, that the first ‘wave’ of accelerators tended to be for profit
and often charged participants a proportion of equity in return for their services.
In the United States for example, the Hatch accelerator in Virginia charges new
ventures an 8 % share of their equity, while LaunchHouse in Cleveland charges
between 1 and 8 %. It is more unusual for accelerators to charge participants for
their services, as does the Women’s Small Business Accelerator in Ohio – which
charges USD $1 500 for their programme. Cohen (2013b) suggests that the initial
for-profit approach is linked to the management of several of the first
accelerators by venture capitalists. As accelerators became more visible however,
the approach attracted the attention of government. This in turn led to the
creation of accelerators that are financed by public funds, if not necessarily
owned by governmental agencies. Eleven in Bulgaria is for example, funded by
the European Union; The Difference Engine is funded by regional government in
18
In the initial stages of a start-up many entrepreneurs ’bootstrap’ by taking jobs that may not relate to
their intended product or service, but which nonetheless enable them to provide for themselves until
their ventures become profitable.
Introduction
39
the United Kingdom – and ilab/Germinate in Queensland, Australia is also
supported with public funds.
Despite the fact that many accelerators rely on funding that is either private or
public in character, many accelerators operate on the basis of a mix of revenue
streams. The Grindstone accelerator in Cape Town for example, is financed by
Knife Capital ( a private investment firm) and the South African Department of
Trade and Industry. Frequently, accelerators are at least partly funded by the
industry to which their new ventures belong. For example: the HealthBox
accelerator in the United States receives funding from the hospital company
HCA – and the ‘food and beverages services’ accelerator DrivenDonkey is
sponsored by 2 Gingers Whiskey. A growing number of accelerators are linked to
universities. For example: the ManizalesMas programme, which has links to
Babson College – and SearchCamp in the United Kingdom, which is linked to
Teesside University. Among impact-oriented accelerators, Baird, Bowles and Lall
(2013) note that 74 % of accelerators receive at least some of their support from
philanthropic sources, with just over half of the total funding for impact
accelerators coming from philanthropic capital. They also note that impact
accelerators appear to be more intent on cultivating non-philanthropic sources
of income than ‘traditional’ accelerators, so that two-thirds of impact accelerators
are structured as for-profits and one third charge participants fees. It is possible
that the charging of fees by impact accelerators is linked to the uncertainty of
financial returns from firms that focus on social or environmental impact – which
could make the charging of an equity stake less meaningful.
1.7.3 Performance
Accelerator performance is generally measured in terms of success and survival
(Lall, Bowles, & Baird, 2013). By ‘success’ scholars generally refer to either the
profitable operation of participating firms one to three years after the accelerator,
the sale of the new venture, the public sale of firm shares, or the raising of
significant investment. Scholars suggest that ‘significant’ investment implies the
raising of $350 000 (Hochberg & Kamath, 2012) to $500 000 USD (Lall et al.,
2013). Lall et al. (ibid.) suggest that ‘survival’ includes not only firms that are
profitable and that have raised investment, but also startups that are still running
– even if they are not yet profitable or have raised investment. Accelerators
sponsored with public funds however, often include statistics for job creation as
an indication of success.
One reason for the widespread interest in accelerators is the apparent success of
several high-profile programmes (for example: Y Combinator and Techstars). These
accelerators report relatively high rates of post-accelerator investment, with Y
Combinator noting that 94.4 % of participating startups received follow-on
investment in 2011, with Techstars reporting a follow-on investment rate of 53.7
Jönköping International Business School
40
% (P. Miller & Bound, 2011). These figures are accompanied by a relatively low
failure rate – with the above scholars reporting a figure of ten to fifteen percent
of participating firms. This figure mirrors Hoffman and Radojevich-Kelley’s
(2012) comment that accelerator managers generally anticipate that about 20 %
of their startups will fail. These widely publicised statistics have attracted the
interest of not only investors and government, but also nascent entrepreneurs.
Consequently, Miller and Bound (2011) suggest that demand for places on an
accelerator has outstripped supply. This observation is borne out by the relatively
small proportion of startups that are admitted to the most popular accelerators
(less than one percent of applicants) – and the increasing size of their cohorts (in
recent years Y Combinator has had cohorts of up to 84 entrepreneurs). This
contrasts with acceptance rates of five to ten percent in other accelerators and in
incubators (Lall et al., 2013).
Despite the apparent success of accelerator programmes, investors and scholars
advise caution. Hoffman and Radojevich (2012) point out that data on
accelerators is relatively new and often provides only a limited, two year
perspective. The venture capitalists surveyed by Hochberg and Kamath (2012)
expressed concern that the ‘hype’ created by accelerators’ final ‘demo day’ would
artificially inflate their ventures’ value and make it difficult for them raise later
stage investment – a concern shared by Miller and Bound (2011). The most
convincing evidence for the need for caution is however, provided by Hallen,
Bingham and Cohen (2013). These scholars conducted a comparative study of
new ventures that included not only startups from several different accelerators,
but also an equal number of startups that did not participate in an accelerator
programme. They concluded that effective accelerators provide new ventures
with knowledge and resources that they cannot otherwise access, regardless of
founders’ human and social capital. This finding addresses a common critique of
accelerators, namely that their success is due to stringent selection procedures
and subsequent ‘credentialing’ (the legitimacy afforded the startup due to its
association with the programme). It also lends weight to my suggestion that
accelerators are not only contexts in which entrepreneurs network and obtain
resources, but also important environments for learning. Nonetheless, Hallen et
al.’s study notes that not all accelerators are effective. Indeed, the startups from
several of the accelerators studied performed no better than their non-accelerated
peers. They therefore conclude that it is difficult to increase the pace of
development in new ventures and that there is presently no theoretical
explanation for how programmes achieve acceleration.
1.7.4 The ‘What’ and the ‘How’ of Acceleration
Despite Hallen et al.’s (2013) suggestion that relatively little is known about firms’
development processes within accelerators, several scholars have identified the
main contributions made by programmes to participating startups. Furthermore,
Introduction
41
in her doctoral dissertation Susan Cohen (2013a) has begun to explain the
accelerator process, using insights from the organisational learning literature. In
the following paragraphs I discuss her ideas and the factors that other scholars
link to accelerator outcomes.
Several scholars associate the contributions of accelerators with particular aspects
of programme design. Bill Autlet – the CEO of the MIT accelerator programme
– suggests that programmes tend to be designed around space, funding, structure
and status (Autlet in Feld, 2012, p. 118), while Hallen et al. (2013) discuss the
centrality of time in the accelerator process
19
. Cohen (2013b) suggests that
“intense mentorship and education” are capstones of accelerators. She also
suggests that accelerators accelerate startups by encouraging entrepreneurs to
delay ‘doing’ until they have created a coherent strategy (Cohen, 2013a). Her
observation is an interesting one, as some scholars link accelerators with the
‘hands on’ approach of Lean Start-up strategy (P. Miller & Bound, 2011). In this
study I contribute to the literature on accelerators and entrepreneurial learning
by showing that some accelerators succeed by emphasising both aspects, but at
different stages in the learning process.
A core accelerator assumption is that startup development is a process that can
be made to happen in a shorter period of time. Venture capitalist Brad Feld
suggests that the accelerator process involves a period of time that is short
enough for founders to work with enough intensity to achieve “substantive”
development, while avoiding the burnout that a year-long intensive programme
implies (Feld, 2012). In more theoretical terms, Hallen et al. (2013) suggest that
entrepreneurs often engage in ‘sub-optimal’ learning, so that the task of the
accelerator is to optimise the learning process and create a “time compression”
economy. However, as Cohen (2013b) points out, the short duration of
accelerators is also a factor that enables programmes to enlist the services of
experienced mentors who would otherwise shy away from engagement.
Hallen et al.’s (2013) discussion of the role played by time in accelerators is
complemented by Autlet’s (in Feld, 2012) observation of the function of funding.
Funding refers to the financing of entrepreneurs’ living expenses during the
accelerator period, as opposed to the provision of investment. It enables
entrepreneurs to work fulltime on their startups and to devote energy and
thought to their development, without the distraction of part-time work and
similar income-generating activities. Hjorth (2013) notes that in the context of
incubators, “time to devote to the startup” is a key variable that affects the
19
Note that Hallen et al.’s (2013) article appears to build extensively on Cohen’s (2013) doctoral
research. This is worth noting, as it is otherwise easy to gain the impression that different scholars
have arrived at similar conclusions – whereas in reality, several foundational articles on accelerators
are informed by the same data. This does not detract from their contribution, but instead underlines
the need for more empirical studies of accelerator processes.
Jönköping International Business School
42
development curve of the nascent venture – and it is reasonable to expect a
similar effect in the context of accelerators.
A key part of most accelerators is co-working, by which most scholars refer to the
idea that business development takes place in a social context, primarily in the
company of other nascent entrepreneurs. Autlet (ibid.) emphasizes the
importance of creating a sense of community among participating startups, so
that entrepreneurs can learn not only from visiting speakers, but also from one
another. Cohen (2013a) however, suggests that entrepreneurs’ learning is
stimulated not only by their perception of fellow entrepreneurs as colleagues, but
also by the motivation generated by perceiving them as competitors. Autlet (ibid.)
notes that entrepreneurs provide one another with emotional support as they
interact. Both Cohen (2013a), and Miller and Bound (2011) note that participants
engage in problem-solving together with other ventures. The entrepreneurs
interviewed by Hallen et al. (2013) described this interaction (and the networks
it generated), as the main long-term contribution of the accelerator. Nevertheless,
accelerators vary in the way they facilitate this interaction. Many programmes
provide participants with shared office space for the duration of the programme,
but participants in Y Combinator tend to work in their own living quarters and
meet one another in weekly sessions that include a meal (P. Miller & Bound,
2011).
The highly structured programme of education and networking associated with
accelerators is a characteristic that differentiates them from other types of
incubator. Cohen (2013b) for example, contrasts the intensity of accelerator
coaching with the incubator processes described by Hackett and Dilts (2004),
where tenants frequently do not take advantage of available expertise. In her
doctoral research Cohen (2013a) emphasizes the advisory role of the accelerator
manager (“director experts”). Despite this emphasis, it is worth noting that
Lichtenstein (1992) identifies a similar managerial role in his study of the Fulton-
Carroll incubator. Consequently, it is probable that the main difference between
incubators and accelerators in this context is not so much a contrast in the
advisory role of programme managers, but instead the structured nature of their
advice. This suggestion is supported by Cohen’s (2013a) discussion at other
points in her dissertation and by Miller and Bound’s (2011, p. 28) observation
that the accelerator process is characterised by “pressure and discipline”.
Entrepreneurs are expected to make progress within a given timeframe and are
provided with a basic structure in which to work.
In practice the accelerator structure discussed by scholars often consists of
didactical ‘units’ that resemble one another in terms of educational strategy, even
if they occur in different accelerators. A typical educational ‘unit’ is composed of
a visit by an experienced entrepreneur or business professional, followed by one-
on-one coaching (Cohen, 2013m; P. Miller & Bound, 2011). For example: a
Introduction
43
specialist on online marketing might begin by giving a talk on the role of websites
or electronic commerce to the entire cohort. The visitor would then follow up
their talk by discussing the implications of this input with each one of the
participating entrepreneurs, on an individual basis. At times this will be the only
interaction the entrepreneurs have with this person, but frequently one or two
entrepreneurs will spark an interest in visiting speakers – and will engage with
them after the visit. Miller and Bound (2011) suggest that this structure serves
not only the purpose of helping entrepreneurs refine their operations, but also
enables them to develop their networks – and thus gain long-term access to
resources and knowledge. The networking component is thus an important
addition to the lean startup methodology that Miller and Bound (ibid.) associate
with accelerators – and which is also apparent in programmes such as The
Difference Engine
20
. Nonetheless, accelerators appear to place greater emphasis on
the future value of networks as they facilitate the development of entrepreneurs’
knowledge and networks. Both of these are difficult for entrepreneurs to gain
access to in the absence of the ‘convening’ role played by interventions such as
accelerators (Hallen et al., 2013).
In the preceding paragraphs I have outlined several of the contributions
accelerators make to entrepreneurs’ development and the means by which these
are achieved. My discussion has been structured around the key components
identified at the beginning of this section, namely: time, space, funding, structure,
mentorship and education. In the following paragraph I discuss legitimacy, the final
component.
Many scholars suggest that an important accelerator activity takes place at the
end of the programme, when a ‘demo day’ is held (Cohen, 2013m; Hoffman &
Radojevich-Kelley, 2012). At this event entrepreneurs ‘pitch’ their ventures to
the general public and in particular, to investors. For this reason, accelerators are
sometimes referred to as “seed accelerators”, due to their emphasis on helping
ventures at the ‘prototype’ stage to become investment-ready (Hoffman &
Radojevich-Kelley, 2012; Lall et al., 2013). Scholars suggest that accelerators play
an important role in increasing the perceived legitimacy of participating ventures,
by at least two means. Firstly, accelerators’ stringent selection procedures
reassure investors that graduate ventures have potential. Secondly, the fact that
ventures are graduating from an accelerator infers that they have undergone a
rigorous process of testing and development. In his discussion of incubators,
Hjorth (2013) notes that the media publicity associated with new programmes
enhances the legitimacy of participating entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, several
other factors also influence venture’s legitimacy in the eyes of investors. For
20
Miller and Bound’s (2011, p.19) description of the development process followed by The Difference
Engine (refine, build, show) emphases several of the processes advocated in lean start-up methodology
(build, measure, learn), albeit in a different order (Ries, 2011).
Jönköping International Business School
44
example: where investors are linked to accelerators, they often have the
opportunity to get to know potential investees better and are able to cultivate
trust. Similarly, where investors are linked to accelerators, they are often in a
position to influence the development of ventures that they consider for
investment. An accelerator’s investor network is therefore extremely important,
not only in accelerators oriented towards for-profit ventures, but also in
programmes catering to ‘social’ ventures – as shown by Lall et al.’s (2013) study
of impact accelerators
21
. Hoffman and Radojevich-Kelley (2012) suggest
however, that the attitudes of mentors also have an effect on venture legitimacy –
as the continuing engagement of an experienced mentor in a startup is an
indication of their confidence in its potential.
1.7.5 Accelerators for Social Enterprises
Until now I have primarily discussed the development of accelerators in the ‘for
profit’ sector. I have suggested that when compared to other types of incubator
and to university programmes, accelerators appear to enhance the learning of a
larger number of entrepreneurs in a relatively short period of time. When
compared with incubators, the investment required of both the entrepreneur and
programme funders appears to be lower in accelerators, and the limitations
associated with long-term residence at a specific geographical location are
alleviated. Furthermore, by selecting the most promising candidates from a
comparatively large pool of applications (an additional advantage of the shorter
term of residence), accelerator programmes increase their chances of developing
successful, high-growth ventures.
The adaptation of the accelerator concept to the education of social entrepreneurs
has to some extent followed the general structure of the traditional accelerator (a
two to four month period of intense training, coaching and practical work).
Casasnovas and Bruno’s (2013) study however, suggests that ‘social’ accelerators
and incubators
22
adopt a greater variety of educational approaches than for-profit
programmes, both with regards to the delivery of education and in relation to the
length of time entrepreneurs spend at the accelerator. Furthermore, in contrast
to accelerators that recruit commercial startups, many of the accelerators that
focus on social enterprises target entrepreneurs far beyond the borders of their
own cities, states and even countries. In the United Kingdom the accelerators
run by The Young Foundation and Wayra Unltd work primarily with social
entrepreneurs on a regional basis. In the United States Good Company and Echoing
21
In their study Lall et al (2013) noted that programmes with formal links to investors had higher rates of
both success and survival.
22
Although I argue that accelerators are a type of incubator, for convenience I refer to programmes that
employ the ’accelerator’ approach to incubation as ”accelerators” and to programmes that adopt a
longer, more traditional approach to incubation as ”incubators”.
Introduction
45
Green go a step further and train international cohorts. Lall et al.'s (2013) study of
‘impact-oriented’ accelerators and incubators notes that of the 52 programmes
surveyed, 27 % are ‘global’ in terms of recruitment, 31 % are ‘regional’ (primarily
focusing on Africa and Asia) – and only 43 % recruited from a single country (35
%) – or city (8 %). Consequently, the reSET accelerator in Hartford, Connecticut
(which supports primarily local social entrepreneurs) is more an exceptional case,
than the norm.
From a research perspective, initiatives that recruit social entrepreneurs in a
‘global’ or ‘regional’ manner are interesting for several reasons. To begin with,
they represent a question that is worth finding the answer to (how can the
development of social entrepreneurs in less prosperous regions be strengthened
and accelerated?). However, because these accelerators recruit entrepreneurs
from a wide geographical area (to which they then return), these programmes
also represent a new form of accelerator – and educational strategy. Relatively
few studies of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators have been conducted and
even less investigation has been made of accelerators for social entrepreneurs. In
the following section I therefore discuss some of the ‘gaps’ in accelerator
research, from the perspective of entrepreneurial learning. These areas represent
opportunities for further study and several of them are explored in this
dissertation.
1.7.6 Weaknesses, Gaps and Opportunities
A significant ‘gap’ in scholars’ discussions of accelerator contributions and
processes has to do with the relationship between studies of accelerators and the
literature on entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education. This gap
can be expressed in two ways. First of all, it is possible to critique the literature
on accelerators for its failure to draw more extensively on scholars who study not
only the general phenomenon of learning, but also its context. In the context of
entrepreneurship, this translates into a need for studies of accelerators to be
informed by both the literature on entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship
education. At the moment scholars have only just begun to apply theories of
learning to the developmental processes apparent in accelerators – even if Cohen
(2013a) and Hallen et al. (2013) have introduced the idea of time compression
economies, and mention concepts such as vicarious learning and reasoning by
analogy. When scholars do refer to educational scholarship, it is arguable that
they sometimes do so at a superficial level (referring to a concept, yet not
employing it in an in-depth analysis) – and furthermore, that they at times use
educational terms inaccurately. For example: Hallen et al (ibid.) describe
education in accelerators as “formal”, when from the perspective of educational
theorists it is clearly non-formal in character. As I emphasized in an earlier
section, the education of practicing entrepreneurs relies primarily on a non-
formal approach to education – even if it occasionally relies on both formal and
Jönköping International Business School
46
informal strategies. Accelerators are not exceptions, as they are aimed at a
“subgroup” of the population (nascent entrepreneurs), involve “organized,
systematic, educational activity”, and are usually located “outside the framework
of the formal system” (Coombs et al 1974, cited in Jarvis, 1987, p. 69). The
distinction between formal and non-formal education is important to make if
future studies are to be embedded in educational scholarship.
The above paragraph suggests that there is a need for accelerator scholars to draw
on educational theory and on the work of scholars of both entrepreneurial
learning and entrepreneurship education. However, it is just as important to note
that when compared with the number of studies on entrepreneurship-oriented
learning among students, the numbers of studies of entrepreneurs’ learning in
the context of educational programmes are relatively few
23
. Consequently, there
is an opportunity for a reciprocal exchange of ideas: for accelerator scholars to
draw on the entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education literature –
and for scholars from these fields to develop knowledge from studies of
accelerators.
If an assessment of accelerator research is made from the perspective of
entrepreneurial learning (EL), it is useful to discuss the field with reference to the
literature review of Peter Erdélyi (2010). Erdélyi suggests that EL scholarship
tends to focus on either the individual learner or the organisational context as
the unit of analysis. ‘Individual-focused’ studies are portrayed as discussing
learning from the perspective of individual cognition or as a particular type of
managerial learning. A significant number of articles also discuss EL from what
Erdélyi terms a ‘supply’ perspective: focusing on executive education and
management training. He contrasts this emphasis of the individual’s role in
learning with a second major category of EL scholarship, which discusses
learning in the context of networks and systems of innovation. An interesting
aspect of Erdélyi’s review is his discussion of the role of non-human objects in
entrepreneurial learning. In keeping with Leitch and Harrison’s (2008) argument
that entrepreneurial learning cannot be separated from the contexts in which it
occurs, Erdélyi posits that a neglected ingredient in entrepreneurial contexts is
the domain of ‘objects’. Advocating the use of actor-network theory he argues
for a closer analysis of the role played by material objects in entrepreneurial
learning. He also echoes Ravasi and Turati’s (2005) concern that EL scholars
have been overly concerned with conceptual discussions, at the expense of
empirical work.
23
Note that I distinguish studies of entrepreneurs’ learning in educational contexts from that of studies
of management learning in SMEs. I am aware of the large body of research on ’enterprise’ education,
including the series of special issues on this theme in Education & Training between 2000 and 2005.
Introduction
47
In contrast to Erdélyi, discussions by Leitch and Harrison (2008) and Taylor and
Thorpe (2004) highlight the ‘human’ side of context – emphasising the idea that
entrepreneurial learning develops in a social or relational environment. When the
social aspect of accelerator scholarship is considered, a weakness of several
studies emerges. This weakness has to do with the inconsistent and non-specific
use of the terms by which scholars refer to the different actors in accelerators.
This flaw relates particularly to scholars’ use of the term ‘mentor’. Cohen (2013m,
p. 23) uses the term to refer to both the limited numbers of individuals who
coach entrepreneurs throughout the accelerator and the large number of visiting
speakers who only engage with the entrepreneurs for the space of a few hours
(her “four or five mentors a day” group). In her doctoral work (2013a) however,
she distinguishes between accelerator managers (“director experts”) and visiting
advisors/speakers (“mentors”). Miller and Bound (2011, pp.3, 9, 10) also employ
the term “mentor” in their article, but it is unclear exactly who they refer to. In
most accelerators, entrepreneurs are coached by at least three main categories of
individual: the accelerator manager(s), one or two additional individuals who
coach them on a regular basis throughout the course of the programme – and
the visiting, ‘thematic’ speakers who provide them with brief, topical coaching in
their areas of expertise. In their review of the terms used in the ‘developmental
interactions’ literature, D’Abate, Eddy and Tannenbaum (2006) make it clear that
although the terms ‘mentor’ and ‘coach’ are occasionally used interchangeably, in
scholarly literature ‘mentor’ is generally used for interactions that focus on an
individual’s general, long-term development – while the term ‘coach’ is used to
denote more short-term development and “practical application”. If we are to
deepen our analysis of the impact of the ‘social’ context of accelerators on
entrepreneurs’ learning, I suggest that it is important to make a clearer distinction
between the different actors involved.
A weakness exemplified by only one of the articles that discuss accelerators, is
displayed by Lall et al.’s (2013) foundational article Bridging the Pioneer Gap. This
article is worth mentioning as it is one of only a few publications that examine
programmes that focus on the development of social enterprises. Unfortunately,
the article does not distinguish between accelerators and incubators, although my
impression is that this information may be available. The article builds on
ongoing research conducted in cooperation with several leading institutes
(Aspen, Village Capital and ANDES) and its authors appear to have access to a
rich data set. However, because an unclear distinction is made between
accelerators and incubators, this data can only be used to draw tentative
conclusions about accelerator activity in the social sector. Casanovas and Bruno
(2013) in contrast, distinguish between accelerators and incubators. Nonetheless,
in their study it is apparent that the initiatives they label with each of these two
terms are very different from one another
24
in terms of duration and educational
24
I.e.: within each group.
Jönköping International Business School
48
strategy. Consequently their study does not really bring more clarity to the field
(in terms of distinguishing different types of programme). Instead it highlights
the multiplicity of educational strategies that scholars label with the term
“accelerator” and graphically illustrates the need for scholars to distinguish
between the different forms. For example, by employing categorisations such as
the four-fielder diagram I introduced in figure 1-1 (p.37).
In addition to the ‘gaps’ discussed in the preceding paragraphs, many of the
scholars whose work I have discussed suggest directions for future research.
Miller and Bound (2011) for example, suggest that more study needs to be made
of how accelerators’ performance and impact can be measured – to facilitate the
comparison of different programmes. More importantly for the purposes of this
study, Lall et al. (2013) and Hallen et al. (2013) both identify accelerator quality as
a key focus for study. They emphasize the need for developing a detailed
understanding of what ‘quality’ means in the context of accelerators, given the
latter scholars’ observation that not all accelerators are equally successful. In
particular; Hoffman and Radojevich-Kelly (2012), and Hallen et al. (ibid.) argue
that it is important to learn more about the ‘how’ (or process) of acceleration.
Hallen et al. underline the need to understand the interplay of factors that makes
the structuring of accelerator education “unclear and critical” (ibid., p.33). Finally,
Miller and Bound (2011) suggest that future research should address the
possibility of extending the use of accelerators to the development of social
ventures. In this dissertation I discuss a series of educational interventions that
have done just that. I also begins to address the ‘how’ question identified by
several scholars. In other words: the question of which factors constitute ‘quality’
in accelerators, to the enhancement of entrepreneurial learning and hence
venture performance.
1.8 Research Purpose
Despite the apparent advantages of the accelerator concept, Miller and Bound
(2011) and the Academy of Management (2013) note that little research into this
type of entrepreneurship education has been conducted. Unsurprisingly given
the rapid proliferation of accelerators, the academic community has been unable
to keep pace with the development of the accelerator concept. As a result, until
very recently the primary sources of information on entrepreneurs’ learning in
accelerators tended to be practitioner-oriented reports such as those of Stross
(2012), Miller and Bound (ibid.), and Baird, Bowles and Lall (2013). This
phenomenon is readily explained by the recent emergence of this type of
entrepreneurship education, with scholars identifying the first accelerator
programme (Y Combinator) only ten years ago in 2005. Importantly, even less
study has been carried out of the ways in which organisations have adapted the
accelerator concept to the particular needs of social entrepreneurs.
Introduction
49
In previous paragraphs I have suggested that non-formal approaches to
entrepreneurship education (such as accelerators) make it easier for practicing
entrepreneurs to participate in educational activities – and as a result, optimise
their learning. Even so, accessibility is only half of the story and if entrepreneurial
learning is to be enhanced, education also needs to be effective. The experience
of leading accelerators such as Y Combinator and Cleantech Open suggests that many
entrepreneurs benefit from accelerator activities. However, not all programmes
have seen similar success. GigTank in Chattanooga, Tennessee for example,
noted that only two out of the eight ventures that participated in its 2011
accelerator survived
25
(Bradbury, 2013). Nashville’s Jumpstart accelerator on the
other hand, reported a considerably higher success rate of 65 % (McGee, 2013).
Figures such as these imply that simply setting up an accelerator programme for
new ventures does not guarantee that participating entrepreneurs will be able to
learn enough to create sustainable businesses. Instead, it is important to recognise
the additional impact of factors such as the business environment and firms’
access to finance. Given the focus of this study, it is especially important to
understand how and what entrepreneurs learn as they participate in accelerator
activities.
Umbrella organisations such as the Global Accelerator Network boast of the high
levels of investment associated with their members’ programmes
26
. It is therefore
possible that the combination of access to investment and a highly selective
recruitment process might be the main reasons for participating entrepreneurs’
success. The recent study by Hallen et al. (2013) however, suggests that this may
not be the case and that it is instead the quality of the accelerator process that
determines venture performance. Entrepreneurs engage in several
developmental processes during accelerators; processes that include networking,
the formalisation of their enterprises (for example: through a business plan) –
and learning. In this dissertation I focus particularly on this latter process: on the
role of education in accelerating the learning of social entrepreneurs – and hence,
the development of their enterprises.
In this chapter I have suggested that practicing entrepreneurs are more able to
participate in shorter, non-formal courses of education than in long-term, formal
programmes. I have also identified accelerators as a promising new method of
non-formal entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, I have suggested that
social entrepreneurs are an important category of learners that educators might
target. Despite these promising signs, scholars agree that we know very little
about the characteristics of non-formal educational programmes such as
accelerators – and that there is a pressing need for studies of this type of
25
I.e.: 25 %
26
http://gan.co/
Jönköping International Business School
50
entrepreneurship education (A.o.M, 2013). Moreover, as Baird et al. (2013, p. 4)
point out: “the study of social-impact focused incubators and accelerators is in its
infancy”. It is therefore important to learn more about the learning of social
entrepreneurs in accelerator programmes – and about the ways in which their
learning shapes their development and the development of their enterprises.
Consequently, the purpose of this dissertation is to:
Explore the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerator programmes
In chapter two, four more specific research questions are developed from the
above purpose. However, these questions are informed not only by this
statement of purpose, but also by the theoretical perspectives that I adopt in this
study. Although the reasoning behind these questions will only fully emerge in
the following chapter, it may be useful for the reader at this stage to view the
study’s purpose and research questions together.
The four research questions addressed in this dissertation are:
1. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators
influenced by their experiences and intentions prior to entering the
programme?
2. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by the
non-human ‘objects’ (primarily educational design) that are associated
with entrepreneurship education in accelerators?
3. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by their
interaction with the different human actors within accelerators
(managers, mentors, coaches and peers)?
4. In which ways does the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators
affect their development and that of their enterprises?
1.9 A Dissertation Road-map
In the next chapter I introduce the reader to the main theoretical perspectives
that inform my discussion of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators. The
theoretical perspectives I adopt reflect the scholarly contributions that I hope to
make. In this chapter I have already introduced other scholars’ studies of
accelerators – and naturally I hope to contribute to learning in this field. In
particular I hope to expand our understanding of how the non-formal learning
environments of accelerators enhance social entrepreneurs’ learning – and hence,
the development of their enterprises. It is also my ambition to develop
knowledge about accelerators, by discussing the application of the concept in a
new context – namely that of the social entrepreneur.
Introduction
51
In chapter two I draw on the ideas of learning theorist Peter Jarvis. I also make
reference to the literature on entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship
education, placing particular emphasis on scholars’ ideas about appropriate
educational philosophies and pedagogies. It is not however, my ambition to
develop any revolutionary insights with regards to adult learning. Nonetheless, I
hope that my discussion of the learning of social entrepreneurs will provide
learning theorists with some empirically-based insight into the factors that
influence the learning process among adults. I have however, higher hopes with
regards to making a contribution to the fields of entrepreneurial learning and
entrepreneurship education. In this area I hope to develop our understanding of
the learning process, as regards on the one hand practising entrepreneurs – and on
the other hand, social entrepreneurs. In particular, I hope to make a contribution
by introducing non-formal learning environments as a particular context of/for
entrepreneurial learning. Importing so to say, this approach from fields where it
is more widely discussed – such as youth and development studies
(Kirchschlaeger, 2014). It is my expectation that a discussion of this aspect of
learning will lend depth to ongoing discussions of pedagogy among scholars of
entrepreneurship education (Neck, Greene, & Brush, 2014). By employing an
‘engaged’ method of data collection and analysis, I also hope to make a small
contribution to our understanding of how qualitative research may be conducted
in a manner that is both scholarly rigorous, yet also mutually beneficial.
Based on the statement of purpose introduced in section 1.8, and on my
discussion of the literature on adult learning, entrepreneurial learning and
entrepreneurship education; at the end of chapter two I reiterate my four more
specific research questions. In chapter three I describe the case study method
used to gather information about social entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators –
and to analyse this data. In chapter four I introduce the reader to the social
entrepreneurs whose experiences provide the basis for my discussion in chapter
five – and to the ‘Booster’
27
accelerator programme; both of which are studied in
order to achieve the purpose of this dissertation. Later on in this chapter I
provide a more detailed description of the experiences of four social
entrepreneurs. In the final section of the chapter (section 4.5), most of the
findings associated with research question four (relating to the outcomes of
learning) are located. In chapter five I discuss my findings as they relate to
research questions one (the roles played by prior experience and intention), two
(the role played by non-human objects) and three (the role of interaction between
accelerator managers, mentors, coaches and entrepreneurs). I conclude my
dissertation in chapter six, by summarising its contributions and by suggesting
possible avenues for future research.
27
In this study I use ‘Booster’ as a pseudonym for the real name of the accelerator programme.
Jönköping International Business School
52
1.10 A Brief Note on Terminology
This study is primarily about the learning of social entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, I
have often felt that the flow of my discussion would be hindered by the unwieldy
and repetitious positioning of the adjective “social” before the noun
“entrepreneur”. Consequently, unless the context is unclear I usually refer to the
individuals who participated in the Booster accelerators as simply “entrepreneurs”,
“the entrepreneurs” or “participants”. Where this is done, I take it for granted
that the reader will understand that the entrepreneurs I refer to are the social
entrepreneurs who participated in the accelerator.
Slightly more controversy may be attached to my use of the terms “startup”,
“new venture” and “enterprise”. Traditionally, entrepreneurship has been
associated with the founding of a new firm and consequently, practitioners often
favour the term ‘startup’. In recent years scholars have suggested that this
definition does not capture all of the possible implications of entrepreneurship –
a term that may refer not only to the creation of a new for-profit firm, but also
to the founding of an organisation with a social purpose – or even to the creation
of a new organisation by an existing firm. For this reason scholars increasingly
use terms such as “new venture creation” (Timmons & Spinelli, 1994) and
“venturing” (Kloosterman & Rath, 2003). In this study my primary emphasis is
on social entrepreneurs who are engaged in the creation of a new organisation –
regardless of whether this organisation is entirely new, or an independent entity
sprung from an existing organisation. Consequently, I use the terms “startup”
and “new venture” interchangeably – and also refer to the emerging, nascent
organisation using terms such as “enterprise” and “venture”. I believe that my
use of these terms as equivalents is acceptable in view of the purpose of this study
– which focuses on the role of learning in the venturing process, rather than on
distinguishing different forms of nascent entrepreneurship. My use of the terms
as interchangeable references to a similar, general activity also has its academic
precedents in other scholars’ practice (for example: Mullins, 2009).
53
2 Theoretical Perspectives
In order to build a theoretical foundation for my study of the learning of
practicing social entrepreneurs I draw on three main bodies of scholarship,
namely the literatures on entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurship education and adult
learning. By doing so it is my intention to address the ‘how’ and the ‘why’
questions inherent in my research purpose – and advocated by scholars such as
Hoffman and Radojevich-Kelly (2012). These and other scholars underline the
need for a deeper understanding of how accelerators support the learning of
nascent entrepreneurs. By adopting these three theoretical perspectives I am in a
sense looking at accelerators from two main positions in this chapter. My
discussion of entrepreneurship education provides the necessary theoretical
background for my later discussion of research questions two and three (the
influence of human actors and non-human ‘objects’ such as educational design).
Here I adopt the position of the ‘accelerator’ and participating entrepreneurs are
framed as targets of a programme of entrepreneurship education. As the chapter
progresses however, I re-position myself and discuss the accelerator from the
perspective of the participants. In theoretical terms this involves framing the
participant as both an adult learner and an adult learner who is also an
entrepreneur. This background is particularly important for my later discussion
of research questions one and four
28
, but is also necessary in order to provide a
more complete answer to question two and three.
In adopting the position of the accelerator I discuss the ‘how’ of
entrepreneurship education in accelerators. This question has to do with the way
in which programmes seek to develop entrepreneurial capacities in participants
– and a natural point of departure is the literature on entrepreneurship education.
Nonetheless, within this large body of literature I focus primarily on only two
themes. Firstly, the literature that Pittaway and Cope (2007a) label “the education
of entrepreneurs” – and secondly, pedagogy. In other words, I am mostly
interested in publications that discuss the education of individuals that are already
engaged in starting a new venture, and the philosophies and practices associated
with this education.
In adopting the position of the participating entrepreneurs I discuss the ‘why’ of
entrepreneurial learning in accelerators – and attempt to uncover the underlying
explanations for the success or failure of entrepreneurship education within
accelerators. An initial step in this process is the recognition that entrepreneurs
are not simply individuals who start and manage businesses, but also adults. I
28
Research question (1) addresses the impact of entrepreneurs’ intentions and previous experience,
while (4) focuses on the relationship between learning and enterprise development.
Jönköping International Business School
54
therefore examine the literature on adult learning and in particular, experiential
theories of learning – as these are the theories most commonly linked to
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning (Pittaway & Cope,
2007g). Nonetheless, while recognising that the individuals who interact with the
educational activities of accelerators are almost always adults, it is important to
also understand that they are also entrepreneurs. Consequently, it is necessary to
allow for the possibility that the occupation or ambition of the adult learner, may
also influence the manner in which they interact with accelerator activities. For
this reason I integrate insights from scholars of entrepreneurial learning into my
discussion of the literature on adult learning.
2.1 The Education of [social] Entrepreneurs
2.1.1 Overview
Although growth has slowed in recent years, entrepreneurship education is one
of the fastest growing fields of education in the world today (Finkle, 2007), and
is characterised by what Mwasalwiba (2010, p. 20) terms “explosive growth”.
Despite this growth, the field is characterised by heterogeneity – with Jones and
Matlay (2011) suggesting that this is a natural result of the diversity of the field
of entrepreneurship itself. Scholars also note that entrepreneurship education
research is relatively immature, with little agreement on core concepts and
measurement, widespread dependence on self-reported measures and a large
number of cross-sectional studies (Gorman et al., 1997; Pittaway & Cope, 2007a).
Despite these challenges, writers agree on several points. Jones and Matlay (ibid.,
p.702) suggest for example, that there is a shared assumption that
entrepreneurship education focuses on the “development of the student for
future entrepreneurial behaviour”. There is also general agreement over the
categorisation of entrepreneurship education programmes, even if scholars
associate slightly different foci with the commonly used categories
29
(see for
example: Dahlstedt & Hertzberg, 2012; Mwasalwiba, 2010). These categories are
briefly introduced below.
Most scholars agree that education about entrepreneurship aims to increase
learners’ awareness of entrepreneurs and the venturing process – often
attempting to make students more open to the possibility of an entrepreneurial
career (Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004). They also agree that two objectives of
entrepreneurship education can be to equip individuals to start a new venture, or
to act in an entrepreneurial manner in other contexts (Blenker, Korsgaard,
Neergaard, & Thrane, 2011). Here Kirby (2004) and Blenker and Christensen
(2010) suggest that education can also operate through entrepreneurship, creating
29 I.e.: the distinction between education “about”, “in” and “for” entrepreneurship.
Theoretical Perspectives
55
knowledge by means of entrepreneurial action. Mwasalwiba (2010) however,
suggests that there is no need for this fourth category, as strong similarities exist
between Kirby’s idea of education “through” entrepreneurship and their own
concept of education “for” entrepreneurship. Blenker et al. (ibid.) are therefore
unusual in omitting the “about” objective and in augmenting the remaining two
objectives with a further two. They suggest that entrepreneurship education can
also focus on enabling learners to create high-growth firms or social value. It is
unclear however, whether any of these scholars actually address education
‘during’ entrepreneurship (i.e. the education of practicing entrepreneurs). Given
the university-oriented focus of many entrepreneurship education scholars, it is
appears that even education ‘through’ entrepreneurship is frequently concerned
with promoting entrepreneurial behaviour in students. The practice of
entrepreneurship may therefore only be one of several educational strategies,
rather than an end in itself.
Despite the differences outlined above, the majority of scholars agree that
entrepreneurship education should not be primarily aimed at the “about”
objective (awareness-raising), but rather at the development of entrepreneurial
behaviours and an entrepreneurial mindset (Blenker et al., 2011; Kirby, 2004;
Kuratko, 2005). This view reflects concerns that present education places too
much emphasis on knowledge acquisition (Carrier, 2007). There is also increasing
consensus around the suggestion that the definition of ‘entrepreneurship’ (which
guides the emphases of entrepreneurship education) should be broadened, so
that it not only includes the starting of new business ventures – but also the
mindsets, skills and competences associated with innovative behaviour in general
(A. A. Gibb, 2002; Neck & Greene, 2011). Several scholars also suggest that it is
important to develop new approaches to teaching, due to the distinctive
characteristics of entrepreneurship (Kirby, 2004; Kuratko, 2005). As Gibb (2002)
points out however, in university settings the adoption of more appropriate
pedagogies may be hindered by academic traditions that emphasize
standardisation and are based on implicit “contracts” of knowledge delivery,
rather than individual development.
As noted earlier, much of the literature on entrepreneurship education adopts
the perspective of the university or college, and focuses on the education of
students (Mwasalwiba, 2010; Pittaway & Cope, 2007a). Indeed, Hytti and Gorman
(2004, p. 15) explicitly exclude education for practicing entrepreneurs from their
study, on the grounds that it is “training” or “professional development”. This
attitude contrasts with Gorman, Hanlon and King’s comment in an earlier paper
(1997, p. 72), in which they noted that the needs of the broader support network
for entrepreneurship education are “overlooked completely”. Other scholars also
note the relative lack of studies on entrepreneurial education for small firms
(Curran & Stanworth, 1989), and suggest that studies of entrepreneurship
education need to include all education activities and not just those “within the
Jönköping International Business School
56
educational system” (Liñán, 2007, p. 237). Liñán suggests therefore that
entrepreneurship education should address several stages of entrepreneurial
development, which she describes as those of the “potential”, “nascent” and
“dynamic” entrepreneur. Gibb (2002) also suggests that entrepreneurship
education can be usefully related to different stages of business development,
and proposes six steps on the road from “idea and motivation acquisition” to
“survival”.
The tendency of scholars to engage primarily with entrepreneurship education
in higher education means that the background to subsequent discussions of
pedagogy tends to be that of the student – and not that of the practicing
entrepreneur or small business. This clearly has an impact on some aspects of
education (for example: practicing entrepreneurs do not need to be encouraged
to engage in startup activities). Nonetheless, there are reasons why it is worth
considering the contribution that student-oriented approaches to learning might
make to the learning of nascent entrepreneurs. The majority of entrepreneurs are
for example, adults – and many teachers of entrepreneurship are keen to adopt
philosophies of education that emphasize the values of adult learning. Neck and
Greene (2011) explicitly link their approach to andragogy (theories of adult
learning), and Gibb (2002, p. 142) emphasizes the role of entrepreneurship
education in adding to the value of experience in contexts outside of “the
classroom and university”. Other scholars underline the importance of learning
by doing – an emphasis that reflects the philosophy of adult learning, even if the
connection is not explicitly made (Vanevenhoven, 2013). It is therefore useful to
discuss the range of approaches that scholars of entrepreneurship education have
used to develop entrepreneurial ability, even if many of these have primarily been
used in the context of higher education.
2.1.2 Philosophies of Entrepreneurship Education
In education, scholars often distinguish between pedagogy (theories of learning)
and didactics (approaches to teaching). This difference is seldom maintained in
the literature on entrepreneurship education (Blenker et al., 2011 are an
exception), perhaps mirroring the relative immaturity of the field – or simply a
difference in Anglo-American and Continental terminology (Kyrö, 2006). Several
scholars do however underline the importance of recognising the educational
‘philosophies’ that undergird particular approaches, with Jones and Matlay (2011)
even suggesting that a shared philosophy is necessary. Nonetheless, Blenker et al.
(2011) cast doubt on the feasibility of such a suggestion, given their argument
that different educational objectives appear to rely on distinct ontological ideas
about entrepreneurship and how it should be taught. Frequently this idea is
reflected in the contrast between scholars’ impressions of the present situation
(depicted as dominated by a teacher-centred philosophy of education) – and their
image of an ideal situation, which is more student-centred (Carrier, 2007).
Theoretical Perspectives
57
Neck and Greene (2011) link teacher-centred approaches to learning with what
they term the “entrepreneur world” and suggest it is associated with older, ‘trait-
oriented’ concepts of entrepreneurship. This model of entrepreneurship
education is also linked to teaching ‘about’ entrepreneurship, a model that
Piperopoulos and Dimov (2014) suggest infers a “single ideal [entrepreneurial]
process”. These scholars argue that if students do not fit into the ‘ideal’ mould
they are often dissuaded from pursuing an entrepreneurial career. Honig (2004)
suggests that models such as these are characterised by “convergent” thinking.
He points out that this type of reasoning is not confined to models of the ideal
entrepreneur, but is also apparent in the unreflected use of business plans in
entrepreneurship education. He argues that if used carelessly, business plans may
limit students’ thinking once completed and lead them to perceive
entrepreneurship as a linear rather than iterative process
30
. On a more
philosophical note, Daniel Hjorth (2011) draws on Gilles Deleuze in emphasising
entrepreneurship education as a social and affective (rather than primarily cognitive)
activity. Hjorth also argues that entrepreneurship education needs to be based
more on a ‘paralogical’ (non-rational) perspective. This role infers a pedagogue
role that focuses on ‘provoking’ the learner and subsequently helping them remain
in the “cracks and fissures” in their knowledge, that this provocation creates
31
.
As will be seen in my discussion of Jarvis’ theory of learning, Hjorth’s ideas
parallel Jarvis’ thinking in many ways and add valuable detail to some of his
concepts.
In order to accommodate the many different types of entrepreneurship (and
indeed entrepreneur) reflected in the writing of scholars such as Gartner (1990),
several scholars suggest that a philosophy of education be adopted that
accommodates the distinctiveness of the individual. Vanevenhoven (2013) and
Blenker et al. (2011) suggest that such a philosophy is inferred by the interaction
of the individual with opportunity, in the entrepreneurial process. They argue
that the individual and the opportunity develop simultaneously, with each
affecting the other. This implies that the experience of the individual is likely to be the
point of departure in entrepreneurship education, rather than the content an
educator believes the individual needs to assimilate. This provides a credible
explanation of why entrepreneurship education may be usefully carried out using
approaches grounded in experiential learning theories. The more common
explanation (experts and seasoned entrepreneurs learn from experience,
therefore students should be taught through experience), is less convincing – as
in a university context there is no immediate similarity between the two, apart
from their shared adult humanity.
30
Honig (2004) and Johannisson (2005) argue that entrepreneurship involves iterative, rather than
linear processes.
31
Hjorth draws on the ideas of Homi Bhaba in his discussion of the process of learning.
Jönköping International Business School
58
The idea that an underlying educational philosophy of ‘experience’ exists in many
approaches to entrepreneurship education is borne out by the discussions of
several scholars. Blenker et al. (2011) note the risk many students run of delaying
action until they can see the whole picture, and therefore advocate an action-
oriented approach to education. Fiet (2000a) calls for “theory-based activity”.
Honig (2004) advocates “learning by inoculation” (the exposure of students to
the entrepreneurial experience of failure) – and both Neck and Greene (2011)
and Gibb (2002) write of the need for learners to “feel”, or experience the “way
of life” of the entrepreneur. Writing in the context of education for practicing
entrepreneurs, Johannisson (1992) suggests that educators need to provide input
that is close to real life and advocates a strategy of learning-by-doing.
In philosophical terms the emphasis of experiential learning in entrepreneurship
education has several implications, not all of which are recognised in the
literature. One implication is that by making the individual’s experience a primary
focus in education, educators extend the reach of education beyond knowledge,
to include affective and conative aspects (emotions and motivation). This fits in
well with competency frameworks, which in contrast to many university
traditions recognize the importance of these “attributes” (A. A. Gibb, 2002). The
difficulty of this approach is however, that it does not fit in well with present
structures of higher education. Blenker et al. (2011) argue that entrepreneurship
education is not generic and needs to be tailored not only to the type of value
entrepreneurs intend to create, but also to the learner’s stage of mindset
development. This implies that education needs to be individualised to a far
greater extent (Johannisson, 1992; Jones & Matlay, 2011). Hytti and Gorman
(2004) link such a shift to increased effort on the part of both staff and students,
and to a need for more skill on the part of teachers – to balance the role of
teacher and coach. Many educational programmes cater to large groups of
students and clearly, it is uncertain whether additional resources for this purpose
would be forthcoming. Furthermore, Gibb (ibid.) notes that the didactics
(teaching strategies) of many programmes are presently designed for ease of
examination. The outcomes of education that seeks to develop not only
knowledge; but attitudes, behaviour and mindsets are harder to assess.
Many studies of entrepreneurship education suggest methods for developing
behaviour and attitudes (see section 2.1.3). For the most part these entail
exposing the learner in some way to some of the realities of entrepreneurial
behaviour. For example: Honig’s (2004) “learning by inoculation”, Gibb’s (2002)
“way of life” and Kirby’s (2004) “role-models”. Most scholars relate these ideas
to the concept of experiential learning or “action-based teaching” (Mwasalwiba,
2010, p. 40). What few scholars explicitly recognise however, is that many of
these approaches are rooted in theories of situated learning. This perspective on
learning suggests that learning is a ‘social’ process that is ideally carried out in a
realistic situation. Consequently, in discussing adult learning and the
Theoretical Perspectives
59
development of vocational expertise, Wenger (1998) suggests that it is useful to
frame learning in terms of “legitimate peripheral participation”. By this he refers
to the development of both identity and expertise through the practicing of
behaviour at the ‘edge’ of a profession – for example: through apprenticeship.
When entrepreneurship education is viewed through the lens of situated learning
theory, many approaches are seen to adopt its emphases. Blenker et al. (2011)
draw on Wenger’s concept of “imaginisation” and emphasize the importance of
transforming identity. The use of narratives, storytelling, simulations and films
(Blenker et al., 2011; Buckley, Wren, & Michaelsen, 1992; Honig, 2004) is an
artificial means of ‘situating’ venture ideas in reality, while Gibb’s (2002)
“learning through relationships” clearly embeds the learner in the reality of
business networks. Kirby (2004) suggests the use of role models, and Blenker
and Christensen (2010) discuss the function of practicing entrepreneurs in
entrepreneurship education. In a very real sense therefore, situated learning is the
unacknowledged guest at the table of entrepreneurship education.
2.1.3 Methods Associated with Entrepreneurship Education
In the entrepreneurship education literature, as noted earlier, a distinction is
generally made between the objective of learning ‘about’ entrepreneurship and
the objectives which many scholars clearly prefer – of learning ‘for’, ‘through’
and ‘in’ entrepreneurship. Scholars associate the first objective with knowledge-
centred teaching methods and suggest that classroom-based methods such as
lectures, case-studies and supervised reading are associated with this educational
goal (Carrier, 2007; Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994). These methods are primarily
linked to the cognitive aspects of entrepreneurship. For example: to Bird’s (1995)
“knowledge about” and to the “managing across a range of functions” that
Garavan and O’Cinneide (ibid.) identify with entrepreneurship, and which they
link to analytical skills. McMullan and Boberg (1991) suggest that these skills are
developed by the practised use of case-studies. As Fiet (2000c) points out
therefore, progress in entrepreneurship education does not entail abandoning the
knowledge component, but rather framing it in a more applied manner and
complementing it with other attributes.
When it comes to the objective of educating learners to start new ventures Carrier
(ibid.) suggests that business plans are a common tool. Kuratko (2005) links the
use of business plans to experiential learning, as the tool gives the impression of
being situated in reality. Several scholars however, question the uncritical use of
business plans in entrepreneurship education. They note that in real life
entrepreneurs often emphasize their business ‘models’ over their business ‘plan’
(Hjorth, 2013) – and that plans tend to foster a ‘single solution’ mindset in
learners (Honig 2004, Neck and Greene 2011). Neck and Greene (ibid., p.59) see
the use of business plans as part of an educational paradigm that focuses on
“planning and prediction”. Along with Blenker et al. (2011) they argue that
Jönköping International Business School
60
contemporary education is characterised by a view of entrepreneurship as a
rational planning process that progresses in a linear manner through a series of
stages. Scholars such as Kirby (2004), Johannisson (1992) and Benson (1992)
suggest however, that entrepreneurship often involves intuition and not always
rational decision-making. Read et al. (2009) echo this sentiment and emphasize
the idea that entrepreneurial processes are seldom linear and predictable. Indeed,
as Rogers and Freiberg (1994) point out, the same is true of modern life! To cope
with the uncertainty of entrepreneurship therefore, scholars suggest that
educators need to emphasize abilities associated with learning in and from action,
for example: by reflecting on “disharmonies and anomalies” (Blenker et al. 2011)
and through “action learning” (Honig 2004). The implication is that many of the
practical challenges of starting a new venture (i.e. the ‘for’ entrepreneurship
objective) can be solved by applying abilities associated with the ‘in’ or ‘through’
entrepreneurship objective.
In order to achieve the objectives associated with the broader goal of developing
entrepreneurial attributes – or an entrepreneurial mindset, scholars suggest
several methods. In the following paragraphs I group methods according to the
general objective associated with them (for example: insight into
entrepreneurship or increased self-efficacy). Nonetheless, it is important to note
that this grouping is both intuitive and based on scholar’s own accounts, as there
is presently little empirical evidence for the effectiveness of these different
approaches to entrepreneurship education (Brockhaus, 2001; Kirby, 2004).
A key emphasis in many programmes of entrepreneurship education is on
helping learners to gain insight into the nature of entrepreneurial life (Gibb 2002).
Many scholars suggest that this is best done by getting learners to experience
some part of this reality, either by participating directly in activity or by observing
another person in this reality. Methods that involve learners’ participation include
projects that require them to engage in some form of entrepreneurial activity in
society, for example: creating a startup, or testing a product or service (McMullan
& Boberg, 1991; Mwasalwiba, 2010; Neck & Greene, 2011). Where real-life
practice is difficult to access, other scholars suggest the use of role-playing,
simulations or games (Carrier, 2007; Honig, 2004; Hytti & Nieminen, 2013). The
emphasis in these methods is on the creation of “life-like environments” (Gibb
2002) and an experience of entrepreneurial behaviour (Vanevenhoven, 2013;
Winkel, 2013). These types of experience are what Jarvis (2010) terms “primary”
experiences, in that they involve learning through the senses and not only
cognitive reflection. Nonetheless, knowledge of entrepreneurial life may also be
developed by creating “secondary”, or “vicarious” experiences (Bandura, 1965).
Techniques for creating this type of experience include the use of narratives, story-
telling, films and visits by practicing entrepreneurs – i.e. role-models (Blenker et al.,
2011; Neck, Neck & Meyer 1998, cited in Carrier, 2007; Kirby, 2004). Blenker
and Christensen (2010), and Katz (1995) discuss the role of practicing
Theoretical Perspectives
61
entrepreneurs in students’ learning in particular detail, noting that they provide
not only role models, but also opportunities for participation and practice in
entrepreneurial activities such as problem-solving. This type of educational
activity makes it easier for learners to identify and begin to imitate what Carrier
(2007) terms “expert scripts”.
Many of the educational methods noted above serve not only to provide learners
with insight into the lifestyle of the entrepreneur, but also with the opportunity
to practice entrepreneurial behaviour. Gibb (2002) for example: emphasizes the
importance of teaching students how to learn from relationships, not least from key
stakeholders. This behaviour can be practiced in many of the more action-
oriented approaches and reflects the emphasis many scholars place on learning
behaviour – for example: Honig’s (2004) action learning, Neck and Greene’s (2011)
reflective practice and Blenker et al.’s (2011) appreciative inquiry. Many of these
methods are closely integrated with approaches that seek to provide learners with
first-hand experience of entrepreneurial life and are associated with Gibb’s (2002)
idea of need-oriented learning and Honig’s (2004) concept of contingency-based
teaching. As Rogers (1969, p. 162) points out, individuals often learn most
effectively when they are “on the firing line facing immediate problems”. Blenker
et al. (2011) therefore suggest that it is important that learners be assisted in
learning from experience and reflection, by providing them with coaching. This
idea is also emphasized by Johannisson (1992), Deakins and Freel (1998), and
Cope and Watts (2000) – who all emphasize the role of mentors in helping
entrepreneurs to learn effectively. Carrier (2007) and Hjorth (2013, p. 52) also note
the importance of providing learners with skills when they need them, and
particularly emphasize education in the use of techniques for creative thinking and
“innovation process tools”.
The above paragraphs discuss educational methods that emphasize developing
knowledge and behaviour through experience and reflection. As Blenker et al.
(2011) point out however, the development of an entrepreneurial mindset is a
challenge that although involving behaviour, goes beyond it and addresses
concepts such as self-efficacy and identity. These scholars suggest that narratives
and storytelling can be used to not only provide insight into existing models of
entrepreneurship, but also possible entrepreneurial futures. They emphasize for
example: the capacity to shift roles and identities, a theme that brings to mind
Bird’s (1995) discussion of role management as an entrepreneurial competency.
Frequently, as methods increasingly attempt to address mindsets as opposed to
vocational skills, scholars suggest educational techniques that are less clearly
linked to traditional concepts of entrepreneurship. Benson (1992) discusses how
classical literature can be used to stimulate independent thinking in students – and
especially the capacity for intuition, which he associates with the study of
Emerson’s writing. Carrier (2007) also notes Neck, Neck and Meyer’s (1998)
discussion of how the film “Dead Poets’ Society” can be used in teaching
Jönköping International Business School
62
entrepreneurship. These examples suggest that education which seeks to address
factors associated with values and philosophy, or motivation and trait drivers
may need to call on techniques that draw on sensemaking concepts such as
metaphor (R. C. Hill & Levenhagen, 1995) and analogy (Hoggan, 2014). In the
field of social entrepreneurship education; Smith, Kickul and Coley (2010)
discuss methods for developing individual characteristics that are not directly
expressed in behaviour or skills, for example: empathy. This leads us to the
question of whether any particular educational approaches are linked to the
development of social entrepreneurial ability.
2.1.4 Educating for Social Entrepreneurship
Social enterprises are often described as ‘hybrid’ firms, and despite the rise of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its emphasis of the triple bottom line,
scholars suggest that social enterprises answer in a unique manner to a ‘double’
bottom line (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001). In other words, their success is not
measured only (or even primarily) in terms of profit, but also by social or
environmental impact. Scholars also note that social enterprises are often
answerable to a different set of stakeholders than traditional firms (communities
or interest groups, as opposed to owners)(Kulothungan, 2010). They are
therefore subject to specific challenges with respect to governance, as they are
expected to take decisions in a more democratic manner than traditional firms
(Gunn & Durkin, 2010a). Furthermore, hybrid organisations often aim to diffuse
social innovation, rather than maintaining it as a firm-specific source of
competitiveness (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012). Importantly, while social enterprises
tend to operate in several sectors simultaneously (for example: the private and
not-for-profit sector), they are at times also engaged in addressing what Thomas
Jordan (2011) refers to as “wicked issues”. In other words: challenges that involve
multiple stakeholders, complex causality (often involving societal structures) –
and even disagreement over the true nature of the problem.
In view of the challenges outlined above; scholars such as Howorth, Smith and
Parkinson (2012) and Griffith (2010) suggest that social entrepreneurs do not
need fewer skills than traditional entrepreneurs, but rather more. In other words,
they cannot abandon traditional managerial competencies in order to focus on
the unique challenges of social innovation. Instead they must add new abilities to
the repertoire of the traditional entrepreneur. For this reason, surveys of the
capabilities associated with social entrepreneurship
32
often include abilities that
are similar to the capabilities associated with traditional entrepreneurship (T. L.
Miller et al., 2012). Scholars have suggested however, that additional abilities are
needed; including the ability to manage a hybrid identity (W. K. Smith, Besharov,
32 The majority of these overviews are based on the contexts of North American or Western European
social entrepreneurs.
Theoretical Perspectives
63
Wessels, & Chertok, 2012), skills in measuring social impact (Brock & Steiner,
2008; Kickul, Janssen-Selvadurai, & Griffiths, 2012), empathy (B. R. Smith et al.,
2010) and the monitoring of policy (Buchanan, 2010; Gunn & Durkin, 2010c).
Despite the greater challenges associated with educating for social
entrepreneurship, until now fewer scholarly articles have been published on
‘education for social entrepreneurship and innovation’ (ESEI
33
) than for
traditional (for-profit) forms of entrepreneurship education – even if the ESEI
literature displays similar characteristics. For example: most ESEI scholars
address the education of students in higher education (Kickul et al., 2012; B. R.
Smith et al., 2010) – and the role of reflection and experiential learning is
emphasized (Dees, interviewed by Howorth et al., 2012; Worsham, 2012, p. 448).
The usefulness of including practicing [social] entrepreneurs in education is also
noted – with the late J. Gregory Dees (ibid.) noting that shadowing is a useful
method for helping students learn more about the day-to-day life of the social
entrepreneur.
In their discussion of the competencies associated with social entrepreneurship;
Smith, Kickul and Coley (2010) suggest that social entrepreneurs need to possess
a distinct capacity for empathy. They underline the role of experiential learning in
developing empathy – but unusually, their focus is not on helping students
experience an aspect of entrepreneurial activity – but rather the situation of the
disadvantaged. Smith, Kickul and Coley (ibid.) suggest that their use of the Star-
Power simulation (or game) plays an important role in helping students develop
empathy with disadvantaged individuals in contexts characterised by poverty.
They describe this exercise as a simulation and relate it to the experiential learning
cycle of Kolb, with particular emphasis on the role of concrete experience and
reflection. Importantly they suggest that the simulation stimulates learning in
several area including both the affective (learning about the emotions associated
with poverty), the cognitive (learning about the structures associated with
poverty) and self-concept (learning about one’s own capacity to initiate change).
Brock and Steiner (2008) note that many university courses in social
entrepreneurship include service-learning in their syllabi. Service-learning in the
context of ESEI has to do with the linking of the learner to a real-life social
problem or social enterprise. In this way the learner is able to experience many
of the activities of the social entrepreneur first-hand. Examples include Syracuse
University’s student consultancy programme that links business school students
in the United States with townships in South Africa – and Universidad de los
Andes’ programme (Colombia), in which students cooperate with social
entrepreneurs in identifying and beginning to solve social problems (Brock,
33 For the sake of brevity, in this study ’entrepreneurship education’ is at times abbreviated as ’EED’,
while ‘education for social entrepreneurship and innovation’ is abbreviated ‘ESEI’.
Jönköping International Business School
64
2008). Bloom (2006) discusses Stanford’s Social Entrepreneurship Collaboratory
(SE Lab). Many of the pedagogical methods he describes are also identified by
Howorth & Smith (2012), in their discussion of education for practicing
entrepreneurs. For example: learner-centredness, co-creation, peer-learning and
an interactive learning environment. In keeping with Fiet (2000c) Bloom (ibid.)
also notes that theoretical frameworks are an important foundation that
undergird the design of participants’ ventures. Although he does not refer to
Problem-Based Learning (PBL), his description of the Stanford approach is
clearly similar and he notes among other things the important role played by “a
design problem” as a focus for the practical application of theory.
Publications on the education of practicing social entrepreneurs are far less
common than discussions that focus on the education of students. Carole
Howorth and Susan Smith (2012) are an exception and discuss ESEI in the
context of two British development programmes for entrepreneurs (in which
social entrepreneurs participated). Howorth and Smith base their discussion on
a blend of experiential and social learning theories – drawing for example on
Schön’s (1983) concept of the “reflective practitioner” and Lave and Wenger’s
work on “communities of practice” (1991; 1998). They underline the importance
of a ‘situated’ approach to education and note the use of methods such as
“coaching, action learning, business shadowing, and business exchanges” (p.376).
In keeping with Johannisson (1992), Howorth and Smith also emphasize the role
of peer-coaching among entrepreneurs and consequently, the vital importance of
creating a climate of trust. In her doctoral dissertation, Smith (2011) discusses a
related programme and adopts a networked learning perspective in addition to
that of situated learning. She suggests that practicing entrepreneurs “co-
construct” the curriculum of the programmes they participate in and that
educators often take on more of a facilitative, rather than instructional, role.
Drawing on Hodgson and Reynolds (2010) she notes characterises this type of
learning as “relational”, so that a key task of her “enablers” of education is to
create a positive learning environment (pp.263-4).
Although Smith’s (2011) discussion of the education of practicing entrepreneurs
is not restricted to social entrepreneurs, several of her ideas appear to be relevant
to both categories. Perhaps most important are her ideas on “learning spaces”
and identity. She notes the existence of four types of socially constructed learning
space: peer-to-peer, social, reflective and peripheral (p.226). Peer-to-peer ‘spaces’
are created through the dialogue of entrepreneurs with one another, on the basis
of a shared situation. Social spaces may be created in the unstructured times
around programme events – for example: in tea-breaks or on car journeys.
Reflective spaces represent the engaging by individuals in reflection, either alone
or in a group – while peripheral spaces involve the transfer of learning either into
non-venture related areas (such as home or family); or into the future, after the
programme. Smith also comments on the development of a learner ‘identity’ by
Theoretical Perspectives
65
participants, as entrepreneurs gradually move from seeing themselves as
“impostors” to viewing themselves as leaders and enterprise “delegates”.
2.2 A Theoretical Foundation for Learning
In the above sections the formation of the social entrepreneur has been discussed
in terms of the abilities required for the task and the ways in which educational
institutions have sought to develop these abilities in the individual. Clearly, a lot
has been written about both entrepreneurial ability and education for
entrepreneurship. It is therefore surprising that scholars suggest that we know
remarkably little about which educational approaches work (Kirby 2004).
Gorman et al. (1997) and Pittaway and Cope (2007) link this lack of progress to
the failure of scholars to ground their work in disciplines that have a strong
theoretical base – such as education, management learning and adult learning
theory. My brief review of the literature suggests that their critique is justified and
that many scholars prefer to describe an approach and its impact, without
discussing why the approach succeeds or fails from a theoretical perspective. For
example: Blenker and Christensen (2010) have written a useful article on the
various roles that practicing entrepreneurs can play in entrepreneurship courses.
They do not however, explain in theoretical terms why the inclusion of
entrepreneurs might be useful – even if they make brief reference to “situated”
and “action” learning. Honig (2004), and Neck and Greene (2011) on the other
hand, do refer to underlying theories of learning (Piaget and Schön). They are
however, more of an exception than a rule. It therefore appears that the field of
entrepreneurship education is not yet fulfilling its potential as a research field, in
that it presently does not borrow from theories of learning at sufficient depth, in
order to explain outcomes. This in turn makes it difficult for scholars to ‘return
the favour’ and contribute to the development of these theories.
Suggesting that much of the entrepreneurship education literature is weak in
terms of theory, does not mean that it is theory-less. Many scholars emphasize
the importance of experiential learning (Gibb 2002, Mwasalwiba 2010, Winkel
2013), suggesting that reflection is important (Neck & Greene 2011), or arguing
that an “action-based pedagogy” is needed (Carrier, 2007, p. 156). It is clear
therefore, that many scholars have developed what Rae (2004) refers to as
“practical theories”: informed insights into the underlying causes of what they
observe. Some researchers move beyond ‘practical’ theory and link their own
experience to scholars whose work underlines the importance of experience and
reflection (for example: Dewey, Kolb, Piaget and Schön)(Hytti & O’Gorman,
2004; Johannisson, 1993). However, with very few exceptions (for example:
Honig, 2004; Pepin, 2012) scholars make only superficial reference to the content
of these theories and do not take into account later developments or critiques.
By using theory in this manner, scholars give the impression that their studies
build on the ideas of others – but in reality they do not always allow these ideas
Jönköping International Business School
66
to challenge and develop their perspectives. In order to begin to rectify this
situation, I suggest that it is useful to discuss programmes of entrepreneurship
education (such as accelerators) from the perspective of the learner. Scholars of
learning portray the individual as a person who engages in learning throughout
their lifetime (Gagné, 1984). Education may therefore be reasonably framed as
an intervention into the ongoing learning of an individual, in an attempt to enhance
this learning – often in a particular area, with a particular end in mind. The
effectiveness of the educational process is consequently difficult to assess,
without reference to the learning of the individual.
In this study I adopt Mumford’s (1999) definition of learning as “an emergent,
sense-making process in which people develop the ability to act differently,
comprising knowing, doing and understanding why”. This characterisation
reflects the emphasis of other definitions employed by scholars of
entrepreneurial learning
34
, on the impact of learning on the individual’s capacity
for new patterns of action or thought – regardless of whether this ability is
translated into behaviour. However, in order to discuss the learning of
entrepreneurs from a more theoretical perspective, I suggest that it is important
to move beyond the definition of learning, to discuss the theoretical constructs
that undergird this field of study, namely adult learning. In particular, I suggest
that one of the developments of Kolb’s theory of experiential learning is
particularly useful, namely Peter Jarvis’ (2010) “existential” theory of learning.
Jarvis’ ideas are useful first of all because they take into account many
contemporary ideas about adult learning. Furthermore, Merriam and Caffarella
(1991, p. 259) note that his theory is “refreshingly comprehensive”, and that it
takes into account the ‘social’ and ‘situated’ nature of learning. As already noted
this emphasis is important, given that many scholars of entrepreneurship
education discuss didactical techniques that scholars of learning would
instinctively link to not only experiential, but also social theories of learning.
2.2.1 Dewey, Experiential Learning and Andragogy
Many scholars of entrepreneurial learning have noted that entrepreneurs tend to
learn by experimenting and from experience – including failure (Cope, 2011;
Jenkins, 2012; Minniti & Bygrave, 2001; Politis & Gabrielsson, 2005). Given
these emphases, many publications make reference to scholars whose work
emphasizes the role of experience in learning – and primarily to David Kolb
(1984; 1975). However, Kolb is only one of several scholars whose work has
contributed to contemporary ideas about experiential – and adult – learning.
Kolb’s ideas frequently draw upon the thinking of scholars such as John Dewey
and Malcolm Knowles – and Jarvis is in turn influenced by all three scholars.
34
For example: Cope and Watts’ (2000) citation of Huber’s (1991) definition.
Theoretical Perspectives
67
Consequently, it is important to briefly discuss the emergence of experiential
theories of learning – and their main traits.
John Dewey was an American philosopher and educator whose work discusses
how experience and learning relate to one another. His early work
35
was based
on his experience as an ‘engaged’ scholar in the Chicago “laboratory” school. His
later work
36
was written in the context of tensions between traditional models of
education and more “progressive” ideas. Dewey (1938, pp. 28, 35) argued that
learning is based upon the past experience of the individual, affecting not only
the identity of the learner, but also the way in which they make sense of new
experiences (his “experiential continuum”). Dewey suggested that learning
consists of individuals moving through a series of “situations”, by which he
referred to the interaction between the internal state of the individual and their
external environment. He emphasized that educators too often focus on the
learning environment, while paying little attention to the internal state of the
learner (their “powers and purpose”)(ibid., p.45). These ideas modify the role of
educators, so that their tasks include being aware of the ‘direction’ of experience
(the “long look ahead” ibid., p.87) – and the creation of an environment
conducive to positive experiences.
In addition to Dewey’s emphasis of the continuity of experience, he also
discussed issues of “non-learning”, which Jarvis (1987) develops in his own
writing. Dewey noted for example: the existence of “collateral” learning (the
‘accidental’ learning of enduring attitudes, habits and preferences) – and its
impact on future experiences of learning. He linked this type of learning to the
issue of meaning, in that he emphasized the importance of learning being
meaningful to the individual in the present, and not simply as preparation for the
future. This idea is echoed in the writings of other influential educators such as
Rogers (1969). Rogers argued that learning is affected by the degree to which
learners perceive subject matter to be relevant for their own purposes, an idea
reflected in Gibb’s (2002) suggestion that entrepreneurship education be based
on a “need to know” logic.
Despite the above contributions, the ideas that entrepreneurship educators most
consistently appear to draw upon are those of Dewey’s “method of science”. In
other words: his concept of progression and his view of learning as a social
process. Dewey’s philosophy of learning centres on experimentation and
reflection. He recommends that learners be encouraged to first of all take action,
before observing the consequences of their actions and reflecting on how they
might adapt their behaviour to create other outcomes. This logic is clearly
reflected in Neck and Greene’s (2011) recommendation that the
35
For example: Democracy and education (1916).
36
For example: Experience and education (1938).
Jönköping International Business School
68
entrepreneurship education process be based on “doing then knowing”. Dewey’s
ideas are also reflected in Blenker et al.’s (2011) advocacy of the “appreciative
inquiry” technique, which is based on an understanding of learning as a social
process. He suggests that individuals learn not only through experimentation, but
also through their interaction as members in a community. Once again, this idea
has implications for the role of the educator: positioning them as moderators of
group processes and even group members. To this role Dewey added that of the
‘designer of progressive experiences’, which I interpret to mean that one of the
educator’s roles is to lead the learner into developmental experiences (Dewey,
1938, p. 79). This infers that the enhancement of learning requires that the
educator be able to envision a ‘next step’ which the learner not only has the
capacity to attain – but which they are also motivated to attain, due to the
relevance of the new challenge to their own purposes. Aspects of this idea are
clearly seen in Blenker et al.’s (2011, p. 422) discussion of “progression” and
“building blocks” in entrepreneurship education.
The significance of Dewey’s contribution to theories of learning is witnessed to
by the fact that with the exception of Piaget, he is the only scholar writing before
the 1970s, to whom researchers in the field of entrepreneurship education
regularly refer to. In the 1970s however, an increasing interest was shown in
education for adults (Freire, 1972; Knowles, 1970; C. R. Rogers, 1969) – and in
experiential learning (Kolb & Fry, 1975). Dewey’s influence is easily traced in
Kolb’s work, with clear similarities between Dewey’s cyclical “method of
science” and Kolb and Fry’s “experiential learning cycle”. In contrast, Knowles
does not appear to mention Dewey at all in his early writing, acknowledging
instead his debt to Gagné and Maslow. Experience is however, a key factor in his
discussion – as is the task of establishing “a climate conducive to adult learning”
(Knowles, 1970, p. 54). Nonetheless, phrases such as “experience being defined
as the interaction between an individual and his environment” (ibid., p.51)
strongly suggest that Knowles draws extensively on Dewey, while failing to
acknowledge this dependency.
Knowles is rarely cited by entrepreneurship education scholars, but his ideas are
nevertheless influential, with scholars such as Béchard and Toulouse (1991)
employing his controversial term “andragogy” – and Neck and Greene (2011, p.
56) placing themselves “firmly” in the andragogy “camp”. “Andragogy” was the
term that Knowles coined for the ‘science’ of adult education. He suggested that
the study of adult education was founded on different factors than those upon
which the study of child education (i.e. pedagogy) is based. These factors include
the association of child education with a ‘transmittal of knowledge’ orientation
to teaching, the self-directed nature of adult learning, the accumulation of
experience as a resource for learning, a readiness to learn and the immediacy of
knowledge application (Knowles, 1970, pp. 37, 39). When Knowles published
his book on andragogy his use of the term was however, widely criticised. Several
Theoretical Perspectives
69
prominent scholars applauded his development of the field, but argued against
his suggestion that learning in children is distinct from that of adults (Day and
Baskett 1982; and Tennant 1986; cited in Jarvis, 2010, p. 129). Despite a recent
revival in the use of the term (for example: Forrest & Peterson, 2006), Jarvis
(ibid.) therefore concludes that Knowles’ work has gained popularity primarily
because of its ideological content (the self-directed adult) and its practicality.
Knowles is nevertheless an important, if unacknowledged background figure and
many scholars’ discussions revolve around concepts that he was instrumental in
developing. For example: Markowska (2011) identifies Bandura (1977) as a key
influence on research that emphasizes the role of goals in self-directed learning
– but it was Knowles who first discussed the role of learning contracts in 1970.
It is also worth noting that Knowles (ibid., p.273) was one of the first scholars to
discuss models of competency in relation to adult learning – a theme that has
now proliferated within the literature on entrepreneurship education.
Despite their apparent unfamiliarity with the ideas of Knowles, many scholars of
entrepreneurship education are clearly familiar with the work of David Kolb.
Kolb drew on the work of Kurt Lewin (1951) on personality, leadership and
teaching styles, and learning in small groups. Kolb developed a four-stage model
of experiential learning that is regularly referred to by scholars of
entrepreneurship education and learning (for example: Man, 2007; Politis, 2005).
His model consists of a cycle that moves between concrete experience,
observations and reflections, the formation of abstract concepts and
generalisations, and the testing of implications of concepts in new situations /
active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). Jarvis (2010) suggests that the model has
remained popular because of its relative simplicity, but argues that it does not do
justice to the complexity of learning. He also notes that many scholars ignore
Kolb and Fry’s (1975) suggestion that learning can begin anywhere on the cycle
– for example: with the formulation of abstract concepts, rather than with
concrete experience. By ignoring this possibility, the model may be used to
support arguments that suggest that experiential learning theories are primarily
about experimentation, or ‘doing then reflecting’. This does not reflect the
content of the theory.
In addition to his development of a model of experiential learning, Kolb is often
associated with learning styles: the idea that individuals have different preferences
as to how they learn. Kolb (1984) suggested that four learning styles (or types of
learner) exist
37
, that are each linked to particular stages of the experiential learning
cycle. Entrepreneurship scholars such as Johannisson (1993) appear to draw on
these concepts when they suggest that entrepreneurship is associated with action
learning (i.e. learning that begins with “active experimentation”). What is
problematic is that Kolb et al. (1986) subsequently associate each stage of the
37 The “diverger”, “assimilator”, “converger” and “accommodator”.
Jönköping International Business School
70
learning cycle with a particular type of managerial competence, associating for
example: affective competencies with the stage of concrete experience – and
behavioural competencies with the active experimentation mode. This would
imply that entrepreneurs who supposedly have a preference of experimentation,
would become proficient primarily in behavioural competencies such as decision-
making, but less good at relational aspects. Such an idea does not seem to be
supported by studies of entrepreneurial behaviour that emphasize the importance
of relational skills (Man, Lau, & Chan, 2002). Jarvis (2006a, p. 139) points out
that if the framework upon which learning styles are based is an over-
simplification, then there is a risk that the learning styles themselves are “even
more suspect”.
Recent studies of learning (or thinking) suggest that learning ‘style’ is far more
complicated than Kolb suggested. Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997) for example,
have conducted empirical research that suggests that “thinking” style may be a
more accurate term than “learning” style. They also underline the idea that styles
are situationally dependent, vary across the individual’s lifespan, and need to be
understood with reference to at least five factors (function, form, level, scope
and leaning). In the entrepreneurial learning literature, Diamanto Politis (2005)
suggests that entrepreneurs may transform similar experiences into different
kinds of knowledge, on the basis of their preferred ‘mode of transformation’.
Drawing on Sarasvathy’s (2001) theory of effectuation, she argues that some
entrepreneurs transform experience into knowledge in an exploitative manner
(emphasising reliability and predictive value), while others do so in a more
exploratory manner (emphasising control and variety). Politis bases much of her
theorising on the work of Kolb, but acknowledges that his work has been
critiqued for its failure to take into account the role of context in the learning
process. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that the value of Kolb’s ideas
to scholars of entrepreneurial learning; lies not so much in the accuracy of his
model, but rather in his directing attention to the role of experience and
experimenting in learning. What entrepreneurship scholars need to be aware of
however, is that the field of experiential learning has developed so much since
Kolb, that it is no longer sufficient to suggest that education should be based on
experiential methods. Weil and McGill (1989) point out that there are at least
four main families of experiential learning theories with distinct assumptions and
emphases – an idea reflected in the later work of Tara Fenwick (2001). In order
to be credible as scholars of education, researchers of entrepreneurship education
must therefore be more specific about the meaning and role of “experience” as
it relates to entrepreneurship. We also need to build on theories of learning that
take into account recent developments in the study of adult learning and
education. I suggest that the work of Peter Jarvis provides one such update.
Theoretical Perspectives
71
2.2.2 Jarvis: Developing Kolb and Others
As noted earlier, Peter Jarvis’ “existential” model of learning is acknowledged as
being one of the more comprehensive models (Merriam & Caffarella, 1991). This
is to a large extent a result of his attempt to integrate the work of others into his
own thinking. Although he surveys many of the main learning theorists in a
manner similar to Illeris (2003), what makes Jarvis’ work interesting is that he
also enlisted the help of practitioners of adult education. Motivated by his
dissatisfaction with the limited applicability to adult education, of learning
theories based on the behaviour of children or animals, Jarvis went ‘on tour’ in
the mid-1980s. He conducted nine workshops in the United Kingdom and the
United States, asking participants to analyse learning incidents in their own lives
and to discuss their subsequent conclusions about learning. He then introduced
Kolb’s model and asked participants to either comment on its relevance – or, if
they felt it was necessary – to reconstruct the model to better reflect their own
experience. Based on the ideas of these participants
38
, Jarvis created a model that
reflects more of the complexity of learning. Despite this process he is somewhat
critical of the model that he developed – suggesting for example: that it still does
not capture learning in sufficient complexity, and that he has underestimated the
role of emotions in learning (2006a, p. 12). Nevertheless, his model is a significant
improvement on the work of Kolb, as it takes into account among other factors:
the bodily sensations of experience and the influence of the social situation. I
therefore suggest that Jarvis’ model of adult learning is one of the more suitable
models upon which to base a discussion of social entrepreneurial learning.
Consequently, in the following sections I outline his model in more detail, paying
particular attention to the distinctive way in which he depicts the role of the
person, the social context, experience and the transformation of experience.
Where relevant, I integrate the ideas of scholars of entrepreneurial learning into
my discussion.
2.2.2.1 The Person
Central to Jarvis’ understanding of learning is his understanding of the ‘person’.
Jarvis uses this term in a particular manner to refer not simply to the individual
learner, but rather to emphasize the constitution of the individual as a “whole
person: body, mind, self – life history” (Jarvis, 2006m, p. 8). Jarvis adopts a
constructivist perspective on learning that emphasizes the idea that individuals’
understandings of themselves and their environments are shaped by their
interpretations of experience. In other words, meaning is a key idea in Jarvis’
thinking. Consequently, he suggests that what individuals perceive is not the
world, but rather their construction of it, their “life-world” (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 14).
This is an important idea for entrepreneurship studies, as some scholars (most
38
This phase of his study involved 200 practitioners.
Jönköping International Business School
72
notably Johannisson, 1992) argue that “the creation and communication of
meaning” are vital aspects of entrepreneurial capability. In other words: it is
entrepreneurs’ ability to envisage a different meaning with regards to existing
resources that is the bastion of their success.
Despite Jarvis’ (2006) emphasis on the meaning-making of the individual, he
rejects dualism (the sharp distinction between the body and the mind) and
underlines the idea that it is the ‘whole’ person that learns: “learners are whole
persons rather than a body or a mind; they are both material and mental” (ibid.,
p.13).
Jarvis suggests that individuals construct their selves on the basis of the meaning
that they attach to experience and that these meanings are stored in memory to
form “life history”. Importantly however, he suggests that many aspects of
experience are not reflected upon before being stored in the individual’s memory,
with this being a key difference between the learning of the child and the adult.
Children rely to a greater extent than adults on what Jarvis terms the
“preconscious”: in that the mind transforms sensations into memory without the
individual being aware of this process. Preconscious processes of memorisation
result in “incidental”, or “self-learning”: learning that constantly takes place
throughout the life of the individual, but which they are generally unaware of.
Jarvis associates this type of learning with tacit knowledge and suggests that
attributes such as self-confidence, self-esteem, identity and maturity are learned
in this way. With regards to entrepreneurial learning, Politis (2005) suggests that
three specific aspects of the individual’s life-history influence the ways in which
individuals transform new experiences into knowledge. She suggests that startup,
management and industry-specific experience are especially important – as they
often provide individuals with an understanding of problem-solving and a basis
upon which to recognise opportunity.
In addition to Jarvis’ discussion of the influence of life-history on learning, he
also suggests that individuals can engage in more conscious, ‘purposeful’
learning. This type of learning has to do with new knowledge, skills, attitudes,
beliefs, values and even emotions – and involves an “appreciation of the senses”
(Jarvis, 2006a, p. 25). He underlines nonetheless, that purposeful, or “intentional”
learning is always accompanied by incidental learning.
Jarvis’ concept of the person is important for an understanding of his discussion
of the learning process. This is because he believes that learning is associated
with the transformation of experience (more of this below). In a very real sense,
Jarvis’ perspective of the person centres on the idea that ‘you are your
experiences’, with the term “biography” representing the individuals collected
experience of meaning. His vision of learning is therefore one of an ongoing
process of “becoming”, in which an iterative learning process begins with “the
Theoretical Perspectives
73
whole person in the world” and ends with “the changed whole person in the
world”. This characteristic focus on the whole person is a trait that leads him to
describe his approach as an “existential” theory of learning. His use of the term
resonates with that of Neergard et al. (2012), who discuss the need for
entrepreneurship education to address issues of identity, emotions and “deep
beliefs”. It also reflects Rae’s (2005a) observation that a key aspect of
entrepreneurial learning involves the development of identity – and that this
development is not only a cognitive process, but also infused with emotion.
When Jarvis’ distinction between preconscious and purposeful learning is related
to the theme of entrepreneurial capabilities, its relevance becomes clear. Many of
the factors associated with entrepreneurial ability, such as Gibb’s (2002) “self-
confidence and self-belief”; appear to be learned at a preconscious level – while
other abilities may be learned using more intentional strategies. Both types of
ability are nevertheless learned through experience, which suggests that scholars
are correct in emphasising the role of experience in entrepreneurship education
and learning. Here Erikson’s (2003) discussion of the development of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy is useful. He draws on Bandura’s (1986) social-
cognitive theory to suggest that entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy is developed through
experiences of mastery, vicarious experience and social experience. Jarvis’
understanding of experience is however, not necessarily identical to that referred
to in publications on entrepreneurial learning. It is therefore discussed in more
detail below.
2.2.2.2 Experience
For Jarvis the concept of experience needs to be contrasted with its opposite,
namely the situation in which individuals experiences harmony with themselves
and their environment, and therefore take their “life-world” for granted. Here he
draws extensively on the ideas of Schutz and Luckmann (1973). He suggests that
the person constructs a relationship with four main elements in their world and
that much of the time these relationships are taken for granted and not reflected
upon, nor transformed in any manner. In the diagram below, he represents this
taken for granted nature by an unbroken arrow. Two-way arrows represent two-
way relationships (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 15).
Person to person: I Thou (you)
Person to phenomenon (thing/event) I > It
Person to a future phenomenon I > Envisaged Thou or It
Person to self I Me
As long as the person is in harmony with their taken-for-granted life-world, little
learning occurs. Jarvis suggests that learning is linked to a particular category of
Jönköping International Business School
74
experience, namely episodic experience. He uses this term to distinguish episodes
of awareness from the individual’s collected ‘biography’ of experience (Jarvis,
2006a, p. 73). When individuals are confronted with a novel experience their
sense of harmony with their life-world is interrupted and they must deal with this
in some way. Jarvis terms this experience of disharmony disjuncture and suggests
that it occurs “when our biographical repertoire is no longer sufficient to cope
automatically with our situation” (ibid., p.16). He represents this interruption of
harmony by placing a double slash between “I” and the factor to which “I”
relates. For example:
Person to phenomenon (thing/event) I //> It
When an individual encounters an experience of disjuncture, learning occurs
through their transformation of the experience. In other words: by the attachment of
meaning to sensation, so that the disjuncture is resolved. In order for this
meaning to become part of our biography, Jarvis suggests that it needs to be
practiced (or used) in some way. The more often the individual is able to use the
newly acquired meaning, the better they commit it to memory. This mechanism
provides a theoretical explanation for several of the recommendations of
experiential learning – for example: its emphasis on learning by doing and its
suggestion that knowledge must be seen to be relevant to the needs of the learner
(C. R. Rogers, 1969, p. 158). It is also coherent with scholars’ discussions of the
role of critical incidents in entrepreneurs’ learning (Jason Cope & Gerald Watts,
2000) – and the potential of failure to enhance entrepreneurial capabilities
(Deakins & Freel, 1998; Politis, 2005). Jarvis’ discussion of disjuncture is
however, particularly relevant to Hjorth’s (2011) emphasis of the role of
“provocation” in entrepreneurship education. Indeed it is possible to argue that
the main difference is one of perspective, with Jarvis emphasising the process of
learning and Hjorth focusing more on the instrument that initiates the process.
Theoretical Perspectives
75
Jarvis models the simplest form of the transformational process describes in the
preceding paragraphs in the following manner:
Figure 2-1: A basic model of learning from experience (adapted from
Jarvis 2006)
Jarvis makes several important comments about this process. First of all he
suggests that the disjuncture in box 2 is often associated with an individual’s
awareness of the fact that they are unable to carry out a task. If they are able to
learn to carry it out (for example: by creating knowledge and skills), they commit
this ability to memory, so that box 5 is associated with competence and tacit
knowledge. Both of these processes are however “emotion-full”. The initial
disjuncture may awaken feelings of inadequacy and frustration, while a successful
resolution may be associated with a feeling of self-confidence. What is important
(1) The person takes
the life-world for
granted
(5) The person takes
the life-world for
granted again
(2 Has sensation /
disjuncture
(3) Gives meaning to
sensation / resolves
disjuncture
(4) Practices the
resolution
Jönköping International Business School
76
in Jarvis’ theory however, is that as the individual progresses through life it is the
meaning attached to sensations that is memorised (and later recalled from
memory), and not the sensation itself. In other words: when a disjuncture occurs
it is transformed by the person into meaning. This meaning may take the form
of, for example: knowledge, skill, emotions, values, and attitudes. When
disjuncture occurs again in life, it is often in these meanings that we experience
disjuncture, as the self is now more aware of the meaning than of the original
sensation. This infers that the episodic experience is socially constructed by the
individual, so that several different individuals may experience the same situation,
yet interpret it in different ways. From the perspective of entrepreneurial
learning, the person’s tendency to attach meaning to sensations is at times
problematic. Deakins and Freel (1998, p. 147) for example, suggest that
entrepreneurs’ learning is “cumulative and path-dependent” – so that
entrepreneurs at times stubbornly stick to approaches that were once effective,
but no longer relevant. As one of the entrepreneurs interviewed by David Rae
(2005a, p. 329) commented: “we’ve worked out our own answers and we’re going
to stick to them.” The tendency of individuals to stick with what they know
(rather than explore new knowledge) is one of the factors that causes Hjorth
(2011, p. 54) to emphasize the role of “deterritorialisation” and “decoding” in
learning. By this he refers firstly to the “uprooting” of people from deeply
engrained “habits and conventions” – and secondly, to the “freeing of people
from investments in images and representations”.
Before I move on to the way in which Jarvis suggests experiences are transformed
into meaning, it is necessary to make a few more comments about the nature of
experience. Jarvis suggests that experience is either primary or secondary, and
that much of our learning takes place through secondary experience. Primary
experience is associated with our senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,
touching and feeling). Consequently, when we relate to our life-worlds (person
to person, person to phenomenon, person to future phenomenon, or person to
self) we are able to experience the first two directly, through sensation. However,
much of what we learn is mediated, or secondary – so that we are told about a
phenomenon by a friend, we read about it in a book, or observe someone else
carrying out an action. These experiences are also transformed and memorised,
but the transformation nevertheless occurs in the context of primary experience.
In other words, as we listen to a lecture (mediated experience) our senses still
make us aware of the body language of the speaker and our own emotions, as
well as those of others. These ideas provide a theoretical explanation for the
emphasis experiential scholars place on the learning environment – for example:
Roger’s (1969) discussion of “the initial mood or climate of the group” (p.164).
Moving on, Jarvis (ibid., p.84) suggests that the exercise of skill is always a
primary experience, so that the distinction between “theory and practice” can be
portrayed as reflecting the contrast between primary experience (to which all of
our bodily senses contribute) and secondary experience (in which fewer senses
Theoretical Perspectives
77
are involved). Jarvis suggests therefore that experiential learning is principally
oriented towards primary experience.
2.2.2.3 Transforming experience
Jarvis’ discussion of the manner in which episodic experience is transformed into
learning is illuminating, yet contradictory. The strength of his concept lies in his
suggestion that learning involves the “whole person”, so that experience is
transformed not only by reflection, but also by action and emotion. In practice
however, he devotes more space to the reflective, or cognitive element – as he
readily admits (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 88). Nevertheless, his portrayal of the different
ways in which experience may be transformed is useful and is depicted in figure
2.2. The figure depicts the various ways in which Jarvis suggests that disjuncture
is transformed into meaningful experience – and subsequently integrated into the
individual’s biography. Importantly the figure depicts a process of learning, rather
than non-learning (which Jarvis also discusses). Non-learning is briefly discussed
later in this section.
In his early work, Jarvis (1987) suggested that nine routes to learning can be
distinguished, three of which relate to what he terms “non-learning”. Although
he has developed his model further, it is worth noting that his basic premise
remains the same. That is: the idea that although experience is the cornerstone
of learning, the transformation of experience is not only achieved through
conscious reflection (cognition), but also by activity and emotions. In other
words: in theory an episodic experience might be transformed primarily by the
individual’s emotions, following the route 1A > 2 > 4 > 6 > 7 > 1B. The
transformation of an experience through action would be represented as 1A > 2
> 5 > 6 > 7 > 1B and so on. In keeping with his concept of the “whole person”
however, Jarvis suggests that the transformation of experience rarely follows a
‘pure’ route (i.e. only emotion, only action or only reflection). Instead it may be
dominated by one aspect of learning (cognition, action or emotion), but will
typically include another factor. Often a measure of reflection will be included,
so that the transformation of an experience by an emotional process would be
depicted as 1A > 2 > 4 > 3 > 6 > 7 > 1B. Jarvis suggests that this aspect of the
learning process is especially important, as it can distinguish between the “rote”
learning of a skill through action – and a learning process where both the ‘how,’
and the ‘why’ or ‘when’ of the skill is learned. This ‘compound’ effect on learning
is similar to the ‘complementarity’ effect discussed by Erikson (2003), where
‘mastery’, ‘vicarious’ and ‘social’ experiences combine to enhance entrepreneurial
self-efficacy.
Jönköping International Business School
78
Figure 2-2: The transformation of experience (from Jarvis 1987, 2006)
The process of transforming experience through reflection is perhaps the most
common perspective on experiential learning, with several variations apparent in,
for example: the work of Freire (1972, 1998), Boud and Walker (1991), Mezirow
(1997, 2000), Brookfield (1988) and Schön (1983). Jarvis notes the centrality of
individuals’ questioning of experience to learning and suggests that presumption
(the taking of things for granted) is a barrier to learning. He also suggests that it
is common to adopt a pragmatic approach to learning, whereby patterns of
meaning that repeatedly ‘work’ for the individual are added to their biographies.
Mezirow (1991) notes this in his work on transformative learning and suggests
that if an individual is to continue learning, they often need to move beyond
Dewey’s reflection on the content of experience – to critically assess both their
meaning-making processes and the assumptions their interpretations rest upon.
Jarvis is more philosophical in his discussion of knowledge, noting for example:
Theoretical Perspectives
79
that it can be difficult to distinguish between knowledge and beliefs – even if
beliefs are arguably more influenced by the individual’s social environment. He
does however suggest that the dynamic process of ‘knowing’ is made up of the
constructed knowledge of the individual, as well as their beliefs, values and
attitudes. He argues however, that when experience is transformed through
reflection it is the process of thought that is in focus, rather than the structure of
knowledge.
In Jarvis’ writing, thought is conceived of as being oriented either backwards in
time, or towards the future. He suggests that discussions of the role of reflection
in experiential learning tend to focus on the past. This is clearly often the case,
as witnessed to by the writing of scholars such as Mezirow (1997), Taylor and
Cranton (2013), and Argyris and Schön (1974; 1996). Indeed, the work of Weick
(1979) seems to imply that sensemaking’s orientation to the past could be an
instinctive human orientation. Importantly though for entrepreneurship scholars,
Jarvis suggests that intentionality is an important, future-oriented factor in the
transformation of experience. He refers to the ideas of Boud, Keogh and Walker
(1985) who point out that reflection can be directed at many different goals and
that intentions “influence both the manner of reflection and its outcome” (p.24).
Boud et al. (ibid.) note that Habermas (1974) recognised the importance of
purpose in the learning process, terming it “critical intent” – and they point out
that the work of Mezirow builds on Habermas’ framework. Jarvis suggests that
reflection that is oriented towards the future tends to focus on one of two things:
either what we anticipate/plan to happen or what we would like/desire to happen
(Jarvis, 2006a, p. 100). He also notes the existence of day-dreaming, an
occurrence that he relates to the person’s unconscious desire to avoid a repeat of
“bad” experiences in the past. The existence of day-dreaming seems to suggest
the existence of a subconscious form of future-oriented transformation of
experience, a possibility that Jarvis relates to the “incubation” phase of creativity
(i.e. the recognition that the mind continues to develop ideas on its own, even
when the individual’s attention is apparently directed elsewhere).
When the general concept of intentionality is related to the specific context of
entrepreneurial learning, Politis (2005) suggests that the ideas of Brousseau et al.
(1996) on career orientation are useful. These scholars suggest that several
different types of career orientation exist: with individuals pursuing not only
traditional ‘hierarchical’ progression (upwards in an organisation, seeking more
power) – but also progression based on expertise and diversity. Politis suggests
that individuals oriented towards power and expertise often adopt an
‘exploitative’ strategy towards learning (more analytical), while those who
develop ‘spiral’ or ‘transitory’ career patterns tend to adopt more ‘exploratory’
strategies. A difficulty with the concepts of Brousseau et al (ibid.) is however,
that all four of their orientations are oriented ‘inward’ to the individual. In the
context of social entrepreneurship, where success is often defined in terms of the
Jönköping International Business School
80
well-being of others, it remains to be seen whether these concepts are adequate
– or whether it is necessary to discuss a fifth type of career orientation.
To conclude this overview of how experience is transformed into knowledge
through reflection, it is worth noting the existence of various types of thinking –
and the significance of styles of thinking. Jarvis (2006, p.101) discusses several
thinking types and positions several of these in tension with one another
(memorising and interpreting, creative and critical, problem-solving and
decision-making, directed and undirected, deductive and inductive reasoning).
Although he does not go into detail about how these types operate in
transforming experience, the value of his discussion lies in his arguing that many
scholars who discuss the transformation of experience through reflection only do
so by means of the critical, questioning approach that is characteristic of the
Socratic method and of scholars such as Freire (1998) and Mezirow (1997).
David Rae (2005) observes that the transformation of experience is not only
associated with cognitive dissonance, but also emotional dissonance. This reflects
not only Jarvis’ discussion, but also recent thinking in, for example:
transformational learning – with Taylor (2007) noting scholars’ increasingly
awareness of the need to account for the role of emotions in learning. Jarvis is
however, sceptical of Goleman’s (1995) work on emotional intelligence,
suggesting that he oversimplifies the role of emotions and is excessively
biological in his approach, ignoring the role of the mind. Instead he relies
primarily on the work of Cell (1984), who argues that emotions must be more
than simply bodily sensations, as there are many more types of emotion than
sensations. Jarvis (2006, p.109) therefore suggests that emotions can be
understood as being composed of three components: “a judgement, a feeling and
an action tendency”. He argues that emotions tend to be self-oriented, so that
experience is often interpreted in the light of its impact on the self (for example:
our physical self or our self-worth) – so that it is transformed by an emotional,
rather than cognitive response. Jarvis terms the work of emotions in maintaining
a “significant self” their “functional” role, but suggests that emotions can also
transform experience in a dysfunctional manner – for example: by interpreting
the abilities of others in an envious manner, so that self-esteem is lost. Finally he
suggests that emotions also transform experience in a “profound” manner, in
situations where we experience something that is beyond our understanding (for
example: mystery or beauty). Jarvis suggests that experiences such as these are
often defined as religious experiences and that they can stimulate actions such as
contemplation or worship. He emphasizes however the difficulty of defining the
transformation of experience as purely emotional, or purely cognitive – noting that
a profound experience usually involves all three aspects. In other words: the
cognitive judgement that an experience is beyond the rational capacity of the
individual, the resultant feeling of awe – and the subsequent action of
contemplation. He underlines however, that emotional learning is stored in our
Theoretical Perspectives
81
memory of meanings (our “biography”), in the same way as cognitive learning.
We draw upon this memory when we encounter new experiences and it affects
the way in which we make sense of future, similar events.
The final way in which Jarvis suggests that experience may be transformed is
through action. Indeed, as Jarvis (2006a, p. 111) associates himself with the
experiential learning paradigm, he at times uses the phrase “I act, therefore I am”.
He acknowledges that accidents can happen, suggesting that action is possible
without thought. Nonetheless, he limits his discussion to action that is intentional
– or conscious. Developing Merton’s (1968) ideas, Jarvis (1992) suggests that
conscious action may take ten forms and that these forms may in turn be
categorised as non-action, action and reaction. He also suggests that the level of
an individual’s consciousness varies as they act (high to none) and that action is
generally linked to one of three cognitive orientations. These are the future
(planning) the present (monitoring) and the past (reflection). Entrepreneurship
scholars often suggest that this form of learning is preferred by entrepreneurs,
with Johannisson (1992) even going so far to suggest that entrepreneurship is
action learning. As will be seen however, my own research suggests that this is
not always the case and that entrepreneurs transform experience into knowledge
not only through action, but also through reflection and emotions.
Remembering that the transformation of experience by action is initiated by a
disjuncture therefore, Jarvis suggests that a failure to transform experience may
result from three factors. Anomic non-action is the result of an experience that
creates a gulf between individuals’ biographies and the situation that they cannot
bridge. Preventive non-action involves a power/authority in the situation
preventing the individual from taking action – and non-response is the
unexplained failure of the individual to take action when a disjuncture is
encountered.
When individuals do take action in response to a disjuncture, Jarvis suggests that
their actions may be characterised as either experimental/creative, repetitive,
presumptive, ritualistic or alienating. For each of these forms of action, Jarvis
suggests that the determining factor with regards to learning is the accompanying
level of consciousness. Experimental/creative action is inherently high in
consciousness – while presumption involves little or no consciousness, because
the individual assumes that an experience is identical to those in their biography
and is unaware of any disjuncture. Jarvis suggests that variation in learning will
often occur where the available ‘range’ of consciousness is high. He argues that
this is particularly so with regards to action that is repetitive or ritualistic.
Repetitive action is carried out to restore harmony
39
in the face of disjuncture,
but Jarvis argues that if it is done in a conscious manner it can instead transform
39 In Jarvis’ model, harmony is associated with a lack of learning and development.
Jönköping International Business School
82
experience. For example: an apprentice who has carried out a task and failed to
complete it satisfactorily might repeat the task the next day. Whether or not they
learn from their failure will however be partly determined by the manner of their
repetition (unthinking or highly conscious repetition). Here the relevance of the
“future-present-past” aspect also becomes relevant, as the apprentice’s level of
consciousness can vary on all three dimensions as he or she repeats the task:
“What did I do wrong yesterday? How am I performing the task at the moment?
What must I do next?”
A similar process to the above can occur in ritual, when actions are performed
on the basis of tradition rather than in response to disjuncture. Jarvis suggests
that although the action is not initiated by disjuncture, disjuncture may occur in
the course of action – if the ritual is carried out in a thoughtful manner. Honig
(2004) suggests that the creation of business plans is a “ritual” action – and
clearly, the process of creating a business plan can be carried out in a manner that
either enhances learning, or that simply involves ‘checking the boxes’. However,
when individuals do not engage at all with a task and just go through the motions
(i.e. with very low levels of consciousness), Jarvis suggests that no disjuncture
takes place and that alienation will occur. When this takes place, individuals carry
out actions in a manner that is not future-oriented and do not actively monitor
their actions. In a situation of alienation (where “our awareness of the world is
high, but we may not be able to change it”), Jarvis (2004, p. 110) suggests that
incidental learning about the self may occur. This learning is often accompanied
by strong emotions and the meaning attached to the experience may have a
profound impact on the individual’s motivation to take action at a later date. This
type of learning mirrors the initial intensely emotional experiences of failure
described by the entrepreneurs whose learning is discussed by scholars such as
Cope (2011) and Jenkins (2012).
A characteristic of Jarvis’ writing is his frequent and at times controversial
discussion of the ‘dark’ side of learning (Le Cornu, 2005). He discusses for
example, the phenomenon of “non-learning” (discussed later on) and in his
discussion of the transformation of experience through action, he discusses not
only “non-action”, but also “reaction”. Reaction involves either ‘retreating’ or
‘rebellion’ – where “retreat” may or may not involve disjuncture, but nevertheless
involves the individual removing themselves from the situation. For example: a
manager may be aware of the learning opportunities associated with their
participation in a project, but due to the pressure of time or other commitments
they might decline an invitation to participate. In Cope’s (2011) discussion of
entrepreneurs’ learning in/through failure he notes that some individuals
engaged in sports activities for a while, to ‘get away’ from their experiences. They
did however return to these experiences at a later stage, suggesting that ‘retreat’
may at times be a means of postponing learning, rather than avoiding it.
Theoretical Perspectives
83
Jarvis defines “rebellion” as the individual’s action to change the situation rather
than themselves. An entrepreneur faced with a change in customer preferences
could for example, decide to focus on a new set of customers rather than adapt
their product or service to the change.
Jarvis (1987) originally suggested that non-learning can take place as a result of
either presumption (the assumption that a new situation is identical to one
experienced previously), non-consideration (for some reason the individual does not
focus attention on the situation and therefore does not learn from it) – or rejection
(for some reason the individual rejects the opportunity to learn from a situation).
In his later work however (2006, 2010), he comments on his increasing awareness
of the role of incidental learning (i.e. subconscious learning). He therefore points
out that the term “non-learning” is not entirely accurate and that the person may
learn from experiences that they do not consciously direct their attention to. In
his early writing he also acknowledges that previous meanings may be reinforced
through the act of presumption, a process that is arguably also associated with
learning.
2.2.2.4 The social context
The final part of Jarvis’ theory of learning that is important to discuss, is his
treatment of the role played by the “social”. Jarvis understands learning as a
science that is inherently inter-disciplinary, so that he adds perspectives from
sociology to arguments that are grounded in psychology or philosophy. He
suggests that learning always takes place in specific contexts and that the majority
of these contexts involve relationships with other people. He therefore argues
that when scholars write about “formal” or “informal” learning, they are not so
much talking about a specific type of learning, but of different learning situations
(Jarvis, 2006a, p. 54). He suggests that learning typically takes place in either
individual, informal, non-formal or formal environments – and in these contexts
it is characterised by either proactive or reactive behaviour on the part of the
learner (Jarvis, 1987). He defines informal social environments as contexts in
which the individual interacts with friends, acquaintances, etc. in a manner that
is not formally structured. Non-formal environments are defined as organised
educational activity that is provided outside of the formal system, for example:
agricultural extension. Examples of formal social environments are school or
university settings, such as classrooms. At this point it is interesting to reflect on
Jarvis’ discussion of how individuals construct their life-world by experiencing
not only themselves and others, but also ‘things’ and’ events’
40
. Actor-network
theorists such as Latour (2005) and proponents of activity theory (for example:
Engeström, 2000) discuss how individuals interact with non-human artefacts in
far more detail than many of the more ‘main-stream’ scholars of adult education.
40
See paragraph at the beginning of section 2.2.2.
Jönköping International Business School
84
Jarvis for example, acknowledges the possibility of his ‘whole person’ interacting
with ‘things’, but does not go into detail with regards to how this interaction takes
place – even if he does discuss the role of physical ‘space’ to a limited degree. In
the context of entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education this is a
lamentable omission, given the important role played by non-human artefacts
such as business plans.
Jarvis (1987) suggests that the distinction between contexts of formal and non-
formal learning lies primarily in the lesser degree of bureaucracy found in non-
formal environments, even if non-formal settings are clearly still organised. In
contrast, the difference between non-formal and informal environments lies in
the general lack of pre-specified procedures or interaction in informal contexts.
Jarvis suggests that individuals move between proactive and reactive learning
behaviour in these environments, where proactiveness is associated with the
learner taking the initiative in creating an opportunity for learning – as opposed
to reacting to the initiative of somebody else. An individual could for example,
display pro-active behaviour in signing up for a course, but while attending the
course adopt a more reactive role. Jarvis suggests that individuals’ motivation to
learn may be affected by the extent to which they participated in the creation of
the situation. In other words: whether they have acted as "agents” seeking to
expand their pool of meaningful experience – or in response to “oppressive
social structures”, so that they are instead attempting to recreate harmony in their
life-worlds (ibid., p.66). These factors (type of learning environment and
proactivity vs. reactivity) are important for our understanding of entrepreneurial
learning, as aspects of proactive and reactive learning behaviour may be
associated with different types of learning environment. As noted earlier, much
of the entrepreneurship education literature focuses on formal learning
environments, where traditions of learning can create an expectation that
learning will be reactive in character. As this study will show however, much of
the learning that takes place in accelerators takes place in a non-formal
environment. Naturally, in all three learning environments it is possible to
identify aspects of the other two. A non-formal environment can contain formal
structures – and in both formal and non-formal environments, periods of
informality occur.
Although learning is affected by the individual’s attitude towards education and
by the characteristics of the learning environment, Jarvis suggests that the impact
of social context on learning is also related to aspects of culture, time and space.
Drawing on Berger and Luckmann (1967) he notes that learning in early life is
associated with “primary” socialisation, by which he refers to the imparting of
culture (“all the knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs, values and emotions that we,
as human beings, have added to our biological base”) to the child by significant
others (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 55). He also suggests that learning styles are to a certain
extent culturally-based, as seen in the contrast between Chinese and Western
Theoretical Perspectives
85
learning styles – where both cultures include questioning as a route to learning,
but at different stages. Furthermore he underlines the foundational role of
language in learning and the idea that much of our self-identity and understanding
of our ‘location’ in society, is developed through socialisation. This implies that
“entrepreneurship” is a cultural concept that is learned by means of language in
a particular cultural environment. This idea is illustrated by Helene Ahl (2002) in
her discussion of gender in entrepreneurial discourses.
As the person grows older they are increasingly affected by what Jarvis (again
drawing on Berger and Luckmann, 1967), refers to as “secondary” socialisation.
This type of interaction includes among other things, the learning of behaviour
and roles that are associated with sub-groups in society. For example: in
particular professions. Jarvis notes the importance of role-oriented behaviour
and the existence of rituals in society that facilitate the move between roles – for
both the individual and the people with whom they interact (for example: a
college graduation ceremony). He underlines the idea that secondary socialisation
involves a process of learning and goes so far as to suggest that Lave and
Wenger’s (1991) concept of situated learning is “basically a description and
analysis of secondary socialisation as a learning process” (Jarvis, 2006a, p. 61).
Jarvis therefore underlines the importance of understanding the culture that
individuals have grown up in and the cultures in which they operate, if we are to
understand their learning. He does however argue that individuals are not only
receivers of socialisation who engage in stability-enhancing “maintenance”
learning, but also actors who are able to change the way they act within culture –
and ultimately the culture itself. Drawing on Botkin, Elmandjra and Malitza
(1979) he terms this type of learning “innovative learning”. He also draws on
Putnam (2000) in suggesting that culture is not only a source of restrictive
socialisation, but also an abundant source of resources that can contribute to the
individual’s learning.
Jarvis suggests that in addition to culture, ‘space’ is part of the social context that
influences learning. He distinguishes between physical and social space,
suggesting that modern technology has increasingly reduced the impact that
physical space has on learning. This idea is linked to the role of our senses in
facilitating learning through secondary experience. Jarvis suggests that the
increased capacity of media to convey information to more than just one of our
senses (typically our hearing), has an impact on the number of opportunities we
have for learning. He illustrates this idea by contrasting the use of radio to convey
news of human suffering (the listener receives information through a single sense
based on the meaning made by the journalist) – to that of television, where both
seeing and hearing are involved – often accompanied by multiple interpretations
of meaning. As Jarvis points out, the development of technology implies not only
a change in the amount of material available as secondary experience, but also a
change in the way in which this experience is transformed – with emotions
Jönköping International Business School
86
potentially playing a greater role. He does not however discuss the issue of
information ‘overload’ and its impact on learning.
Jarvis’ discussion of space is brief and although he identifies the issue of social
space (our culturally determined position in society or organisations), he does not
discuss it at length. He does note however, that the ‘liquid’ nature of modern
society means that individuals have less time to presume upon their life-worlds
and to take roles and situations for granted. In a positive spirit he associates this
with “more opportunities to learn” (ibid., p.65), but does not appear to reflect
on the implications of his “proactive/reactive” framework. It is however possible
that the pace of change in the modern world increasingly puts individuals on the
‘back foot’, in a reactive mode of learning. This trend might be expected to have
an impact on the way in which we transform our constant experiences of
disjuncture.
The third main factor in Jarvis’ discussion of the social context of learning is time.
Jarvis suggests that time structures our experiences in the same way as space and
emphasizes the idea that learning always takes place in the present – even if he
points out that we can learn from the past with the future in mind! Drawing on
Kierkegaard (1959) and Simpson (1995), he suggests that individuals experience
time as it relates to the ‘self’ in two ways. Either as something through which
they must move in order to achieve a goal (relating to Kierkegaard’s “external”
history), or as a “constitutive” feature of their being (Kierkegaard’s “internal”
history). Jarvis proposes that in the modern world, time is frequently dealt with
in an “instrumental” manner – as something that must be overcome, rather than
come to terms with. Simpson (ibid.) suggests that when individuals come to
terms with time, rather than seeking to overcome it they begin to create “praxis”.
This concept is linked to professional practice and Jarvis associates it with the
reflective repetition of actions which transforms “knowledge into wisdom” and
“skill into expertise” (Jarvis 2006, p.68). In somewhat convoluted philosophical
terms therefore, Jarvis argues that despite the attempts of modern educators to
overcome time by making knowledge explicit, there is no real substitute for
practice – which he associates with [first-hand] experience, trial and error, and the
gradual absorption of “working rules of thumb, or heuristics” (ibid.).
2.2.3 Critiques
Despite the strengths of Jarvis’ model of experiential (or ‘existential’) learning, it
is not without its weaknesses. With the exception of scholars such as Paulo Freire
(1972, 1998) and Moacir Gadotti (1996), many educational thinkers draw
primarily on North American and European ideas – and Jarvis is no exception.
In order to develop the work of Kolb and others, Jarvis toured the United
Kingdom and the United States – yet apparently did not seek input from non-
Western audiences. His ideas may therefore be subject to some of the critique
Theoretical Perspectives
87
levelled at other theories that adopt a more ‘social’ perspective on learning (such
as situated learning and communities of practice). These theories have been
critiqued for failing to take into account the issue of power in learning (Barton &
Tusting, 2005) – and despite Jarvis’ discussion of non-learning, this appears to
be an apt criticism of his work. In the context of accelerators that recruit social
entrepreneurs from developing countries, some acknowledgement of the impact
of privilege and poverty on learning would have been appropriate. As Gadotti
(ibid., p.5) wryly comments: “the school has become an institution in conflict like
any other”. The accuracy of his observation is illustrated by my discussion of
some of the processes of learning in accelerators, in section 4.3.7: ‘Similar
structures, dissimilar interaction’.
Alison Le Cornu (2005) suggests that Jarvis’ work is weak with regards to its
treatment of time, its portrayal of the process of internalisation and the concept
of non-learning. She suggests that Jarvis oversimplifies learning by depicting it as
a ‘single strand’, sequential process. She argues that in reality, learning does not
occur sequentially (in that a single occurrence of disjuncture is experienced and
resolved before moving on to new experiences). Instead she suggests that
individuals often experience several disjunctures at once and are constantly
engaged in resolving these, at different levels of engagement. Le Cornu (ibid.)
suggests therefore, that learning is ‘multi-stranded’ in character and I concur with
her argument.
Peter Erdélyi (2010) does not discuss the work of adult learning theorists in
depth, but his critique of the entrepreneurial learning literature is also applicable
to the ideas of scholars such as Jarvis. Erdélyi (ibid., p.11) suggests that scholars
of entrepreneurial learning have tended to adopt “anthropocentric ontologies”;
emphasising primarily the ‘cognitive’ aspects of learning. His discussion makes it
clear that he also identifies a clear ‘social’ theme in the literature. Nonetheless, he
laments the absence of a ‘material’ perspective on learning and suggests that
scholars include this viewpoint in future work. I believe that Erdélyi’s critique is
justified and that insufficient attention has been devoted to the role of material
objects in learning – not only in the literature on adult learning, but also in
entrepreneurial learning scholarship.
Jarvis suggests that his theory of learning is ‘existential’ in that it has to do with
the whole person (implying at least mind, body and emotions) – and not just
singular aspects of the individual, such as the mind. In practice however, he often
seems to give more emphasis to the role of reflection in learning. Jarvis does
note that he only became aware of the significant impact of emotions on learning
at a later stage in his career – and this may explain his failure to include these new
insights into his writing. However, this weakness could also be a result of what
Le Cornu (ibid.) terms his ‘weak’ portrayal of how learning is internalised. I tend
to agree with Le Cornu, as Jarvis appears to have difficulty in showing exactly
Jönköping International Business School
88
how an experience of disjuncture is transformed into new knowledge, through
(for example) emotions. Hjorth (2011) provides a more satisfactory account, by
discussing the role of affect in creating an existential ‘space’ in which new ideas
can develop.
Despite the relevance of some of Le Cornu’s comments, I disagree with the
overall inference of her reasoning, which makes reflection the ‘king’ of the
transformational process
41
and appears to equate ‘consciousness’ with
‘reflection’. In doing so Le Cornu essentially neutralises Jarvis’ suggestion that
transformation tends to take place primarily through either reflection, practice or
emotions. My impression is that although the process of internalisation to some
extent remains a ‘black box’, Jarvis is nevertheless correct in suggesting that
reflection is but one of three ways in which the individual transforms experience
into knowledge (or a ‘changed whole person’).
Jarvis discusses non-learning at length, but Le Cornu (ibid.) argues convincingly
that regardless of the significance of the learning experience, some kind of
learning is always taking place – even if experience only serves to reinforce
lessons already learned. Once again I tend to agree with her argument and
although she does not suggest a term for the type of [non-] learning described by
Jarvis, it is possible that a term such as ‘insignificant’ learning might be
appropriate.
2.3 Bringing it All Together
In my introductory chapter I stated that the purpose of this study is to ‘explore
the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerator programmes’. In this chapter I
have discussed entrepreneurial learning in terms of the ‘how’ of educational
practice, philosophy and pedagogy – but also in terms of its ‘why’. In other
words, by moving beyond educational practice to examine the underlying
processes that influence its outcomes (i.e.: learning). By including theories of
adult learning (such as that of Jarvis) in the study of social entrepreneurs’ learning
in accelerators, it becomes clear that any study of the learning process in
accelerators cannot rely solely on the entrepreneurship education literature.
Instead, such a study needs to admit the possibility that it is the interaction of a
programme of education with the learning behaviour of the entrepreneur that
leads to their development. This implies that the study of entrepreneurial learning
in accelerators will be incomplete, if researchers only focus on either the structure
of accelerator education or the developmental experiences of participating
entrepreneurs. A more complete picture will result if the two are studied in
relationship to one another. This suggestion is in keeping with the ideas of
41
Le Cornu (2005) attributes “great significance” to the role played by reflection in transforming
experience (p.10).
Theoretical Perspectives
89
Strauss (1993), who underlines the importance of focusing on interaction when
studying the development of individuals and phenomena.
Building largely on Jarvis (2010), I suggest that entrepreneurship education
develops the capabilities
42
of entrepreneurs not only by creating relevant
experiences of disjuncture, but also by helping entrepreneurs resolve disjuncture.
In theoretical terms therefore, one aim of accelerators is to create and resolve a
greater number of disjunctures among participating entrepreneurs, than would
normally be experienced in the same period of time, outside of the programme.
Naturally, it is to be expected that most of these disjunctures will relate to the
new venture in some way. Furthermore, as noted previously, it is also conceivable
that accelerators may develop entrepreneurs by creating a different type or depth
of disjuncture than they ordinarily experience. Accelerator success may therefore
be linked to both the quantity and quality of the ‘creative disjuncture’ that is
facilitated.
Scholars of entrepreneurship education suggest several methods for creating
and resolving disjuncture, many of which involve practical – as opposed to purely
cognitive – tools. As noted in my introduction, a particular feature of accelerators
is the involvement in the educational process of a group of peers: the accelerator
cohort. A second feature is the short period of time in which education is
delivered, a characteristic that contrasts with entrepreneurship education in both
university and incubator settings. Consequently, in any study of entrepreneurial
learning within accelerators, it is important to pay particular attention to the
impact of these factors.
When the content of the literature discussed in this chapter is brought together
in the context of an accelerator programme, the following synthesis of the
process of entrepreneurial learning is derived (see figure 2.3). This figure depicts
the interaction of education in a non-formal environment, with the intentions
and behaviour of the individual entrepreneur. Consequently, although the
diagram may give the impression that the entrepreneur is the primary focus of
the synthesis, it is important to emphasize that the accelerator process develops
by means of the interaction of the accelerator as an entity in itself (of which the
entrepreneur is an integral part), with the participating entrepreneurs. Drawing
on Dewey (1938), and Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985); the figure first of all
takes into account the influence of the individual on the learning process. In
other words the ‘internal’ factors that Dewey refers to as “purpose”, but which I
refer to using the latter scholars’ term “intent”. At the same time, the accelerator
42
The concept of capabilities is congruent with my earlier definition of learning as the development of
”the ability to act differently”.
Jönköping International Business School
90
programme is designed in a manner that seeks to both create and resolve relevant
disjuncture in the experience of the entrepreneur.
At this point it is worth noting that the educational process in accelerators
depends not so much on a philosophy of didactics (effective teaching), but rather
of dialectics (Gadotti, 1996; Hjorth, 2013). Entrepreneurs are encouraged by
both accelerator staff and their peers, to test their ideas and to develop effective
solutions to the challenges of their startups. At the same time, entrepreneurs are
constantly providing feedback (conscious or otherwise) to accelerator staff about
the relevance and effectiveness of both the programme content and the
accelerator process.
Intent
Learning-oriented
DESIGN
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE &
CAPABILITIES
Long-term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Creating
disjuncture
Transforming
disjuncture
Acting-
Feeli ng-
Thinking
Intent
The ENTREPRENEUR
Immersion in
Learning Process
Figure 2-3: A Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators.
Theoretical Perspectives
91
In view of the purpose of this study (see section 1.8) and taking into account
additional insights gathered from the literature review in this chapter, several
more specific questions are asked in relation to the process of entrepreneurial
learning in accelerators. These were briefly mentioned in chapter one, but are
outlined in more detail below.
2.3.1 Research Questions
In this chapter I have discussed the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of social entrepreneurial
learning. Previously I have stated that my general purpose is to explore the learning
of social entrepreneurs in accelerator programmes. But what does this mean in practice?
As I explore the process of entrepreneurial learning, what am I especially
interested in? Having discussed several of the theoretical fields that have a
bearing on entrepreneurs’ learning, I suggest that the four research questions
introduced in chapter one now make a little more sense. Before moving on to
discuss my methodology and the results of my study, I therefore revisit them,
briefly demonstrating how they are each a product of this chapter’s theoretical
discussion.
An important first question has to do with the impact of social entrepreneurs’
experiences, orientations and intentions prior to the accelerator programme.
Scholars such as Dewey (1938) and Politis (2005) argue that individuals’
experiences before interacting with educational activities play a critical role in
their learning. If we are to understand the developmental process in accelerators
(one of the ‘gaps’ identified by Hallen et al., 2013), we must acknowledge the
possibility that entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators may be influenced by
experiences that accelerators have little control over. For this reason the first
question that I ask in this study is:
1. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators influenced by
their experiences and intentions prior to entering the programme?
A second question responds to the critique of David Erdélyi (2010), that
contemporary EL scholarship does not take seriously the influence of non-
human objects on learning (i.e.: “the material”). This is a concern that is also
evident in Engeström's (2000) activity theory – which discusses the role of
“instruments” in learning (Sannino, Daniels, & Gutiérrez, 2009). It is also
apparent in Wenger’s (1998) discussion of social/situated learning, in which he
discusses the important roles played by “boundary objects”. In accelerators
entrepreneurs’ learning can be expected to be influenced by non-human aspects
that include not only objects such as curriculum design, but also physical objects
such as business plans, physical ‘space’ – and even time.
Jönköping International Business School
92
One particular aspect of the ‘material’ that I discussed in my introduction is the
idea of a ‘non-formal’ learning environment. I have suggested that this type of
learning environment makes it easier for practicing entrepreneurs to develop
what Politis (2005, p. 400) terms “entrepreneurial knowledge”. I also argue that
accelerators are an example of such a learning environment, as they display
several of the characteristics of non-formal learning contexts (including less
standardisation and the possibility of learners influencing programme goals). It
is important to emphasize however, that although an educational programme
may be more attractive to entrepreneurs and easier for them to participate in, this
does not necessarily mean that it is effective. As Hallen et al. (2013) point out, some
accelerators are effective while others are not. Their suggestion that differences
in quality exist, but that these differences are “unclear and critical” (ibid., p.33)
suggests that it is necessary to explore accelerator processes in more detail. This
infers that it is important to create a ‘richer’ understanding of the entrepreneurs’
learning in accelerators, so that the interplay of the different factors may be more
easily perceived. As Gibb (1983) has pointed out, one of the distinguishing traits
of entrepreneurship education for practicing entrepreneurs is that it adapts to the
needs and circumstances of the individual to a far greater extent than traditional
(formal) education. Nonetheless, I have argued that relatively little is known
about the processes and outcomes of the non-formal approach to education that
Gibb and other scholars envisage.
Taking into account the possibility that material, ‘non-human’ factors (including
a non-formal learning environment) may have an impact on learning, a second
question addressed in this study is:
2. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by the non-human
‘objects’ (primarily educational design) that are associated with entrepreneurship
education in accelerators?
In my introduction I noted that a distinct characteristic of accelerators is their
education of entrepreneurs in ‘cohorts’. In my ‘weaknesses, gaps and
opportunities’ section (1.7.6) I described the inconsistency in the literature, in
distinguishing between the different types of support roles found in accelerators
(most notably between medium-term mentors and visiting coaches). Although
the ‘people’ side of accelerators is in a sense an integral part of programme design,
I suggest that for the purpose of analysis it is valuable to distinguish the ‘people’
side of accelerators from the ‘material’ side. Cohen’s (2013a) doctoral research
provides initial evidence that different actors influence the creation of knowledge
through accelerators, in different ways. As noted previously however, her study
relies on ex post accounts of the accelerator process. It is possible that a study that
gathers data during the accelerator process – and in a different context, will
provide further insight about how different accelerator roles (for example:
managers, mentors, coaches and peers) contribute to learning. If this is the case,
Theoretical Perspectives
93
then it is likely that an awareness of these different contributions would assist
accelerator managers in designing effective programmes. Similarly, given the
distinctive emphasis of accelerators on educating entrepreneurs as cohorts, it is
important to learn more about the ways in which entrepreneurs interact with one
another in the educational process. For this reason a third research question asks:
3. In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by their interaction
with the different human actors within accelerators (managers, mentors, coaches and
peers)?
A final research question has to do with accelerator outcomes – and is perhaps the
one which both policy-makers and participants in accelerator programmes are
most anxious to pose. Scholars have identified important outcomes for
accelerators that focus on accelerating for-profit ventures; but as Lall et al. (2013)
point out, our knowledge about the outcomes of programmes for ‘social’
enterprises is far more limited. If key stakeholders (such as policy-makers) wish
to enhance the growth and effectiveness of social enterprises, then it is important
to learn more about the learning generated by programmes that profess to
accelerate their development. Similarly, social entrepreneurs who are considering
applying to an accelerator need to know what they can expect to learn from
participating. In other words, questions of investment beg answers that hint at
expected results, regardless of whether the investment is made in monetary
resources or in time.
My fourth research question is therefore addressed to the ‘outcomes’ part of my
study:
4. In which ways does the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators affect their
development and that of their enterprises?
In the next chapter I describe the way in which I gathered information about
entrepreneurs’ learning in an accelerator programme. Among other things, I
describe how an accelerator was selected for study and the methods used to
collect and analyse information about entrepreneurs’ experiences.
95
3 Journeying into Method
[Duncan] “…if you feel worried or irritated about something; please write this
down in the space below.”
[Alice] “Frustration about not getting hands on the project. Working on this...”
In order to discuss the phenomenon of social entrepreneurial learning in
accelerators I employed an interpretative, case-study methodology that involved
the study of three accelerator programmes. The development of my method is
discussed in this chapter, which is structured in the following manner. It begins
with a ‘soft’ description of how the methods used to collect data were developed
and refined in the first accelerator (sections 3.1 to 3.4). In these sections I also
describe how I came to study the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators,
and I discuss the practical and ethical challenges of conducting ‘engaged’
research. In section 3.5 I discuss my methodology by framing it as a case-study
that is informed by ethnographic and narrative methods. Finally, in sections 3.6
and 3.7 (as well as part of 3.4) I describe the research process in the second and
third accelerators. In these sections I present the ‘hard facts’ of my data collection
for all three accelerators; including numbers of interviews conducted and their
timing – as well as the ‘nitty-gritty’ detail of interview procedures and data
analysis.
3.1 The Beginning of the End – or the End of
the Beginning
43
?
The sentences at the beginning of this chapter are taken from a comment by a
participant in the first accelerator that I studied. The ironic phrase “working on
this” refers to a questionnaire the entrepreneur was asked to fill in during week
two of the eight week programme. Her response was just one of several signs of
a growing reluctance among the entrepreneurs to participate in the research and
evaluation process. This reluctance rapidly developed into an outright refusal on
the part of several participants to take part in the type of evaluation activities that
had been designed. At the very beginning of my study I was forced to abandon
my research method and go back to the drawing board. But how did I become
involved in the accelerator in the first place? And what happened next? This
chapter describes the process by which I gathered data about accelerators. It aims
to provide the reader with not only an understanding of the methodology used
in this study, but also its development as I interacted with practitioners.
43
Status Quo, from the album In Search of the Fourth Chord.
Jönköping International Business School
96
Consequently, the alert reader will note that the chapter provides not only
information about methodology, but also some insight into aspects of the
accelerator process. In particular, the difficulties associated with conducting a
process study of accelerators reflect the intense, often stressful character of the
programmes.
In order to understand how I came to study an accelerator programme for social
entrepreneurs it is necessary to understand a little more about the background to
this study and indeed, about my own background. I have lived and worked in
developing countries for a large part of my life: growing up in Colombia in Latin
America – and spending seven years working as an adult in Mozambique,
southern Africa. I have spent much of my working life in what is often termed
the ‘third’ sector, or civil society. In Mozambique for example, I was engaged in
leadership training and community development. During these years I became
increasingly interested in the roles businesses play in alleviating the challenges of
poverty and underdevelopment. Later when I was given the opportunity to
engage in doctoral studies, it was natural for me to focus on firms that seek to
create synergies between the creation of economic, social and environmental
value. In the first years of my doctoral studies I therefore became engaged in the
evaluation of a project run by Coompanion, a Swedish organisation that supports
the development of social enterprises and cooperatives. The project helped me
develop my skills in participatory research, but did not really address the type of
social enterprise I was most interested in, namely ventures operating in
developing countries.
As I worked with Coompanion and began to read more of the literature on social
and sustainability entrepreneurship, I became particularly interested in the
initiatives that the Swedish and British governments were sponsoring in the fields
of ‘inclusive’ business and ‘business for development’. In particular, two
programmes seemed to be focusing on the types of venture that I was interested
in, namely the Swedish Innovations against poverty (IAP) programme and the British
Business Innovation Facility (BIF) initiative. I contacted the managers of both
programmes to discuss the possibility of conducting a study of the ventures that
were applying for their funding – and eventually came into contact with a third
organisation: the Network for Social Entrepreneurship
44
(NSE). This Scandinavian
45
organisation had just received notice that its application to the Swedish
44
Network for Social Entrepreneurship is a pseudonym and in the remainder of this study is abbreviated
as NSE.
45
In this dissertation I endeavour to maintain the anonymity of the accelerator and its participants, by
referring to the location of the programme as ’Scandinavia’ – as opposed to providing a specific country
name such as Denmark, Sweden or Norway. Fortunately, there are several development programmes
for social entrepreneurs in all three countries and residents of all three countries move readily between
them, often in connection with start-up or business activities.
Journeying into Method
97
International Development Agency (Sida) for project funding had been approved
and it was therefore recruiting participants to its first social business accelerator.
Due to the fact that I had previously conducted evaluations for projects
sponsored by the European Union and spurred by having recently been asked
the “what’s in it for me?” question by a dubious social entrepreneur, I asked NSE
if they had enlisted an evaluator to their programme. They had not and voiced
an interest in my suggestion that I conduct such an evaluation, in exchange for
being given access to the participating entrepreneurs. Following this initial
expression of mutual interest by email, I travelled to their office to discuss my
proposal in more detail with the accelerator manager, ‘Denise’. The outcome of
the meeting confirmed our initial positive impressions and it was agreed that I
should accompany the upcoming accelerator as an external researcher/evaluator.
My initial contact with NSE was made in March 8, 2012 and the first accelerator
began on April 10. After over a year of chasing social entrepreneurial ‘fish’, I
suddenly faced the prospect of being suddenly thrown into a pond of them - with
only three weeks in which to prepare.
3.2 Entrepreneurial Methods for
Entrepreneurship Research
In the above paragraphs I have described very briefly what was in fact a
prolonged ‘fish-chasing’ process, characterised by frustration and numerous
dead-ends. Halfway through my doctoral studies I had a clear picture of what I
wished to study (the process of becoming a social entrepreneur with a concern
for developing countries). I was also fairly sure that the apparent scarcity of this
type of venture and my focus on process implied a specific how of conducting my
study (namely an exploratory, qualitative method). However, I was making little
progress towards finding the who (i.e. nascent social entrepreneurs). Indeed, the
only social entrepreneur I managed to interview declined to participate in any
further research. Perhaps prompted by her mentor (who accompanied her to the
interview), she pointed out that as a very busy individual engaged in starting up
a new venture, she simply did not wish to prioritise an activity that did not
provide a clear ‘payback’ to her startup. As I was to discover later on, the
challenge of entrepreneurial ‘busyness’ was to become a recurring theme in my
study.
Naomi Zigmond (2000) suggests that research is similar to detective work. My
own experience is that it is perhaps more similar to the activity of the
entrepreneur, particularly if Johannisson’s (1992) emphasis of entrepreneurship
as organising and meaning-making is taken to heart. As I have written up my
research I have reflected on the appropriateness of having to adopt an
entrepreneurial method in order to be able to study the very phenomenon of
Jönköping International Business School
98
entrepreneurship. Briefly then, the entrepreneurial patterns that I have identified
in my method include the following:
3.2.1 Timeliness and Relevance
The thinly-veiled “what’s in it for me?” reply of the busy entrepreneur who I
failed to convince to participate in my study has returned to my thoughts time
and time again in my study. My initial reaction to the entrepreneur’s question was
to suggest that my research would perhaps be found useful in the long term.
However, as I have engaged with the activities of the accelerators I have been
forced to question this idea. I have had to consider the possibility that the
difficulty of developing studies that are both relevant and timely may have more
to do with traditions of research, than with practitioner expectations. I have come
to agree with Argyris and Schön (1974) who suggest that it is critical that
researchers not only produce theory, but also theory that is timely and that can be
closely linked to managerial action. The very short time frame of ‘my’ business
accelerators (eight weeks) made this an exceptionally difficult task, but challenged
me to develop techniques that began to address this challenge.
3.2.2 Alertness to Opportunity
Having spent several years cultivating a familiarity with the Scandinavian social
entrepreneurship networks, I was – to borrow Kirzner’s (1973) term – ‘alert’ to
the possibility of conducting a study of nascent social entrepreneurship with the
participants in these networks. This alertness enabled me to contact organisations
and individuals – such as NSE – who possessed the ‘resources’ necessary for my
researching venture. However, it was not enough to simply recognise the
opportunity associated with the NSE accelerator, the opportunity needed to be
exploited – and meaning conveyed to accelerator managers, in order for me to
be granted access to the participating entrepreneurs. Without being able to
‘market’ the value of my research to accelerator managers I would have been
unable to “recycle” the resources of the accelerator (the social entrepreneurs)
into a “new pattern” (Johannisson, 1992, p. 1).
Before coming into contact with NSE’s accelerator programme I had expected
to be able to create a tidy, well-structured study of nascent social entrepreneurs.
In the end however, the diversity of ways in which these entrepreneurs interacted
with my research initiatives forced me to take into account the fact that I was
manifestly unable to rigidly control a research process that was based on
interaction. Indeed, the only behaviour which I was able to predict and control
with some certainty was my own. I realised that if I was going to be able to see
my study through, I would have to adopt what entrepreneurship scholars term
an ‘effectual’ approach to opportunities for data collection (Read & Sarasvathy,
2005). This did not mean abandoning all attempts at structure and planning, but
Journeying into Method
99
rather recognising their limitations and being prepared to take advantage of other
opportunities that were not apparent at the beginning of my study. As Saras
Sarasvathy (2001) puts it, I was forced to become good at exploiting
contingencies. As my study progressed I came to realise that the flexibility that I
was forced to adopt with regards to data collection was not so much a limitation,
but an advantage. Some of the advantages of the ‘entrepreneurial’ method that
developed during my study are discussed below.
Without delving into the academic debate about whether opportunities are
discovered or created, I believe that much of my study’s empirical ‘richness’ has
developed from a disciplined alertness to opportunity, rather than any privileged
foresight into the processes associated with accelerator programmes. This is
particularly so given the significant differences in the type of secondary material
46
that I managed to access during the three accelerators. For example: in the first
accelerator the management team recorded short interviews of the entrepreneurs
and posted them on YouTube. These interviews provided additional information
about the feelings and activities of the participants at different stages of the
accelerator. However, these interviews were not carried out in the second
accelerator. Instead an interested journalist conducted written interviews of a
slightly different character for a social entrepreneurship website. A significant
proportion of my data is therefore not only a product of a well-planned
programme of data collection, but also the result of opportunities for insight or
information that were available, but which needed ‘harvesting’. This reflects
David Fetterman’s (2009) comment that the data gathering process requires that
researchers develop a ‘sensitivity’ to both tone and timing – if they are to gain
access to information they were not originally aware of.
3.2.3 Building on Partnership
A third characteristic of my research is its dependence on a dynamic partnership
with the managers of NSE – and indeed with the entrepreneurs themselves.
Although I would characterise my method more as ‘engaged’, rather than ‘action’
research; my study has nevertheless been characterised by dialogue, transparency
and candour. By being willing to engage with the ambitions of NSE and by
sharing managers’ desire to create a better accelerator, my impression is that they
in turn have become willing to help me create a better academic study. Senior
researchers often have the privilege of working in teams and can reap the benefits
of several extra pairs of eyes and ears – and at least one additional interpretation
of events. In business schools however, doctoral students are traditionally
expected to ‘go it alone’ and risk having to rely entirely on their own efforts for
data collection and analysis, and on artificial forms of reflexivity. By partnering
46
I.e.: data that I did not generate through my own efforts. For example: through interviews,
questionnaires, observation or focus groups.
Jönköping International Business School
100
with accelerator managers I believe that I have managed to overcome some of
the disadvantages of ‘single’ scholarship. At times data has been collected by both
accelerator managers and myself (for example during focus groups), and we have
pooled our data at a later date. At other times I have shared my impressions with
the same managers, only to be confronted with a different interpretation – or
with data that seemed to contradict my ideas. In the following paragraphs, the
‘nitty-gritty’ of these partnerships is described.
3.3 The Best-laid Schemes o' Mice an' Men
47
3.3.1 Hitting the Road Running
Financing for the first Booster accelerator (A1
48
) was provided by Sida at relatively
short notice. ‘Short’ that is, when the substantial amount of effort necessary to
recruit not only mentors and speakers, but also entrepreneurs is taken into
consideration. It was also necessary to plan the research and evaluation process
in this period. As the start-up date for the accelerator approached, what we
believed to be a workable model emerged. NSE staff would be responsible for
daily ‘check-ins’ with the participants (brief updates in a group context on the
issues upmost in each entrepreneur’s mind). They would also conduct a more
informal Wednesday evening focus group each week, to dig a little deeper into
the week’s developments. I would conduct baseline interviews with each
entrepreneur and then monitor their progress by means of a short online survey
each Friday afternoon. I would also participate in the accelerator’s activities two
to three days each week as an observer.
Due to the late confirmation of financing, NSE staff were still planning the
accelerator as the activities of the first week commenced. Consequently, as I
noted in a subsequent report, both management and evaluator ‘hit the road
running’. Unsurprisingly, accelerator staff were primarily concerned with the core
activities of the programme (workshops, mentoring, meetings with investors,
etc.) – and with ‘matching’ the Sida financing with investment from other
sources. As a result, in the first accelerator scheduled research and evaluation
activities were unwittingly nudged out of the schedule. For this reason much of
my data collection in the first accelerator was characterised by compromise and
a contingency-oriented strategy of data collection. An example of this is the
baseline interview that I had hoped to conduct with each entrepreneur in the first
47
Taken from the poem "To a Mouse, on turning her up in her nest with the plough", by the Scots poet
Robert Burns (written in 1785). By comparing the destruction of a mouse’s nest by a plough to the
unravelling of human plans by circumstances, the poem emphasizes the fragility of human planning.
48
Booster was the name given to the accelerator programme run by NSE. In the remainder of this
dissertation the first Booster accelerator is referred to as A1, the second as A2, etc.
Journeying into Method
101
few days of the accelerator. Due to the tight schedule I only managed to interview
two entrepreneurs in the first week, by meeting them in a break and over lunch,
while they participated in a CSR fair at a nearby business school. The remaining
five entrepreneurs were interviewed at different times – both face-to-face and by
telephone – over the course of the next two weeks, with the final ‘baseline’
interview taking place on the Friday of week three. This ‘messiness’ was however,
limited to the first accelerator and in the following two accelerators sufficient
time for interviews was scheduled – and for the most part, managers and
entrepreneurs stuck to the agreed timetable.
In a previous section I noted that ‘entrepreneurial busyness’ was a theme – and
above all a challenge – that was to characterise much of my data collection. In
new ventures the startup process is associated with an intense and prolonged
period of hard work for the entrepreneurs involved. Consequently, many
entrepreneurs are reluctant to dedicate time to discussing their experiences with
researchers, or to filling in questionnaires. It rapidly emerged that the A1
49
entrepreneurs were no exception and indeed, many of them appeared to be even
busier than the entrepreneurs I had met outside the accelerator. I associate this
intensity with participants’ awareness of the unique opportunity the accelerator
provided them with, to engage in developing their businesses. Many of them
seemed determined to make the most of their time in the accelerator and
appeared intent on maximising their use of each hour and every day. This at times
involved avoiding ‘unnecessary distractions’ such as ‘pesky’ researchers.
3.3.2 Ethical Issues and the Dynamics of Interactive Research
The busyness of accelerator participants affected the research process in several
ways. At a practical level the contexts that were often associated with ‘contingent’
interviewing sometimes resulted in recordings of poor quality. One baseline
interview conducted in a café over lunch was so interspersed with the noise of
cutlery and the conversations of other guests, as to be largely unusable. However,
other apparently hopeless contexts functioned surprising well, as was the case
with Barry’s 48-minute interview: conducted over his mobile phone as he
travelled across the city by underground and car. By interacting with the Booster
entrepreneurs in this way, I rapidly gained a sense of the intense character of the
accelerator and became more aware of the activities around which I was
scheduling my own activities. Consequently, I was given a first-hand taste of the
‘hustle and bustle’ that the social entrepreneurs experienced as they progressed
through the accelerator. I suspect that much of this would have been lost, had I
49
In this study for the sake of brevity, the accelerators that entrepreneurs participated in are referred to
using the abbreviations ’A1’, ’A2’ and ’A3’.
Jönköping International Business School
102
adopted a case-study approach characterised less by ethnography and more by
the ‘clinical’ interviewing of participants outside of the accelerator context.
Despite the advantages of conducting interviews ‘in’ the accelerator
environment, I was at times concerned about the ethical issues associated with
my study. I felt the need to provide the entrepreneurs with more detailed
information about the research and evaluation process, and about issues such as
confidentiality. However, these issues were only really perceived to be important
by me – and my attempts to engage in a dialogue about them tended to be met
with either managerial compromise (“can you say something about the process
in five minutes at tomorrow’s check-in?”) – or entrepreneurial incomprehension
(“can’t we work it out as we go along?”). In hindsight it is also apparent that my
regular attempts to start a conversation about confidentiality may have created
an impression that confidentiality was in fact necessary (rather than an alternative
to be considered). Possibly as a result of this, all but one of the entrepreneurs in
the first accelerator asked to be identified by pseudonyms in my dissertation. In
contrast, my presentation of the issue of confidentiality in the second accelerator
resulted in all of the entrepreneurs asking to be known by their real names. When
I subsequently shared this information with two of the participants from the first
accelerator (Henrik and Barry), they readily agreed to the use of their real names.
After discussion with my supervisors however, it was subsequently decided to
anonymise both the accelerator and the entrepreneurs.
As the quote at the beginning of this chapter illustrates, the process of developing
a workable model for combining evaluation and research was both difficult and
frustrating. I was particularly concerned about the ethical aspects of my research,
particularly about the question of “informed consent” (Oliver, 2003).
Nevertheless, this was not the only ethical issue at stake. I also faced the question
of whether it would be ethical to ignore the wishes of the entrepreneurs and
somehow force them into reading (or listening to) the information about ethics
that I had prepared, at the time I considered appropriate and in the format of my
preference. In the end I decided to respect the wishes of the entrepreneurs and
to engage them in an ongoing dialogue about confidentiality over the course of
the accelerator. This decision reflects an approach to the resolving of ethical
questions pioneered by Steinmann and Löhr, which Preuss (1999) refers to as
“discourse” ethics.
My decision to discuss the ethical questions associated with my research over the
period of the accelerator, rather than in a single session at the start of the
accelerator was one that was appreciated by the entrepreneurs. As Catrin (A1)
commented in a focus group in week eight:
“I’d still stick to my comment that I’d find it easier just to have it as a frank
group discussion, ’cos we are a small team. […] I appreciate that you’ve
listened to that feedback and we were able to do it in this format.”
Journeying into Method
103
At the end of the first accelerator it was clear that not only had we reached a
compromise about the format for discussing issues of confidentiality, but also that
the entrepreneurs understood the issues at stake and were able to give me clear
information about their wishes. In a discussion about confidentiality in the final
week of the accelerator several of the entrepreneurs asked that I use pseudonyms
for their names in my reports and dissertation, with only two asking to be known
by their real names. Several entrepreneurs who requested anonymity appeared to
base their wish on a desire for simplicity (avoiding administrative tasks such as
signing contracts and responding to emails). The entrepreneurs also made it clear
that they were willing to have their interviews used for evaluation or research,
but not for marketing purposes.
Although one of the main challenges of conducting research in the accelerators
involved resolving issues of confidentiality, another challenge had to do with the
consequences of my research on the entrepreneurs themselves. Although only
Andrew (A1) and Gabriella (A1) gave voice to entrepreneurs the impact of some
of my interviews, it was apparent that asking questions is not an activity without
ethical implications. As I asked social entrepreneurs about their backgrounds
(and in particular about individuals who had influenced their development), I at
times set in motion a sense-making process they had not previously experienced.
Although I was asking questions in order for me to make sense of their
backgrounds, by doing so I was highlighting pieces of the social entrepreneurs’
lives that they continued to reflect upon. In several cases they later commented
on the value they attached to the questions I asked, as it stimulated and facilitated
their own processes of making sense of their lives. However, from an ethical
standpoint it is clear that the reflective process that resulted from my interviews
was uninvited, even if it was difficult to foresee.
3.3.3 Death by Evaluation
As the first accelerator progressed and the entrepreneurs began to engage more
intensively with their business plans, visiting speakers and mentors; it became
increasingly clear that the design of both the accelerator and the evaluation
process was not entirely compatible with the activities of the entrepreneurs. This
friction appeared to stem from two main sources. On the one hand, several of
the accelerator staff came from professional contexts in which dialogue and
reflection were an important tool in either initiating social change (Denise:
Fairtrade), or in enhancing group dynamics (Frida: professional process
facilitator). Their ‘soft’ expectations with regards to the role of team-building
sessions contrasted with the ‘hard-nosed’ attitudes of several of the participants.
These individuals had backgrounds in design and were impatient to get on with
their startup activities. The contrast between the ‘touchy-feely’ orientation of the
accelerator facilitators and the ‘doer’ orientation of the entrepreneurs is
illustrated by Alice’s matter of fact comment during a focus group run by the
Jönköping International Business School
104
process leader Frida. Her clipped response to Frida’s colourful encouragement
to reflect on the activities of the past week was:
“I don’t reflect”.
To be fair to Alice, the comment does not reflect the depth of her professional
experience, but rather a pattern of behaviour or a style of learning. She developed
her comment in the ‘halfway’ questionnaire in week four:
“Reflection is not a big fan of mine. I generally reflect after the work is
completed. This is very new and somewhat uncomfortable for my way of
working.”
Further explanation was provided by her colleague Edward who pointed out
that for a qualified designer, reflection is a natural component of professional
conduct. To be asked to reflect in what he perceived to be a superficial manner
suggested to him that the managers of the accelerator (and perhaps me) were not
treating him with sufficient respect.
Although there was clearly an occasional clash of professional cultures during the
first weeks of A1, a second reason for a mismatch between accelerator activities
and the evaluation of the accelerator had to do with intensity and timing. In the
first few weeks of the accelerator the entrepreneurs were quite simply being asked
too many questions too often, when they had relatively little material to reflect
upon. As the accelerator progressed they also came under increasing pressure to
perform. For example: by making progress on their business plans and by
practicing their ‘pitches’ (short verbal presentations of their business ideas). As
they began to feel tired and stressed, they were confronted with additional
demands by the accelerator facilitators and me – to fill in questionnaires and
participate in feedback sessions. Unsurprisingly a reaction was not long in
coming…
3.3.4 From Crisis to Consensus
I began this section with a quote from the Scots poet Robbie Burns, in which he
compares the destruction of a mouse’s meadow home by a plough, to the
frequent failure of human plans to turn out as expected
50
. As the first accelerator
got up to speed in weeks two and three, it became increasingly clear that the plans
conceived for the evaluation of the accelerator had also gone “agley” and needed
to be changed. Several things prompted this conclusion. For one thing, the
entrepreneurs began to engage less enthusiastically with the check-in sessions
50
In the poem the strophe “The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men” is followed by the words: ”Gang aft
agley” – which means ”go often awry”.
Journeying into Method
105
each morning and some chose to be absent from these sessions altogether,
arriving instead just in time for the first speaker session of the day. The ‘Friday
feedback’ questionnaires that I had posted online each week were also
increasingly ignored, or only filled in with extremely short and uninformative
answers. Furthermore, in ten days we planned to conduct halfway interviews and
yet, as the end of week three neared, I had still not managed to schedule baseline
interviews with two of the entrepreneurs. It was obvious that our programme
evaluation needed radical revision. Consequently, after a convoluted
combination of face-to-face and telephone conversations, a new approach was
negotiated with the entrepreneurs and subsequently launched.
The new strategy for evaluating the accelerator was designed to take into account
the pressure the entrepreneurs were experiencing. In a frank discussion with the
accelerator participants a compromise was proposed, whereby the facilitators
promised to drastically reduce the number of evaluation activities, with the
expectation of more active participation in the few remaining events. What this
implied in practical terms was that the planned halfway interviews were replaced
by an online questionnaire, the ‘Friday feedback’ questionnaire was scrapped and
the number of ‘check-ins’ was reduced from five each week to only two. This
suggestion appeared to satisfy everyone and the mood of the group – which had
begun to sour somewhat – appeared to return to its previous level of enthusiasm
and collegial support.
3.3.5 On Emotions and Evaluation
Following the revision of the research and evaluation strategy, the remainder of
the first accelerator passed relatively uneventfully and the entrepreneurs and
accelerator facilitators participated in an engaged manner in both the halfway
questionnaire (sent out at the beginning of week five), and the evaluation day in
week eight. We then built upon our experience of conducting evaluation and
research in an accelerator context, as the next accelerator was planned and
subsequently launched. Before introducing that process however, it is important
to comment on the impact of mood and emotion on the research process.
As has already been noted, the busyness of the entrepreneurs had a major impact
on their willingness to participate in the evaluation process. What also became
clear with the benefit of hindsight, is that this busyness – which produced feelings
of stress among the entrepreneurs – also affected their perceptions of the
accelerator. As the accelerator progressed many of the entrepreneurs experienced
pressure to achieve goals that they had set for themselves, or which they felt were
expected of them (for example: business plans, a sales strategy, etc.) This stress
seems to have been particularly high in weeks seven and eight (as indicated by
the ‘stress diagrams’ that the A2 and A3 entrepreneurs were asked to draw as part
Jönköping International Business School
106
of the final evaluation
51
). When the entrepreneurs were asked questions about
the accelerator in week eight, the majority of their responses contrasted markedly
with their responses in week four – negatively. They also tended to be harsher in
tone and more unbalanced than the week four responses (i.e. critical comments
were not complemented by positive reflections). In both accelerators the two
main facilitators (Denise and Karen) were unprepared for what both I and they
perceived to be a sudden switch in entrepreneurs’ perceptions, and were
bewildered and saddened by the sudden rush of critique.
My interpretation of the substantial dip in entrepreneurs’ perceptions of the
accelerator is that their feedback was to a certain extent coloured by emotion in
the final week of the accelerator. Studies of management behaviour in other
contexts suggests that individuals’ behaviour is far from rational, and that
emotions and performance have a significant impact on one another (Brundin &
Nordqvist, 2008). In Brundin and Nordqvist’s study, CEOs were observed to
use anger to regain a feeling of control and power on their boards, and it is
possible that such a process occurred towards the end of the accelerators. In
other words: the pressure to perform and a feeling of not having performed as
well as they had hoped, may have been counteracted by some entrepreneurs by
an expression of anger – as communicated through the focus group in A1 and
the final interviews in A2. In a sense therefore, the severe critique expressed
towards the end of both accelerators may be coping behaviour prompted by
stress (see for example the ideas of Anderson, 1977). This discussion is however,
outside the realm of this dissertation. What is worth noting however, is the
problematic nature of the impact of emotions on entrepreneurs’ perceptions of
the accelerator. If I had chosen to conduct a questionnaire-based study of the
outcomes of accelerator programmes that only addressed participants in the final
stages of the accelerator, I would clearly have risked gathering misleading data.
By employing a qualitative study that took a more holistic, process-oriented
perspective I reduced this risk substantially – even if I still faced the challenge of
assessing which of the reported perceptions most closely reflected the long-term
impact of the programme.
3.4 Research & Evaluation 2.0
An exciting characteristic of Sida’s support to NSE was its provision for a series
of accelerator programmes and consequently, for an ongoing process of learning
and improvement. I discuss the development of the Booster accelerator in other
chapters, as this chapter focuses primarily on method. Nevertheless, as NSE
concluded the first accelerator and began to plan for a second, two factors are
worth mentioning. The first has to do with my role as a carrier of organisational
51
See appendices.
Journeying into Method
107
knowledge, while the second has to do with the idea of a methodological
‘evolution’ over the course of the two (and subsequently three) accelerators.
3.4.1 Bridges for Knowledge
NSE is a small not-for-profit organisation that to a large extent relies on the
voluntary activities of its members for much its operations. Founded in 2004 it
tends to employ staff for its programmes as money becomes available, primarily
through project funding. When NSE received news that its project application
(which included an accelerator programme) had been approved, the board
moved quickly to employ someone to run the programme. They hand-picked
Denise, an ambitious woman with a background in Fairtrade – who also
happened to be one of the individuals identified by a leading Scandinavian
business newspaper, as one of the region's “super talents”. Denise agreed to run
the first accelerator, but underlined her intention to leave immediately afterwards
in order to travel to the United States and participate in the election campaign
for Barack Obama.
One implication of this recruitment was that a significant amount of the
organisational learning from the first accelerator was located in three main
‘places’: Denise’s memory, the written reports from the first accelerator – and in
the memory of the accelerator’s evaluator (i.e. myself). Although the next
accelerator manager (Karen) naturally had some contact with Denise prior to the
second accelerator, she relied to a large extent on the documentation from the
first accelerator (a significant part of which was provided by myself) and on what
I could tell her about the lessons learned in A1. I therefore found myself taking
on the unexpected (and for a researcher somewhat unusual) role of a ‘knowledge
bridge’ between the first and second accelerator.
3.4.2 Evolving Method
One of the advantages of qualitative method is that it is not as dependent as
quantitative methodologies on the careful replication of previous studies. As
Guba and Lincoln (1982) point out, method in naturalistic inquiry
52
is often
emergent, with the design of the study developing continuously as data is collected
and analysed. The “rolling, cascading, unfolding” design process (ibid.) is a result
of two main factors in research, namely progressive focus and improvement. In
many qualitative studies, researchers begin their work in an exploratory manner
with relatively little theoretical pre-understanding about what is being observed.
As data is gathered and analysed, understanding increases and particular parts of
52
Naturalistic inquiry is an approach that shares many, although possibly not all of the main
characteristics of other qualitative research methodologies.
Jönköping International Business School
108
the data are subjected to more intense scrutiny and re-visited. This naturally infers
that new questions will be asked and that new sources of data may be
investigated. In qualitative research this is a natural and necessary part of the
study, as Jennifer Platt (1992) points out. She notes out that although the study
author often has “an initial intention”, “as the research is carried out, unexpected
findings and new ideas develop” (ibid., p41). Consequently, the subsequent
changes in questions asked as the study progresses do not present the same kind
of challenge to research validity as such a modification would infer in a
quantitative approach. It is also worth noting that the process described by Platt
also characterised my research, which gradually progressed from being a general
study of the development of social entrepreneurs, to being a more focused
exploration of social entrepreneurial learning in accelerators.
The progressive focusing associated with qualitative studies is by far the most
common reason given in the literature for researchers employing new techniques
as a study progresses. What is less commonly discussed is the change of research
design due to difficulties with the design itself. This is perhaps understandable,
due to the pressure on academics to portray their research as well thought
through in all areas. Nevertheless, my impression is that this pressure is likely to
result in either a certain falsification of method (mistakes are glossed over in
order to create a better impression), or in ‘mundane’ research (research into
phenomena that we are familiar with). It is naturally easier to design functional
research strategies for contexts that we are familiar with, than it is to move into
unfamiliar territory. Many scholars however, would argue that it is in fact the
unfamiliar that is likely to result in what Alvesson and Sandberg (2013) term
“interesting” research.
3.4.3 Sharpening my Tools
As I conducted my study of the first Booster accelerator programme, it became
clear to me that several of the tools I was using were not producing the results I
had hoped for. By getting the entrepreneurs to provide me with weekly
reflections on their progress through the accelerator (the Friday feedback
questionnaire
53
) I had hoped to be able to construct a rich process account of
their experiences and development. Accelerator participants however, were
clearly unwilling to devote time each week to this task. At the same time, I was
not satisfied with the information I was gaining from the days I was spending at
the accelerator. Participants’ reflections during the final evaluation day suggested
that important interaction was taking place among the entrepreneurs, but that I
was capturing relatively little of this interaction by observing their routine
activities (which often consisted of participating in a seminar and then going to
their computers and continuing work on their business plan). My impression was
53
See Appendix 1.
Journeying into Method
109
that the information generated by participant observation in the first accelerator
was not worth the substantial investment of time involved (thirteen days, or 32
% of the total accelerator). Subsequently, I nevertheless concluded that this initial
investment had been necessary in order to acquaint myself closely with the
structure and character of the accelerator. However, I felt that it would be hard
to justify spending a similar amount of time in the second accelerator.
In view of the above and taking into account what had been learned about the
impact of entrepreneurial ‘busyness’ on participants’ willingness to share their
reflections, a revised research and evaluation strategy was designed. It was
decided to make NSE’s expectations about entrepreneurs’ participation in the
evaluation clearer, while at the same time reducing the number of instances when
they would be asked to provide feedback. At the same time I still wished to be
able to collect ‘rich’ data on participants’ experiences – and for this reason it was
decided to conduct interviews halfway through the accelerator and in the final
week. This implied leaving out the initial baseline interview and forced me to rely
more heavily on the documentation solicited from entrepreneurs by accelerator
staff prior to the accelerator (such as their CVs and application forms).
Accelerator staff would continue to hold regular ‘check-in’ sessions with the
entrepreneurs and a focus group run by one of the accelerator staff would again
take place in week eight. I also insisted on the inclusion of a short session about
the research and evaluation process during the team-building days at the start of
the accelerator. Finally, the number of days on which I visited the accelerator and
spent time on direct or participant observation was reduced from thirteen to
eight (and subsequently to seven in A3).
Table 3.1 provides an overview of the research and evaluation activities
conducted in the three Booster accelerators. More complete details of the various
questionnaires and interview guides are found in the appendices. In total forty-
two interviews were conducted, distributed among the three accelerators as
detailed below. Twenty interviews were conducted in A1 (thirteen with
entrepreneurs and seven with managers and stakeholders. Eighteen in A2 (fifteen
with entrepreneurs and three with managers) – and twenty in A3 (sixteen with
entrepreneurs and four with managers). Additionally, three focus groups were
held in the first accelerator, one in the second and one in the third.
Jönköping International Business School
110
Table 3-1: Research Activity during and after the Accelerators.
Research activity during the accelerators
Accelerator 1 Accelerator 2 Accelerator 3
Date Activity Date Activity Date Activity
week 1 INT, DO, Q week 1 DO week 1
DO
week 2 DO, Q, FG week 2 week 2
week 3 week 3 week 3
week 4 DO week 4 INT, DO week 4
INT, DO
week 5 DO, Q week 5 week 5
week 6 week 6 week 6
week 7 DO, FG week 7 DO week 7
week 8 DO, FG week 8 INT, DO, FG week 8
INT, DO, FG
Key: INT = interview, DO = direct observation, Q = questionnaire, FG = focus group
Post-accelerator research activity
5/6 month follow-up Telephone interview
1 year follow-up Online questionnaire
3.5 Making Sense of Method
In the above sections I have described the research process as it developed from
a simple search for social entrepreneurs into a multi-faceted investigation of
social entrepreneurial learning in a series of accelerator programmes. Although
many academics may feel that they recognise particular philosophies of science
and methodologies in the preceding sections, I feel it is important to be more
explicit about the research process I engaged in. This is necessary not because it
is inherently wrong to conduct research without claiming to follow a certain
methodology, but rather because I am influenced by several genres of qualitative
method. It is therefore not only necessary to acknowledge my debt to these
schools, but also important to identify the methods I have used – in order that
the adequacy of these methods be judged by appropriate criteria. Consequently,
in this section I briefly describe the main methodological pillars that undergird
my study. In the sections that follow I then provide more detailed information
about the instruments used. To use a culinary metaphor: I begin by this section
by describing the kind of cake that I am baking, before moving on to describe
the particular ingredients that I have used.
Journeying into Method
111
3.5.1 Ontological and epistemological perspectives
In this study I adopt a critical realist understanding of knowledge and of how we
are able to extend knowledge. This implies that I view reality as ‘stratified’, with
researchers occasionally experiencing events in the “empirical” domain, despite
the fact that events are continuously taking place in the domain of the “actual” –
regardless of whether or not we observe them (Blundel 2007). These events are
in turn the product of the foundational domain of the “real”, where natural
objects exist independent of human perception. These unchanging objects
possess “intransient” properties, many of which we are able to observe by the
impact that they have on our experience. Our interpretation of how this impact
occurs (by means that critical realists refer to as “mechanisms”) is however
“intransient” (Danermark et al. 2002). In other words: our theories about how
both natural and social structures function do not exactly correspond to reality.
In this dissertation I view reality from a critical realist perspective, but do not
follow a strictly critical realist method. I do however use an abductive method in
my analysis and as my study progresses, it is arguable that I engage in the
retroduction process advocated by ‘pure’ critical realists. That is: the attempt to
progress beyond the development of theory, to the distinguishing of the
underlying properties and causal mechanisms that enable the processes defined
in the theory to operate.
3.5.2 Case Study
To many readers it will already be clear that my study is qualitative in nature and
based upon what Kumar and Ormiston (2012) term a case study “strategy”. In
other words, on an approach to research that focuses on the collection of data
from a limited number of individuals and contexts, in order to enable the
“detailed and intensive investigation of a phenomenon” (ibid., p.107). Pervez
Ghauri (2004) suggests that the case study approach is useful when relatively little
is known about a phenomenon, suggesting that the strategy is appropriate for the
study of accelerators. As my earlier discussion of the accelerator literature makes
clear, scholars suggest that ‘quality’ is a key differentiator between high and low
performing programmes, yet what exactly this ‘quality’ is made up of remains
uncertain (Hallen et al., 2013). One way of beginning to clarify the content of
‘quality’ is to gather what Ghauri (ibid.) terms “sufficient information” about a
limited number of cases, in order to be able to discuss these in detail. Cope and
Watts (2000) note that entrepreneurial learning is such a complex phenomenon
that it is most appropriate to study it using a qualitative methodology.
Consequently, given the state of research on accelerators and my research
purpose (to explore social entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators), I deemed a
qualitative, case study strategy to be an appropriate choice of method.
Jönköping International Business School
112
Among the several approaches to case study research that exist, my study would
initially appear to be what Robert Stake (1995) terms an “intrinsic” approach.
Intrinsic case-studies are studies that focus on a particular individual or
organisation on the basis of the researcher’s interest in that particular person or
group
54
. They share many of the features of what Kumar and Ormiston (2012)
term “single-case design”, in that they provide researchers with access to a case
that is “unusual, extreme or something to which access is rarely granted”. My
involvement with NSE provided me with the opportunity to obtain first-hand
data about social entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators over a relatively long
period (three years). As both the phenomenon and the degree of access granted
are relatively unusual, an intrinsic and single-case approach seems appropriate.
Although it appears useful to distinguish case study research as either ‘intrinsic’
or ‘instrumental’ in character, Stake (1995) admits that the distinction is not
always easy to maintain. This was also my experience, as from the perspective of
NSE my choice of case was based on intrinsic logic (my task as an evaluator was
to assess the effectiveness of their accelerator). However, from my perspective, I
was adopting an instrumental approach by choosing a number of entrepreneurs
to study, in order to learn more
about their learning. This
reasoning reflects the technique
of ‘theoretical sampling’
discussed by Kathleen
Eisenhardt (1989). In other
words: individual entrepreneurs
were identified who I believed
would help me develop theory
about learning in accelerators.
My experience suggests that in
this particular instance, Stake’s
discussion of intrinsic and
instrumental cases is not
particularly useful. Instead, I
suggest that the work of the
COSMOS Corporation more
accurately reflects my own
approach – as seen in figure 3.1
(COSMOS Corporation cited in
Yin, 2011, p. 8). In their discussion they note the existence of a particular type of
single-case study, in which the ‘case’ involves several secondary units of analysis
54
An instrumental case-study on the other hand, focuses instead on a particular phenomenon and the
individual or group is chosen because the researcher believes they can provide useful data about this
phenomenon.
CONTEXT
Case
Embedded unit of
analysis 1
Embedded unit of
analysis 2
Figure 3-1: Single-case design
with embedded units of analysis
Journeying into Method
113
– which are nevertheless not identified as cases in themselves. This approach
reflects my own approach, in which the accelerator is the context for the case
itself (social entrepreneurial learning), while the individual actors ‘within’ the
accelerator are portrayed as ‘embedded units of analysis’. This perspective reflects
what Perren and Ram (2004) term a focus on “multiple stories milieu
explanations” – and also their “entrepreneurial personal story explorations”
perspective.
Both of the perspectives mentioned by Perren and Ram (ibid.) adopt a subjective
view of phenomena studied (usually a social constructivist perspective), with the
first approach paying more attention to the creation of meaning through
interaction – and the second privileging the subjective experience of the
individual entrepreneur. As I have noted previously, my study attempts to include
both perspectives: reflecting the uncomfortable reality of learning, as something
inherently individual (it is the person who incorporates new experience into their
‘life world’) – yet also social (or collective) in terms of process and underlying
structure. Andrew Abbott (1992, p. 65) notes that this type of case study
55
incurs
“fuzzy realities”, by which he refers to the idea that cases are “engaged in a
perpetual dialogue with their environment, a dialogue of action and constraint
that we call plot”. He argues that a strength of his “case/narrative” approach is
its allowance for cases to be ‘transformed’ during a study – so that research may
begin as a study of – he gives the example of “craft” – but conclude as a study
of “profession”. This flexibility enables researchers to be ‘true’ to their data in a
manner which more quantitative case-study approaches may not allow.
3.5.3 …with a Hint of Narratives and Ethnography
Kumar and Ormiston (2012) suggest that the case study approach is a ‘strategy’
available to researchers and not necessarily a detailed prescription for method as
such. Their observation is reflected in Eisenhardt’s (1989) comment that
relatively little has been written about the analysis of case study data.
Consequently, scholars have considerable room for manoeuvre when it comes
to the gathering and analysis of data and may even run the risk of mixing methods
in an inappropriate manner – as Perren and Ram’s (2012) discussion of subjective
and objective case study paradigms illustrates. Nonetheless, Kumar and
Ormiston (2012) argue that a strength of case study research is its use of multiple
data collection methods. Under the general ‘umbrella’ of a case study strategy
therefore, I have loaned techniques for data collection and data analysis from the
methodological fields of ‘narratives’ and ‘ethnography’.
55
Abbott discusses an approach very similar to my own, which he terms the “case/narrative” – a sub-
type of which is “multicase narratives”.
Jönköping International Business School
114
The content of my theoretical framework underlines the centrality of
entrepreneurs’ experiences of accelerator programmes to my study. Many
scholars have argued convincingly for the centrality of experience to not only
learning in general (Dewey, 1938), but also adult learning (Knowles, 1970; Kolb,
1984). Furthermore, in the field of entrepreneurial learning several scholars have
underlined the centrality of experience to the learning achieved by entrepreneurs
(Jason Cope & G. Watts, 2000; Minniti & Bygrave, 2001). Even organisational
scholars who adopt a more cognitive approach to the analysis of organisations
note that managerial sensemaking is predominantly based on past experience
(Weick, 1979). Given the apparent importance of individual experience to the
learning process, I deemed it appropriate to on the one hand, gather
entrepreneurs’ own accounts of their learning in accelerators (narratives) – while
at the same time observe their day-to-day activities in the accelerator context
(ethnography). However, it is important to emphasize that I have adapted
narrative and ethnographic methods to the realities of my own study and that I
have not followed what staunch supporters of either methodology would
consider to be a ‘pure’ approach. This is not unusual and Gubrium and Holstein
(1999, p. 561) note that “in the practice of fieldwork there is considerable
overlap” between the two approaches. Indeed, they suggest that each perspective
fruitfully “tames” the “excesses” of the other; by questioning each method’s
reliance on ‘only the narrated experience of the subject’ or ‘only the interpretation
of the ethnographic observer’. Consequently, rather than following only one
method to the exclusion of the other, I use ethnography to provide reflexive
perspective on the insights offered by entrepreneurs’ narratives – and vice-versa.
I also seek to assure “the reader/enquirer of the research” that my study is both
trustworthy and credible
56
, by providing a transparent description of my method
(Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 272). In the following sections this is done by
discussing on the one hand the collection of data about social entrepreneurial
learning – and on the other hand its analysis. Where narrative and ethnographic
methods have informed my work, this is commented on in the text.
56
These terms are often used as the key indicators in qualitative studies of criteria similar to those of
”reliability” and ”validity” in quantitative studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Journeying into Method
115
3.6 Collecting Information about the
Accelerator Process
Although the central ‘case’ in this study is the learning of the social entrepreneur,
‘learning’ as such is a difficult phenomenon to infer simply through observation.
This is particularly so in view of the fact that I have defined learning as the
‘potential’ to act in a different manner. To be certain that an individual had
acquired a particular capability after education would require close observation,
often over a long period of time (requiring resources few researchers have access
to). Furthermore, some capabilities are of a cognitive or emotional nature,
making them difficult to assess in an accurate manner. In view of these challenges
I depend to a large extent on individuals’ own accounts of their experiences in
and after accelerators, in order to discuss their learning. At times these accounts
have been long and fall comfortably into the ‘classic’ definition of narratives as
“stories” (Labov, 1972). At other times long accounts have not been volunteered
and I have had to construct my own narrative of an individual’s experience of
learning, though their responses to a series of questions. As Catherine Riessman
(2008) notes however, both types of response on the part of the Booster
entrepreneurs (and my construction of textual accounts based on their responses)
may be classified as “narrative”.
In my study I have made extensive use of interviews in order to both obtain and
construct narratives. I conducted two to three interviews with most of the social
entrepreneurs and at least two interviews with managers in each accelerator. I
have also made extensive use of direct observation and focus groups.
Furthermore, as explained in previous sections, I made a failed attempt to get
participants to maintain weekly diaries (this was the goal of the ‘Friday feedback’
questionnaire). Consequently, as I also maintained a journal (field notes) I ‘tick
all of the boxes’ with regards to the techniques that Johnstone (2007) associates
with ethnography. However, as noted previously I am more concerned with
being transparent about my method, than with locating my method in a specific
genre.
Despite her discussion of the usefulness of obtaining and constructing narratives
from interview material, Riessman (2008, p. 62) notes that there is a risk that
researchers neglect the role of context in the development of narratives – so that
stories are at times “presented as if they dropped from the sky”. Dawson and
Hjorth (2012, p. 339) share this concern and underline the role of narratives in
not only highlighting relational processes, but also “the context they are
embedded in”. Riessman’s observation is in keeping with the emphases of most
case study strategies and is a timely reminder that this study is as much about
entrepreneurship education in accelerators (the context of entrepreneurs’
learning), as it is about the learning of the entrepreneurs themselves. In this study,
Jönköping International Business School
116
the use of interviews and focus groups has therefore been complemented with
direct observation and secondary data (including entrepreneurs’ curricula vitae
and applications to the accelerator) – as well as additional interviews with
stakeholders of the accelerator (such as Sida personnel, NSE board members and
accelerator managers).
3.6.1 Interviews
Interviews are the primary source of data in many case studies and form the
backbone of most narrative-oriented methods. Unsurprisingly therefore, they
also play a central part in my study. When interviewing I tried to develop an
overall understanding of the ‘story’ of entrepreneurs’ learning in the accelerator,
by eliciting responses based on four thematic areas. These were “background”,
“experience halfway through the accelerator”, “immediate impressions at the end
of the accelerator” and “reflections several months after the accelerator”. It is
worth noting however, that slightly different tools were used to collect data on
some of these themes in accelerators one and two. This was primarily a result of
the revision of the method in the light of my experience of conducting research
in the first accelerator. The main changes made were firstly: the integration of
the ‘background’ and ‘halfway impressions’ themes into a single interview – and
secondly: the adding of an individual interview to the focus group exercise in the
last week of the accelerator, in A2. This change was made because of my
impression that the entrepreneurs were providing longer, richer explanations of
their experiences during interviews (as opposed to the online questionnaire). They
also seemed to be more forthright in their observations in the context of a one-
to-one interview, than in the context of a focus group – at which some of the
accelerator staff were present. To summarise therefore: in both accelerators the
same general themes were covered during data collection, but slightly different
tools were used to cover them.
The interview format used in my study was primarily the “in-depth”- approach
discussed by Ritchie and Lewis (2003). In practice this meant that prior to the
interview I prepared a list of themes or issues that I wished to learn more about
from the interviewee. During the interview this “topic guide” (ibid. p.117) served
as a reminder of the general issues that I wished to address. The list also provided
me with a ‘back-up’ orientation, should the interviewee provide me with an overly
prolonged or irrelevant response that threatened to get us both lost. For example:
in the first interview in A1 the concepts I used to orient the interview were
“identity”, “social learning”, “community of practice” and “social / sustainable
entrepreneurship”. Here I was informed by Bowen’s (2008) discussion of the role
of sensitising concepts in data collection and analysis, as well as by Dick’s (1990)
convergent interview method. Dick’s method reflects the values of narrative
methods, in that it emphasizes the importance of asking an effective opening
Journeying into Method
117
question, followed by a prolonged effort at keeping an informative conversation
going by asking probing, follow-up questions.
The above paragraph describes a somewhat ‘ideal’ format for interviews.
Naturally I was not always able to follow this format due to the behaviour of the
interviewees themselves. Several entrepreneurs (primarily Edward and Alice in
A1) provided very short answers to my questions and seemed to be intent on
getting the interview over as quickly as possible, which resulted in fairly short
interviews of around 20 minutes. Others showed no signs of slowing down at 45
minutes. However, it is important to note that the content of my interviews was
also affected by my interaction with the managers of the accelerators. For the
most part, an interview session was scheduled for a particular date and I prepared
a preliminary set of interview topics/questions, which I then sent to the
accelerator coordinator. This was not done for their formal approval, but rather
in a spirit of openness which I hoped would be reciprocal. This often resulted in
the coordinator adding questions to the interview guide, even if I at times
managed to dissuade them from including too many extra questions. One
example of this was the adding of a question to the interview guide for the
interview at the end of the accelerator in A2. The accelerator coordinator asked
that I include a question about her own performance, as well as a brief assessment
of several of the visiting speakers.
The interview guides used in my study are found in the Appendices section.
3.6.2 Questionnaires
Although interviews increasingly became my preferred research instrument over
the course of the accelerators, I employed questionnaires at several stages in the
first accelerator and for a follow-up one-year after the conclusion of all three
accelerators. With the exception of the ill-fated ‘Friday feedback’ initiative (which
was designed to be more of an online diary), internet-based questionnaires were
initially adopted due to the difficulties encountered in setting up interviews. As
the research process stabilised (in A2 and A3), I relied almost entirely on
interviews to gather material about entrepreneurs’ experiences of the accelerator
– and used a single online questionnaire to gather ‘hard’ data about finance- and
growth-related outcomes. This questionnaire was sent to entrepreneurs twelve
months after the end of the accelerators.
The online SurveyMonkey tool was used to administer questionnaires and a
subscription invested in to provide access to some of the software’s more
advanced analysis tools. In A1 I assumed erroneously that many entrepreneurs
would find it easier to answer questions online, at their own convenience. This
did not prove to be the case, even if several entrepreneurs clearly made an effort
to fill in the surveys at the halfway point and for the one year follow up. With
Jönköping International Business School
118
few exceptions respondents tended to provide very brief answers and often
skipped entire questions. When an individual failed to respond to a questionnaire,
a reminder was sent either by me or by the accelerator coordinator. At the one
year follow-up stage for the first accelerator, the entire process for the sending
out of the questionnaire (i.e. emailed link and reminders) was administered
primarily by the accelerator coordinator. This resulted in a slightly quicker and
more complete response rate. The one year follow-up for the second and third
accelerators was administered by me, as accelerator staff were busy preparing for
accelerators three and four.
The questionnaires used in my study are found in the Appendices section.
3.6.3 Direct Observation
In previous sections I have underlined the importance of embedding the
individual experience of entrepreneurs into the contexts in which they are active.
Without at least some knowledge of the structures and interactions individuals
refer to in interviews, researchers have little basis for interpreting their accounts
as ‘normal’, ‘unusual’ or even ‘interesting’. For this reason I spent a substantial
amount of time in both accelerators observing the interactions of the
entrepreneurs with one other, with visiting speakers and with the activities of the
accelerator. This observation activity was reduced somewhat in the second
accelerator and third accelerators (from thirteen full days to eight – and seven),
when I felt that I was familiar with the programme’s routines and content.
In qualitative research it is common to distinguish between direct and participant
observation. In ethnography for example, with its emphasis on understanding
culture, researchers are often called upon to participate in a particular setting in
order to experience it first-hand. In the accelerator programmes that I studied it
was obviously difficult for me to participate as a nascent social entrepreneur.
Consequently, for the most part I engaged in ‘direct’ observation – even if I
occasionally helped out with tasks such as setting up equipment for a public pitch,
or even assisting with feedback on entrepreneurs’ pitches. By behaving as yet
another person in the accelerator context who wished the entrepreneurs well
57
(rather than as an impassive ‘fly on the wall’), I was able to create closer and more
positive relationships with both managers and entrepreneurs. This relationship
was a factor that made it easier for participants to share their experiences with
me, not only during the accelerator, but also afterwards. Consequently, I still
interact with several entrepreneurs by email or on Facebook. Gabriella (A1) and
Nelson (A2) in particular have often taken the initiative to send me unsolicited,
but welcome updates on their startups. The development and importance of this
type of rapport has been documented by researchers such as Scott-Jones and
57
Note that this behaviour reflected a genuine engagement and was not feigned.
Journeying into Method
119
Watt (2010). They suggest that it is important that researchers ‘earn the right’ to
access by demonstrating both “commitment to collaboration” and seriousness
about collecting data that will benefit those observed.
The development of a relationship from the role of ‘neutral observer’ to that of
‘committed confidant’ is illustrated by my chat with Henrik towards the end of
the first accelerator. The conversation might be interpreted as suggesting that the
‘fly on the wall’ has become somebody with a perspective that might be worth
listening to. The conversation is best understood if readers are aware that Henrik
is a fashion-conscious, young entrepreneur whose product is T-shirts produced
in the shanty towns surrounding the garbage dumps of Brazil.
Duncan: “So, what’s happening?”
“Oh, I’m planning for a presentation. I’ve been invited to the meeting of all the
top managers of [name of a prestigious Swedish bank]. – I just don’t know
how I should dress. I’m going to be mixing with the “suits” and I don’t know if I
can go like this…” [looks at Duncan apparently expecting a response]
Duncan: “Um… why not? I think that the reason you’ve been invited is
because you represent something different. They’re probably fed up with only
meeting other managers in suits! And anyway, in a sense you are your
product – why not take the chance to expose the product you’re trying to sell?”
“Yeah, that might make sense…”
Although I occasionally interacted with the entrepreneurs in a ‘participatory’
manner in the first accelerator, my interaction with the entrepreneurs in the
second and third accelerators was generally more formal. This was primarily due
to the clearer structure created for the research process, which positioned me
more obviously as an occasional visiting evaluator. Often my direct observation
involved sitting in on seminars and taking notes about participants’ questions,
comments and interactions with one another. I also took note of apparent moods
and body language. Prior to such a seminar I would introduce myself to the
speaker and inform them of my presence and the reason for my being there.
In the above paragraph I have described my reliance on note-taking for capturing
entrepreneurs’ behaviour and interaction. An alternative would have been to
video such interaction (Chambers, 2000). Although this might have provided
valuable additional information, I felt this would have been intrusive enough to
interfere with the normal group process. I judged note-taking to be a more
natural behaviour in a seminar situation and therefore less likely to affect the
behaviour of the entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, I concluded each day by recording
(and occasionally writing down) additional impressions of the time that I had
spent at the accelerator. I recorded happenings and comments that I had not
Jönköping International Business School
120
managed to write down at the time of observation, as well as my own feelings
and recollections from the day. Consequently, several evenings a week my fellow
travellers on the train home were treated to the sight of a lone man walking up
and down the most isolated part of the platform, speaking into a little black box
58
.
3.6.4 Focus Groups and Check-ins
During both accelerators NSE staff conducted several focus groups with the
participating entrepreneurs. These were designed primarily to get feedback from
them about their experiences of the accelerator – either at the halfway stage (in
A1), or at the end of the accelerator (all three accelerators). An additional, more
informal focus group was also held in week two of A1. At least two ‘check-ins’
were held each week (or one ‘check-in’ and one ‘check-out’). These brief
meetings involved gathering the entire group of entrepreneurs and inviting them
to either provide the group with a very brief status update, or to bring up an issue
they felt needed addressed.
During the longer focus groups I took on the role of a passive observer, taking
notes on either a lap-top or with pen and paper. Often these sessions involved
the use of post-it notes and flipcharts, and where these were used I took
photographs of the individual notes and each page of the flipchart that had been
used. I also made a careful note of the colours used by each entrepreneur in order
to be able to link written comments to individuals. Prior to this, the entrepreneurs
were informed that I was taking notes of their comments and that it was
important for NSE to be able to identify the comments with each individual, in
order to be able to respond appropriately.
When I was able to participate in a check-in/out session I made notes about
participants’ comments after the session. Occasionally individual entrepreneurs
were unable to attend a focus group. When this occurred an online questionnaire
was used to gather their responses to the main focus group questions. This was
only done in A1 however, as the use of interviews in the final week of A2 and
A3 made it possible to get feedback from the entrepreneurs, even if they had
been absent from the focus group. On a few occasions entrepreneurs came up
to me after a check-in session and provided me with an explanation of issues that
had been brought up, apparently concerned at the conclusions that I might draw
based on limited information. I made an additional note of these interpretations.
58
My recorder.
Journeying into Method
121
3.6.5 Secondary Data
Although I obtained a substantial amount of ‘contextual’ information from
observation, I was also able to access several other sources of data about the
entrepreneurs and the accelerator itself. With regards to the accelerator, in
addition to my interviews with managers and key stakeholders I requested (and
was given) a copy of the project application and access to the accelerator’s online,
shared folder (via DropBox). I was also provided with copies of the entrepreneurs’
CVs and their applications to the programme.
An intriguing aspect of doing research in NSE was the variety of short-term
sources of information that emerged over the course of the accelerator. As
mentioned previously, most of these sources were one-off happenings that were
not repeated in the next accelerator. For example: in the initial weeks of the first
accelerator, the coordinator Denise filmed short five-minute interviews with
individual entrepreneurs and posted these on YouTube. This was not done in the
second accelerator, but instead another person interviewed one entrepreneur
each week and posted her summary of the interview on the webpage of a network
for social innovation. In the second accelerator, a nascent social entrepreneur
doing work experience at NSE collected data to use in a filmed documentary
about one of the participants. Many of these unexpected opportunities for
additional data collection provided me with not only additional material about
the entrepreneurs and their experiences, but also information about their
interpretations of these experiences. This was also true of the filmed pitches that
the A1 entrepreneurs created, where it was interesting to compare their sales
rhetoric with the startup reality discussed on a day-to-day basis. This contrast
underlines the perceptiveness of Erving Goffman’s (1959) analysis of human
interaction as intentional and directed towards an audience.
3.7 Analysing Information about Learning in
Accelerators
3.7.1 Recording and Checking of Data
During my study of the NSE accelerators I collected data in various forms, the
majority of which I later converted into written text. All interviews were recorded
on a small digital recorder and the resultant sound files sent to either Scandinavia
or the United Kingdom for transcription. Some researchers suggest that it is
useful to combine analysis with transcription (Riessman, 2008). My personal
preference however, is to do one thing at a time and I prefer to devote my energy
to a focused analysis, rather than what – in my case – tends to become a prolonged
combination of transcription and mediocre analysis. Furthermore, as
transcription is a very time-consuming activity for me, I have difficulty in carrying
Jönköping International Business School
122
it out quickly enough to produce the ‘timely theory’ that I discuss in the next
section.
After transcription I listened to the interview recordings while reading the text
of the interview, checking the recording for accuracy and inserting notes about
tone or other characteristics (such as pauses and laughs), where these were
missing. I also inserted a paragraph at the beginning of each transcription
describing the context in which the conversation was recorded. The majority of
the transcriptions proved accurate, but one Scandinavian firm tended to
paraphrase interviewees’ replies and their documents required more editing than
those produced by other agencies. I also had my own recorded reflections
transcribed, as well as one recording of a focus group and all of the short
YouTube interviews. After checking the transcriptions for accuracy, I replaced
the names of the interviewees with pseudonyms and sent a copy of the transcript
to the interviewee for checking and comments. This was a useful step, as several
of the entrepreneurs in the second accelerator had heavy accents that both the
transcribers and I at times found hard to understand. Hence Kenny’s comment
upon reading the transcript I sent him:
“So good to hear from you and to also get a copy of the interview. I just
rushed through it and saw some little corrections, I guess you had issues
understanding my African accent. Is it possible before me to work on it and
send it back to you at this time?”
All of the data sources that were available in textual format were imported into
the NVivo qualitative data analysis (QDA) software package. Although NVivo
can be used to automate some aspects of data analysis, I did not use this function
and relied instead on the software’s ‘manual’ coding functions for data analysis.
However, I also found NVivo to be a useful tool for managing data and
maintaining an overview of the information available for analysis.
3.7.2 Timely Theory: Sounding-boards & Reports
In a previous section I commented on the importance to my study of my
‘engaged’ position in relation to the managers and entrepreneurs with whom I
interacted. Andrew Van de Ven (2007) suggests that two criteria for engaged
research of high quality include relevance and impact. However, few scholars
discuss the way in which time affects both of these variables. My research on
accelerator programmes provides a stark illustration of the influence of time on
the development of research findings. For my study of the NSE accelerators to
have any impact on their development, the maximum period between the
carrying out of field research and my provision of a report on my findings was
eight months. For interviews or focus groups conducted halfway through the
eight-week accelerator, a period of two weeks was the desired ‘turn around’ time.
Journeying into Method
123
Figure 3-2: Characteristics and targets of 'timely' theory
Jönköping International Business School
124
The pressure to provide timely feedback to accelerator managers pressured me
to deliver coherent results at an early stage, a pressure that in turn encouraged
me to develop instruments that were capable of creating synergies between
practitioners’ expectations and the demands of academic research. The analysis
process that resulted is illustrated in figure 3.2; which depicts the progression of
data analysis from short-term, practitioner-oriented feedback to reports of a
more long-term, theoretical nature.
In practice the different kinds of feedback generated by my study resulted in
distinct styles of report. At the ‘practical reflection’ level I produced preliminary
written documents that I termed “sounding boards” (more of these below), while
at the ‘strategic’ level I produced more formal reports, often one to two months
after the conclusion of an accelerator. One of the more long-term, theoretically-
oriented ‘reports’ is represented by this dissertation.
The reports I provided at the ‘strategic’ level clearly played an important role in
terms of organisational learning for NSE. Karen (the A2 coordinator)
commented that she had referred to one such report repeatedly while planning
the second accelerator. Indeed, the three themes with which I summed up the
impact of the first accelerator (“friends, focus and feedback”) were used as a
slogan to advertise the second programme. Nonetheless, among these different
types of analysis it is perhaps the ‘sounding board’ that merits special attention.
At several instances during the three year period in which NSE ran their
accelerators, I provided managers with informal reports about the accelerator
process. I called these reports ‘sounding boards’. These reports were intended to
provide practitioners with initial explanations of what I had observed.
Importantly however, the sounding boards also provided me with opportunities
to obtain additional interpretations of what I had observed. Before sending this
type of report to the accelerator coordinators I underlined the preliminary nature
of my interpretation. I also emphasized my expectation that they in turn would
provide me with feedback regarding either their disagreement with my
explanation, their wish to complement my explanation with additional
information, or their ideas for an alternative explanation.
In practice this process proved to be a valuable tool for two main tasks. First of
all, by making a follow-up phone-call the routine response to a report (i.e. the
sounding board), I minimised the possibility of what I had written being
misunderstood. I had used the sounding board tool in previous evaluations and
was painfully aware of the fact that what I believed I had expressed clearly in a
report, was not necessarily what readers understood. More importantly for my
research, the follow-up discussion provided me with an opportunity for
reflexivity and triangulation. Reflexivity contributes to the analysis process by
helping the researcher consider other possible interpretations of what has been
Journeying into Method
125
observed (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000). Triangulation increases the credibility
(or validity) of the writer’s explanation of a phenomenon, if their interpretation
is shared by a number of other well-informed people (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003;
Stake, 1995). In my discussion of the sounding board reports with accelerator
managers my ideas were both critiqued and affirmed. A concrete example of a
critique of my interpretation involved my affirmation of a comment made by one
entrepreneur about the behaviour of another participant. As both of us had lived
for several years in Africa I felt that I understood where they were coming from
and felt they probably knew what they were talking about. However, when I
commented on the issue to the accelerator coordinator her response was entirely
different. Her impression was that the entrepreneur who had made the comment
had a negative mindset. This comment forced me to question and reassess my
own interpretation (which was that the entrepreneur had made a valid
observation about the motives of one of their colleagues).
3.7.3 Applied Thematic Analysis
3.7.3.1 Different Methods for Analysing Narratives
Riessman (2008) notes that narrative accounts may be analysed in several
different ways; including thematic, structural, dialogic/performance and visual
analysis. In the context of family business research, Dawson and Hjorth (2012)
suggest a model that integrates the main emphases of the first three approaches.
Nonetheless, Zorn (2001; cited in Johnstone, 2007, p. 114) suggests that thematic
analysis is particularly useful in ethnographic studies that focus on how
individuals talk about “ongoing relational episodes”. My interest lies not so much
in discussing the way in which a typical ‘story’ of social entrepreneurial learning
is built up in the Booster accelerators (a structural perspective) – and I am not
overly concerned with discussing how different stories are ‘performed’ for the
listener (the dialogic/performance perspective). The latter type of analysis is of
course relevant, as at times the social entrepreneurs clearly ‘directed’ their
narrative performances in order to achieve certain goals (for example: their
YouTube interviews often aimed to spread information about their participation
in the programme). However, I chose to employ this aspect of narrative analysis
as a supplementary tool to enhance the reflexivity of my study, rather than as the
main method of analysis. Instead I chose to focus on identifying the principle
themes that emerged from entrepreneurs’ accounts of their experiences in the
accelerators. This approach is similar to that of Ewick and Silbey (2003) – who
not only adopt a thematic analysis in their own study, but also engage with the
shorter, ‘episodic’ type of narratives that characterise much of my own data. It is
also somewhat similar to the approach known in non-narrative circles as ‘content
analysis’, although Joffe and Yardley (2004) underline that thematic analysis pays
more attention to the ‘qualitative’ aspects of a text.
Jönköping International Business School
126
The thematic approach to data analysis that I adopt draws not only on the ideas
of scholars of narrative – such as Riessman (2008), Mishler (1995), and Gubrium
and Holstein (2009); but also on the work of more general scholars of qualitative
methodology (for example: Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2011; Ritchie & Lewis,
2003). In keeping with these scholars’ ideas therefore, my own analysis began in
a relatively unstructured manner with a reading and re-reading of the texts
produced during data collection. My analysis then moved gradually from a ‘face-
value’ understanding of entrepreneurs’ experiences, towards a more conceptual
understanding expressed in more theoretical language – and finally, to the
comparison of the experience of the individual with the experience of others.
This gradual progression reflects Abbott’s (1992) discussion of the value of
moving from the analysis of a “single-case narrative” to that of “multicase
narratives” – and his emphasis of the need to create insight about ‘plot’ (“the
loose causal order that we generally regard as explanatory”)(p.64).
As I attempted to develop my own approach to conducting an analysis of the
Booster narratives, I noted several issues that I felt needed to be prioritised. The
first issue had to do with data management. Many scholars of narrative discuss
data analysis, but pay little attention to the challenges associated with managing
the large amount of data associated with a comprehensive study. It appeared to
me that there was a risk of me focusing on the most obvious data in my study
(interviews), while neglecting other data sources that might provide important
additional insight. I associated this risk with the difficulty of gaining an overview
of the entire data set. As I developed my method I therefore included this
capacity for data management on my ‘wish list’.
A second issue that I felt I needed to address was the issue of maintaining a
coherent view of entrepreneurs’ narratives ‘as a whole’, while at the same time
conducting the detailed thematic analysis advocated by scholars such as Ritchie
and Lewis (2003). As I had previously experienced the ‘drowning in data’
phenomenon when analysing data using a grounded theory approach, I was wary
of approaches that threatened to make it easy to see only ‘trees’, but no ‘forest’.
Consequently, a second item on my wish-list was the development of an
approach that would facilitate the move from micro analysis to an interpretative,
yet coherent account of social entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators.
3.7.3.2 Adapting the Framework technique to narrative analysis
The wish-list described in the preceding paragraphs was developed over a period
of many months, during which I experimented with several methods of analysing
the data that I had collected in NVivo. In the end I decided to adapt the Framework
approach that has been developed in the United Kingdom at the NatCen centre
for social research and subsequently integrated into the NVivo software package.
Journeying into Method
127
Framework is an approach to the analysis of qualitative data that was pioneered by
Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis (2003). The method these scholars recommend has
been substantially influenced by grounded theory, but the software they
developed to assist in their analysis is adaptable for use with other methodologies.
Framework is distinctive in that it facilitates the creation of a matrix presentation
of data on which both case
59
and theme are visible simultaneously. This makes it
easier for researchers to avoid the Achilles heel of grounded theory, namely the
risk of creating a large number of codes that eventually risk becoming distanced
from their original embeddedness in specific contexts. The software has the
additional advantage of forcing analysts to begin theorising at an early stage, as
the process of summarising data involves identifying the key issues in each
section of the text. The table below provides a brief overview of the analytical
steps that are included in my adaption of the Framework method.
Note that although table 3.2 may give the impression that data analysis is a linear
process, in reality the process is very iterative. It involves not only moving
backwards and forwards between stages, but also between levels of analysis (the
whole vs. the detail). In subsequent paragraphs I describe these steps in more
detail.
Table 3-2: Principle steps in my Adaptation of Framework Analysis
Step Description
1. Familiarisation with
body of data
Reading of main body of interview transcripts.
Selection of a single individual for initial
analysis.
2. Familiarisation with
single interviewee
Reading and re-reading of interview transcripts
for a single individual, writing notes in text.
Brief summary of notes.
3. Preliminary
framework creation
Use of notes from (2) and research questions
to construct basic analytical framework. Use of
gerunds.
4. Creation of “meaning
units”
Coding of sections of text into both existing
and new categories. Use of gerunds.
5. Summarisation of
themes
Creation of short summaries of the main
content of the text in each thematic category
60
.
Initial theorising.
6. Creation of case
narratives
Construction of complete descriptive and
explanatory account of each individual’s
experience.
7. Comparison of cases Comparison of cases to one another on a
thematic basis to highlight similarities and
differences.
59
By this Ritchie and Lewis (2003) refer to the individual respondent.
60
This may be done outside of Nvivo, or within the programme using the ‘Framework Matrices’ tool.
Jönköping International Business School
128
My adaptation of the Framework technique begins with two steps that have to do
with the researcher familiarising themselves with the data that they have collected
about individuals’ experiences. At this point the goal of the analysis is to gain an
initial understanding of the type and characteristics of the data, so that the
material on a series of individuals can be analysed in more detail at a later stage.
As the analysis of this individual will help form the initial analytical framework
for the analysis of the remaining interviews, it is useful to try and identify a case
which is fairly similar to the others (what Benner, 1994 terms a "paradigm" case).
In this way, the resultant analytical framework will hopefully be able to cope with
the majority of the data from the remaining cases. If an ‘extreme’ case were
selected, the analyst risks having to create an entirely new framework at a later
stage, which involves unnecessary work.
Once a representative case has been selected for analysis, the researcher
embarks on a second process of familiarisation. This involves the reading and re-
reading of the transcripts for a single individual, in order to become familiar with
their overall characteristics and content. This foundational activity reflects the
analytical process of hermeneutical method, where there is a constant move
backwards and forwards between the ‘part’ and the ‘whole’. At this stage of my
analysis I employed the annotation tool in NVivo to make initial notes about my
thoughts about what the entrepreneurs were saying. I found this exercise to be
particularly useful in preserving an overall sense of the ‘whole’, prior to engaging
in a more detailed analysis of the text. These initial notes were then briefly
summarised in a few paragraphs using the “memo” tool in NVivo
61
.
Having made initial notes about the empirical material that is to be analysed, my
adaptation of the Framework approach involved creating an initial thematic
framework on the basis of the study’s research questions and common sense
(Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Ritchie and Lewis (ibid.) recognise that most analysts
are inevitably going to have to code for textual groupings that involve several
themes which could have been predicted prior to the coding process. For
example: text involving baseline data such as the household composition of the
interviewee and prior experience, but naturally also interview excerpts that are
clearly related to the study’s research questions. This reflects Guest, MacQueen
and Namey’s (2011) discussion of how texts are ‘segmented’ as part of the
process of developing an effective codebook.
In my own adaptation of the Framework tool to narrative analysis I integrated the
initial predictive framework recommended by Ritchie and Lewis (2003), with the
more inductive technique suggested by Guest et al. (2011). This involved first of
all the creation of an analytical framework from the general themes raised by my
61
My use of the memo tool at this stage should not be confused with the more theoretically-oriented
stage of “memoing” in Grounded Theory.
Journeying into Method
129
research questions, as well as more obvious themes about entrepreneurs’
backgrounds. In my study some basic themes that I created on the basis of my
research questions included “The road to SE and the accelerator” and “Learning
process”. I then complemented this framework with sub-headings and concepts
that I had identified as interesting – or that often occurred in my reading of the
first interview transcript (for example: “Top-down Large enterprise perspective”
as a sub-heading under “Non-learning”). Often this required the creation of
entirely new headings in a ‘garbage can’ folder entitled “Other”.
The third step in my adaptation of the Framework technique involves both the
creation of additional themes (based on the note-taking done during the initial
reading of the transcript) and the incorporation of these themes into new or
existing clusters. This step is similar to the inductive thematic analysis described
by Dawson and Hjorth (2012), in their third analytical phase of “exploration”.
During this stage I read the transcripts again and categorised (or coded) the text
into distinct thematic units. At this point I did not attempt to link these units to
theoretical, disciplinary concepts. Instead I simply read the text and labelled
different sections as belonging to either one or more existing themes, or to a new
one. As this was done, the notes taken in step 1 naturally provided clues as to the
themes that might be constructed from the text. This process requires discipline
on the part of the analyst – so that new themes are added to the framework as
they occur to the researcher, rather than being unnaturally forced into existing
headings. At this stage I also took care not to ‘splinter’ the text too much so that
I lost a sense of its overall character and context. As Alvesson and Sköldberg
(2000) point out, it is important to preserve a long enough portion of the text, in
order to be able to ‘listen’ to it. My experience suggests that their advice is sound
and that the key to useful analysis at this stage is to capture sections of text as far
as possible, rather than single words or short phrases.
The fourth step in the original Framework approach is that of summarising data.
During this step researchers are advised to analyse the accounts provided by each
individual; studying the data that is associated with each theme and summarising
this data into a short description. This usually entails the analyst gathering
together all the different snippets of information the person has provided about
(for example) their interaction with other entrepreneurs. The researcher attempts
to glean the most important kernels of information from these textual extracts
and to re-formulate them into a concise description. Using the NVivo software
this is done in a manner that links the summary to the original texts, making it
easier for the researcher or an external investigator to re-visit the scholar’s
interpretation. In practice I found this difficult to do and as a result, the majority
of the thematic summaries recommended by Ritchie and Lewis (2003) were not
conducted in NVivo, but rather integrated into a longer narrative about each of
the four social entrepreneurs about whom I tell what Van Maanen (1988) terms
a “realist tale”.
Jönköping International Business School
130
The final two steps in my adaptation of the Framework technique involve the
construction of a longer account of the individual’s experience and the
comparison of their experience with that of others. At this stage the usefulness
of thinking about what needs to be included in such an account at an early stage
becomes apparent. Based on the summaries already created for each theme, the
researcher constructs an account of the individual’s experience that includes not
only all of the main themes that emerged during the analysis, but also illustrations
from the transcripts themselves – and from additional sources of data, such as
the researcher’s field notes. This chain of evidence is an important source of the
credibility and plausibility that Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest are indicative of
sound qualitative research. It is also a characteristic of my research that illustrates
the usefulness of combining ethnographic and narrative methods. By adding
detail about entrepreneurs’ behaviour and the contexts in which they lived and
worked, a further dimension is added to the richness already present in their own
narratives. In my study I constructed a ‘realist’ tale for four social entrepreneurs
who represented not only the three accelerators that I studied, but also a
particular category of participant. By ‘realist’ Van Maanen (1988) refers to a genre
of ethnographic writing in which scholars portray the experiences of those they
study in a manner that largely removes the field-worker from the account in an
attempt to give the tale an authentic, objective ‘feel’. He contrasts this approach
with narrative strategies that are “confessional” and “impressionist” in nature, in
giving the field-worker are more obvious, interpretative role in the final account
– or in couching the tale in more colourful, dramatic terms. Arguably however,
the initial sections of this chapter are ‘confessional’ in nature, and I have therefore
judged that the purpose of this study is best served by adopting the more ‘realist’
perspective of the traditional ethnographer.
The final, but most prolonged step in a multicase narrative analysis is a comparison
of the experiences of several individuals to one another, in an effort to capture
the key factors associated with these experiences. NVivo’s framework tool for
conducting matrix analyses facilitates the process of comparing different aspects
of entrepreneurs’ experiences to each other, as the software enables the analyst
to quickly access the thematic summaries for each case and to display these side
by side on one or more computer screens. In practice (as noted above), I felt
unable to create summaries of all the entrepreneurs’ experiences in the manner
advocated by more experienced Framework users and relied on more traditional
methods. For example: by creating simple tables to classify entrepreneurs’
comments, and by leveraging my familiarity with the entrepreneurs to intuitively
identify similarities and differences.
Journeying into Method
131
3.7.4 Digging Deeper – and Differently
In order to dig ‘deeper’ into entrepreneurs’ experiences I found it useful to adopt
not only another perspective on narrative analysis (the dramaturgical
perspective
62
), but also several of the perspectives discussed by Patricia Benner
(1994). Dramaturgical analysis builds on Erving Goffman’s (1959) suggestion
that individuals tend to both ‘perform’ and ‘enact’ their narratives. This implies
that researchers need to ask for whom the person is telling their story – and to
what purpose. The listener/reader also needs to be sensitive to the way in which
the individual is describing themselves, as this ‘enactment’ hints at an ideal they
may be striving toward.
Benner, despite coming from a different methodological background
(phenomenology), suggests several very useful points of analytical departure that
I find helpful in thinking about how to approach entrepreneurs’ narratives in a
‘different’ manner. Drawing on her work with Judith Wrubel (1989), Benner
(1994) suggests that five aspects of human experience may be usefully explored
in qualitative analyses. These include first of all, situation: the recognition of the
situatedness of the person both in the present and also historically, as well as the
questioning of the character of their situation (as either harmonious or
“breakdown”). Secondly, embodiment is identified as insight into the embedded
nature of cognition and experience in relation to the individual’s physical body.
Temporality focuses on the lived experience that the individual has of time and
concerns has to do with the meaning-filled orientation of the individual in a
situation. Finally, investigation of common meaning looks at shared, taken-for-
granted linguistic and cultural meanings that guide, and at times limit how events
and behaviour develop. Due to the characteristics of the phenomenon that I am
studying (entrepreneurial learning), I believe that Benner’s tools pose more
relevant questions to entrepreneurs’ texts than the more traditional ‘pentad’
questions (act, agent, agency, scene and purpose) of Burke (1969).
The above paragraphs describe several additional perspectives that I adopted as
I analysed my empirical data. These perspectives enabled me to go beyond the
face-value statements of interviewees and to think of alternative explanations.
This involved not only a deeper dig into my data, but also a ‘different’ dig. The
importance of digging differently in qualitative research is emphasized by
Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000), who argue that researchers need to be ‘reflexive’
with regards to their interpretations of events. In my approach to narrative
analysis this reflexivity is mirrored in my attempt to find a middle-ground
between what Smith, Flowers and Larkin (2009, p. 106) term a “hermeneutics of
empathy” and a “hermeneutics of suspicion”. Nonetheless, Alvesson and
Sköldberg (ibid., p.273) suggest that reflexivity is best practiced by conducting
62
Reissman (2003) refers to this perspective as “dialogic/performance analysis”.
Jönköping International Business School
132
analysis at four levels; namely by interacting with the empirical material,
interpreting it, interpreting it critically and reflecting on how one’s own text was
produced. Although I have found it difficult to employ all of these levels
consistently in my analysis, I have attempted to include aspects of them at regular
intervals in my analysis and write-up. In particular I have attempted to recognise
how my role as an evaluator affected the information entrepreneurs provided me
with. It is clear that many of them perceived me as someone who could influence
accelerator managers into providing them with resources they wished to obtain,
particularly in the second accelerator. As I analysed the interviews I attempted to
bear this in mind, among other considerations.
3.7.5 Critiquing the Method
All research designs involve choosing a method because of its advantages, while
also acknowledging and attempting to compensate for its flaws. Case study
strategies, narratives and ethnography are not exceptions, and Riessman (1994),
Dawson and Hjorth (2012), and Van Maanen (1988) discuss several of their
weaknesses. A common weakness has to do with generalizability – by which I
refer to the possibility of drawing conclusions about entrepreneurial learning in
other accelerators, based on this study. This study’s advantage is its attention to
detail and the potential it offers to reveal the ‘micro’ processes of social
entrepreneurial learning. This is however, achieved at the cost of generalizability
– for as Riessman (ibid., p.70) points out: “sample sizes in narrative studies are
small, and cases are often drawn from unrepresentative pools”. Case-studies,
narratives and ethnography can all contribute to the development of theory; but
care must be taken when applying the findings of this study in other contexts.
Closely related to this aspect is Dawson and Hjorth’s (ibid., p13) discussion of
the temptation that narrative analysts must resist, to attach too much significance
to “the idiosyncrasies of a particular case”.
A second weakness of a qualitative case strategy is its interpretative nature, which
often requires scholars to engage in a ‘double-hermeneutic’ of interpreting an
individual’s interpretations. In the context of entrepreneurship, interpretative
approaches that focus on the narratives and activities of the entrepreneur can
reinforce traditional portrayals of the entrepreneur as a heroic individual. This is a
particularly valid criticism when studying accelerators, given the group-oriented
nature of these programmes. A further criticism of my particular adaption of
narratives/ethnography could be directed at the evolving nature of the method
itself – in that the techniques used and even some of the questions asked were
slightly different in the first, second and third accelerators. As Johnstone (2007)
points out, ethnographic method is by nature unpredictable and ‘cyclical’ (as
opposed to linear) in terms of process. While this flexibility may enable
researchers to obtain unique data, it does make it difficult (if not impossible) to
replicate ethnographic studies. Nonetheless, the alternative – involving the
Journeying into Method
133
consistent use of research instruments developed early on in the study – would
risk avoiding what Alvesson and Sandberg term ‘interesting’ research. In other
words, by prioritising issues of replicability and face validity researchers are often
bound to study phenomena that we are already somewhat familiar with.
With regards to the dependence of qualitative methods on interpretative
techniques, Van Maanen (1988) notes that researchers have to make choices as
to how they present their data. By choosing a ‘realist tale’ as I have done, I lose
some of the transparent reflexivity apparent in what he terms “confessional” tales
– and much of the colour associated with “impressionist” tales. Regardless of the
way in which I tell my ‘tale’ however, it is important to remember that I am
interpreting actors’ words and actions – and that another person might interpret
these in a different manner. Nor can we be certain that entrepreneurs’ portrayals
of their own learning are entirely accurate. As Norman Denzin (2000, cited in
Riessman, 2008, p. 188) points out, narratives are reflections on the world, not of
it. Consequently, it is important that this study is read bearing in mind that the
methods employed are associated not only with certain strengths, but also
corresponding weaknesses. Nonetheless, at the end of the day the main judge of
a method’s appropriateness must be its ‘fit’ (Creswell, 2007). Drawing on Cope
and Watts (2000), I argue that the complexity of social entrepreneurial learning
requires a qualitative, interpretative methodology. With regards to my use of
narratives as a base for theory building, Dawson and Hjorth (2012, p3.) argue
that the approach is particularly useful when a study’s goal is to extend knowledge
by understanding “not only the results of what happened but also their making”.
Finally, I suggest that the study of social entrepreneurial learning is ‘nascent’ in
character and that consequently it is appropriate to adopt a method that involves
an “open-ended” approach to the collection and analysis of data (Edmondson
& McManus, 2007). In the next chapter I begin to explore this nascent field: the
world of social entrepreneurial learning in the context of accelerators.
135
4 Social Entrepreneurs &
Accelerators
4.1 Chapter Overview
In this dissertation the learning of social entrepreneurs is studied in the context
of an external intervention into their learning, in the form of an accelerator
programme. This chapter introduces both the social entrepreneurs who
participated in the three accelerators studied – and the accelerators themselves.
As 24 social entrepreneurs participated in these accelerators, I have deemed it
unrealistic to describe each of their learning processes in detail. Instead I have
chosen to first of all provide a brief overview of all of the social entrepreneurs
who participated in the accelerators that I studied. I then describe the accelerators
that they participated in, before discussing the learning of only four individuals in
more detail. My employment of a few individuals as “exemplars” of social
entrepreneurial learning is common practice in qualitative studies (Benner, 1994).
In case studies theory is often developed “through the richness of […]
contextualised accounts and the level of precision in […] description” (Dawson
& Hjorth, 2012, p. 340). Consequently, in this study the learning of four
entrepreneurs is related to the context in which their learning takes place (the
accelerators). For this reason I describe the programmes that they participated in
before I discuss their experiences. The accelerators serve as a backdrop to my
more detailed description of the four processes of social entrepreneurial learning
that emerged as social entrepreneurs interacted with the accelerator.
4.2 The Social Entrepreneurs – Part 1
In chapter one I noted the distinguishing characteristic of the entrepreneurial
‘cohort’ in accelerator programmes. In this dissertation three accelerators are
studied, each of which recruited a different mix of social entrepreneurs (see table
4.1). In subsequent paragraphs I refer to these three accelerators using the
abbreviations ‘A1’, ‘A2’ and ‘A3’. The intention of the Booster accelerators was to
accelerate the development of social entrepreneurs whose products or services
targeted countries in the ‘developing’ world. This ambition resulted in a
progressive narrowing of the accelerator recruitment process as time went by. As
a result, the A1 programme recruited a higher proportion of Scandinavian social
entrepreneurs, while the A2 and A3 programmes both recruited primarily non-
Scandinavian entrepreneurs. The composition of the accelerator cohort is one
aspect of the context in which the individual’s learning takes place. Consequently,
Jönköping International Business School
136
the social entrepreneurs are described below as individuals situated in a particular
cohort.
Despite its ambition to recruit entrepreneurs who were working on ideas that
were clearly linked to the developing world, the majority of the entrepreneurs in
the first accelerator did not actually reside in a developing country. Most of them
were instead developing a product or service for these contexts (Gabriella, Catrin,
Andrew, Barry), or developing an idea that was intended to facilitate a process
associated with development work – such as raising funds (Alice and Edward).
Henrik was the only entrepreneur who had been living in a developing country
immediately before coming to the accelerator – and even then, only for a year.
In section 4.4 I suggest that several different categories of social entrepreneur
participated in the Booster accelerators – and these categories are described in
more detail later. At this point suffice to say that four of the seven social
entrepreneurs recruited to accelerator one (A1) came from the ‘knowledgeable
improviser’ category and were ‘expatriates’. The ‘indigenous’ category of social
entrepreneur was entirely absent from A1. With the exception of Catrin, all of
the A1 entrepreneurs were Scandinavians or had strong links to Scandinavia
(Andrew and Gabriella were both married to Scandinavians). All of the social
entrepreneurs participated in the accelerator on their own, with the exception of
Alice and Edward – who came as a team. Three of the seven participants were
female.
In contrast to the first programme, the second accelerator was dominated by the
‘indigenous’ category of social entrepreneur (six of nine participants). However,
in contrast to the first programme only two of the nine participants were female.
All of the six ‘indigenous’ social entrepreneurs were male and came from East
and West Africa. In contrast to A1 however, only two of the entrepreneurs were
not resident in the countries they were targeting with their enterprises – and one
of these (Marie) had recently returned from south-east Asia after residing there
for many years. Marie, Heidi and possibly Jamal were thus the only ‘Westerners’
in A2, with Heidi coming from North America, Marie from Norway – and Jamal
an immigrant from south Asia who had lived in Scandinavia for more than a
decade. As will be seen in the section ‘Similar structure, dissimilar interaction’ the
different backgrounds of the social entrepreneurs influenced how they interacted
with one another. Differences in ethnicity and gender were at times reinforced
by the accelerator structure and affected entrepreneurs’ interaction with one
another. Four of the nine social entrepreneurs belonged to the ‘confident entrant’
category.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
137
N
a
m
e
/
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
A
c
c
.
P
r
o
v
e
n
a
n
c
e
C
a
t
.
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
f
o
c
u
s
S
t
a
t
u
s
a
t
s
t
a
r
t
*
*
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
l
a
/
B
r
o
t
t
l
e
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
i
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
-
2
)
A
l
i
c
e
/
G
o
o
d
l
i
n
k
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
w
e
b
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
g
i
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
A
n
d
r
e
w
/
C
-
C
u
r
e
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
K
I
-
E
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
c
o
m
b
a
t
t
i
n
g
s
p
a
m
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
C
a
t
r
i
n
/
I
m
b
a
n
i
A
1
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
C
E
-
E
c
r
o
s
s
-
b
o
r
d
e
r
m
o
n
e
y
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
E
d
w
a
r
d
/
G
o
o
d
l
i
n
k
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
w
e
b
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
g
i
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
H
e
n
r
i
k
/
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
G
a
r
m
e
n
t
s
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
I
-
E
y
o
u
t
h
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
o
n
r
u
b
b
i
s
h
d
u
m
p
s
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
B
a
r
r
y
/
C
e
l
l
S
u
n
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
V
-
E
s
m
a
l
l
-
s
c
a
l
e
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
J
a
m
a
l
/
A
g
r
i
T
e
c
h
A
2
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
I
-
E
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
/
e
n
e
r
g
y
i
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
-
2
)
M
i
r
i
a
m
/
B
e
t
t
e
r
W
o
r
k
A
2
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
g
a
r
m
e
n
t
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
'
r
i
g
h
t
s
/
s
a
f
e
t
y
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
S
t
e
v
e
n
/
B
i
b
l
.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
a
i
r
e
s
A
2
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
l
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
L
e
w
i
s
/
B
i
o
V
o
l
t
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
H
e
i
d
i
/
B
o
t
t
l
e
A
r
t
A
2
N
o
r
t
h
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
E
f
e
m
a
l
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
K
e
n
n
y
/
A
f
r
i
-
T
e
x
t
A
2
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
I
-
I
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
-
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
N
e
l
s
o
n
/
P
i
s
t
o
l
s
t
o
P
l
o
u
g
h
s
A
2
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
P
e
t
e
r
/
A
f
r
i
P
a
d
s
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
p
a
d
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
I
s
a
a
c
/
M
o
b
i
C
l
i
n
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
m
o
b
i
l
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
s
c
a
l
i
n
g
(
2
)
N
a
d
i
a
/
F
e
m
i
c
h
a
r
g
e
A
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
I
-
E
w
o
m
e
n
'
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
O
l
g
a
/
R
o
u
g
h
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
s
A
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
b
a
t
t
i
n
g
h
u
m
a
n
t
r
a
f
i
c
k
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
P
a
t
i
e
n
c
e
/
F
a
i
r
C
a
r
e
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
K
I
-
I
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
f
o
r
s
e
x
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
R
e
b
e
c
c
a
/
S
p
r
e
a
d
I
T
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
T
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
T
h
o
m
a
s
/
T
o
u
r
F
a
i
r
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
e
t
h
i
c
a
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
W
i
l
l
i
s
/
A
f
r
i
C
h
o
c
A
3
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
/
f
a
i
r
-
t
r
a
d
e
c
o
c
o
a
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
V
i
n
a
y
/
S
u
n
p
o
w
e
r
A
3
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
i
a
K
I
-
I
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
Z
a
y
d
/
P
u
r
e
t
e
c
h
A
3
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
s
t
K
I
-
I
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
/
p
u
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
*
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
a
n
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
n
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
w
h
o
i
m
m
i
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
s
a
n
a
d
u
l
t
.
*
*
S
t
a
g
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
r
t
u
p
C
o
m
m
o
n
s
(
2
0
1
4
)
Table 4-1: Overview of the Booster Social Entrepreneurs
Jönköping International Business School
138
The third accelerator was similar to the second in that a large proportion of the
participants (four of the eight) were recruited from African countries. However,
in contrast to A2 the third cohort consisted of as many men as women – and
only one of the non-African entrepreneurs came from a Western background.
The remaining entrepreneurs came from Eastern Europe, the Middle-East and
South Asia. Moreover, most of the entrepreneurs belonged to the ‘indigenous’
category of social entrepreneur – and five of the eight participants could also be
described as ‘knowledgeable improvisers’. Only one of the social entrepreneurs
in A3 belonged to the category that I term ‘expatriate’ social entrepreneur.
In terms of venture stage, I draw on the typology developed by the Start-up
Commons (2014) to categorise the progress already made by the social
entrepreneurs when they entered the Booster programme. This typology consists
of three over-reaching stages (pre-startup, start-up and growth). The typology is
divided into smaller sub-stages and numbered, with some stages ‘bridging’ the
gaps between the three main stages (see figure 4.1). “Pre-startup” is for example,
subdivided into “ideation” (-2) and “concepting” (-1), with “commitment” (0)
providing the bridge to “startup”. “Start-up” is associated with “validation” (+1),
with “scaling” (+2) bridging over into the “growth” phase – in which the final
stage of “establishing” (+3) is found. As table 4.1 shows, the first accelerator
recruited a considerably larger proportion of early-stage (‘pre-startup’) social
entrepreneurs, than A2 and A3. In both A2 and A3 about half of the
entrepreneurs recruited were at the ‘startup’ stage of development, with the other
half fairly evenly balanced between the ‘inception’ and ‘inception>survival’
categories.
Figure 4-1: Startup stages, from Startup Commons (2014)
The typologies mentioned above and the impact of the different constellations
of entrepreneurs on the accelerator process are discussed in more detail in the
sections entitled ‘Similar structure, dissimilar interaction’ (4.3.7) and ‘The social
entrepreneurs – Part 2’ (4.4). I now move on to describe the context for this study
of social entrepreneurial learning, namely the three Booster accelerators.
establishment (3)
STARTUP GROWTH
ideation (-2) concepting (-1) commitment (0)
PRE-STARTUP
validation (1) scaling (2)
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
139
4.3 The Accelerators
4.3.1 Background
In this dissertation I explore the social entrepreneurial learning of three cohorts
of social entrepreneurs who participated in an accelerator run by a Scandinavian
third sector organisation. This organisation, the Network for Social
Entrepreneurship
63
(or NSE) is a member-based, not-for-profit. It was founded in
2004 primarily in order to give more structure to the growing network of
individuals who were interested in promoting social entrepreneurship in
Scandinavia. The organisation’s website identifies NSE’s mission as that of
“promoting, inspiring and empowering” social entrepreneurial activities – and its
vision as: “a world where social entrepreneurship competes with traditional
business, and is seen as a norm rather than an alternative way of doing business”.
Isabelle, one of the NSE board members, describes the development of the
network as involving two stages. The first stage, from 2004 to 2010, was based
primarily on networking and on the voluntary activities of its members. This
stage is associated with regular networking activities. For example: the monthly
meeting of social entrepreneurs at the SocNet office, initiated in 2006. It also
involved the participation of network members in think-tanks that focused on
the role of the private sector in development. Members also made several visits
to developing countries to engage in a dialogue on social entrepreneurship. This
dialogue was carried out in partnership with other third sector organisations
including the Swedish organisation ForumSyd and Pioneers of Change in South
Africa. At the same time, network members were engaged in activities relating to
social entrepreneurship in Scandinavia, setting up for example an annual three
week introductory course on the subject and pioneering the Youth for Change
64
project in 2010. The latter project was later developed into an independent social
enterprise and focuses on increasing the participation of young people in solving
social challenges in their local environments.
The Youth for Change initiative, despite not being NSE’s only successful initiative,
was to a large extent a watershed project. Isabelle suggests that it marked a change
in mindset within NSE, as board members were forced to make the choice
between scaling up the network’s activities and limiting the amount of activities
the organisation was involved in. Isabelle had been an NSE member for several
years and as demands on the organisation increased, she also became the first
person to be employed on a part-time basis. Her recruitment coincided with the
63
This is a pseudonym.
64
Despite the existence of an organisation with this name in California, this is a pseudonym for one of
the projects run by NSE.
Jönköping International Business School
140
election of Frank as new chairman to the NSE board in 2011. Frank recollects
seeing his task as chairman as that of helping NSE make the move from a
network to an organisation. This was done by focusing on a scaling up of the
things that they had “semi been doing for years” and by transforming “loosely
created” partnerships into formal agreements where possible.
One of the partnerships prioritised by the network was their dialogue with the
Swedish International Development Agency (Sida). NSE had maintained contact with
Sida since its founding and had partnered with the agency in arranging several
seminars. In 2010 they had also applied for funding to set up a more formal head
office with a salaried director. This application was rejected due to having too
broad an aim – and also because it did not focus primarily on developing
countries. Nevertheless, following the success of Youth for Change the NSE board
believed that they had increased evidence for the organisation’s capacity to
nurture successful social entrepreneurs. They were also aware of Sida’s increasing
interest in the role of the enterprise in development, as seen in their launching of
the Business for Development (B4D) programme and the matched-funding initiative
Innovations against Poverty (I.a.P)(Sida, 2010). NSE therefore put together a new
application for funding. This application focused more exclusively on the
establishment of a function within the organisation that would create “a support
function and incubator activity for entrepreneurs whose innovations actively
promote the combatting of poverty” (NSE 2011). The three year project for
which the organisation sought funding was titled “Boosting Social Entrepreneurship”
(BSE) and the accelerator associated with the project subsequently became
known as “Booster”.
Funding for the BSE project was granted by Sida in late 2011. Fascinatingly, the
application does not include any description of the creation of a series of
accelerators for social entrepreneurs, even if it is clear from my interviews with
board members that this was a key part of the intended programme. Instead the
application describes several different forms of support, including: mentoring,
individual advice and support, a web-based virtual community for social
entrepreneurs, and ongoing workshops and seminars. Consequently, my
impression is that although the idea of an accelerator was one that may have
existed when the application was made, it only matured significantly during the
period between the sending in of the application and the approval of funding.
Evidence for this is given by Isabelle’s comment that the accelerator idea
developed after the application was sent: “the application focused on the
[programme’s] purpose and the need for such a programme”. Frank’s comments
reflect the board’s search for a method that would “accelerate the entrepreneurs
who already had ideas, but needed a crash course in the business aspects […] or
other elements of being an entrepreneur”. It does seem however, that Frank was
a driving force with regards to the final choice of instrument, as he describes a
personal process of learning about accelerators that included taking on board
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
141
impressions from programmes such as the Unreasonable Institute and Echoing Green.
He summarised the end result as a process of adaptation: “we tweaked the idea
of long-term incubation to short-term acceleration with scalability”. What this
involved in practice is described in the following section.
4.3.2 Designing for Development
4.3.2.1 Accelerator 1
At several points in this dissertation I describe the gradual process of emergence
that characterised the first accelerator programme. In other words: the move
from a conviction that social entrepreneurs needed to be supported, to the
development of more specific ideas about how to support, the sourcing of funding
for a programme of support – and finally, the recruitment of somebody to run
the programme. The ‘somebody’ who was recruited to run the first accelerator
was Denise, a young woman with a background in the Fairtrade movement. She
was given the task of designing a programme around several key factors that
Frank and other NSE members believed to be vital to the acceleration process.
These factors are briefly described below.
A core idea of accelerators is obviously acceleration: the development of targeted
ventures in a more rapid manner than would otherwise have taken place. Isabelle
referred to this key accelerator role as one of “leverage”. She also talked of the
accelerator process in terms of a “catalyst” and suggested that one of its functions
was “quality assurance”. In other words, the task given to Denise was to design
a process that both increased the pace of venture development, while also
ensuring that the development taking place was sound and healthy. Frank made
it clear that “healthy” implied a move towards financial viability: the development
of business propositions that would be attractive to investors. However, he
allowed for the possibility that the accelerator might not be able to bring all the
social entrepreneurs to this stage:
“The idea is how can we make these startups investor-ready, like include
businesses that can stand on their own two feet […] ensuring that they
understand that they can stand on their own two feet, or are at least equipped
with the questions that they need to answer in order to become standing on
their own two feet.”
In order to create ‘leverage’ both Frank and Isabelle identified several key
functions that they believed the accelerator needed to fulfil. They also had ideas
about how these functions could be provided. Frank suggested that the
accelerator would provide social entrepreneurs with access to new knowledge
(“high quality lecturers”), individual coaching (“coaches, mentors”), an expanded
network (“events”) and investment (“investors”). Here the design of the Booster
Jönköping International Business School
142
accelerator was clearly influenced by the social business accelerator of the
Unreasonable Institute. Their program focuses on two main themes, namely: the
development of the entrepreneur and their venture – and the linking of the
entrepreneur to investors, by means of effective pitching and investor-oriented
events. The British School for Social Entrepreneurs describes a similar approach to
learning that involves five components. Four of these (witness sessions, expert
sessions, mentoring and action learning sets) were also adopted by NSE in their
own accelerator (SSE, 2013). The similarity of the Booster programme to other
short-term programmes underlines the relevance of this study. It is probable that
insights from the Booster accelerators will be useful in enhancing the learning
associated with other programmes that share many of its ingredients.
Despite the influence of other programmes on the design of the NSE accelerator,
the two board members who exerted most influence on its design – Frank and
Isabelle – drew extensively on their own experiences and values as they identified
the key emphases for their own programme. As already noted, one such emphasis
was that of quality assurance. Frank suggested that one of the functions of the
entrepreneurial cohort should be that of assessing and improving the quality of
one another’s ventures:
“Giving them a space […] to be with one another and to learn and question
each other about the quality, the focus, whatever element of their business.”
Isabelle was equally adamant on this point, reflecting on her own experience in
incubators and emphasising the importance of “mangling” one’s business idea in
an “intense” environment. Nonetheless, Frank and Isabelle also attached special
weight to the function of the accelerator cohort as a provider of much-needed
companionship and peer feedback. They both referred to the ‘loneliness’ of the
entrepreneurial experience as a point of departure for their reasoning, as
illustrated by Frank’s comment:
“I think peer support for any business person or entrepreneur is often left
lacking. We often work alone in our own spaces.”
Building on this observation, they emphasized the importance of creating
networks and relationships to combat this isolation. As Isabelle reasoned:
“I think there is an impact in the area of the network one builds in a
programme like this […] A clear advantage of the accelerator will be its
intensity. We are our own bosses in our own operations - but we need a
relation to other entrepreneurs who can understand our idea, but still view it
from the outside.”
To summarise therefore, the first accelerator was designed with one eye on the
Unreasonable Institute – and was intended to provide new ventures with the
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
143
leverage necessary to move significantly closer to ‘investor readiness’. In order to
do this NSE intended to first of all help participating entrepreneurs improve their
businesses by means of new insight (visiting speakers) and a critical appraisal of
their ventures (by their mentors and peers). Moreover, the accelerator was
intended to extend the networks of the entrepreneurs by means of events and
interaction – and by extension, their access to both social and financial capital.
4.3.2.2 Accelerator 2
The second accelerator lasted for eight weeks (the same as A1), but in contrast
to the first was held in the Scandinavian winter – from January to March, 2013.
Two factors that affected the timing of the second accelerator were the ambition
of NSE (as expressed in the application to Sida) to hold two accelerators a year
– and the negative experience of several entrepreneurs after they graduated from
the first programme. The first accelerator finished just before the Scandinavian
summer – and hence the period in which many Nordic businesses go into ‘sleep’
mode. At this point they tend to maintain necessary activity, but do not generally
initiate anything radically new. Several entrepreneurs commented on the de-
motivating experience of moving from the ‘high’ of the accelerator experience,
to the torpidity of the Scandinavian summer period, when many of the people
they wished to make contact with were simply not available.
The second accelerator differed little from the first in terms of content and also
lasted for an eight-week period. Due to the change in programme coordinator
(as described in my methods chapter); the new facilitator, Karen, was naturally
hesitant to change anything major without first experiencing the programme.
However, although she maintained the overall content of the A1 programme,
Karen had more time to prepare the second accelerator. She was therefore able
to structure the accelerator in a manner that was more strategic in terms of the
learning process, rather than convenient in terms of fitting into speakers’
schedules. The revised timing of the second accelerator is depicted in table 4.2
of the ‘Structure and content’ section.
A major change in the design of the second accelerator was the timing of the
programme. Programme managers took note of a comment I made in a report,
where I noted that finishing the accelerator just before the Swedish summer
holidays had a demotivating effect on some of the entrepreneurs. The new
accelerator was therefore scheduled so that it began in January and finished at
the end of March. Unfortunately, the majority of the entrepreneurs in the second
accelerator cohort were recruited from Africa – which created new challenges.
For example: difficulties in arriving on time in the mornings due to the late
sunrise (and a lack of birdsong to indicate that dawn had come) – and several
practical issues associated with the unpreparedness of several of the participants
for the harsh Scandinavian winter.
Jönköping International Business School
144
4.3.2.3 Accelerator 3
The structure and content of the third accelerator were only slightly revised from
the second (see table 4.2). Three changes to the programme were however made.
First of all, due to the composition of the third cohort (mostly social
entrepreneurs from developing countries), the timing of the accelerator was
changed back to that of A1 – i.e. April to June. A second, important change was
the recruiting of two volunteers to the accelerator management team for help
with practical issues. One of these (Jemma) was given the exclusive task of
planning networking activities and suggesting contacts for each of the social
entrepreneurs. Finally, due to the pregnancy of Karen (the A2 accelerator
manager) the responsibility for the day-to-day running of the accelerator was
handed over to Frida. Frida participated in A1 and A2 as a process leader and
was recruited to NSE shortly after the end of the second programme.
4.3.3 Structure and Content
4.3.3.1 Accelerator 1
The structure of the first Booster accelerator (A1) was initially planned by the
newly recruited manager Denise, in a manner that interwove education,
networking and practice in a fairly balanced manner throughout the eight-week
accelerator. As will be described later, this routine was altered in the final weeks
of the programme. The first accelerator lasted for eight weeks and took place in
a large Scandinavian city between April and June, 2012.
The accelerator began on a Tuesday with a two-day team-building session at a
small conference venue attached to a business centre for alternative health
practice. On the second day a speaker from a British social venture took centre
stage, as the entrepreneurs began to transfer their focus from the dynamics of
the group to the dynamics of their own ventures. On the Thursday of week one,
the entrepreneurs participated in their first networking event, manning the NSE
stand at a CSR fair held by a well-known business school in the region. On the
Friday they travelled for the first time to the hot-desking venue SocNet, which
was to be their workplace for the next seven weeks.
Beginning on week two, each week then followed a fairly similar pattern. Two
educational sessions with external speakers were held on Mondays, Wednesdays
and Thursdays; with Tuesdays and Fridays dedicated to the social entrepreneurs’
own work – or to individual coaching sessions. Networking activities were
scheduled throughout the accelerator, with some arranged by NSE (such as the
‘Social Entrepreneurship Evening’ and the final graduation event). Additional
networking activities were arranged by organisations not formally connected to
NSE and the entrepreneurs participated in these on a more informal basis. These
activities, which included the international SOCAP conference on impact
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
145
investing, were integrated into the accelerator schedule rather than planned to fit
in with a particular stage of the programme.
As noted previously, the general ‘logic’ and direction of the accelerator was
influenced by the structure of the Unreasonable Institute’s programme. This
structure focused very much on helping entrepreneurs attain ‘investor-readiness’.
In other words, NSE’s ambition was that by the end of the accelerator the
entrepreneur would be able to present their startup effectively (their “pitch”),
while also backing their presentation up with a credible business plan. At the
same time, the accelerator maintained a clear focus on developing countries and
on the field of social entrepreneurship. The combination of these emphases led
to the content of the accelerator being characterised by four main themes,
namely: ‘social innovation’, ‘building a viable business’, ‘funding’ and ‘marketing’
(my summary). The content and timing of these themes is shown in table 4.2.
Several things are worth commenting on in relation to the table. First of all, the
table does not capture one of the important characteristics of the accelerator,
namely the iterative nature of the programme. At several points in the accelerator,
speakers who had visited the programme and given a talk on a certain subject
(for example: business models), returned to the accelerator several weeks later
for a follow-up session. In this way they were able to accompany the
development of the social entrepreneurs’ thought processes and their practical
application of session content. Something else that is not apparent from the table,
is the emphasis in A1 of pitching activity and social media. More formal attention
was given to the verbal presentation of the social entrepreneurs’ businesses in
weeks one and five, but in reality each week of the accelerator included some
activity that required participants to explain their business idea to somebody else.
Similar attention was paid to the role of social media in promoting the new
ventures. Consequently, an emphasis on blogging and other techniques for
creating an internet presence, was something that was particularly noticeable
throughout the first accelerator.
A final factor that does not emerge from the table’s simple thematic description
is the ‘who’ of the accelerator content. Many of the speakers who visited the A1
programme had a background in entrepreneurship, sustainable business or
corporate social responsibility. With the exception of a guest from the British
social venture WeCreate and two Scandinavian entrepreneurs working abroad, all
of the speakers were based in Scandinavia – even if several of them had extensive
experience in developing countries. Many of the speakers had previously been
members of NSE and with few exceptions were not presently engaged in starting
ventures directly addressing the challenges of the developing world. A fairly
typical speaker was one who had engaged in social innovation at some stage in
their career, but who was now employed in either a larger organisation in the area
of sustainability, or as a consultant.
Jönköping International Business School
146
Table 4-2: Thematic content and timing of Accelerator activities.
Theme Content A1 A2 A3
Social
innovation
- Social entrepreneurship
- MDGs / CSR governance
- Sustainable business
- Business in developing markets
- Measuring social impact /SVP
Wk.1
Wk.2
Wk.4
Wk.4
Wk. 6
Wk.3
Wk.3,8
Wk.2
Wk.1
Wk.1
Wk.2,3
Building a viable
business
- Business plan
- Business models
- Financial management
- Scaling
- Customer focus / sales
- Leadership
- Project Management
- Legal aspects / Int. property
Wk.2
Wk.3,5
Wk.2,8
Wk.3,7
Wk.3
Wk.7
Wk.7
Wk.1,7
Wk. 2,4
Wk.4
Wk.5
Wk.1
Wk.3,78
Wk.4
Funding - Social finance / I.a.P
- Crowd & equity funding
- Funding strategies
- Understanding investors
- Grant writing
Wk.1
Wk.3
Wk.3
Wk.7
Wk.5,6
Wk.5
Wk.5
Wk.5
Wk.4,5
Wk.4,5
Wk.5
Marketing - Communication strategy
- Web sites
- Social media
- Brand management
Wk.2
Wk.3
Wk.3,7
Wk.6
Wk.6,8
Wk.5
Wk.6
Wk.1,6
Wk.7
Wk.6,7
Other - Presentation and pitching
- Entrepreneurial networking
- The entrepreneurial process
- Building innovation capacity
- Intercultural communication
- Excel & PowerPoint
Wk.1,5
Wk.2
Wk.3
Wk.4
Wk.6
Wk.4
Wk.7,8
Wk.2
Wk.2
Events - Mingle w/ NSE board / kick-off
- Night of Impact / SE bar
- CSR Fair / E’ship Day
- SOCAP conference
- Lunch w/British Council
- SE presentation in borough
- Study visit to social enterprise
- Study visit to business lab
- Speed-dating w/mentors
- Graduation / investor mingle
Wk. 1
Wk. 3
Wk. 1
Wk. 5
Wk. 8
Wk. 1,
4
Wk. 4
Wk. 2
Wk. 6
Wk. 3,8
Wk.1
Wk.5
Wk.1, 6
Wk. 3
Wk. 3
Wk.4
Wk.8
As the first accelerator progressed and the entrepreneurs made progress on their
business plans, they became increasingly aware of the impending end of the
programme. Many of them experienced this as stressful and complained about
the continued intensity of the scheduled programme of visiting speakers. For this
reason, towards the end of A1 the decision was taken to cancel several sessions
in order to free up more time for individual activity. However, in order to
counteract the risk of having a ‘content-less’ last few weeks, the entrepreneurs
were asked to clarify their needs for expertise and additional coaching.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
147
Accelerator managers subsequently catered to these needs on a more
individualised basis than at the beginning of the programme: running a few
sessions with smaller groups, or helping the entrepreneurs to get into contact
with relevant experts on an individual basis.
4.3.3.2 Accelerator 2
The second Booster accelerator was fairly similar to the first in structure, although
as will be seen, it generated very different interaction and outcomes.
Consequently, in both this section and subsequent sections I do not provide a
detailed description of the characteristics of the second programme that
remained more or less unchanged from the first. Instead I focus on the features
of the second accelerator that were different from the first.
In contrast to the first accelerator, A2 devoted three full days of the first week to
team building. The second accelerator again sourced several speakers from the
United Kingdom, even if these were not the same ones engaged in A1. The
general content of A2 and the timing of the different themes are depicted in the
middle column of table 4.2.
As more time was available for planning in the second accelerator, it was easier
to schedule speakers in a more logical manner than in the first accelerator. In A1,
accelerator managers were at times forced by speakers’ schedules to fit them in
on dates that were not optimal from a pedagogical perspective. In contrast, in A2
there was a clearer progression from theme to theme throughout the programme.
This is clearly seen in table 4.2, where the ‘funding’ theme in A2 is scheduled
primarily in week 5, whereas in A1 the sessions on this theme were more
splintered and took place in weeks 1, 3 and 7. The schedule for A2 also illustrates
the learning that took place between the two accelerators. In A1, managers
invited the speakers that the entrepreneurs appreciated the most, back to the
programme to provide follow-up and a more in-depth treatment of their topics.
In my evaluation of A1 I had suggested that fewer speakers be used in future
accelerators and that more effort be spent on providing continuity. Accelerator
staff adopted this suggestion and in the A2 schedule it is possible to see how a
particular subject is introduced early on in the programme and then systematically
followed up at a later stage. For example: “business plan” was introduced in week
2 and followed up in week 8 – and the topic “business models” was introduced
in week 3 and then followed up in week 7.
In the second accelerator participants were exposed to ‘external’ events a little
less than in the first. For example: the accelerator did not coincide with local
events such as a university CSR fair, nor with regional events such as the SOCAP
conference on social investment – which was opportunely located in southern
Sweden in week 5 of A1.
Jönköping International Business School
148
4.3.3.3 Accelerator 3
The final accelerator surveyed in this study was similar to A1 in terms of timing
(starting in mid-April and ending in mid-June) and resembled A2 in terms of
structure and content. As in A1, the programme took advantage of other
organisations’ events to maximise networking opportunities for the
entrepreneurs. For example: the A3 social entrepreneurs attended an
entrepreneurship day held by a business school in the city. A study visit was also
arranged to a successful social enterprise based in Scandinavia, but operating in
Africa – as well as to a business ‘lab’ with a focus on emerging markets. In A3, a
seminar on writing grant proposals was included for the first time and a highly-
appreciated session on project management was also introduced. A ‘speed-
dating’ event was arranged so that the social entrepreneurs could get input from
the mentors of their peers – and several practical sessions on software skills
(Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint) were also arranged. Slightly more time was
also devoted to the financial aspects of social entrepreneurship. The general
content of A3 and the timing of the different themes are depicted in the right-
hand column of table 4.2.
4.3.4 Place
In the following paragraphs the physical spaces in which the Booster social
entrepreneurs lived and worked are described. The SocNet working environment
that was common to all three accelerators is described first, before the additional
‘secondary spaces’ associated with each particular programme are discussed.
4.3.4.1 SocNet
The Booster social entrepreneurs spent a large amount of the accelerator period at
SocNet, a hot-desking office environment developed for enterprises with a ‘social’
orientation. The SocNet concept is international and over 30 centres exist in the
world, primarily in the northern hemisphere. Several centres have also been
started south of the equator, even if the organisation has not yet created an
effective presence among developing nations. All of the centres in the world are
linked via a virtual platform and networking for social impact is a core idea in
SocNet activities. The web publicity provided by the ‘hotel’ that hosted the Booster
entrepreneurs describes its vision as involving a desire to create spaces that:
”combine the best of a trusted community, innovation lab, business incubator
and the comforts of home. Spaces with all the tools and trimmings needed to
grow and develop innovative ventures for the world. But above all, spaces for
meaningful encounters, exchange and inspiration, full of diverse people doing
amazing things.”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
149
What being located at SocNet implied in practice for the Booster social
entrepreneurs was primarily access to both the centre’s physical facilities and the
centre’s network of entrepreneurs for an eight-week period. Renting space at a
SocNet facility usually means not only working in an open-office environment,
but also ‘hot-desking’ (the practice of using whichever workplace is available each
day, upon arrival at the centre). In the first accelerator this practice was slightly
adjusted, so that the entrepreneurs only hot-desked within a limited physical
space that was dedicated to the accelerator. This space was however, not
physically cut off from the rest of the SocNet working area – so that the
entrepreneurs were still able to network at will with the other SocNet residents.
Coffee-breaks and lunch were generally taken in an unstructured manner, in the
small kitchen area used by all of the SocNet staff and residents.
4.3.4.2 Accelerator 1
Many of the social entrepreneurs who participated in A1 lived in the city area, or
had friends in the area. Three of the participants however, did not live in the city.
Two entrepreneurs re-located from other European countries for the eight-week
period (Alice and Catrin) – and one (Henrik) travelled all the way from Brazil to
participate. After a few weeks, Henrik moved in with Edward to reduce his
housing costs. The existence of these ‘secondary’ spaces is worth noting, as
learning activity and interaction are not processes that begin when entrepreneurs
enter their ‘office’ and immediately cease when they leave it. In contrast to the
second accelerator, only two entrepreneurs shared ‘secondary’ space upon
leaving SocNet – the formal working environment that I refer to as ‘primary’ space
in future discussions.
4.3.4.3 Accelerator 2
The second accelerator began in the same location as the first and also made the
move to the SocNet on the Friday of the first week. Due to the fact that the
majority of the participants came from developing countries in Africa, NSE
managers rented an apartment for them in a suburb of the city. All of the social
entrepreneurs who shared this apartment were male. Of the remaining
entrepreneurs one was male (Jamal) and lived close to the apartment rented for
the African entrepreneurs. The other two were female (Marie and Heidi), with
Heidi renting a room for the duration of the accelerator – and Marie staying at
her home in the city. The journey from the African entrepreneurs’ apartment into
the city centre (where SocNet was located) took around an hour and often
involved a change of buses or trains. The African entrepreneurs found the
journeys to and from SocNet taxing, not least because of the inhospitable weather
and the darkness associated with Scandinavian winter mornings and afternoons.
They did however spend much of the day in the same ‘primary’ space as the social
entrepreneurs in A1 and A3 – at SocNet. In contrast to the A1 social
entrepreneurs however, the Booster cohort in A2 no longer occupied a specific
space at SocNet, but were expected to engage in ‘genuine’ hot-desking: choosing
Jönköping International Business School
150
a new working space each day from all of the available work-stations. With
regards to ‘secondary’ space, only the African entrepreneurs met one another
regularly in contexts outside of SocNet (primarily at their apartment). As will be
discussed in section 4.3.7, this contributed to a distinctive group dynamic.
4.3.4.4 Accelerator 3
Managers revised the accelerator’s accommodation ‘strategy’ for the third
accelerator and reduced the travel time of the social entrepreneurs by renting
accommodation closer to the city centre. Once again the entrepreneurs were
hosted by SocNet and their ‘primary’ space was structured in much the same way
as for the A2 cohort. An equal number of men and women was recruited to the
third accelerator and consequently, the cohort was housed in a ‘male’ apartment
and a ‘female’ apartment. Social entrepreneurs shared rooms (two and two) and
all four of the male participants stayed in the apartment provided for them by
NSE. Only three of the female entrepreneurs made use of their apartment
however, with Nadia staying with her boyfriend in the city. Among the male
entrepreneurs, Thomas also had relatives in the city and spent some time visiting
them at weekends. In terms of ‘secondary’ space therefore, the accommodation
of the A3 social entrepreneurs was organised according to gender. As with the
A2 cohort, the way in which this space was organised affected the group dynamic.
This is discussed in section 4.3.7.
4.3.5 Mentors
4.3.5.1.1 Mentoring Roles and Routines
Prior to the start of the accelerators each entrepreneur was allocated a mentor
with whom to interact during the eight-week programme. An attempt was made
to link entrepreneurs with mentors who had experience of at least some aspect
of the entrepreneur’s enterprise. For some individuals this meant that their
mentor had personal experience of starting their own business, while other
mentors had experience in the particular industry in which the entrepreneur was
expecting to niche themselves. The role of the mentors was intended to be that
of the ‘specialist’ with regards to the particular enterprise that they were allocated.
In other words, the mentors were expected to coach the entrepreneurs in a
manner that led to the development of their enterprises, on the basis of their
unique insight into the needs and objectives of a single entrepreneur.
The mentors were recruited from the NSE network and from the region in which
the organisation has its head office. Several of the mentors were members of the
NSE board, or had a history of engagement with the organisation. The
entrepreneurs were introduced to their mentors at an evening dinner in week 1
of the accelerator and were then expected to make their own arrangements for
the structuring of their interaction. The majority of the entrepreneurs
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
151
subsequently met with their mentors every two weeks for the duration of the
accelerator, although it is important to underline that they also maintained regular
contact by other means – such as email, Skype and social media.
Mentors tended to fulfil five main functions. Firstly and perhaps most
importantly, they functioned very much as proactive ‘counsellors’ or ‘sounding
boards’. First of all, as individuals with whom the entrepreneurs could discuss
the development of their enterprises. And secondly, as individuals who – as they
became acquainted with the enterprise – provided the entrepreneur with their
impressions of its strengths and weaknesses, as well as their ideas of what the
entrepreneur could do to develop their firm. This was the experience that Nelson
(A2) had with his mentor:
“She told me, ‘Right now Nelson I know that you have the business strategy
beside the not-for-profit strategy, but this is what you need to focus on’. And
she helped me develop the idea and we developed it to the best”.
The above quote illustrates the mentor’s role in assessing the health of the new
enterprise in a holistic manner and in helping entrepreneurs prioritise.
Nevertheless, many of the entrepreneurs also used their mentors as sounding-
boards for some of the more specific tasks associated with the accelerator, such
as sales pitches. In other words, mentors were expected to provide feedback not
only about the ‘bigger picture’, but also about the smaller ‘pieces of the puzzle’ –
such as pitches to investors, web pages and funding strategies.
A second role the mentor played was as a provider of relevant contacts,
particularly in the cases where the mentor was active in the same industry as the
entrepreneur. For example, as Henrik commented several months after the end
of the accelerator:
“I’ve found a really good contact at Sweden’s biggest clothing brand, via my
mentor.”
A third role that some mentors played was that of the ‘provider of structure’.
One of the challenges of the accelerator was its intensity and the diversity of
impressions thrust upon participants in a relatively short space of time. Naturally
some entrepreneurs had difficulty in keeping so many ‘balls’ in the air at once
and appreciated their mentor’s role in maintaining focus and a sense of stability.
Heidi for example, noted that her mentor complemented her in this area and
helped to get more out of their sessions by ensuring that tasks were both clarified
and focused upon:
“When we’d like work on stuff, she was always really good at focusing, ‘cos I
can be really bad at that, like especially if we’d go meet for coffee, then I could
talk to you for an hour and then be like, ‘Oh… I’ve got to go to work’. But she
Jönköping International Business School
152
was really good at being, ‘Okay. Yeah. Let’s… what are we going to work on
today? And how...’ You know what I mean? She was good like that.”
A fourth function filled by several of the mentors was that of the ‘enthusiast’ or
‘cheerleader’. For entrepreneurs coming in from their ‘islands’ it was emotionally
strengthening to have at least one other person showing enthusiasm for and even
commitment to their startup. Even where entrepreneurs later expressed
disappointment regarding the mentorship process, they felt initially moved by
the experience of no longer having to ‘go it alone’. In Heidi’s words:
“I used to get really happy when she’s ‘we’ talking about that glass, to have
someone else… that is like working, what seems, with you. You know… that
feeling.”
Nelson described his interaction with his mentor in a similar manner, pointing
out that her contribution was not only of an advisory nature, but also of a more
emotional, affective character:
“She has passion in what I’m doing”
A final function that some of the mentors filled was that of a ‘role model’ for the
entrepreneur. For some of the less experienced entrepreneurs and for those
entrepreneurs with a background in not-for-profit organisations; their mentor
provided an example of professional, for-profit leadership. Steven for example,
describes his mentor as not only pushing him to achieve, but also ‘teaching’ him
through not only his example, but also his expectations. Steven’s case is described
in more detail in a later section.
4.3.5.1.2 Experiences of the Mentoring Process
Despite the efforts made by managers to match participants with suitable
mentors, the entrepreneurs in both accelerators had mixed feelings about the
effectiveness of the mentoring part of the programme. These feelings were linked
to several factors, namely; the level of engagement of the mentor, the usefulness
of their network to the entrepreneur and the relevance of their experience to the
entrepreneur. For the most part entrepreneurs were satisfied with their
interaction with their mentor if they were able to provide either relevant contacts,
or relevant feedback (based on credible experience). However, in the absence of
both of the above participants tended to rate their mentor negatively, regardless
of their enthusiasm or investment of time in their enterprise.
In all three accelerators entrepreneurs expressed satisfaction with mentors who
created sufficient time in which to interact with them – and dissatisfaction with
individuals who they felt did not. Nelson for example was appreciative of the fact
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
153
that his mentor was clearly making an effort to engage with him, but also showed
an awareness of the fact that not all mentors were similarly committed:
“She is willing to help with more of her own time.”
“She was always… whenever we set an appointment she was always coming,
always coming, I did not have to look for her. Other fellows that have a good
mentor… suddenly they would change their appointment – and mentors are
too busy! I don’t know, but [name of mentor] was not like that, she would
always come.”
The above observation suggests that one of the factors that made several
individuals relevant as mentors (their startup experience), at times proved to be
their ‘downfall’ – as some accelerator participants perceived them as not having
enough time. This created either frustration on the part of the entrepreneur, or
uncertainty – or both. Although the frustration is perhaps easiest to understand,
it is important to note that entrepreneurs also expressed uncertainty about how
to interpret their mentor’s behaviour. This uncertainty affected their own
behaviour, primarily in making them more hesitant to engage with the mentor.
For example, Gabriella’s on her interaction with her mentor suggests that she
feels on the one hand that her contact with her mentor is useful, but that she is
also unsure of what her mentor feels with regards to her own enterprise:
“I wrote here [referring to a Post-It note] um, I need to keep on talking with
[name of mentor]. In fact, if I commit on a point we must …we have to do it!
So, I don’t know, but it’s like… my ability to convince him… to keep on. I think
he’s really worried. He’s really… [clicking fingers] right now, he’s really…
busy”.
As noted earlier, an important factor in the entrepreneurs’ assessment of their
mentors’ contributions had to do with their networks. Clearly, an important role
of the mentor is not only their ability to advise the entrepreneur, but also their
ability to put the entrepreneur into contact with individuals or organisations that
can help their enterprises develop. Many of the mentors were able to do this,
particularly in the first accelerator – where many of the social entrepreneurs had
strong ties to Scandinavia. In the second accelerator however, where the majority
of the participants came from developing countries, the limits of the NSE
network began to make themselves felt. Karen (the A2 manager) commented on
this in a follow-up interview, but it was also clear from some of the entrepreneurs’
comments that they had hoped to be able to grow their networks a little more
through their mentors. Heidi for example, was clearly not impressed with her
mentor’s ability to help her out with relevant contacts:
Jönköping International Business School
154
“Well, I didn’t get any connections from her, as far as import/export. She had
someone she thought maybe would do some freelance packaging design for
me, but it didn’t work out. She thought she had someone who might help edit
a video – once I go back and make a tape and then they just clip it together, it
didn’t work out... Um, she did know someone at import/export who didn’t have
any information that was relevant for me.”
In a previous section I noted that accelerator participants were generally
understanding when their mentors were unable to provide them with one of the
two main benefits of business mentoring (advice and relevant contacts).
Fortunately therefore, many of the mentors proved adept at rapidly assessing the
character and stage of the entrepreneurs’ startups and were consequently able to
provide useful feedback. In this area however, it became clear that several factors
contributed to making the mentors’ assessments of the entrepreneurs’ ventures
a challenging task. Comments from the entrepreneurs several months after the
accelerator underline the importance of this assessment in helping mentors adapt
their input to the situation and context of the entrepreneur. Their comments
suggest that the relevance of mentors’ advice revolves around their familiarity
with four enterprise-related factors, namely: the stage of the startup, the sector in
which the startup intends to operate (for-profit, hybrid or not-for-profit), the
industry in which the startup operates and the social context of the startup.
4.3.6 Coaches
One of the contributions of this study is its provision of a deeper understanding
of the different ways in which long-term ‘mentors’ and short-term ‘coaches’
enhance the learning of social entrepreneurs
65
. As noted earlier, Susan Cohen
(2013b) notes that external experts engage with the entrepreneurs in an
accelerator for different lengths of time, but uses the term ‘mentor’ for all these
actors. I suggest however, that it is useful to refer to experts who spend only a
short period of time with the entrepreneurs, as coaches. In this section I describe
entrepreneurs’ experiences of interacting with these individuals, focusing
particularly on the characteristics they associate with ‘good’ coaching. As I do so
I acknowledge the tendency of entrepreneurs to assess coaches on the basis of
the relevance of the content they bring to the accelerator. In other words,
entrepreneurs’ assessments of how coaches perform reflect to a certain extent on
the efficacy of accelerator design. Even if coaches are experienced and
knowledgeable, if entrepreneurs do not perceive the subject a coach has been
asked to talk about as relevant, they are often unenthusiastic about their input.
65
Clearly in an eight-week accelerator, ’long-term’ has a very different connotation than it does in other
contexts. In an accelerator someone who sticks around for eight-weeks shows a ’long-term’
commitment, whereas a speaker who only visits for one or two days is ’short-term’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
155
In A1 this was reflected in the contrasting comments
66
about coaches made by
experienced entrepreneur Barry and the less experienced, profession-oriented
entrepreneurs Gabriella and Alice:
(Barry) “I have come so far with my business that many activities are not very
valuable. However, they sometimes give me new ideas and activities that
develop practical skills – like yesterday’s theatre session with Gordon which
was great and very rewarding […] I was too far ahead with my business to fit
into what the programme could offer”.
(Gabriella) “I could not have reached so much information and so much
interesting feedback from people with the right knowledge, if I had kept on
working on my own”.
(Alice) “It’s a really well thought-through schedule”.
Gabriella and Alice’s comment lends support to one of the factors that Hallen et
al. (2013) associate with accelerator success, namely programmes’ ability to
engage high quality speakers for a limited period of time. Barry’s response
however, suggests that excellent speakers do not guarantee relevance and that
what coaches talk about, needs to be aligned with the needs of entrepreneurs’
ventures. As noted previously, this is largely a product of accelerator design and
has been discussed elsewhere in this study (for example, in 4.3.3 ‘Structure and
content’). Consequently, in the remainder of this section I will limit my discussion
to the factors that affect coach effectiveness, that do not relate to content.
4.3.6.1 Experts vs. Entrepreneurs
In Booster three main categories of coach had contact with accelerator
participants: experts that met the entrepreneurs only once or twice, experts that
interacted with the entrepreneurs continuously throughout the accelerator – and
individuals with personal experience of social entrepreneurship. In this study the
term ‘experts’ is used to refer to individuals with specialist knowledge in a
particular area of entrepreneurship. For example: in marketing or crowdfunding.
For the most part these experts visited the accelerator on two separate occasions:
once for an entire day to give a lecture and hold individual sessions with each
entrepreneur – and once for a morning or afternoon session several weeks after
their first visit. Frequently the social entrepreneurs were given a task to complete
by the speaker, such as improving their online presence or creating a ‘pitch’ on a
crowdfunding website. The second visit was intended to provide feedback on the
completed task.
66
The comments are written responses to an online questionairre and have been edited for grammar
and spelling to enhance readability.
Jönköping International Business School
156
At the end of the first accelerator it was clear that entrepreneurs were challenged
by the intensity of the programme, while also complaining about speakers’
tendency to cover the same material in their lectures. My impression was also
that they were having trouble putting all of the ‘pieces’ of the entrepreneurial
‘puzzle’ together. In my report I therefore recommended that NSE tackle these
issues by slightly reducing the number of visiting speakers and by encouraging a
few key speakers to visit the accelerator regularly during the eight week period.
The NSE managers took this on board and in the second and third accelerators
one of the coaches who the entrepreneurs had appreciated the most (‘Jackie’),
was asked to engage in a longer series of workshops. Although much of Jackie’s
expertise lay in the field of financial management, she also talked about business
models. Accelerator managers hoped that this combination of expertise would
allow participants to make sense of the topics covered by other speakers, by
relating them to a ‘helicopter’ perspective of their enterprises. Although my
recommendation was initially based on intuition, later interviews suggest that the
challenge of transforming the specialised input of a large number of experts into
a coherent whole was a task that even more experienced entrepreneurs found
difficult. Many of the social entrepreneurs continued to find sensemaking a
challenge, despite the steps taken to alleviate the ‘splintering’ effect engendered
by covering many different areas of entrepreneurship in a limited period. As the
‘experienced’ entrepreneur Thomas commented, halfway through the third
accelerator:
“So, now you have different coaches giving you different segments of the
business plan, but it is only your own responsibility to put them together, and
that’s where the coaching could be helpful, to make sure all these elements
are coordinated well in the business plan”.
Although an important role of the programme’s mentors was that of helping
entrepreneurs see the ‘forest’ rather than just the ‘trees’, at times it was clear that
coaches who had first-hand experience of social entrepreneurship also helped
with this task. Marie for example, described the contrast between the ‘expert’
coaches and one of the social entrepreneurs who visited the programme:
“I think it’s really good that it wasn’t just them, even if they’ve been fantastic
[names several of the expert coaches] - that it wasn’t just those who were
really business-oriented, but also those who were sources of inspiration –
Mattias and Barry. They tore down the structures a little […] if I’d have had to
do it by the book nothing would have happened – I need a freer way in”.
Marie’s reflection on the role of Mattias (the social entrepreneur) is similar to that
of several other entrepreneurs, who describe his role in simplifying the complex
picture of social enterprise built up by the accelerator – and making the task
appear feasible. An unintended consequence of introducing entrepreneurs to a
large number of experts, is that the resulting complexity can produce a feeling of
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
157
inadequacy: many entrepreneurs begin to feel overwhelmed. Consequently, it
appears that social entrepreneurs such as Mattias play an important emotional role
in accelerators. On the one hand, this role has to do with the development of a
feeling of ‘do-ability’ among accelerator participants. For example: Rebecca (A3)
described Mattias’ contribution as:
“Giving inspiration and courage to start out, be a practical entrepreneur.”
Other entrepreneurs used terms such as “amazing” and “inspiring” to describe
Mattias’ sessions. However, when participants described the impact of his visit
in more detail, a second emotions-oriented contribution emerged, namely that of
‘feeling understood’. Often the need for this only emerged when it was absent
from the accelerator, as evidenced by Kenny’s (A2) comments:
(Duncan) “If you could choose a mentor again, what would they give you?”
(Kenny) “I would choose a mentor who… who really is an entrepreneur, not
who works… in respect of the father
67
, he works in telecom. You understand. I
would choose a mentor who is an entrepreneur. Like, he talks business. So
this time he will not only tell me technical things for example – he will tell me
business management. He will advise me. He will see my struggle, he will see
my pains. […] He will understand… he will appreciate my efforts… more. […]
If you don’t like business, for example, I tell you what I’ve been through in my
course of being an entrepreneur. You will not value it, you will think it’s
nonsense”.
Kenny’s comments are similar to those of other entrepreneurs such as Henrik
(A1) – who described the value he would have attached to being able to discuss
his enterprise with someone who has: “done what I’ve done. From the start, from
zero, with the same resources”. For Henrik, his mentor’s lack of entrepreneurial
experience was to some extent compensated for by his meeting with Mattias
68
.
However, it seems significant that several entrepreneurs bring up the subject of
emotional pain and failure when they discuss mentors and coaches. Referring to
Mattias’ visit, Olga (A3) wrote:
“The most important part was examples (concrete) from his venture and
failures he had.”
Olga’s comment mirrors not only an appreciation of Mattias’ pedagogy (the use
of examples), but also of his imperfection. The pictures painted by practicing,
fallible social entrepreneurs often contrast with the idealistic portraits
67
Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa often refer to other men as “father”, as a sign of respect.
68
This is described in more detail, in the in-depth case study of Henrik that follows in section 4.4.
Jönköping International Business School
158
constructed by other experts – in that they tell a story of success despite
shortcomings. For many entrepreneurs the ‘humanity’ of visiting entrepreneurs
is an important factor in reinforcing their intentions to engage in
entrepreneurship (Hytti & Heinonen, 2013). Well-intentioned expert coaches
who describe ‘best practice’ risk creating feelings of inadequacy among
accelerator participants and may reflect an assumption that education for venture
development is primarily a cognitive process. The experiences of the Booster
entrepreneurs however, suggest that nascent entrepreneurship is also a process
characterised by emotion. If they are not to abandon their ventures, it appears
that entrepreneurs need to feel understood. They need to feel that success is
possible without perfection, and that social entrepreneurship is a feasible and
meaningful project. Practicing social entrepreneurs appear to provide more of
this vital emotional input, than coaches without entrepreneurial experience –
regardless of their degree of expertise.
4.3.6.2 Providing Inspiration and Energy
The above paragraph suggests that practicing entrepreneurs often contributed to
participants’ learning in a manner that affected their emotions – and in particular
their feelings of hope and efficacy. Some entrepreneurs’ comments however,
suggest that both the practicing entrepreneurs and the subject-oriented ‘experts’
contributed to a general atmosphere of energy and creativity. Barry (A1) and
Kenny (A2) represent different types of entrepreneur, but describe very similar
processes of creativity. Kenny for example, describes how flashes of creativity
often came to him during the accelerator, as he listened to a coach:
“I’m just kind of posing that I don’t believe in the academic formula of things
[…] Like in the case of Johan - there’s a guy who came, his name is Johan
69
–
and while he was teaching and stuff like that, my mind wasn’t following what
he was saying – but he said something that sparked my brain and that solved
a very big problem that my organisation was having. And that has to do with
um, measuring impact. […] And it was still not too clear, but when the last
woman, Jackie, brought something – when Jackie came in – Jackie finished
the whole thing.”
Kenny’s experience suggests that at times a creative experience develops during
the accelerator that is not so much a product of clever design (“I don’t believe in
the academic formula of things”), but rather of synergy and a climate conducive
to reflection. His comment makes it clear however, that the accelerator coaches
were not unimportant to his creativity. Rather, he describes how one of them
provided the ingredient that enabled him to complete the idea that came to him
in a seminar. Barry’s experience is similar and is described in more detail in a
69
Johan held on workshop on among other things: ’social value proposition’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
159
subsequent case-study. His comment however, underlines the role coaches play
as inspirers of creativity:
“It’s a bit like... sitting in a lecture, it’s not just that if it’s boring I think of
something else, it’s almost the opposite. It has to be inspiring, because if it’s
boring I begin to think of my to-do list and so on. But if it’s inspiring, then…
then the creative ideas come about completely different things.”
The experiences described above suggest that coaches contribute more than just
their specialist knowledge to accelerators. With hindsight it is therefore clear that
my discussions with entrepreneurs about coaches’ contributions was lacking in
insight. I asked participants to score coaches’ sessions primarily on the basis of
how ‘useful’ the content was (even if entrepreneurs were free to write further
comments on the coach’s contribution after this assessment). Other sections of
entrepreneurs’ interviews however, make it clear that coaches also participated in
the development (or impeding) of a particular ‘climate’ within the accelerator –
something that Hjorth (2011) refers to as “affect”. Effective coaches appeared
to bring energy and inspiration to the accelerator. These factors seem to be
related to outcomes (such as creativity) that are more difficult to predict than the
‘common-sense’ outputs intimated by the topics they addressed in their
workshops.
4.3.6.3 Relating their Knowledge to the Entrepreneurs’ Ventures
Allan Gibb (1983) suggests that in small firms, managers demand that education
be immediately applicable to the needs of their enterprises. Participants’
assessments of the coaches who participated in the Booster accelerators suggest
that social entrepreneurs share this orientation. In week three of A1, Edward for
example, expressed his discontent over what he perceived as a disproportionate
amount of talk, in contrast to action:
“I had expected more… more, um… what shall I say. More… or rather, less
talk. Less talk and more action.”
In view of this type of expectation it, it is unsurprising that coaches who related
their teaching to situations the entrepreneurs were familiar with, tended to be
evaluated more positively than those whose explanations entrepreneurs felt were
too theoretical. Ideally, coaches would relate their teaching directly to the
entrepreneurs’ own ventures. Olga (A3) for example, evaluated two coaches who
held sessions with a similar focus (branding and communication) in a manner
that illustrates this preference:
(Referring to coach 1: branding strategies) “Useful, would like to have some
concrete work on the case of my organisation”.
Jönköping International Business School
160
(Referring to coach 2: communication strategies) “It was useful because the
coach concentrated on concrete examples, gave concrete and individual
recommendations”.
Olga’s written comments were accompanied by a ‘scoring’ of the coach on a scale
of one to four, with “not useful at all” at one end and “extremely useful” at the
other. Although not all of the entrepreneurs provide explanations for their
scoring, it is interesting to note that the second coach received a consistently
higher score than the first. Nonetheless, practical relevance was not the only
characteristic of coach behaviour that entrepreneurs identified as important.
They also assessed coach performance in terms of their preparedness and the
respect they demonstrated to the social entrepreneurs’ own competence.
4.3.6.4 Showing Respect – and Being Prepared
Despite the expertise shown by many of the coaches, several entrepreneurs
reacted not so much to the competence that they demonstrated, but to the
attitudes they perceived them as having. In both A1 and A2, entrepreneurs
appeared to be less willing to learn from coaches who they felt were talking
‘down’ to them. Edward described his experience in the following way:
“Sometimes I felt like I’m not being treated as a professional […] all the people
in this room who were accepted for this programme, we have a background.
We’ve been working, we know things from before… so we’re not complete
beginners. […] We all need support and um, encouragement, but
sometimes… I don’t know how to put it. Treating people as if they don’t know
anything, or I don’t know… sometimes I’ve felt that way. I’ve felt that way
sometimes from lecturers, but even sometimes from the programme
personnel.”
In A2 Kenny made a similar comment about the expectations one of the lecturers
(‘Konrad’) had of the African entrepreneurs. I questioned him about why he had
given the coach such a low score:
“I’ll give Konrad… two.”
(Duncan) “So what did he need to improve then, was it just not very relevant
or… ?”
“Relevant, maybe. I think I will say Konrad probably underestimated us as
Africans; he never thought we would be exposed to the extent he met us, so
there was a little shock… So maybe it’s just like a football match… a bigger
team’s going to play a smaller team and they say ‘we’re just to kill them away’
and when you get there the reverse is almost the case, or something.”
(Duncan) “So did you feel he was talking down to you?”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
161
“No, no… not talking to us at too low a level, but he wasn’t actually telling us…
giving us vital information for our standard. Almost like what you said, but not
like he was looking down on us, no – but he was just like telling me things I
know, telling me colours: ‘this is red, this is purple’ and stuff.’ […] I honestly
did not enjoy his teaching.”
Although the above quotes to a certain extent mirror a somewhat top-down
attitude on the part of some coaches, they also mirror another aspect of coaches’
behaviour that entrepreneurs reacted to, namely a lack of preparation. The
majority of the Booster coaches lectured ‘pro bono’ and this was at times
associated with some of them devoting too little time to preparation. This was
particularly so in A1, before managers were able to ‘weed out’ those speakers
they felt were not providing the entrepreneurs with the input they needed.
Managers were however, also responsible for this behaviour to a certain extent –
as coaches were not always informed about the characteristics of the cohort
ahead of time, nor told what other coaches had covered. Consequently, Edward
(A1) made the following comment:
“One of the things is to find a way to not… repeat things – especially in the
first weeks, some of the lectures. You felt like this is the third time or fourth
time I’m hearing the same thing. But from another person. […] perhaps fewer
lectures and focus on some really good ones.”
My analysis of entrepreneurs’ comments about coaches suggests that what
participants were concerned about, was not so much the coaches’ preparation as
regards their own areas of expertise. Instead they highlighted the importance of
speakers familiarising themselves with the larger context of the accelerator (as
illustrated by the above comment) – as well as with the entrepreneurs and their
ventures. Something entrepreneurs found irritating was having to introduce their
ventures to coaches who had not met them before. They felt that this wasted
workshop time – as when four coaches visited the accelerator in a week the
entrepreneurs had to conduct four introductions before moving on to the
workshop topic. Entrepreneurs interpreted this behaviour as indicating that
coaches had not done their homework (i.e. familiarising themselves with the
ventures before the session). In contrast, entrepreneurs were enthusiastic about
coaches who knew at least a little about their ventures upon arrival and could
therefore make relevant reference to their ventures in their sessions. Two of the
A3 entrepreneurs commented on this behaviour in their evaluation of a coach
who talked about websites:
(Olga) “It was detailed, concrete. The comments were made very specifically
for our website”. Score: 4 (extremely useful).
(Patience) “Personalised feedback on our website with constructive advice on
how it can be better.” Score: 4 (extremely useful).
Jönköping International Business School
162
4.3.6.5 Being Familiar with the Context of Social Entrepreneurship
An interesting theme that emerged in interviews with the A2 entrepreneurs was
the unfamiliarity of some coaches with the contexts in which most of the
entrepreneurs operated, namely the developing world. Comments tended to
focus on either difficulties that entrepreneurs had in transferring ideas to their
own environments, because coaches’ talks centred on Western/European
examples – or on the impracticality of their ideas. Steven (A2) made the following
comment about a coach who talked about issues of impact evaluation:
“A lot of his examples were… European examples. Yes, he didn’t really have
knowledge of Africa, but his content and examples were good, but they were
more for Europe.”
Peter (A2) also discussed differences between coaches, suggesting that Konrad
needed to make his teaching “friendlier” by enabling participants to ‘see and feel’
the content. As he moves on to discuss other coaches, it appears that he defines
‘friendly’ teaching as content that is adapted to the context of the entrepreneur:
(Referring to Konrad) “The way of teaching it, he should change it. He should
make it friendlier and you know, people should like it. […] Okay, I know he
gave us the key points, but I think he should make it feel… you know, make it
see, make the participants feel it.”
(referring to several other coaches) “The social impact guy wasn’t so good…
he was too theoretical. Even the previous guy… at least he tried to put it in the
context of the participants. So this other guy who came in. It wasn’t so good,
but at least he did try and put it in that context whereby… eee! People enjoy
and you feel you’re like, ‘yeah!’, you know… for example like the guy who did
the social networking.”
Kenny (A2) also discussed the teaching of the social impact coach, clearly
illustrating the typical dislike of the Booster entrepreneurs for teaching that they
felt was overly theoretical and that they had difficulty in relating to their own
contexts:
“Um, I think too theoretical; yeah, it was more of theory, theory, theory.
Theoretical!”
(Duncan) “Okay, so not so… didn’t feel very relevant for you or…?”
“It’s relevant, but you know the brain sometimes gets tired of things that are
too much like… theories, because you… you just like… like these days you
want to see the practical… how it affects me, you understand?”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
163
The above paragraphs illustrate the reality of all educational programmes, namely
that educators bring different content and distinct educational approaches to the
‘classroom’. With each accelerator, NSE staff became more aware of the
strengths and weaknesses of the individual coaches and adjusted the design of
the programme accordingly. Coaches who received poor feedback from
participants were dropped and either replaced with new ones – or with existing,
effective coaches who were asked to take on additional sessions. Managers took
entrepreneurs’ feedback seriously and my impression is that they became
increasingly skilled in managing the accelerators as time passed by. Consequently,
it is natural to expect that each Booster accelerator would be slightly better than
the last – as managers incorporated their experience into the design of the
programme and the recruitment of mentors and speakers. In reality however, the
second accelerator is associated with a pattern of interaction that appears
considerably less effective than those of the first and third accelerators. This
suggests that accelerator design may not be the only factor critical to programme
success. In the following section I describe several contrasts in the way in which
the three Booster programmes developed – contrasts that emerged despite strong
similarities in structure and content.
4.3.7 Similar Structures, Dissimilar Interaction
4.3.7.1 Accelerator 1
One of the most interesting insights generated by this study has to do with the
extent to which the learning of the social entrepreneurs is shaped by the emergent
characteristics of the accelerator cohort, as opposed to the design of the
programme. The group dynamic in the first accelerator was very positive, with
entrepreneurs displaying open and supportive attitudes to one another – and for
the most part, to the accelerator itself and to staff. Several months after the
accelerator Henrik referred to this positive group dynamic as he discussed the
need for some kind of online follow-up:
“It [the online group] would have been really good for all of us I think,
especially as we all trust each other. We were really open for one another on
Booster and that was fantastic.”
Despite the fact that the social entrepreneurs came from different backgrounds
– and even if some had progressed further than others, there was an atmosphere
of ‘togetherness’ in the first accelerator. Henrik attributed this to the trust and
openness that developed among participants. It is also possible that the relative
homogeneity of the group in terms of ethnicity, played a role. All of the
entrepreneurs (with the exception of Gabriella) came from Western Europe –
and only one of the participants was not a long-term resident in Scandinavia
(Catrin). Gabriella’s comment however, suggests that the group dynamic may
Jönköping International Business School
164
also have been enhanced by entrepreneurs’ experience of being able to work on
their own venture ideas, in the company of other individuals facing similar
challenges:
“Six people feel just like I do: it’s hard, but it can be done.”
4.3.7.2 Accelerator 2
In contrast to the first programme, the second accelerator was characterised by
tension and conflict. Building on the experience of ‘post-accelerator depression’
in the first accelerator, the second accelerator was held at the beginning of the
year. Unfortunately, the composition of the cohort was radically different, with
the majority of the entrepreneurs of African origin – and male. This made the
programme’s scheduling to avoid ending just before the Scandinavian holidays
irrelevant. Entrepreneurs also came from very different social backgrounds, even
when they came from similar geographical locations. Isaac was for example, well-
travelled and seemed to be financially well-off. Steven in contrast, had never
travelled outside of his home country – and as time went by, managers gained
the impression that some of the African entrepreneurs (for example: Kenny)
lacked the financial resources possessed by the previous cohort.
As the second accelerator progressed, it became evident that many of the
entrepreneurs in the cohort were having a hard time getting on with some of
their colleagues and that sub-groups were forming. It was also clear that many of
the African entrepreneurs were irritated over some of practical arrangements
made by Booster managers and by the lack of immediate opportunities for funding.
These negative attitudes in turn engendered irritation on the part of the
accelerator managers themselves and among the non-African entrepreneurs. At
the end of A2, Kenny described the breadth of the conflict in the following way:
”Like you heard, there’s a fight in the house [laugh]. You understand, you
know… stuff like this one is beating this one. Enemies here and there…
[laugh] It happened, it happened you understand. Side-talk. This one doesn't
see, you understand; gossiping, backbiting, the issue of food, attitude…”
As I interviewed managers and entrepreneurs it became clear that at least four
factors were affecting the group dynamic: practical issues relating to sustenance
and accommodation, issues of status, issues of expectations and issues of
behaviour.
With regards to the practical issues, it appears that this factor was linked to
finance, travel and household duties. In comparison to many regions of Africa,
the cost of living in Scandinavia is high. NSE provided for entrepreneurs’ travel
and accommodation, but not for clothing or food. Consequently, the cost of
participating in the accelerator was far higher than many entrepreneurs had
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
165
expected and as the programme progressed, several entrepreneurs felt less and
less able to afford to eat. At times the African entrepreneurs ate together – and
in an atmosphere of scarcity, extra attention was focused on the need for each
person to contribute a similar amount of money for upkeep. Consequently,
tensions rose when individuals did not appear to be ‘pulling their weight’. For
example: when Kenny said that he was having trouble withdrawing money using
his West African credit card.
In addition to tension associated with money, it appears that some of the African
entrepreneurs were unprepared for the day-to-day practicalities of household
work (primarily preparing food, cleaning and washing clothes). In many African
households, women perform these duties – and in well-to-do families, servants
are often employed. As Lewis commented:
“I don’t remember when I actually cooked. In our culture once you have – I
mean you have – you are married, I mean you’re not supposed to cook.”
One result of backgrounds such as those reflected in Lewis’ comment, was that
some of the entrepreneurs least used to household work became irritated with
NSE and did their best to avoid housekeeping tasks. However, as Nelson
describes, this created tension within the group:
“The guy I was talking to last week, the guy from [name of country], he don't
do anything. He don't cook, he don't clean, he has never done anything - and
when you talk he gets angry. He has never done anything! When it comes to
the house, cleaning or cooking, he’s not doing anything. But when you go in
and talk then he feels angry”.
It is worth noting that the neglect of household work was not necessarily linked
to the resources entrepreneurs had access to. Nelson noted for example, that
Isaac helped out with housework – but that Steven did not. What is clear
however, is that the tensions linked to the practical challenges of living in
Scandinavia were augmented by entrepreneur’s attitudes with regards to ‘status’.
Several of the African entrepreneurs described feeling that some of their fellow-
Africans thought they were better than them. Peter and Nelson both commented
on this impression:
(Nelson): “…other people think that they are up there and other people think
they are down there.”
(Peter): “Something else… people are bossy, others want to show that they
know a little bit. I don’t like that crap […] We have people who want to be
high… and then others, you know, want to be like… [makes ‘stuck up’
noises].”
Jönköping International Business School
166
Although a large part of the tension in A2 was associated with the African
entrepreneurs, it was clear that the non-African participants were also affected
by the conflict. At times they sympathised with the situation of the African
entrepreneurs – critiquing NSE for not being better prepared for their needs.
However, at other times they appeared to take sides: aligning themselves with
participants who they felt worked hard and were attentive, and distancing
themselves from those who they perceived as arrogant or spoiled. In particular
Heidi and Marie appeared irritated by entrepreneurs who they felt were
participating ‘just for the money’ and by entrepreneurs who did not display an
interest in learning. When I asked her to explain why the group had splintered in
the way she described, Marie made the following comment:
“It felt as if some of the group had… um, expectations that weren’t realistic
[…] some of these projects… I don’t know how realistic they are and what
these lads have for objectives with these projects.”
Conversations with Marie that were not recorded made it clear that the
expectations she was referring to had to do with funding. Her sensitively phrased
assessment was that some of the African entrepreneurs had signed up for the
accelerator primarily because they felt they expected to source investment – and
not in order to learn – and develop their enterprises. Heidi’s assessment on the
other hand was direct and passionate:
“I was getting quite frustrated at the beginning […] and I mean it doesn’t really
have anything to do with me, so it shouldn’t really bother me – but when
everyone’s just talking about funding and… connecting with people and I was
like ‘Did you read any of the emails? Have you looked at the website? [laugh]
This isn’t want it’s about, you know!’[…] It’s not about grants, it’s about doing
something sustainable”.
When it came to the behaviour that Marie and Heidi associated with a
preoccupation with funding, Heidi commented several times on the behaviour
of some of the African entrepreneurs. The following excerpt is one of many
examples:
“Sometimes it’s obvious that people… haven’t been paying any attention, then
they ask a question at the end and it’s just so embarrassing and you’re like…
‘they [the speaker] just said that!’ You know, like that isn’t you being…
questioning and having, you know, insight. And then sometimes people don’t
understand it, that’s fine, you know. But you know, it’s ‘cos you’ve been on a
computer the whole time, then…’ [laugh]”
Other parts of Heidi’s interviews reveal that she is referring to the behaviour of
some of the African entrepreneurs (and in particular to Nelson and Lewis).
Steven commented on this behaviour (which included late arrival, accessing
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
167
websites/social media, writing emails and taking phone calls during lectures) in
his interview – and I also experienced it first hand on several occasions. Marie
described how she raised this issue with the group in the fourth week:
“I brought up that I get so damned irritated with everybody arriving late and
going in and out of the room, and disturbing when we’re having lectures. I find
that bloody irritating!”
Marie’s comment in week four opened the ‘floodgates’ of criticism and an open
discussion was held about the climate in the group and the practical challenges
facing the African entrepreneurs in particular. She said that things improved a bit
after this, but interviews make it clear that the group as a whole never really came
together in A2. Instead, entrepreneurs linked together in smaller sub-groups, with
Marie and Heidi tending to discuss venturing issues mainly with one another –
and at times with Jamal. Kenny linked up with Nelson and to a lesser extent with
Peter, while Isaac spent more time with Lewis. Steven described receiving advice
from experienced entrepreneur Isaac, but did not mention linking up with any of
the other entrepreneurs on a more equal peer-to-peer footing. Consequently, my
impression is that Marie speaks for all of the A2 entrepreneurs when she
summarises her experience of the group dynamic in the following manner:
“To begin with I tried, and I have helped some people who I’ve had better
contact with. But we had nine individuals with different knowledge and
competences, and we have definitely not taken advantage of that.”
4.3.7.3 Accelerator 3
The third Booster accelerator was similar to the first in terms of the positive group
dynamic that developed. NSE managers learned a great deal from the challenging
experience of the A2 accelerator and addressed many of the problems associated
with it: providing entrepreneurs with an allowance for food, scheduling the
accelerator in the warmer weeks of spring and reducing the distance from
entrepreneurs’ accommodation to SocNet. An equal number of males and females
was also recruited and a session on intercultural communication was held early
on in the programme. Consequently, entrepreneurs were enthusiastic about the
resultant group dynamic – describing an atmosphere of humour, openness, trust
and ‘family’. Entrepreneurs quickly came up with nicknames for individuals
whose names they had trouble pronouncing, or who were characterised by a
particular trait. Indeed, the group dynamic was characterised by so much humour
that the Scandinavian managers were at time uncertain as to whether individuals
were going too far. As manager Frida commented:
Jönköping International Business School
168
“There’s been this way of talking – and there’s a very fine line between what’s
okay and what isn’t – but there’s been this way of talking in the group where
they’ve been able to joke about each other. I find that… that they joke with
each other, that they kind of… laugh at themselves and at others.”
Frida’s experience reflects the impression I received from observations and from
interviews, that the prevailing atmosphere in the group was open, trusting and
friendly. It is therefore important to understand that, despite the exceptions
discussed in subsequent paragraphs, entrepreneurs’ experience of the third
accelerator was overwhelmingly positive.
Despite the marked contrast in the overall group dynamic between A2 and A3,
interviews with entrepreneurs and managers revealed that there was a surprising
amount of continuity in terms of the factors affecting it. In particular respondents
described the emergence of sub-groups based on gender and ethnicity – and the
existence of behaviour that had the potential to develop into significant conflict.
After the second accelerator my impression was that I had gathered data on an
‘exceptional’ case: I felt for example, that few researchers would be familiar with
the type of conflict that characterised A2, from their own studies of accelerators.
I was therefore very surprised as I began to interview the A3 entrepreneurs, to
discover a similar pattern of interaction around practical household issues
70
. In
A2 all of the African entrepreneurs were male and lived in the same apartment.
In A3 the group was more heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity, but lived close to
one another – with males in one apartment and females in another. Thomas (an
experienced manager who enjoyed philosophising) volunteered a sociological
analysis of the A3 group dynamic in one of his interviews. He identified a male
member of the cohort (Willis) as an “alpha male” and described how he
attempted to get other members of the group (Vinay and Zayd) to cook for him:
“Willis is more dominant alpha male… so he uses the others to get his wishes
fulfilled. Whether it’s for cooking, or for... getting. And, these [Vinay and Zayd]
come from cultures that are very easily subordinated, so they comply easily
with the African… Silverback. So, this has created a group where… Willis has
adopted the Vinay as his housemate and… food source.”
In contrast to the process in A2, Thomas’ account suggests that the tension
associated with social entrepreneurs ‘using’ others for their own purposes, never
blossomed into a significant conflict. Thomas described how he intervened when
he noticed Willis’ behaviour, ‘raising the consciousness’ of Zayd and Vinay and
making them aware of his ‘manipulation’. By intervening at an early stage, it does
70
Note that my data on this interaction is overly dependent on the account of a single entrepreneur who
highlights his own role in resolving the conflict. Other entrepreneurs do however confirm the
existence of the tension described – albeit in less detail.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
169
appear that Thomas was able to stifle behaviour that threatened to have a
negative effect on the group dynamic. Nonetheless, Thomas’ account suggests
that Zayd and Vinay were irritated by Willis’ behaviour, even if they initially
complied:
“In the beginning they’re like, ‘F**k why do I have to do this?’, but they still do
it”.
Thomas’ interpretation of events is that he intervened to prevent a negative
group dynamic from developing (“I’m doing preventive, I’m helping them to not
get to the point of conflict”). At the same time, the terms he uses in other parts
of the interview to refer to Willis (“leech”, “free-rider”) suggest that Willis’
behaviour engendered a negative attitude on the part of Thomas, towards
interacting with him.
Other entrepreneurs’ comments on the group process provide further insight
into the A3 group dynamic. Thomas portrays himself as protector of the group
dynamic (“I’m the one who defends the other apes”), but other entrepreneurs’
comments suggest that his role may have been restricted to the male group, with
Rebecca apparently taking on a similar role among the females – as Nadia
commented:
“She [Rebecca] would be a good mum, she has been like a mother for us.
Always asking us how we are getting on.”
Rebecca in turn, commented that she felt that it took three to four weeks for the
group to begin to function effectively – an impression somewhat shared by the
other female entrepreneur from East Africa (Patience), who suggested a slightly
shorter period (two to three weeks). Nonetheless, as I questioned entrepreneurs
about interaction it became clear that although they felt the group was
functioning effectively, they were also aware that they were forming ties with
reference to ethnicity and gender. At times this only became apparent when I
paused to reflect on, for example: female entrepreneurs’ use of terms such as
“the guys” – or by reading between the lines of interviews. Similarly, when males
discussed interaction they tended to mention primarily other male entrepreneurs
(and vice-versa, in the case of female entrepreneurs). At other times respondents
described the impact of gender explicitly, as in Thomas’ case:
(Duncan) “Have you found you talked to… are there any of the entrepreneurs
you talk to more than others?”
Jönköping International Business School
170
“Yes, of course; naturally. A gender division has really worked, you can take
that any way you want. So… I would put a bit of emphasis on that in terms of
sustainability… even in the introduction, I would make people aware that
gender roles exist […] even if they come from other cultural backgrounds they
haven’t been exposed to the same political pressure of gender equality […]
It’s senseless, you can smooth it over so nicely with positive words and
actions, like, in this field we’re operating, hugging, and being open,
collaborative.”
The male sub-group in A3 appeared to develop a higher level of interaction than
the female group, despite the potential for conflict associated with Willis’
behaviour. It emerged for example, that they had initiated regular, informal get-
togethers in the evenings, to discuss all manner of subjects – not all of which
were business related. This informal interaction appeared to be reinforced by the
natural segregation of shared living space along gender lines. Although
entrepreneurs described instances of ‘crossing the gender border’ for advice, it
appears that they only did so occasionally and that it involved more effort. For
example: Nadia jokingly commented that Patience was unlikely to go and knock
on the door of the men’s apartment, for fear of the door being answered by
Thomas in his underpants!
Many of the A3 entrepreneurs were very similar in terms of gender, industry and
entrepreneurial stage (for example: Olga and Patience whose ventures both
addressed sex-workers). Nonetheless, my observations and entrepreneurs’
comments suggest that ethnicity and even status often played a more significant
role in determining who entrepreneurs were most likely to interact with. For
example: Patience and Rebecca came from the same country and after only a few
weeks it was clear that when accelerator tasks required peer input they tended to
seek each other’s company. Thomas also explained his tendency to associate with
Zayd by referring to ethnicity:
(Duncan) “So, who do you talk to most… who do you find: ‘I speak to this
person, we give really feedback to each other?’ ”
“I’m… because of my Middle Eastern background… I’m a good support for
Zayd, [name of country
71
], whatever we call him”.
Although it was common for entrepreneurs to link up primarily with other
individuals of the same gender and ethnicity in A3, this was not always the case.
For example: despite Thomas’ comments about Willis ‘using’ Vinay, they seemed
to form an early companionship based on among other things, their status as the
only two smokers in the group. This apparently minor detail was identified by
71
Due to the fact that the African entrepreneurs had difficulty with Zayd’s middle-eastern name, they
initially referred to him by his country of origin – and eventually the nickname stuck!
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
171
Vinay as the main thing that ‘brought them together’. In the first few weeks of
the accelerator Vinay also attempted to teach Willis yoga, but desisted after the
early mornings proved to be too much for him! In contrast to Thomas’
assessment, Vinay made no negative comments about Willis’ behaviour and
when asked whether he tended to talk with any entrepreneur more than the
others, he immediately identified Willis. He did however, seem both amused and
mystified at this companionship. One of the interesting characteristics of the A3
accelerator was the tendency for the cohort to group into ‘pairs’ when working
(as opposed to groups of three or four). It is therefore also possible that some
entrepreneurs (such as Vinay and Willis), paired up with each other ‘by default’.
That is: simply on the basis of being the only individuals without a natural
companion. As almost all of the group were travelling and shopping in
Scandinavia for the first time, there was a natural tendency to seek company
when shopping or travelling. Often entrepreneurs sought the company of the
same individual, but in contrast to A2 the sub-groups that formed did not appear
to have a negative impact on the atmosphere in the larger group. Patience’s
description of the group dynamic (in the final week of the accelerator) echoes
the descriptions provided by the other social entrepreneurs:
“It has become like, you know, a family where you joke about anything, so it’s
not only mental but also, you know, the emotional attachment and the
companionship that you feel when you are around the people that really know
you or understand you”.
I have now described the context for social entrepreneurial learning (the Booster
accelerators) in considerable detail. In the next section I move on to describe
four different experiences of learning in this context.
4.4 The Social Entrepreneurs – Part 2
One of the advantages of developing an accelerator in a sector that relatively few
actors have focused on previously, is that ‘ignorance’ provides numerous
opportunities for learning – hence the Portuguese proverb that heads up my
‘acknowledgements’ section. Writing about incubators, Vanderstraeten and
Matthyssens (2012) suggest that many programmes develop specific internal
competencies that align with the strategies they adopt when recruiting new
tenants. It is arguable that accelerators are similar to incubators in this regard and
that with time, accelerator managers become more aware of the types of
enterprise that benefit most from their programmes – or of the types of
enterprise most likely to succeed. This increasing focus on a particular type of
enterprise may boost the most obvious outcomes of the accelerator (firms that
survive, grow or obtain investment). However, it may also reduce the likelihood
of managers becoming aware of the less obvious benefits of the programme to
other categories of enterprise.
Jönköping International Business School
172
The Booster accelerators are unusually useful to scholars of social entrepreneurial
learning due to the diversity of enterprises that participated in the programmes.
The social entrepreneurs who participated in the accelerators had very different
backgrounds, were attempting to start distinct types of social ventures and were
at different stages in the founding process. This heterogeneity might be a
challenge in a quantitative study, but in an exploratory study it is an advantage.
This is so because the study expands, rather than narrows down the list of types
of social entrepreneur whose learning might be enhanced through participation
in an accelerator. Such an expansion is likely to generate a wider range of
alternatives for future research, in contrast to a study of an accelerator that only
focuses on enterprises in a particular industry or at a specific stage of growth.
Due to the diversity of participating ventures, my analysis of entrepreneurs’
learning in the accelerators could have been structured around several different
characteristics. For example: industry (or sector), region of operation and stage
of development. After familiarising myself with my data however, I initially chose
to group (or categorise) participants according to three characteristics that
appeared to affect the way in which they participated in the accelerator and
accelerator outcomes, namely: whether or not they were long-term residents in
the country in which they were working, their experience in the sector their
venture focused on – and their length of managerial/entrepreneurial experience.
This process for creating typologies mirrors the practice recommended by Ayres
and Knafl (2008) – and the typology itself reflects the categories developed by
Cope and Watts (2000), in their exploration of entrepreneurial learning.
Cope and Watts (2000) develop the work of Gibb and Ritchie (1982) in
discussing entrepreneurial learning in relation to the experience of the
entrepreneur. They construct a four-field diagram along the axis of
business/managerial experience (high-low) and sector experience (high-low).
This diagram allows for four categories of entrepreneur to be distinguished
72
.
These are: the ‘innocent’ (low managerial / low sector experience), the
‘knowledgeable improviser’ (low managerial / high sector experience), the
‘confident entrant’ (high managerial / low sector experience) – and the ‘veteran’
(high managerial / high sector experience). As I reflected on my interviews with
the Booster social entrepreneurs my impression was that a third factor was also
important in the learning processes discussed by individuals. This factor had to
do with the experience of the entrepreneur in the particular geographical or
cultural context of the place in which they sought to establish their venture. I
categorise individuals as ‘indigenous’ social entrepreneurs if they were living in
the same country that their enterprise was targeting and were either from that
country, or had spent most of their lives there. The term ‘expatriate’ social
72
In figure 4.1 the different categories are numbered: 1- ‘innocents’, 2- ‘knowledgeable improvisers’, 3-
‘confident entrants’ and 4- ‘veterans’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
173
entrepreneurs in contrast, refers to individuals whose enterprises targeted a
country that they did not come from, nor in which they had recently spent a
substantial amount of time
73
.
At first glance, the ‘indigenous
74
/ expatriate’ distinction outlined above may
appear to be an oversimplification. Nonetheless, my intuition (based on my
experience of growing up in and working in developing countries) was that they
probably reflected important underlying differences. Individuals who I term
‘indigenous’ are often more reliant on the success of their venture for their own
prosperity and have a far weaker safety net to fall back on, should their ventures
fail. For ‘expatriate’ social entrepreneurs operating in the same context, the failure
of their venture tends to result in little more than embarrassment and a
comparatively small financial loss. As Henrik (A1) commented:
“I’m actually not very worried, my life doesn’t depend on Garbage Garments.”
Other differences include the expectation in developing societies that expatriates
will often break with local traditions, while natives are expected to follow them.
My point is not to denigrate the one over the other, but simply to underline the
idea that the two categories of entrepreneur often operate under different
premises. Importantly, I base the above suggestions not only on my own
intuition, but also on recent research on innovation at the ‘base of the pyramid’.
While not employing the exact terms that I use, Brännvall and Johansson (2012)
note that “entrepreneurs from underserved markets” (who I term ‘indigenous’)
follow a distinct pattern of innovation when compared to expatriate firms. They
report that expatriate firms spend less time studying the needs and behaviours of
target populations, and also use a more ‘closed’ model of innovation that relies
on a smaller number of external experts and advisors. Brännvall and Johansson
also note the existence of a distinct group of experienced entrepreneurs among
innovating firms – many of whom are individuals with a background in senior
positions and global companies, often from India and Nepal. These individuals
would probably be termed ‘veteran’ using Cope and Watts’ (2000) terminology –
and ‘veteran-indigenous’ (V-I) using my typology.
73
By ’substantial’ I mean a period of at least five years.
74
It is possible that the term ‘embedded’ might be more indicative of the rationale that makes it useful to
distinguish between indigenous and expatriate (non-embedded) social entrepreneurs.
Jönköping International Business School
174
By adding the ‘indigenous- expatriate’ factor a three-dimensional model was
developed (see figure 4.1), which allows for the distinguishing of eight different
types of entrepreneur. However, for the sake of simplicity I distinguish between
entrepreneurs with experience of the contexts in which they were launching their
ventures, by simply adding the terms ‘indigenous’ or ‘expatriate’ to the terms
coined by Cope and Watts. For example: I term an individual with extensive
managerial and sector-oriented experience, who is also an experienced actor in
the context in which they operate; a ‘veteran-indigenous’. For the sake of brevity,
in later sections I abbreviate each type and add ‘-E’ or ‘-I’ to distinguish between
the indigenous and expatriate variations of the same type. A ‘confident entrant’
with little experience in the context where their service/product will be used is
this abbreviated as ‘CE-E’.
Despite my use of Cope and Watts’ (2000) terminology, it is important to note
that I emphasize slightly different factors when I use their terms. This is
particularly so with regards to my understanding of the term ‘sector’. Cope and
Watts seem to discuss the term ‘sector’ with a focus primarily on the type of
industry in which the entrepreneur is active (for example: renewable energy or
mobile communications). My interviews with the Booster entrepreneurs however,
suggest that their participation in the accelerator was very much influenced by
their professional identity and experience. Consequently, while I hesitate to replace
Cope and Watts’ term altogether, it is important to note that the term ‘sector’ is
not without its weaknesses – in that it is not extremely specific and can contain
additional aspects of expertise and identity. This reasoned, yet subjective
distinction is one reason why I term my grouping a typology, rather than a
taxonomy – in keeping with the ideas of Smith (2002), and Ayres and Knafl
(2008).
Figure 4-2: Categories of social entrepreneur,
developed from Cope & Watts (2000)
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
175
In this study of entrepreneurial learning I suggest that it is useful to distinguish
between different types of social entrepreneur. I do so based on the assumption
that if certain social entrepreneurial types are linked to different processes or
outcomes of learning, it will be easier for accelerator managers to recruit and
interact with each ‘type’ more effectively. In the case studies that follow I describe
the patterns of interaction and outcomes associated with four types of participant
in more detail. I have selected these four types out of the eight possible types,
because they represent the types of social entrepreneur more commonly found
in this study. Furthermore, at times I have chosen to discuss only one ‘version’
of a particular type, because the other variation is similar to the first (for example:
the behaviour of the ‘veteran-expatriate’ was similar to that of the ‘veteran-
indigenous’). Clearly, I have also been unable to provide case studies of categories
that may exist in other contexts, but that were absent from the accelerators – for
example: the ‘innocent-indigenous’ type. Consequently, my choice of ‘sub-cases’
for a more detailed study of social entrepreneurial learning, has been influenced
by my desire for relevance (it is most useful to discuss the learning of the type of
entrepreneur most commonly found in accelerators) – and insight. In other words,
because a particular type of social entrepreneur illustrates a radically different
process or outcome of social entrepreneurial learning.
In the following paragraphs I describe the four types of social entrepreneur
discussed in this study in more detail – and present a table on which I locate the
accelerator participants who belong to each category.
In keeping with Cope and Watts (2000), I term the first type of accelerator
participant the ‘veteran’ (V). Entrepreneurs of this type
75
were frequently older
than their peers and tended to have had a fairly long and successful career prior
to participating in the accelerator. Often this implied international postings,
experience of leading teams and/or organisations, and responsibility for
significant financial resources
76
. Due to their experience these individuals were
usually competent in many areas in which their fellow entrepreneurs lacked
experience. Consequently, accelerator managers were often challenged to find
mentors that could provide them with the quality of input implied by their
backgrounds. In the first accelerator Barry (V-E) belonged to this category, as
did Isaac (V-I) in the second programme. I also judged Thomas in A3 to belong
to this group (V-I), as he had considerably more experience in consulting and
management than his peers – even if he would be considered relatively
inexperienced in comparison with the ‘extremes’ of Barry and Isaac.
75
Note that in this section the terms ’category’ and ’type’ are used interchangeably. This does not mean
however, that I am creating any other type of classification than the simple descriptive typology
discussed by Ayres and Knafl (2008).
76
I.e.: budgets of hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
Jönköping International Business School
176
The second category of Booster participant is the ‘knowledgeable improviser’ (KI)
– expatriate or indigenous. In my initial analysis I called this category the
‘profession-oriented social entrepreneur’. This was because the individuals in this
category seemed to participate in the accelerator on the basis of their ‘profession’
rather than in response to an acute social need. Participants in this category
tended to construct their social entrepreneurial intentions around the logic “I am
a [profession] – so how can I use my profession to create social or environmental
value?”. For the most part, the entrepreneurs of this type were Europeans (i.e.:
expatriates /KI-E) – and several had a background in design. Only one
participant from this category was found in the second accelerator (Marie –
expatriate), but in the first programme half of the participants were ‘profession-
oriented’ (Andrew, Alice, Edward and Gabriella) – and all of them belonged to
the ‘expatriate’ category (KI-E). In A3 I classified two social entrepreneurs
(Vinay and Zayd) as ‘knowledgeable improvisers’ – and both had intimate
(‘indigenous’) experience of the contexts they were targeting (KI-I). However,
the social entrepreneurs in this category tended to have limited managerial
and/or entrepreneurial experience.
The third and fourth types of social entrepreneur discussed in more detail in this
study, belong to the ‘confident entrant-indigenous’ (CE-I) and ‘innocent-
expatriate’ (I-E) categories. I suggest that these two categories represent the
classic domain of the social entrepreneur, in that individuals in these categories
are often responding to a pressing social need that is associated with a ‘sector’ in
which they have relatively little experience. What individuals bring to the table is
their passion for change – and in the case of the ‘confident entrant’, their skills
(or experience) as leaders or agents of change. Unsurprisingly therefore, a large
number of the Booster social entrepreneurs occupy these two categories.
In table 4.3 I have mapped the Booster social entrepreneurs according to the social
entrepreneurial ‘type’ that I associate each individual with. However, despite my
emphasis of the distinctiveness of each type of accelerator participant, it is
important to note that my typology at times simplifies and exaggerates these
differences. At times entrepreneurs were ‘borderline’ cases and displayed some
of the characteristics of a second category. Andrew (KI-E) was such an
entrepreneur, having a long enough background in entrepreneurship to be
bordering on the ‘experienced’, while also choosing to develop his venture on
the basis of his professional knowledge. Barry, who I have categorised as
‘veteran-expatriate’ had some sector-oriented experience, but was far more
experienced in terms of his background as a manager. Jamal (I-E) and Gabriella
(KI-E) had immigrated to Scandinavia from developing countries – and despite
having lived in Europe for many years, could conceivably be categorised as
‘indigenous’ entrepreneurs. In the Booster accelerator however, Jamal and
Gabriella did not distinguish themselves from ‘expatriate’ entrepreneurs in terms
of their behaviour – perhaps due to the long period of time they had spent in
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
177
Scandinavia. Consequently I have not categorised them as ‘indigenous’ social
entrepreneurs, even if this could be appropriate in an accelerator recruiting
individuals who have only recently emigrated.
The distribution of the different categories in the three accelerators is portrayed
in table 4.3. Enterprise stage of development is also indicated, using the typology
developed by the Start-up Commons (2014). As noted earlier, their typology
consists of three over-reaching stages (pre-start-up, start-up and growth), each
of which is divided into smaller sub-stages. These sub-stages are numbered from
-2 to +3. This practitioner-oriented model of entrepreneurial stage is used
because it focuses primarily on the stages associated with nascent
entrepreneurship, in contrast to several more scholarly articles (for example: V.
L. Lewis & Churchill, 1983; Scott & Bruce, 1987). These latter articles are heavily
Name / Enterprise Acc. Provenance Cat. Status at start**
Barry / CellSun A1 Scandinavia V-E validation (1)
Alice / Goodlink A1 Scandinavia KI-E concepting (-1)
Andrew / C-Cure A1 Scandinavia* KI-E concepting (-1)
Edward / Goodlink A1 Scandinavia KI-E concepting (-1)
Gabriella / Brottle A1 Scandinavia* KI-E ideation (-2)
Catrin / Imbani A1 Western Europe CE-E concepting (-1)
Henrik / Garbage Garments A1 Scandinavia I-E commitment (0)
Isaac / MobiClin A2 East Africa V-I scaling (2)
Lewis / BioVolt A2 East Africa V-I commitment (0)
Miriam / Better Work A2 Scandinavia KI-E concepting (-1)
Heidi / Bottle Art A2 North America CE-E validation (1)
Nelson / Pistols to Ploughs A2 West Africa CE-I validation (1)
Peter / AfriPads A2 East Africa CE-I validation (1)
Steven / Bibl. Communitaires A2 Central Africa CE-I concepting (-1)
Jamal / AgriTech A2 Scandinavia* I-E ideation (-2)
Kenny / Afri-Text A2 West Africa I-I validation (1)
Thomas / TourFair A3 East Africa V-I validation (1)
Olga / Rough Diamonds A3 Western Europe KI-I commitment (0)
Patience / FairCare A3 East Africa KI-I commitment (0)
Rebecca / Spread IT A3 East Africa KI-I commitment (0)
Vinay / Sunpower A3 South Asia KI-I validation (1)
Zayd / Puretech A3 Middle East KI-I validation (1)
Willis / AfriChoc A3 West Africa CE-I validation (1)
Nadia / Femicharge A3 Western Europe I-E concepting (-1)
* Denotes an entrepreneur resident in Scandinavia who immigrated as an adult.
** Stage categories from Startup Commons (2014).
Table 4-3: The Booster entrepreneurs, showing categories and stage.
Jönköping International Business School
178
cited, but adopt a ‘life-cycle’ perspective that glosses over the sub-stages
associated with nascent entrepreneurship
77
. I am aware that other scholars also
discuss issues of entrepreneurial ‘stage’, but my main focus is on the learning of
nascent social entrepreneurs. I have therefore chosen a typology that reflects my
experience of the stages the Booster entrepreneurs were at and have chosen not to
engage in a discussion of the merits of different models. I am nevertheless aware
that my choice may be controversial, given the different perspectives adopted by
other scholars (Carter, Gartner, & Reynolds, 1996; Reynolds & Miller, 1992) –
and in view of suggestions that ventures do not necessarily progress through
these stages in a linear fashion (Bhave, 1994). It is also worth pointing out that
few discussions of stage appear able to adequately cope with the ‘sideways’ mode
of development discussed later on in this study. That is: the establishment by a
non-profit organisation, of a branch of the enterprise that operates in a more
business-like manner.
In the following sections I describe four social entrepreneurs’ experiences of the
Booster accelerator in more detail. These descriptions reflect the ‘broad brush’ of
my over-riding research purpose (to ‘explore the learning of social entrepreneurs in
accelerator programmes’). Naturally, the full diversity of experiences described by the
twenty-three social entrepreneurs who participated in the three Booster
accelerators, cannot be captured within the confines of this dissertation. For this
reason the four individuals are chosen as ‘exemplars’ of the four categories
described above (Benner, 1994). Furthermore, complete data is not yet available
for the social entrepreneurs who participated in the third accelerator (these
individuals have not yet completed the one-year follow-up questionnaire).
Consequently, only individuals from the first and second accelerators have been
chosen for in-depth analysis – as I am able to tell their stories ‘from beginning to
end’.
Entrepreneurs’ experiences within each category vary to a certain extent, but my
analysis suggests that there is more to unite the entrepreneurs in each category
than there is to distinguish them from one another. In chapter five the
experiences of the remaining twenty-one entrepreneurs are at times referred to
as the findings of the study are discussed in more detail. However, the following
section and chapter five have different purposes. In the following paragraphs I
provide the reader with an impression of the ‘whole’ experience of the
entrepreneur. In keeping with the ambitions of qualitative research, I try to
provide the reader with a ‘rich’ account of how the participation of a social
entrepreneur in an accelerator affects their learning. In this section my intention
is to provide the reader with four views of the ‘forest’ (the ‘whole’ experience of
the entrepreneur) – before moving on in chapter five, to examine individual
‘trees’ (particular aspects of this experience). In my discussion of these latter
77
For example: Scott and Bruce (1987) suggest that ’survival’ immediately follows ’inception’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
179
aspects I expand my discussion and draw on the testimony of the entire group
of social entrepreneurs.
Each of the four case-studies is divided into five sections. In the first section I
describe the entrepreneur’s background and personality, before moving on to
describe their expectations of the accelerator as discussed at the beginning of the
programme and in subsequent interviews. A short description of the
entrepreneur’s venture is also provided. These three sections roughly equate to
the two components ‘the entrepreneur’ and ‘intent’ in my synthesis of the
literature in chapter two (see figure 4.2). The ‘intentions’ part of the section also
reflects the concerns of my first research question (‘In which ways is the learning
of social entrepreneurs in accelerators influenced by their experiences and
intentions prior to entering the programme?’) Naturally however, the social
venture itself embodies something of the long-term intent of the entrepreneur,
while their ‘expectations’ capture part of their short-term intent with regards to
their participation in the accelerator.
The section ‘experiencing the accelerator’ describes the experience of the
entrepreneur during their eight weeks in the programme. In this section it is
hoped that the reader will begin to get a ‘feel’ for the answers to research
questions two and three, even if these are not explicitly addressed until chapter
five. Consequently, in this section the interaction of the entrepreneur with their
mentor, accelerator staff, external speakers (coaches) and peers is described.
Participants’ experiences of the accelerator material structure (for example: time,
space, activities and assignments) are also portrayed at this point. This content
roughly matches the ‘Immersion in the learning process’ part of the diagram. The
fifth section (‘after the accelerator’) describes the development of entrepreneurs’
ventures after the programme and their subsequent comments on the
contribution of the accelerator to their development. In the diagram, this section
is intended to parallel the ‘new or expanded knowledge and capabilities’ and
‘long-term business outcomes’ parts of the diagram. It also provides the reader
with a feel for the answers to research question four, answers that will be
discussed in more detail in chapter five.
Jönköping International Business School
180
Intent
Learning-oriented
DESIGN
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE &
CAPABILITIES
Long-term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Creating
disjuncture
Transforming
disjuncture
Acting-
Feeli ng-
Thinking
Intent
The ENTREPRENEUR
Immersion in
Learning Process
Figure 4-3: A Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
181
4.4.1 The Veteran-Expatriate: Barry (A1)
4.4.1.1 Background and Personality
Barry is a 42 year old Danish businessman, whose father was an entrepreneur.
When Barry was eight years old his parents divorced and his father moved to
Angola, where he had been doing business for several years. Consequently, Barry
moved backwards and forwards between Angola and Denmark as he grew up
and calls Angola his second homeland. His father married an Angolan woman
and they had children, so that Barry has brothers and sisters in both countries.
Barry spent some time in the Danish navy after military service – as a reserve
officer, before studying civil engineering at university. He then moved into
consultancy and worked for several years with an international consultancy firm
focusing primarily on business development. Eventually, the part of the firm that
Barry worked in was bought by a multinational computer manufacturer. By that
time Barry had risen in the ranks and was responsible for the consulting
personnel in that part of the firm. In 2009, shortly after the global financial crisis,
the firm began to lay off personnel – yet wished to maintain contact with many
of their skilled employees. They therefore introduced a scheme whereby
employees were allowed to take a leave of absence while retaining a third of their
salary. At university Barry and several other students had discussed the possibility
of starting their own businesses – so when the chance of a paid leave-of-absence
came up, Barry seized it. As he puts it:
“[At university] many of us said that we were building our CVs in order to be
able to do something in the future. I realised that I was doing it so that I could
run my own business. And now I have the chance, so if I don’t do it now – and
I’ll soon be 40 – it will never happen.”
Barry describes his career as centring around three themes; criteria that he has
developed to guide his choices when offered new career opportunities.
Importantly he found that all three criteria were fulfilled by the type of startup
one of his friends suggested:
“I want to work internationally, I want to work with something that makes the
world a better place and, um... I want to be in charge. So when I started my
own business and my friends came and said ‘Why don’t you work with solar
energy in developing countries?’ – then I got everything at once.”
Barry describes these values as constant in his life since around the year 2000,
although he adds that ‘people’ are a fourth component that he adds to the
equation nowadays:
Jönköping International Business School
182
“It’s important for me to work with people. Regardless of whether or not they
are my employees or my colleagues – or if I make life better for people. So
that’s a fourth component.”
Unsurprisingly considering his background, Barry was one of the most
experienced entrepreneurs in the first accelerator, a characteristic mirrored by his
rating by the global computer firm in 2005, as having “strong leadership
potential” (the highest rating). Despite his obvious capacity he was very ‘low key’
in his behaviour; displaying a helpfulness, curiosity and an openness to new ideas
that some of the more experienced entrepreneurs in the second accelerator (for
example: Isaac and Lewis) appeared to lack. This humility and willingness to learn
from others was displayed by Barry in many different contexts. Speaking at an
Innovations against Poverty conference several months after the accelerator, Barry
described his learning rationale:
“Others have done it before, learn from them [...] One way of working may not
work elsewhere; you have to try, try, try...”
“It might be the person sitting next to you on the bus who can help you most at
the moment, out of all the people in the world – and if you’re not open to that
and initiate a conversation, you’re sure to miss a lot of opportunities.”
Despite his openness to new ideas, it is important not to mistake Barry’s
unpresuming attitude for a lack of direction or enthusiasm. Barry is passionate
about what he does and contrasts his feelings while doing his old job with his
feelings today:
Duncan (follow up question after Barry described his ‘getting quite
comfortable’ and lacking passion at his old employer): “So you have that
passion now?”
“Yes! Yes! Yes! It’s like I’m living in a story tale. I’m living for a goal [...] I often
describe it as if there is a magnet in the future, pulling me. Um... I’m on the
way towards a goal... and I’m convinced that it’s a good goal.”
4.4.1.2 The Venture
The passion that Barry described in the first interview I conducted with him (in
week three of the accelerator) centred on his vision of bringing electrical power
to rural areas in Africa. After leaving the computer corporation, Barry began
searching for an idea around which to develop his venture. One of his friends
suggested that solar power was an exciting possibility. Building upon his
familiarity with sub-Saharan Africa, Barry began to develop this idea. The process
that led from his friend’s suggestion to the final business idea is unclear, but after
several months Barry had a clear idea of what he wanted to do. He wanted to
develop a business that would help entrepreneurs in the rural areas of Africa to
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
183
earn a living by charging their neighbours’ cell phones using solar power. His
ambition is to have 250 000 African entrepreneurs using his innovation.
Barry discussed his ambition with his friend (who unsurprisingly had come up
with the idea, because he owns a solar power manufacturing facility). Without
Barry asking the firm to do so, the firm then developed ten prototype solar
chargers for Barry to test in the field. Here the contribution of Barry’s experience
is clear:
“Um, that [to say he did it without me asking] isn’t altogether true... I requested
it without saying so. I planted the idea with the right person who I knew would
do something with it.”
This informal partnership drastically reduced Barry’s development costs, the
importance of which should not be underestimated. I interviewed an
entrepreneur a few months before Barry, who was also developing a portable
solar charging system – and one of their greatest challenges was the financing of
the technological development of their product.
Barry describes the field testing of the product in deceivingly simple terms:
describing in a few sentences the process of travelling to Angola, testing the
prototypes and receiving a positive response. This positive response and Barry’s
partnership with the solar manufacturing firm made it easier for Barry to take a
further step in developing his venture and attracting finance. Assisted by the
manufacturer, Barry applied for funding from Sida’s Innovations against Poverty
programme and was awarded a grant of $75 000 USD. The grant was conditional
on Barry matching the grant with other investment, which was a key concern as
he entered the accelerator in the spring of 2012
78
. Nonetheless, it had enabled
Barry to make some progress on is startup prior to entering the accelerator. On
entering the programme Barry’s startup had already received funding from his
step-mother in Angola and a lawyer friend – and he was employing a consultant
in Angola and a student in Denmark on a part-time basis.
4.4.1.3 Expectations
Prior to the accelerator in 2012, Barry participated in a course for nascent
entrepreneurs in 2009. However, after his contact with Sida in 2010, he was put
in touch with NSE and became a member. Later, as NSE began to plan the first
accelerator, Booster manager Denise asked him if he would like to participate.
Barry reasoned that although he expected the accelerator to be similar to the 2009
course, time had passed and he felt that it would be healthy to be exposed to a
“critical evaluation”. However, although Barry describes his expectations of the
78
Barry was able to raise some finance after the accelerator, but is unclear about whether he was able
to raise enough money to entirely match the Sida grant, or only part of this amount.
Jönköping International Business School
184
accelerator as including “marketing to investors, networking, sourcing
investment”; in both his application and subsequent interviews he emphasizes
inspiration as a primary motivation (on the application form he wrote “to provide
inspiration” first on his list of expectations).
“to hear what other entrepreneurs are up to and to be inspired... to get a little
energy”
In addition to inspiration, an expanded network and contact with investors; Barry
also identified advice, coaching and “experience-based knowledge” as his
expectations of the accelerator. In his interview at the beginning of the
accelerator Barry developed his reason for participating in more detail. He
described his experience of the long process of launching a venture being
detrimental to his critical thinking, with the pressure of trying to raise investment
leading him into a pattern of just attempting to complete what he had planned
to do. Consequently he felt a need to have a critical look at his venture once again
– and to set aside the time to do this.
4.4.1.4 Experiencing the Accelerator
Barry was one of the entrepreneurs who was willing to talk at length about his
experiences of the accelerator and his account makes for interesting reading.
Early in the accelerator it was clear that his participation was having an
unexpected impact and that he appreciated the programme’s inspirational
speakers for an unusual reason.
“It wasn’t conscious, but I notice now when I’m sitting on this course, that
simply by being quiet and just having a paper and pen in front of me and
somebody talking about something. So... there are parts of my brain that are
otherwise far too inactive that relax and kind of free themselves.”
“It’s a bit like... sitting in a lecture, it’s not just that if it’s boring I think of
something else, it’s almost the opposite. It has to be inspiring, because if it’s
boring I begin to think of my to-do list and so on. Um, but if it’s inspiring then...
then I start getting creative thoughts about entirely different things. It’s as if...
yeah, my brain relaxes and... ‘Yes, that was the way I planned to do that –
that was stupid. Do it this way!’ – and in that way I put things together. And
that isn’t conscious, it wasn’t the reason I’m on this programme.”
Barry stands out from many of the other entrepreneurs on the accelerator
because of his emphasis of the importance of attaining social impact with
financial sustainability. As with many of the accelerator participants he prefers to
describe himself as an entrepreneur, rather than a social entrepreneur – but he
had clearly thought through the financial side of his venture more than many of
the others – who had often focused primarily on their social impact. For them
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
185
the exercise in thinking through the financial sustainability of their ventures was
new, while Barry described it as the “foundation” of his work on his startup up
to that point. Nonetheless, Barry did not react negatively to this, but found the
exposure to others’ ideas interesting and inspiring:
“It’s really exciting to meet these people who haven’t thought about that at all
previously”.
“Open source... and stuff like that... it’s not social... entrepreneurship, social
work - that we do things for each other without getting paid. Um, it’s almost
more social entrepreneurship than what I’m doing. [...] They’ve managed to
find a model where nobody gets paid and still they survive... it’s pretty
amazing!”
Despite his appreciation of the new ideas and inspiration generated by the
accelerator, as the programme developed it became increasingly clear that Barry
was already familiar with many of the concepts and skills covered by the
accelerator. His venture was one of the few startups in A1 already in a position
to scale up and he commented that in terms of product/service-related ideas, he
was only able to ‘borrow’ ideas from one of the other ventures (Catrin’s cross-
border, SMS-based payment service). Halfway through the accelerator Barry was
already aware of the mismatch and commented:
“I have come so far with my business that many activities are not very
valuable. However, they sometimes give me new ideas and activities that
develop practical skills - like yesterday’s theatre session with Enoch, which
was great and very rewarding”.
As noted earlier, Barry appeared to be unusually aware of his own patterns of
thinking and the way in which the structure of the accelerator supported or
restricted his learning. For example: he reflected on why he found the session
with Enoch rewarding.
“It was good because it was a break, we used a different part of our brain.”
Despite Barry’s experience, he came away from the accelerator with more than
just inspiration and a few new ideas for his venture (for example: “a discount
coupon using a texting service”). From a more strategic, long-term perspective
Barry described how he had learned the importance of coordinated
communication during the accelerator. This learning took place as a result of the
accelerator’s ‘critical assessment’ of each aspect of his venture, which was one of
the reasons he gave for wanting to participate.
“I realised that I can’t do crowd-sourcing because my website doesn’t tell the
story I’m passionate about”.
Jönköping International Business School
186
As was the case with many of the entrepreneurs in the first accelerator, Barry
felt that there were too many seminars and too little time set aside for individual
work. In the final evaluation he suggested that the programme be radically
reduced to one full day of coaching and lectures. However, he emphasized the
need to retain the ‘inspirational’ function of the accelerator (“one inspirational
speaker each week”). He also recommended that the accelerator take on some of
the ideas from the startup course he had taken previously. He particularly
emphasized the need for entrepreneurs to be given clear tasks each week – and
the need for a single ‘head teacher’ to place demands on participants and follow
up on their assignments. Barry also questioned the recruitment process of the
first accelerator, suggesting that in the future accelerator managers needed to first
ask themselves what the goal of the programme was. Based on this understanding
he suggested that they should subsequently ask which of the applicants they
could develop during the accelerator, to attain that goal.
An interesting phenomenon that emerged as Barry participated in the accelerator
was a behaviour that I refer to as ‘piggy-backing’. Barry was in many ways more
experienced than the other entrepreneurs and often appeared to make a greater
contribution (in terms of feedback and advice) to the other entrepreneurs’
ventures, than they did to his. Barry did not appear to object to this imbalance
and other entrepreneurs were appreciative of it. Gabriella (KI-E) appeared to be
the entrepreneur who benefitted most from Barry’s willingness to ‘piggy-back’.
Her relation to Barry after the accelerator underlines the idea that the
phenomenon involved not only advice, but also the sharing of networks and
practice. Twelve months after the accelerator, Gabriella accompanied Barry on a
trip to Africa and by doing so was able to meet several of his local contacts –
who naturally provided her with useful information and advice about how to
adapt her product to their context. It also appears that during the trip Barry
‘modelled’ entrepreneurship in the African context for Gabriella – as she was
able to follow first-hand the process that he engaged in, as he sought to develop
his venture in the Angolan market.
4.4.1.5 After the Accelerator
One year on after the accelerator a lot had happened in Barry’s venture. He
employed seven people: himself fulltime, one other person half-time in Sweden,
two fulltime employees and three agents (receiving either a wage or sales
commission) in Angola. He described the first year as a tough one and one that
he described as being almost totally devoted to sourcing investment. He
confessed that he thought it would be easier to find investors than it proved to
be – and also commented on the difficulties associated with the delay between
coming to an agreement with an investor and actually receiving the investment.
“I mean, the agreement and the milestones and stuff were written based on an
agreement in August and my belief that the money would be available in
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
187
September [...] those bits don’t change and what we are supposed to achieve
– but I haven’t had any money available during the first two months of that
plan
79
.”
Barry commented that although he was now trying to devote all his energy to
selling his product, it was difficult to focus on sales when investment wasn’t
finalised and he felt uncertain as to how long the money would last – not least
when he had employees to consider. He also repeated his comment made during
the accelerator, that the challenge of being involved in a startup has a cost at
home in terms of reduced income and worry about the future. One year after A1
he described visiting Angola one week each month and being in daily contact
with his staff. However, he commented that the pressure got worse as his venture
developed:
“In the beginning I had the advantage of being able to be at home while I
worked with business development – the stage most of the others were at
during Booster – that stage isn’t a problem. But later [...] the family doesn’t get
much out of it, but rather the opposite: I don’t contribute with money, I don’t
contribute with time and I’m not present
80
– so it gets really unbalanced.”
Despite having had a tough first year all, it was clear from Barry’s account that
he was making progress not only with regards to selling his product, but also in
terms of creating a strong organisational culture. Barry’s explained that his
philosophy has been one of not so much writing down organisational values, but
rather living them out. He then wryly described how he came under pressure
from investors to change his franchise model from one of renting the product to
entrepreneurs (entailing a lower risk for the African entrepreneur) to one of
selling them the product. When he brought this suggestion up with his staff in
Africa they questioned the suggestion immediately:
“ ‘Yes... but we’re a socially responsible company!’ – and then they began to
find alternatives themselves... so that, yes - the sales model should sponsor
the rental model.”
When asked about the long-term impact of the accelerator, Barry commented
first of all that the programme helped him develop a network among social
entrepreneurs. It also emerged that it was the accelerator that first led him to
understand himself as a social entrepreneur:
79
The interview took place at the beginning of November 2011.
80
The context of the interview makes it clear that Barry is referring to his thoughts being elsewhere,
even when he is physically present.
Jönköping International Business School
188
“I can’t say that it was only at Booster, but in principle it happened about then;
it was the first time I realised that some people call what I do ‘social
entrepreneurship’ .”
Barry repeated what he said in earlier interviews, about the value of the network,
but is a little more specific. He suggests that the value of the network (he appears
to be referring to the cohort at this stage) lies in the different competencies
possessed by the entrepreneurs and the stimulation he experienced while working
with different business ideas – “that was very exciting”. He commented that he
has begun to coach Gabriella and that he will be discussing the “digital bits” of
his operation with another participant, Edward. He also says that he would like
to develop several other contacts he made during Booster – in particular several of
the visiting speakers. Barry goes on to discuss his own learning and says that he
has taken on board some of the accelerator content, and some of the ideas that
surfaced there:
“I still have an idea about conducting a crowd-sourcing campaign and some
other things – so it actually gave quite a lot.”
Despite his positive attitude to the accelerator, Barry is still convinced that he
had achieved too much in his venture, when he entered the accelerator and that
the accelerator failed to provide him with two key areas of knowledge, namely
contacts with investors and coaching in sales:
(Duncan: Did the content of the accelerator match your needs at the time?)
“No, it didn’t. I had come too far [...] I was after the final destination which we
never arrived at, that we would finalise and become ready to meet investors
and get in contact with a larger network of investors.”
“I don’t think I really needed much help to develop. I just needed help to meet
investors... Perhaps what I needed, what I would have found useful was sales
– coaching on sales [...] how to commercialise the market as fast as possible.”
Despite these observations, Barry denied my suggestion that he might have
found it frustrating to participate in an accelerator with entrepreneurs who had
made less progress than him:
“No, I didn’t feel that. I felt that it was stimulating.”
He also commented that he appreciated the fact that two of the participants were
focusing on Africa and developing countries. However, when questioned about
whether it was better to recruit entrepreneurs from either the same industry or
the same stage of development, Barry was adamant that it is more important that
entrepreneurs be at the same stage:
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
189
“I think it’s good if they’re at the same stage. If someone is into the
commercialising phase and someone else is into the... in theory they can
learn from one another, but then you’ll be completely uninterested in each
other’s problems.”
(Duncan: “So they don’t need to be from the same industry, but rather at the
same stage?”)
“Exactly […] they shouldn’t be from the same industry.”
In previous interviews Barry had made little comment on his relation to the
mentor he was allocated during the accelerator. I questioned him more about this
and he said that he hadn’t met his mentor since concluding the programme, but
that they were planning to eat lunch together soon. When I asked what his
mentor contributed, Barry responded dryly “Not much so far” – and after further
discussion he acknowledged that his mentor was more an “acquaintance” at the
moment, even if he had a feeling now and again that the relationship might lead
to something useful. Barry suggested that time is always a constraining factor for
entrepreneurs, even when it comes to relationships:
“As an entrepreneur or a businessman... the less time you have the greater
your dependence on it ‘clicking’ when you meet different people. And it
[Barry’s relationship with his mentor] hasn’t really clicked I think”.
Despite Barry’s misgivings about the mentor allocated to him by Booster, he was
still enthusiastic about the idea of a mentor:
“At the moment it would be good to have a mentor who is great at building a
sales organisation.”
One year after leaving the accelerator though, Barry received a lot of advice from
his father-in-law (“an entrepreneur from [location], he knows what it takes”) and
his stepmother in Angola who constantly encouraged him and came up with new
ideas. He had difficulty however, in imagining how NSE could contribute to the
development of his venture – but was keen to remain in the network (“because
I find it inspiring”).
Two years after the accelerator, Barry went back to ‘traditional’ employment,
albeit with a focus on emerging markets, He now runs his startup as a ‘part-time’
operation and on his LinkedIn page the duration of his solar energy startup is
listed as “4 years, 10 months’).
Jönköping International Business School
190
4.4.2 The Knowledgeable Improviser: Marie (A2)
4.4.2.1 Background and Personality
Marie is a 51 year-old entrepreneur from Norway – which, given her focus on
southern Asia implies that she is ‘expatriate’ (KI-E). Married with two children,
she has now settled in Norway after many years living abroad. Initially trained in
graphic design and journalism, Marie’s first major job was at a photo agency – a
job that she held for seven years, while running her own photo-journalism
company on the side. During this time she became increasingly interested in
human rights and CSR issues – and in particular, the rights of garment workers
in southern Asia
81
and in China. This interest led to her successful application to
work for the press and communications department of a major European
garment wholesaler, focusing primarily on the production of materials relating to
garment suppliers in China and southern Asia. Five years later Marie had moved
from documenting the activities of garment suppliers and their employees, to
living in southern Asia and managing rights-related projects for the garment
wholesaler. In 2011 Marie moved into the corporation’s CSR department as
project manager for a series of initiatives that centred on the improvement of
workers’ conditions in suppliers’ factories. These initiatives included the
production of manuals and films on worker safety. She then left the company
upon her return to Norway in 2012, and began working independently as a CSR
consultant and taking several university courses in the subject.
As a person, Marie appears forthright, open to new experiences and engaged. In
her CV she describes herself as an organiser and implementer: “creative, curious
and always willing to learn”. She displays many of these characteristics as she
participates in the accelerator and is clearly a ‘people’ person rather than a loner:
going out of her way to help resolve conflict or to facilitate the progress of other
entrepreneurs.
4.4.2.2 The Venture
Marie’s experience in southern Asia had made her aware of the need for
developing safety procedures and an awareness of workers’ rights among the
smaller garment factories that are often ignored by the CSR programmes of large
corporations. Back in Norway she toyed with the idea of developing a ‘hub’ for
worker safety and workers’ rights, that would bring together all of the major
stakeholder groups in the garment industry: “workers, suppliers, buyers,
industrial organisations, networks, NGOs and governments”. By providing a
platform around which stakeholders could engage in dialogue, Marie’s ambition
was to:
81
I.e.: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
191
“use business as a driving force with cooperation [...] and transparency as
core tools. I would like the hub to grow [...] to change attitudes and actions
amongst all, from workers to managers to prime ministers”
Marie’s startup was consequently at the idea stage when she participated in the
accelerator and her intention was to develop a platform for stakeholder dialogue.
Initially in a single country in southern Asia; but with time, in several of the main
garment-producing nations in the region.
4.4.2.3 Expectations
Marie’s expectations of the accelerator centred very much on moving her startup
from idea to action. In the pre-accelerator survey she writes of developing an
action plan and of creating “systems for the [hub/stakeholder] collaboration. It
is clear that she expects to get professional advice while at the accelerator,
particularly on the practical, financial and legal aspects of launching her venture
– and she is keen to sharpen her presentation skills. Nevertheless, the interviews
made it clear that Marie was particularly concerned about preparing a business
plan and a concrete description of her product offering – something she could
show to potential customers as a basis for their ‘coming on board’.
Marie was one of the few entrepreneurs who included her own contribution to
the group under the ‘expectations’ heading, writing that she looked forward to
sharing her own knowledge and experience with the other participants.
4.4.2.4 Experiencing the Accelerator
‘Intensity’ was a theme that characterised much of Marie’s interview halfway
through the accelerator, both in terms of value and experience. Very much aware
of the demands made on her time by her consultancy work, Marie appreciated
the focus demanded by the accelerator.
“I feel it’s good to work intensively, reserving time and working very intensively
with this – because I get new [consultancy] tasks all the time and it’s easy for
that to take over, as I need to make a living”.
Nevertheless, halfway through the accelerator Marie was feeling both pressure
and frustration. Clearly she was learning a lot and enjoying the process, but she
also commented on the difficulty of developing everything that she wished to –
and noted that she had been unable to accomplish many of the things she had
hoped to. For example:
“I really want to finish preparing a business plan that I feel good about, but I
don’t have enough time, because there so much going on all the time. But I
learn a lot every day.”
Jönköping International Business School
192
Despite this frustration Marie expressed her appreciation for the working
environment at SocNet. She talked about the value of meeting different people
there, both during the week and at events:
“It’s an unbelievably good environment to work in. I’d love to stay on”.
Marie also noted the contribution of the accelerator to expanding her network
and emphasized the value of meeting people who were interested in her venture.
She commented on the questions interested people ask who are involved in social
entrepreneurship and that stimulate her thinking. For example:
“A question I get since I started the accelerator, which I’m not sure I’ve had
before is that people say: ‘Oh great! How nice to hear about your project –
and what do you need?’ And I reply, ‘What I need? Well you know...’ That’s a
fantastic question and I’ve really taken it on board.”
With regards to her expanded network, Marie expressed its value in terms of the
future: knowing who to contact for advice and being able to contact them (on
the basis of having been introduced to them at the accelerator). Her enthusiasm
for the accelerator’s contribution to her network was undiminished at the end of
the programme, when she mentioned for example: that she had already scheduled
a follow-up appointment with one of the speakers. Marie also pointed out that
although the accelerator was structured in a manner that implied that participants
should get practical coaching from the visiting speakers and more strategic
coaching from their mentors, it was also possible for entrepreneurs to get extra
feedback by chatting to one anothers’ mentors.
Marie was provided with a mentor with a background in the textiles industry and
was positive about the feedback he provided about her startup, particularly in
relation to issues she was having trouble resolving. For example: the question of
how to structure her ‘hub’. She commented on the usefulness of having a mentor
who complemented her weaknesses, rather than reinforced her strengths (“boxes
and systems and finance” vs. “ideas and creativity”). Despite her mentor’s
structured personality, Marie described the mentoring process as dynamic in
nature with their dialogue based on relevance rather than any pre-structured
process. Her mentor would occasionally give her themes to address that related
to key aspects of her startup, such as business model and finance – often by
asking her questions. At other times he would introduce her to entrepreneurs
with similar business models or ideas and encourage her to ask about their
solutions, or their evaluations of her startup idea. On another occasion he
accompanied Marie on a visit to a fashion company, as a way of ‘testing’ her
product on a potential customer. Marie summarised her mentor’s contribution
as that of a ‘sounding-board’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
193
With regards to the contribution of the visiting speakers, Marie commented that
one of the accelerator’s contributions had to do with helping her with the parts
of the startup process that she was less familiar with:
“A lot of things are fairly concrete: the idea and the tools and so on – I have
that kind of knowledge – but it's everything else round about that needs to fall
into place.”
At the end of the accelerator Marie underlined the importance of being able to
discuss her startup with “so many professional people”. She associated these
discussions with the development of her idea to a workable proposal and
commented that this interaction increased her chances of success:
“I think the chances of this thing succeeding are higher and that it [the
accelerator] has in fact accelerated”.
Marie suggested that different speakers made contributions of a very different
nature. In other words, speakers not only differed in terms of the topics they
covered, but also in the role played by their visit. Marie noted for example: that
some of the speakers were very practical and ‘business-oriented’, while other
instead made more of an ‘emotional’ contribution. Marie even went so far as to
suggest that these more inspirational speakers “tore down” some of the overly
rational structures built up by the more practical visitors. This contribution was
clearly important in terms of helping Marie get through the intensive accelerator
process:
“Some of the speakers have been very inspiring and that has given me hope
and strength to move on - because it’s really heavy to get this off of the
ground”
Marie, as noted earlier, had a wealth of experience to draw upon during the
accelerator and often reflected on the design of the programme and on the
ongoing process. In the interview at the end of the accelerator for example: she
pointed out the different states of preparedness among visiting speakers. She
questioned whether the voluntary nature of their engagement might be linked to
some of them appearing unprepared for their interaction with the entrepreneurs.
In particular she complained about the frequent need for participants to spend
valuable seminar time on acquainting visitors with their ventures. Marie also
suggested that an ‘overload’ of seminars makes it difficult for entrepreneurs to
make progress on their ventures:
“It just doesn’t work to sit for an hour or two between lectures and get
something useful done”.
Jönköping International Business School
194
Marie also suggested that the accelerator be designed with a focus on two stages.
A ‘basic’ stage during the first three weeks, to provide participants with
foundational business knowledge – and a ‘specialist’ stage in the remainder of the
programme, to enable entrepreneurs to focus on their particular needs. She
suggested that this ‘individualised’ focus is needed in order to address differences
between participating ventures. For example, she suggested that some ventures
were more in need of an expanded network than others – and that several of the
entrepreneurs felt frustrated, because they had been unable to make as many
connections as they had envisaged. Marie also acknowledged that she felt
frustrated at not being able to make as much progress during the accelerator, as
she had hoped to.
As noted in a previous section, conflict was a recurring theme in the second
accelerator and Marie believed that the design of the accelerator was a factor in
the group’s problems. She suggested that accelerator managers wrongly assumed
that it was necessary to take pressure off of the group in order to create a feeling
of ‘togetherness’. Marie suggested instead that the accelerator be designed in a
manner that enhanced cohesion ‘under pressure’. For example: by getting on with
the development of entrepreneurs’ ventures at an early stage and enhancing the
group process during this development – and also by scheduling and structuring
entrepreneurs contributions to one another’s ventures. Marie was clearly affected
by the tension within the group and her frustration over both the design of the
accelerator and some of the other entrepreneurs’ attitudes:
“Something that has created a lot of pressure and stress, is that... um, people
haven’t, um... given of what I feel they should have given.”
“It’s been hard, because these guys have done whatever they wanted to and
come and gone as they wished, and sat and worked with other things during
seminars. Everyone’s had their laptops open and I get so unbelievably
stressed by that, so I had to go and sit on a corner so I couldn’t see their
screens as they sat and Facebooked and Googled.”
“It was a bit like... we should support each other and help one other and so
on. And I felt that it became really individualised after... after week one it just
went ‘swish!’ and we splintered and then no one seemed to want to help
anyone else.”
“So we have not made use of one another’s’ capacities... at all”.
When asked if the problems stemmed from the accelerator or from the group,
Marie felt unsure and said that the responsibility probably rested with both the
group and the accelerator managers. She noted for example, that entrepreneurs
were at different stages in the development process. She also questioned whether
some of the ventures that participated in the accelerator were ‘realistic’ –
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
195
wondering therefore, with what motives the entrepreneurs running them had
come to Scandinavia. She suggested that the intensity of the programme
accentuated the tensions in the group and that participants had very different
ways of handling the assignments given them by managers. Marie described how
she was at time “disobedient” and neglected some of the assignments, preferring
to prioritise tasks that she felt were important. She suggested however, that other
participants felt they had to complete all of the tasks assigned to them – while
others might not have done any assignments at all. Marie was particularly critical
of the role taken on by the accelerator managers, which she felt developed into
a ‘mothering’ role (ensuring that all of the practical challenges of the accelerator
were solved), rather than that of a leader:
“She should have been our boss! A boss shouldn’t have to take care of pots
and sheets and buying suits for the lads, just because they... didn’t bring a suit
with them.”
“I think that’s quite a strong critique of the programme - that the person
leading the programme has to be available, and has to be a leader and has to
have time for that. Someone else has to do deal with the administration.”
Despite her critique of some of the aspects of the accelerator, Marie noted that
she had been able to build productive relationships with most of the participants.
Halfway through the accelerator Marie she described interacting with Heidi,
Steven, Jamal, Kenny, Peter and Nelson. She noted that being at the same stage
made it easier for her to interact with these individuals She contrasted their stage
of development with that of Isaac and Lewis, whose ventures she felt she had
progressed too far to be of relevance to her. However, she also pointed out that
some of her interaction with Heidi was based on the simple fact that they were
both women and furthermore, the only “Westerners” in the programme.
Marie distinguished between individuals from who she felt she received as much
as she gave (Heidi and Jamal) – and participants who she primarily gave advice
to (Steven, Kenny, Peter and Nelson). By the end of the accelerator Marie only
described Heidi as retaining the ‘give and take’ role she had hoped to see in the
accelerator, while identifying Kenny and Steven (and to a lesser extent Peter) as
participants she continued to give feedback to on more of a one-way basis. Her
description of the peer-learning process suggests that from her perspective,
entrepreneurs ‘earned’ the right to feedback from one another:
“Of the others [apart from Heidi] I felt that Kenny and um, Steven are the ones
who have shown most enthusiasm and who have wanted to work a little
harder than I feel the others have done. So I think it became a little natural
that it felt fun to help them, because they were positive and wanted it
[feedback].”
Jönköping International Business School
196
Marie’s account of her relationship with her fellow entrepreneurs also made it
clear that individuals not only could earn the right to feedback, but could also
‘burn their bridges’. An example of the latter was Nelson’s follow-up of Marie’s
provision of a contact at the Red Cross, which resulted in an embarrassing letter
to them. This made her hesitant to provide additional support.
The above paragraphs suggest that the ‘culture’ or ‘working climate’ of an
accelerator has a significant effect on entrepreneurs’ experiences and learning.
Clearly, not all of their experiences were positive and had a positive impact on
learning. Nonetheless, Marie describes several instances of positive peer pressure
– where she behaved in a more entrepreneurial manner than she would normally
have done. One example is her response to my question about whether she
wished her firm to remain anonymous in my writing up of the study:
“I think you need to stick your chin out more, even if you haven’t got a finished
concept. Otherwise you shouldn’t really be here, at the accelerator. I think I
stick my chin out a little more!” (laugh)
(Duncan): “Has that happened here? Is that what you mean?”
“Yes, I think so.”
(Duncan): “Why? How did that happen?”
“Well, everybody else is so... (laugh) Everyone else has their name on the
ideas that they’re working on, so I feel ‘What the hell, of course!’ Then I guess
we’ll have to see if it works or not, but you have to take a chance... and I really
think that that’s the kind of spirit there is around here!”
Several months after the accelerator Marie referred back to another experience
of ‘sticking her chin out’, namely the entrepreneurs’ regular presentations of their
businesses (“those horrible little pitches”). She commented that with perspective,
she believes that the experience was useful – as she now feels more confident in
giving presentations.
4.4.2.5 After the Accelerator
Five months on from the accelerator a lot of things had happened in Marie’s
startup. Marie described how after the accelerator she continued to talk to others
and to potential customers about her ideas – and continued to receive positive
feedback. Nevertheless, in her own mind the idea did not ‘take off’, as she puts
it and she decided to take some time off from thinking about the new venture
over the summer. Stimulated by a comment made by one of her stakeholders
(“great idea, but what’s next?”), Marie decided to develop her idea further and to
build on her previous experience of awareness-raising and film-making. The
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
197
product that resulted from this process continues to focus on garment workers
and the smaller factories in which they work. However, rather than attempting
to launch a ‘hub’, Marie is now focusing on creating an interactive series of
training films and games, that can be viewed by workers on computers and
smartphones. This development resulted in a change in the company name and
Marie’s confidence in the new idea has led to the registration of the firm as a
limited company.
During the accelerator Marie had attempted to recruit an acquaintance as a
business partner, but had failed. However, upon seeing the new concept, he
became enthusiastic and is now a partner in the business – providing financial
savvy to match Marie’s expertise in the industry and in media. Marie estimates
the initial impact of the new package to be far higher than that of her previous
film-based solutions
82
. By rolling out in China and southern Asia at the same
time, she expects to reach around one million workers in the first year. Marie
estimates that she needs three to five firms to purchase the solution for it to really
gain momentum. Since the accelerator she has been in dialogue with one of the
largest Norwegian hardware wholesalers. They are positive to the initiative and
prepared to fund its development. Marie therefore planned to roll out a first
version of the product during the autumn of 2014, with a more extensive launch
(and hopefully a larger number of committed customers) in the spring of 2015.
While the product is developed and launched the startup is being hosted by the
social business incubator, whose manager suggested Marie apply to the
accelerator.
When asked if the venture would have developed in the way that it has without
input from the accelerator; Marie suggests that it would have eventually arrived,
but probably not as quickly. Above all she underlines the role of the accelerator
in helping her understand that her idea would probably not work in its previous
form – and she points out that there is also a risk that she might have given up
instead:
“I might have come up with the idea anyway, but I think that... that these tools,
that I was given the possibility to work... that I worked intensively on this for
two months… I think was useful. It’s quite possible I would have given up
otherwise.”
Marie also pointed out that she feels much more positive about the accelerator
today than she did immediately afterwards:
82
In her previous job she was able to reach around 600 000 garment workers in a single country over a
six-year period.
Jönköping International Business School
198
“Now that I have a little distance to it, I feel that I got a lot more out of it than I
maybe felt to start with, when it had just finished – because then I was really
only very tired.”
Despite her subsequent positive impressions of the accelerator, Marie notes that
it is the expanded network provided by the accelerator and the speakers that
stand out, rather than her contacts with the other entrepreneurs. Marie says that
she still has occasional online contact with Heidi, Steven and Kenny – but that it
is really only with Heidi whom she shares startup oriented information.
Nevertheless, she emphasizes how important it was for her to find a partner. She
notes the useful role of the accelerator in providing expert advice and a sounding-
board for a limited period, but underlines its inability to compensate for the lack
of a partner in the long term.
4.4.3 The Confident Entrant: Steven (A2)
4.4.3.1 Background and Personality
Steven is a 41 year old entrepreneur who lives and works in Francophone Africa
(making him an ‘indigenous’ social entrepreneur). Thirteen years before
participating in the 2013 accelerator Steven founded his own non-governmental
organisation (NGO). The organisation was initially simply a campaign run by
university students that coincided with the celebration of the new millennium
and that focused on improving prison conditions. The campaign rapidly
expanded into an organisation that began to focus on the needs of vulnerable
children – in particular those orphaned by the HIV epidemic. Steven’s
engagement with children and poor communities in the region helped his
organisation gain the trust of both regional government and aid agencies (for
example: the Ministry of Social Affairs and UNICEF). Consequently, his
organisation frequently partnered with these actors – and received funding from
them – as it delivered support to vulnerable children. In his application to Booster,
Steven reported that his 2012 revenue stream amounted to just over $5 500 USD.
He writes in his application that he works fulltime and survives on a “stipend
(living expenses) from my social enterprise”, but in interviews he makes it clear
that this is not his only source of income:
“It is from the internet business
83
that I generate the funds to pay the rents of
the office, to pay the basic stuff, day-to-day basic operations, to pay utilities.”
Steven studied economics at university and in his first years of social engagement
referred to himself as “an economist... working on poverty alleviation”. He
83
In his application Steven describes his main source of income as “ICT related services (internet café)”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
199
describes the difficulty of finding a good ‘label’ for his occupation – and the
eventual solution he found:
“I was doing a lot of social work, but you see I’m not a social worker, I don’t
want to be described as a social worker. So finally I realised I was working as
a social entrepreneur... it fits me better.”
Steven is a quiet, self-effacing man with a warm smile. He is often quiet during
seminars and is slow to voice his opinions – perhaps because his trip to
Scandinavia was his first time outside of his own country. Initial impressions are
deceptive however and one-on-one conversations with Steven reveal another
side. He continues to be soft-spoken and humble – yet also appears alert, eager
to learn and focused. He seems to care deeply for the children and communities
with whom he interacts, and it emerges that he has managed an orphanage since
2010. Despite not having travelled abroad previously, it is interesting to note that
Steven’s network includes a North American professor who uses his venture as
an example of social entrepreneurship – and even bring students over to visit:
“She said: ‘This is a perfect example of social entrepreneur’, she’s always
quoting it.”
Several other of the African entrepreneurs participating in the accelerator share
this aspect of Steven’s experience – with both Peter and Nelson in regular contact
with universities in the United States.
Soon after the founding of Steven’s NGO, he conducted a field survey of the
needs of the communities among which he was working. As his NGO’s website
describes, the survey indicated that government educational programmes were
not reaching the most vulnerable children and that additional support was
needed:
“There are many children who still fall within the cracks and do not benefit
from the educational system [...] Scholarships are provided to pupils or
students mostly on the basis of merits and poor children who need education
and are not in school or not the intelligent pupils in their class are left out. This
creates an unfair system for promoting education for all children.”
In 2003 insights such as the above led Steven’s NGO to pay school fees for the
most vulnerable children and to provide them with core textbooks. Although the
NGO was subsequently involved in several other projects relating to HIV
education and an orphanage, the textbook initiative stuck in Steven’s mind and
eventually became a separate project. It was also the one he was attempting to
launch as he participated in Booster. In this study the textbook initiative is referred
to with the pseudonym Bibliothèques Communitaries (BC). The startup’s website
describes the initiative as a ”satellite library system” whose aim is to:
Jönköping International Business School
200
”ensure that children have books when they need them, especially orphans
and vulnerable children who are victims of education marginalization”
In order to achieve these goals the venture attempts to “enhance a book
distribution network” by using existing infrastructure to create library
environments, including: “community buildings, shipping cargo containers, or
just a cupboard in a room”.
4.4.3.2 Expectations
Steven describes his expectations of the accelerator in terms of “exposure”,
training and the opportunity to have his venture critically appraised by experts.
By “exposure” Steven refers to both the broadening of his own experience (it is
his first time abroad), but also to the publicising of his venture. As was the case
with several of the African entrepreneurs, the initial interview with Steven gives
the impression that he perceives Scandinavia to be a potential source of funding
– and that funding will be relatively easy to source if he can only publicise his
venture:
“We [Steven and his mentor] have other priorities... for example: we want to
have... I want to have the institution registered here […] and to also have a
bank account here. Because we don’t have this structure in place, a lot of our
efforts... many people will not be able to reach us, because the greatest
challenge for many people is how to make a contribution”.
Closely related to this expectation is Steven’s desire to understand how non-
African investors think:
“I wanted to have an understanding of the way of the international
community... I wanted to have an understanding of their understanding about
what we do.”
“I don’t really understand the attitude of investors; that is something I wish to
learn.”
It appears that initially at least, Steven sees the accelerator as a means of gaining
access to funding that he believes exists outside of his home country, but doesn’t
know how to access. However, he also appears to realise (perhaps as a result of
previous experience) that he is presently not in a position to communicate
effectively with international investors – and he hopes the accelerator will equip
him for this.
Despite his initial ‘funding’ orientation, Steven also describes several other
expectations that are linked to the quality of his venture and his capacity to run
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
201
it effectively. He seems to be aware of the dangers of working alone for too long
and of his need for training:
“I knew that so far I’ve been working alone without having the opportunity to
go out for some formal training [...] when I saw this opportunity, I said it would
be good for me to get out of the ditch with the pressure, get to an environment
where I will meet with professionals who can cross-examine objectively what I
do.”
As the above quote illustrates, Steven believes that his venture is vulnerable to
the limitations placed on his own thinking by the startup environment.
Limitations that he links not only to his restricted outlook (the “ditch”), but also
to the stress of initiating a new venture (the “pressure”). He appears to see the
need for not only a move to another environment, but also input from individuals
with startup-related expertise.
4.4.3.3 Experiencing the Accelerator
Echoing the accounts of his fellow entrepreneurs, Steven found the accelerator
an intense experience. He associated the intensity not only with the amount of
work involved, but also the sheer number of impressions generated by the
accelerator – and the fact that speakers at times had divergent opinions:
“At the same time some tutors conflict, because some coaches [...] bring one
aspect of your lecture and talk about it and another coach will come and say
something contrary to whatever that was said. And now we have to fight to
have a balance. Then we see the pressure and stress. It has been highly
stressful in this... for me in particular, because we have to deliver a plan by
the end and we have the obligation to do that.”
At times Steven expressed frustration over this diversity and lamented the lack
of someone with the ‘bigger picture’:
“We had several different coaches coming in, so there was no coach who
could have a... full control of your business plan from the beginning to the
end.”
Steven’s experience suggests that the stress experienced by entrepreneurs stems
from a complex interplay of factors. On the one hand the design of the
accelerator puts pressure on entrepreneurs to perform, by asking them to
complete a common set of assignments – including a business plan. However,
this component of the accelerator can compromise other areas of the accelerator,
such as the role of peer consultation. For example: when asked halfway through
the accelerator, whether there was too much interaction among the entrepreneurs
– or too little, Steven replied:
Jönköping International Business School
202
“We don’t have time for interaction.”
(Duncan): “You don’t have time?”
“We have time for work, which is programmed by NSE. And when we get
home we have to create time for ourselves to do our own homework, run our
own offices, respond to emails, understand what is happening... so we barely
create time for chat. It’s a very intensive exercise.”
“You can imagine: on Saturday we work in the house from... six a.m. to
midnight. Everybody’s on his computer, you work until you pass out, then you
go and... you lie down for a while, you get up and everybody’s quiet in his own
area.”
The above quotes underline the challenge of accelerating ventures already in
existence, or startups that are offshoots of existing organisations. Entrepreneurs
value the opportunity to spend dedicated time on developing their ventures, but
many of them are never entirely ‘free’ from the concerns associated with running
an ongoing small business or NGO.
Steven’s experience of the accelerator is particularly useful in providing insights
about the mentor’s role in the accelerator process, not least because his insights
became more nuanced as the accelerator progresses. Halfway through the
accelerator Steven describes his mentor as a role model, but also as someone who
puts pressure on him to make progress:
“So at the same time my mentor is on me... pressure!”
“So I like the guy, he’s practical. He’s a young man, very ambitious. Just by
talking and looking at the way he works I learn a lot, just from his lifestyle.”
(Duncan): “What do you mean when you... you said ‘just by looking at him’?”
“Yes, his position, his vision, his outlook. Like when we go to talk, he [talks]
about other very successful people and what made them to be successful. So
he takes you completely out of the classroom work and brings you into the
real world and uses real people for you to be able to see through the eyes of
these people.”
Steven’s comment suggests that mentors may perform an important bridging
function between the themes taught in seminars and their subsequent
application. Not least because he complains at the end of the accelerator, about
the overly academic nature of some of the content. As with many of the mentors,
Steven’s mentor maintains regular contact with him by email throughout the
accelerator, even if they have far fewer face-to-face meetings. Halfway through
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
203
the programme they had only managed two physical meetings (with a further one
planned for the day of the interview). Their online communication was however,
much more frequent:
“We share emails about five times a day [...] So I will write, he will read, he will
react immediately and he will give his comment, say: ‘Do it like this’. I will write
back and he’ll say: ‘Why don’t you think you can do it like this?’ [...] So when I
finally got it he said: ‘Great, you’ve got it.’ ”
Steven describes his interaction with his mentor as a process that resulted first of
all in a refining of several areas of his business. For example: simplifying and
reducing his marketing ‘message’ to create more impact. However, he also
describes a process whereby his mentor helped identify the next step in the
process:
“So we started from there and I’ve been able to come out with a clearer vision,
and now he said the next point was for me to prepare a brief introduction that
captures the entire concept in one pitch.”
Despite the role of the mentor in shaping the process and the venture, Steven’s
experience makes it clear that the process is co-created by both the mentor and
the entrepreneur. During the interview halfway through the accelerator Steven
describes his mentor’s plans, but also outlines his own objectives for the coming
meeting:
“Today I want us to look into how we can put in place a fund-raising strategy
[...] and then how we can also have a business plan for the business aspect,
because what I wrote was for the social aspect.”
The above quote illustrates not only the social entrepreneur’s attempts to shape
the accelerator process, but also the role of the accelerator in developing the
hybrid character of the venture. In Steven’s interviews he commented several
times on the value he gained from interacting with individuals without a
background in social enterprise. For example, he commented on the visit of a
speaker from the United Kingdom:
“I think he was objective... he was really objective, but the fact was he didn’t
have the mind of social enterprise. He saw it purely from a business
perspective. I think I learnt a lot from him in terms of running a company.”
Steven’s mentor also had a background in business, but as the accelerator
progressed Steven found this challenging and even felt uncertain about whether
it was appropriate to have someone without a background as a social
entrepreneur as a mentor:
Jönköping International Business School
204
“My mentor is more or less a very focused capitalist businessman, so he
doesn’t really have a strong background in social enterprise [...] and because
of that he doesn’t really understand the business.”
“He’ll give you other valuable information – on the tactical, managerial
information [...] which is really good. I think he should be brought in as one of
the coaches for... strategy management, how to manage your time – he’s
perfect at that. But when it comes to social enterprise he has not got the
background. Because of that [...] I had to do a lot of work by myself and it
gave me lots of pressure.”
It was also clear that Steven sometimes felt unsure as to how he should handle
the tensions between the for-profit and social logics. Should he take on board his
mentor’s advice or the ideas of some of the guest speakers?
“Because of that [the contradictions] I had a challenge to satisfy my mentor or
to be polite, as well as to keep track with the lectures.”
Despite Steven’s suggestion that he had no time to interact with other accelerator
participants, he describes such interaction several times. At times he commented
that the behaviour of other entrepreneurs had a negative effect on both himself
and visiting speakers – for example: when some participants failed to focus
during seminar sessions:
“Somehow I also felt like some of my colleagues were not so focused and I
didn’t feel so comfortable with that, and it also affected his performance.
Yeah, I saw it affecting his focus. I saw some frustrations, but he managed it
and I felt really bad for him. And I went back and I told the colleague that what
he did, I wasn’t comfortable.” (laugh)
At other times, Steven describes the positive impact of being coached by
entrepreneurs with more experience than him, such as Isaac:
“Like my friend Isaac, he said: ‘This concept could be scalable to the rest of
Africa, because they face the same problems’ [...] and with somebody who
has been exposed like him telling you that, gives you more resilience to sit
and figure out how to make it... grow bigger.”
In addition to interacting with visiting speakers, his mentor and his peers, at one
point Steven described his frustration with the type of interactions he was
experiencing at SocNet:
“I’ve had a lot of interaction with the people here at SocNet, it was good. They
were really welcoming and receptive. But it is like I was interacting with the
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
205
wrong community, because the same people at a certain point – there wasn’t
anything coming out of those interactions.”
His comment reflects the challenge faced by accelerator managers, of both
foreseeing the type of contacts that entrepreneurs will find useful – and then
facilitating these contacts. Steven eventually managed to get in touch with the
‘right’ people, but only towards the end of the programme. Fortunately, it was
possible to rebook his return flight, which enabled him to spend a further two
weeks in Scandinavia after the accelerator, to cultivate these contacts.
4.4.3.4 After the Accelerator
Steven’s description of the accelerator’s contribution to his venture focuses
initially on his increased awareness of what he needed to achieve in order to make
his venture sustainable. Halfway through the programme he described how he
became aware of what needed to be done and how he began to work on a
solution:
“I realised that I had to establish the concept in a formal structure. And now...
to build this structure is what has actually got me to a lot of work, because
now I have to figure out a clear, um... value proposition for the... programme. I
had to look at it as an independent entity with a sustainable model, as a
business.”
The above quote illustrates part of the process by which Steven came to the
decision to register Bibliothèques Communitaries as a separate entity to his NGO,
rather than as a project within it. He emphasizes the significant shift in his
thinking that has taken place:
“It’s really done great to my business, because all along I’ve been working as
a charity and now I have to work as a social business.”
“I’ll be having a different business from the former business, so this will
become a new business by itself. I’ll give it a new registration and a new
identity.”
“During the accelerator I had to time to work on that [how to make the library
programme a profitable enterprise] so it is now having its own model different
from the model of the charity, that is a parent organisation.”
Steven says that he now has a business plan that is designed specifically for the
new venture, but also comments on the increasing confidence he feels as a result
of having participated in the accelerator. He links this confidence to having been
able to spend time on the development of his venture:
Jönköping International Business School
206
“I have more self-esteem, I am just confident that I’m now above the
workforce. So I could navigate, I could talk to anybody confidently [...] I’ve
already figured out the strategies because I had enough time within these two
months to actually explore all the angles of the business. If I was back home
with the other company, I wouldn’t have had enough time.”
Nevertheless, Steven suggests that his ability to obtain a new outlook is not only
linked to having time to reflect, but also to having access to other people’s
perspectives:
(Duncan): “Where does this learning come from?”
“I think maybe... it gives enough time for internal reflections... and seeing your
business. I think it’s about this information you have, the way others perceive.”
Steven goes on to describe in more detail the boost to his self-esteem that came
with having had his ideas discussed by others:
(Duncan): “Where does this confidence come from? What made the change?”
“It’s a combination of factors, just the fact that I have a business plan that has
been appreciated by different people and they’ve seen the value is one point
[...] It means there are people who see value and institutions who see value
at this initial stage. So if I could go back and do a proof of concept with
already these eyes watching, it gives me enough confidence for me to move
forward.”
At the beginning of the accelerator Steven described his wish to get out of his
“ditch” in order to get a more objective look at his venture. At the end of the
programme, Steven is disappointed that he was unable to immediately source
funding, but satisfied that he has been able to obtain the panoramic view he had
hoped for:
“[The] accelerator makes you think professionally. It also helps you think
globally. While you are in your own corner, small corner... you look upon
yourself as though you are a king, because there is nobody to criticise you.
And you keep maybe refining the idea at one spot, instead of moving it to the
next level. So the accelerator it has helped to... to think.”
“With the accelerator it has given that opportunity to move out of the other
day-to-day activities and be ready to take it to the next level.”
When asked about things that were missing from the accelerator or less relevant,
Steven comments first of all that he would have appreciated more teaching on
the financial aspects of starting and managing an enterprise. In other words: he
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
207
felt that the education provided was relevant, but not sufficient. With regards to
the teaching of marketing however, he had mixed feelings – and he described the
mismatch between European approaches and the realities of the developing
world:
“I’m looking at how we can make use of online marketing tools, like the tools
we were taught [...] I use Twitter, Facebook – but again, our communities are
still very... I would say they are still not IT savvy. So what we are doing is to
go out and do it the traditional way: talk to people one-to-one [...] and you
know, print fliers on papers, there it is more or less a paper environment.”
Five months after the end of the accelerator, Steven reports having undergone a
tough period. He was recovering from a bout of malaria when I talked to him
and described how the development of his venture had been slowed by his having
to rebuild his management team:
“I had to disqualify the leader of the team because he was trying to double-
cross; to like, also use the idea for himself [...] So I had to change the team –
and again, you know what it takes to change a team, cultivating the team…
and it has been hard work.”
Steven rebuilt his team and recruited two women from a nearby university. He
also purchased a car in order to be able to visit the communities he is engaged
with, but also to provide him with more legitimacy when he visits publishers:
“They don’t need to look at you from a needy perspective, you need to look
like... so one of the reasons I needed the car is because I also needed to
move around and visit these companies in a more responsible manner, so
that, you know, we talk as peers.”
In addition to these challenges Steven also described the difficulty of getting the
first library to function in the community environment:
“There is another business directly opposite our office and this guy is using
the public address system to play loud music, very loud music [...] children
have been coming and collecting the books, but they cannot read in the office
because of the noise [...] so the first problem we want to solve is to stop him.”
Five months after the accelerator Steven was still financing his startup by
bootstrapping and by means of a loan from his sister in North America. After a
year he described the main challenge facing his enterprise as “funding to properly
test the concept”.
The content of the post-accelerator interview and questionnaire suggest that
Steven now spends a large proportion of his time cultivating target communities’
Jönköping International Business School
208
interest in his libraries and developing relations with publishing houses. One
publisher was sceptical of the idea of a book exchange, suggesting that this could
reduce his own book sales. Nevertheless, Steven eventually managed to persuade
another publisher to sponsor the enterprise with some school textbooks to a
value of about $35 USD. In the context of a developing country this sponsorship
is a useful input in terms of library stock, but clearly does not contribute
significantly to the ongoing costs of the enterprise in terms of salaries and
transport.
Steven’s comments after the accelerator give the impression that he is engaged
in a long-term process of engaging with local communities and developing his
enterprise. Initially he was reluctant to promote the library programme due to his
newly formed team:
“When I returned we had a lot of issues with restructure, so I didn’t want to
promote the programme very much until we had an effective team in place [...]
without the team in place, all the burden would be on me and I don’t want to
run this operation all by myself.”
Despite the pressure of finances, a year after leaving the accelerator Steven was
clearly making progress and had established the first ‘genuine’ community library
(the pilot project was located at the NGO office). This generated a lot of publicity
and further good will, which Steven hoped would generate more funding:
“It is about now that our startup is coming into the limelight with the launching
of the first village library. Hopefully a lot of potential sponsors and the
government will pay more attention to the programme.”
A year after the end of the accelerator Steven was in touch with several of the
other entrepreneurs and also his mentor, but described the nature of his contact
as primarily ‘social’ (as opposed to contributing to his enterprise’s development).
There were however, a few exceptions to this and Steven notes that he still has
‘business-related’ contact with accelerator manager Karen. He also described
how he chats to Kenny about once a week on Skype and how Kenny at times
provides him with useful information
84
:
“When he finds some interesting information for me he will let me know, so he
will give me any leads or any information that he thinks can be relevant to my
project, so he gives it to me.”
Steven is also in contact with several individuals who he met while in Scandinavia,
who he hopes will contribute to the enterprise in the long term. One of them is
84
It is unclear whether this is reciprocal: Kenny does not explicitly state that he has received useful
ideas from Steven, even if they are in regular contact.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
209
an African-American restaurant-owner who lives in Scandinavia. He has
expressed an interest in the startup, but has as yet not made any direct
contribution to the enterprise. A woman who Steven met at SocNet plans to travel
to Cameroon with her fiancé in the near future, but again Steven is uncertain of
their plans:
“They want to come and see where it is happening and maybe to go back and
see what they can do.”
4.4.4 The Innocent-Expatriate: Henrik (A1)
4.4.4.1 Background and Personality
Henrik is a twenty-seven year old entrepreneur from a small town in central
Sweden. He has two younger sisters and his father runs his own small business.
His mother was forced to retire early due to ill-health. In secondary school
Henrik studied computer science and foundational courses as an electrician, but
realised immediately after leaving school that he had no desire to pursue a career
in that direction. After secondary school Henrik did military service in the
Swedish armed forces, specialising in defensive monitoring/guarding of key
installations. During this time he received training in guard duty and consequently
began work as a security guard as soon as he left the army. As he commented:
“It was perfect, as back then times were tough and none of my friends had
work, so I got started with that right away.”
Henrik’s choice to do military service is perhaps the first indication in the
interviews, of an adventurous side to his personality. Something that shines
through time and time again, coupled to his willingness to take important
decisions in a short space of time. Henrik describes himself as an optimist and is
clearly a ‘people-person’, giving the impression throughout the accelerator of
being energetic, friendly and open to new ideas. He is also fashion-conscious and
dresses in an up-to-date, stylish and youthful manner. Henrik was one of the
entrepreneurs with the greatest ‘presence’ on social media, and it was easy to
follow the development of his non-profit and social business through his two
blogs. Early on I made an attempt to follow his Twitter feed, but the volume of
traffic was overwhelming. As Andrew commented in an early focus group:
“Because this [social media] is really good to… have a look at just all these
things, to see what is happening. Except Twitter for Henrik… his account… it’s
blinking every five minutes! (laugh)”
Henrik worked as a security guard for six months after military service and had
just earned himself a permanent contract of employment when he felt it was time
Jönköping International Business School
210
to move on and “look for another adventure”. Henrik had always enjoyed
languages and decided to learn Italian, as his grandfather is from Italy. His mother
had her doubts however, pointing out that Italian is a relatively small language
and suggesting that he move to Spain and study Spanish instead.
Henrik studied Spanish for a year before his captain (from his time in the armed
forces) rang him up and offered him a job in the Nordic Battle Group – where,
as Henrik wryly comments: “we were supposed to get permanent employment”.
Within a week Henrik had packed his belongings and was back in uniform.
However, after only a year the posting was concluded and Henrik returned to his
job as a security guard. This time however, he felt that it was a step backwards:
he was more aware of the down-sides to the job and didn’t enjoy it as much as
before. At this point Henrik began to consider starting his own business and
began to think about the kinds of products and services needed in society.
However, as he puts it:
“They all failed as soon as I put them [his business ideas] on paper. It just… it
just didn’t feel right, it didn’t feel like me. So I started all over again and I
thought like this: ‘okay, who am I and what do I need in the things that I do?”
When Henrik began to think in these terms he quickly realised that he enjoyed
working with people, that he needed to feel that he was challenged and
developing as a person – and furthermore:
“…a little adventure. In other words: something new. Throw myself into
something and discover the world.”
The ‘adventure’ that eventually came to dominate Henrik’s next years was the
plight of street children in Latin America. Henrik does not describe the process
of developing a heart for street children in detail. Nevertheless, short excerpts in
different interviews make it clear that, parallel to the process of developing a
vision of his future as an entrepreneur, Henrik also developed a social vision.
Consequently, he chuckles as he recalls the point when the two visions came
together in 2009 – three years before he participated in the accelerator:
“Imagine my surprise when I started a non-profit organisation instead of a
business!”
As with some of the other accelerator participants (such as Gabriella), Henrik’s
engagement in social enterprise stemmed from a frustration with existing
charities and from irritation over some people’s unwillingness to put in the hard
work needed to move from charity to social business:
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
211
“I was so bloody tired of all these charities spending unbelievable amounts of
money on crap […] and such a small amount of the money reaching its
target.”
“Perhaps they think it’s easier to travel somewhere and pay a 1 000 dollars to
some organisation and pat turtles for a week…”
In 2009, determined to develop an organisation that would ensure that all of its
profits reached its target communities, Henrik founded a non-profit organisation
that focused on raising money to support street children. At the same time he
began to save money so that he could travel to Latin America and work with a
Brazilian non-profit organisation. He sold his apartment and invested all his
savings in the trip, also reducing his workload
85
to 75 % in order to be able to
develop his non-profit and participate in a local training programme for nascent
entrepreneurs. Finally in January 2011, Henrik boarded a plane for Brazil
86
and
began his first trip outside of Europe – a trip that began as a journey to work in
an existing organisation, but ended with the founding of a social enterprise.
4.4.4.2 The Venture
Almost as soon as he arrived in Brazil, Henrik experienced culture shock:
“It was a terrible shock… I remember so well sitting next to Jane in the car
and you know… it was burning here and there, and a cow runs over the
road… and a naked man comes walking towards us – and it was just too
much!”
“And then came shock number two […] the Jardim Gramacho garbage dump
is nothing like the rest of Brazil, it’s ten times worse. And… kids are running
around sniffing glue and it’s just… it’s a circus in there!”
Despite his initial reaction of “today and no more”, Henrik began to work in an
existing organisation that provided daytime activities for street children. His new
colleagues were busy with their own activities and Henrik was forced to learn
what he needed to know about his work duties by himself. With time however
he became more familiar with the Jardim Gramacho community and interviewed
several of the people living there. His interviews and his interaction with the
young people in the community convinced him that employment and fair wages
were key needs. During this period Henrik was active on the internet and
networked online with a wide range of organisations and individuals, not least
two Scandinavian social entrepreneurs who introduced him to the world of social
85
Presumably as a security guard.
86
Naturally my account uses the names of a different country and a different garbage dump to the one
referred to by Henrik.
Jönköping International Business School
212
enterprise. Referring to an influential online talk by one of the entrepreneurs, he
described the formation of his new idea:
“[In the talk] they describe how you can run a non-profit organisation, you can
drive a profit-making business and you can actually run them together – and I
actually already had the non-profit operation and I thought… yeah, maybe one
day, maybe I’ll have something like that, and I can develop them and play
them together.”
Henrik describes this new idea as playing an important role in helping him
persevere. He had a lot of ideas for improving the organisation he was working
in, but felt that the top manager was not willing to listen to him. In a sense
therefore, Henrik was forced to start up his own organisation in order to achieve
what he felt was necessary:
“And then I realised, no it didn’t matter how many ideas I had, or projects or
things like that, it didn’t go through. So I thought, ‘okay, if they don’t want to do
it, I’ll have to do it myself.”
Although Henrik realised early on that employment was a key ingredient in
helping garbage dump communities improve their lives, he was unsure of how
to do so. As he worked with the young people in the day centre, he continued to
network with not-for profit organisations and also with Coompanion, a Swedish
third sector organisation that receives state funding to provide advice to
cooperative enterprises. Through his dialogue with their advisors Henrik became
convinced that stories were at the heart of his startup:
“It [the dump] is such an amazing place […] and if it can hit me so hard and
shock me, it must be able to shock others too… and so I thought that that is
what we’ll use, quite simply.”
“The huge contrast: a fashionable tee from a garbage dump.”
Henrik’s business idea revolves around t-shirts that tell a story. The front of his
t-shirts carries the portrait of someone who he interacted with at the garbage
dump. The back carries a pithy quote that captures something of the daily life on
the dump. T-shirts are marketed as fashion objects and priced at around $ 40
USD. Henrik describes how he considered trying to use other materials
associated with the garbage dump (such as old tyres), but confesses that the t-
shirts idea came to him early on and stayed with him.
Following his interaction with Coompanion, Henrik’s advisor suggested that he
submit his idea to their business idea competition. During this period he also
applied for a stipend that a cosmetics company offer for individuals involved in
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
213
sustainable development. Subsequently, in the space of two days Henrik received
news that he had won both awards and as a result, a sum of $ 14 000 USD:
“Those two days were fantastic – and right around then it was my birthday
too!”
The combined prize money enabled Henrik to lay the foundations of his social
enterprise. He was already in contact with a women’s cooperative that had been
laid waste by a hurricane and that was rebuilding to both produce garments and
make prints on existing clothing. Due to his active presence online he also had
over two hundred pre-orders for t-shirts, as an indication of the market’s interest
in his product. Consequently, he now felt able to take two further steps. First of
all, he was able to offer part-time employment to a couple of bright young men
who he had met at the dump – and who are required to study part-time in order
for their employment to continue. Secondly, convinced that he had finally
developed a workable concept, Henrik registered his own private limited
company
87
in Sweden: Garbage Garments.
Although Henrik’s social enterprise appeared to be at a breakthrough point,
reading between the lines of the interviews and his subsequent actions, it appears
that Henrik was still not entirely confident of his own ability to make the
enterprise succeed. He continued to interact with other social entrepreneurs
online and within months of employing his first employees, one of his online
contacts suggested that he might be interested in the Booster accelerator. Henrik
felt that the accelerator fitted in well with the development of his enterprise:
“It came at just the right time… just the right time! I mean, we have the money
we need to get started and um, we’ll soon be in operation; we have a
registered company. All I need now is to put some more ‘flesh on the bones’, I
just need to feel sure about where I stand and where it is that I’m going.”
Once again, Henrik demonstrated his willingness to take major decisions in a
short period of time. A week after being told that he had been accepted to the
accelerator Henrik was back in Scandinavia.
4.4.4.3 Expectations
Henrik was one of the entrepreneurs who skipped the ‘expectations’ question in
the online questionnaire in the first accelerator. Nevertheless, the preceding
quote and his application to the programme reflect not only his desire to work
out the details of operating his new venture, but also his growing awareness of
87
Swedish: Aktiebolag/AB
Jönköping International Business School
214
the challenges of running a social enterprise in a developing country. For
example, Henrik writes:
“ I hope to learn a lot about being a social entrepreneur in a developing
country, maybe find a mentor in the subject.”
“How to be a good employer when dealing with people with a different culture,
level of education, etc. I already have experienced it very different and a bit
difficult sometimes.”
In addition to giving voice to his need for advice about operating in a developing
country, Henrik also identified needs associated with getting his enterprise off
the ground, particularly in the area of marketing and developing business-to-
business relationships with retailers. He summarises his expectations by stating
that:
“Our current need is to get the sales and build hype around the brand.”
4.4.4.4 Experiencing the Accelerator
In comparison with most of the other entrepreneurs Henrik did not instinctively
begin to talk about his experience of the accelerator in interviews, but often
began to talk about his startup and the issues he was addressing. I noticed this in
my first interview, where I interviewed two entrepreneurs in quick succession:
“Interesting interviews, both of them spoke for a long time. Gabriella was
really inspired and talked freely. Henrik was a little more focused on his
company.”
Although I often tried to steer the conversation back to the accelerator process,
I was not always successful and so in discussing Henrik’s experience I more
dependent on my observations, than is the case with other entrepreneurs (who
provided more information in interviews).
My early impressions
88
of Henrik as an outgoing entrepreneur were reinforced
as I observed the interaction of the accelerator participants with one another. On
the very first day I recorded the following reflection about the group:
“Very, very happy, cheerful, joking group. Some people clearly taking the lead
early on. For example, we have Henrik from Garbage Garments clearly not
aggressive but taking the lead, often the first person to speak or taking the
initiative”.
88
Henrik was interviewed very early on in the first accelerator.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
215
In week seven I made a similar observation, suggesting that Henrik maintained
this role throughout the accelerator:
“Fun to see today Henrik as usual taking the lead when the social media
speaker asked people to present themselves. The long silence and then the
first person to speak, Henrik as usual, so he continues to take the initiative
when it comes to actually talking and taking the lead in the group work or in
the group setting”.
The main theme that stands out in Henrik’s reflections on the accelerator is that
of ‘breaking down the business idea and putting it back together’. This process
began in week one and at the end of the week Henrik commented on the mix of
cognitive and emotional processes involved:
“It was a bit tough to take apart the whole idea that we have, the idea that
we’ve worked so hard to bake together into something sustainable. Logically I
know this is healthy and good, it’s just that it takes some time to get the pieces
to fit together again.”
This process continued in week two, with one of the roles of the visiting speakers
clearly that of the scrutineer. Alice, Henrik and Edward described the descent
into chaos at the start of the accelerator:
Alice: “In the beginning it was structured and now it’s… disintegration”.
Henrik, humorously: “A mean man
89
came… now we are trying to find a chain
from the problem to the solution”.
Edward: “Tearing our hearts and ideas into pieces and looking at them again.”
At the end of the accelerator the evaluative attitude displayed by the accelerator
coaches was also becoming second nature for Henrik himself. He described how
he now looks for weaknesses in new ideas and often returns to the question of
whether an idea can earn its keep:
“I’m very sceptical now […] you meet a lot of people with ideas […] and I’ve
now started to evaluate their ideas immediately when I hear them. A
mechanism is started in my head that immediately tries to find errors or
problems in the idea.”
“But also how you can earn money through the idea. ‘Cos that was actually
one of the things they emphasized at Booster. How you earn money.”
89
Referring to one of the visiting speakers / coaches.
Jönköping International Business School
216
Henrik’s comments often reflected his concern about being alone in the startup
process and having to do things that others (with professional skills) could do
better. In week two he commented for example, on the accelerator’s role in
helping him clarify his own identity as a social entrepreneur – but still seemed
uncertain about whether he had the skills needed to manage his enterprise in the
long-term. Consequently, he was initially very enthusiastic about the expanded
network the accelerator was providing him with:
“I’m building my network every day, much faster than in Brazil. I’ve collected
piles of business cards.”
Despite this networking, Henrik seemed to understand that as an entrepreneur
he automatically took on the role of “the spider at the centre of the web” and
that he had to do a lot of things himself. Despite this, he made it clear that he
longed for someone else to take on the tasks he felt he was not good at. The first
insight seemed to be something that he learned at the accelerator. Initially he
gave the impression of hoping to find answers to the questions he was struggling
with. However, at the end of the programme he appeared to realise that he was
not about to find all of the answers. For example, a year after the end of the
accelerator:
(Duncan): “Do you do anything different today, than you did a year ago?”
“Yes, I probably do… really. I think it’s due to the fact that somehow you are
forced to find a system that works for you, how you get things done.”
Henrik also commented on the accelerator’s role in helping him realise that it
takes time to start a new venture:
“I guess the biggest thing I’ve learned is that it takes a lot of time.”
When Henrik’s various comments are linked together they build the picture of a
young social entrepreneur initially unsure of their own capacity to succeed.
Despite behaving in an open and proactive manner throughout the accelerator,
Henrik’s comments reflect a hope that the accelerator would provide him with
solutions to many of the issues he was struggling with. For example: personnel,
smooth operations and leadership. When interviewed several months after the
accelerator he admits to an underlying fear that at the time, delayed the
development of his enterprise:
“Even though I had received orders, I’ve been a bit scared and I’ve kind of
drawn out the process a bit.”
(Duncan): “Why do you think you felt like that?”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
217
“I think it was because I was afraid of criticism.”
At the end of the accelerator Henrik seemed to have a different perspective. On
the one hand he seemed more at peace with the idea of operating without all the
answers – and he also appeared to view the entrepreneurship process more in
terms of an ongoing cycle of trial and error:
“This is the first thing we’re doing and things will change, they’ll improve, we’ll
start getting the systems to work and so on. All the pieces of the puzzle aren’t
put together yet and perhaps they never will be. But it’s nice to get some
insight about what the puzzle will become.”
“Now however, this [the first set of t-shirts] is our first collection and it
functions as something of a test. As long as you have that at the back of your
mind it feels a bit better, you dare a little more somehow. But I guess that is a
big lesson as well: you can’t wait for it to be perfect, because it won’t become
perfect. You never get going if you just hang around waiting.”
Despite coming to accept imperfection, Henrik makes it clear that the startup
process is still not just an exercise in action and reflection, but also an emotional
roller-coaster:
“You kind of have good and bad days, it goes up and down. On the good days
you feel good about the product and on the bad ones you feel doubts about it.
But it kind of gets better.”
Henrik’s description of coming to terms with the uncertainties and imperfections
of social entrepreneurship suggests that one of the roles played by the accelerator
is the provision of a ‘bigger picture’. He emphasizes that the accelerator came at
the right time for his startup, as it enabled him to get a perspective on what he
was doing – despite his preoccupation with the many day-to-day activities of his
new enterprise:
“When I came to Booster I was just getting my enterprise going, I had set a
few wheels in motion and it was extremely timely for me. I got a very good
understanding of what I was up to. I also got a bigger perspective of that
world
90
”.
[responding to the question: “What was the accelerator’s greatest
contribution?”]:
90
Henrik clarifies ”that world” to mean the business world.
Jönköping International Business School
218
“The first thing I think of is, um… it has to do with gaining an understanding of
what you’re doing, I think.”
The understanding described by Henrik apparently had to do with his
development of two types of perspective. First of all, with the development of a
vision of his own enterprise as a ‘whole’ – in contrast to only seeing a large
number of separate startup activities. And secondly, with a perspective that
placed his enterprise in a larger context: that of social entrepreneurship. Henrik
described the development of this latter perspective in the following way:
“I had never worked with something like this before... so it was really
interesting to see... how big it is. I don’t really think that I had realised how big
social entrepreneurship is. So it was important for me to be able to see what
the world looks like.”
Apart from the ‘perspective and ‘people’ side of the programme, Henrik also
talked about the accelerator’s emphasis on being able to communicate one’s idea.
In Booster he associated this emphasis with the regular requirement that
entrepreneurs ‘pitch’ their ideas effectively:
“I think it was damn good that we could pitch... pitch quite a lot – even if I
remember that I thought it was hard at the time: ‘Oh, do we have to pitch
again?’ [laugh] But at the same time, we’ve become damn good at talking for
ourselves! [laugh] I mean, we could wake up in the middle of the night and do
a pitch! And that isn’t so bloody bad, really.”
In common with many of the other entrepreneurs in the first accelerator, Henrik
often commented on his appreciation of being able to meet other people in the
same ‘industry’. For example: when asked to rate the value he gained by
participating in the SOCAP
91
conference (by allocating nine red dots to four
alternatives), Henrik placed four dots in the “individuals
92
” circle that related to
networking and only two in “investment”. When asked about the greatest
contribution of the accelerator (continuing on from his first answer, as detailed
above), the second main contribution listed by Henrik was the following:
“Um, all the people I had the honour of meeting, um... all the inspiration I got
from all those people; from the other participants, but even from you and
Denise and the speakers we got to see and so on. That was really cool!”
91
The ‘Social Capital Markets’ conference attended by the A1 entrepreneurs.
92
Sub-titled: ”The chance to meet new people and make useful contacts with organisations, suppliers,
other entrepreneurs, etc.”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
219
The above quote underlines the role of other accelerator participants as a source
of inspiration for Henrik. He also comments on the role of trust within the
group, in making the accelerator a positive experience:
“We were really open for one another on Booster and that was fantastic.”
Later Henrik also emphasized the role of the other participants as sources of
advice – even when the accelerator became a more stressful environment:
[Duncan] “I talked to Gabriella and Henrik over supper and they had very
different reflections. Gabriella was very unaware of the fact that anybody was
feeling stressed and busy. Henrik had noticed that, but at the same time,
Henrik said it was really nice that everybody was willing to help each other out
with ideas about their own startups”.
Henrik’s experience of the accelerator cohort was a positive one and as noted
previously, the support he received did not only have to do with advice about his
startup. He also received practical help in finding accommodation in the city, and
ended up staying at Edward’s flat for the duration of most of the accelerator –
and the entire summer afterwards. Henrik was also positive to the contribution
of the visiting speakers and in particular to the visit by one of the social
entrepreneurs who he had been in contact with in Brazil:
“I’m thinking Mattias. I thought he was really good. I think most of all because
it was extremely nice to talk to him, as he has done a lot of the things I have
done – we understood each other very well and he had experienced many of
the things I had experienced in Brazil. Mostly what it’s like to work with
vulnerable people. To work with poor people.”
Henrik was not as positive about the role played by his mentor. Five months
after the accelerator I asked him if they were still in contact with one another and
he answered: “A little, not really that much”. When questioned more closely,
Henrik was unenthusiastic about his mentor’s contribution:
“He was really clever and he knows a lot of good people, but I don’t know...
we didn’t get very much done together. I went on a course he gave about
sustainability and I didn’t think it gave me very much, even if it was interesting.
I think it would be more appropriate to learn that later on in the [startup’s]
development.”
When asked if he would have preferred another mentor, Henrik described his
feelings in more detail:
“Maybe another mentor. He is actually really good at what he does, but he
doesn’t know the clothes business, which I needed help in [...] As I said
Jönköping International Business School
220
earlier, there is no single straight and correct route for Garbage Garments to
take, so there it would have been really fun and good to have a mentor who’s
done what I’m doing. From the start, from zero, with the same means as I
have. Maybe not someone who had a million dollars in their wallet before they
even started.”
Although Henrik felt that he could have done with a different mentor, he also
commented on his own uncertainty about how to make good use of such a
resource. He described how he often reflected to himself as he puzzled over a
problem: “Why didn’t I get in touch with my mentor?” He suggested that a lot
of the fault lay with himself (“for some stupid reason I still don’t get in touch”),
but also noted that some decisions need to be taken quickly – so that time can
also mitigate against the taking of such an initiative. Henrik’s comments suggest
that it is one thing for an accelerator to emphasize the need for entrepreneurs to
build networks, but quite another thing to do so:
“It’s like what we talked about, that we need to get ourselves a ‘team of
expertise’. I think it’s easier said than done. I think about getting such a group
together, but how do you do that? What do you need to think about? How do
you maintain contact and so on?”
Despite Henrik’s regret at not getting a more appropriate mentor, it is worth
noting that his mentor did put him in touch with somebody who he hoped he
might be able to have a mentee relation with in the future:
“a really good contact at Sweden’s biggest clothing brand.”
At the end of the accelerator, as the entrepreneurs discussed the graduation
event, it was clear that Henrik was focused on getting as much out of the event
as possible, particularly in terms of contacts. As I observed:
[Duncan] “Interesting to notice the way people were reasoning about inviting
friends or not. Gabriella had invited four friends so she was seeing it very
much as a graduation. Henrik, possibly showing a little bit more
entrepreneurial instinct, had taken a conscious decision not to invite any
friends, because that would prevent him from talking to new contacts or
investors after the presentation. So an interesting contrast there”.
Henrik’s focus appeared to pay off, as later on at the event I observed him
chatting to a woman who had her own Fairtrade clothing business:
[Duncan] “She’d been working with a Fair Trade clothing company and it was
interesting she’d been over to talk to Henrik – or he’d contacted her – and had
a lot of questions about how to grow the company, she had suggestions and
ideas”.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
221
4.4.4.5 After the Accelerator
Several months after completing the accelerator I asked Henrik to comment on
things that he felt were missing from the programme or could be improved. One
of the things that he commented on was what he perceived as the programme’s
lack of practical tools for enterprise management. He noted that the accelerator
had covered the strategic side of business development thoroughly (for example:
the business plan), but that it had not suggested very many practical tools for the
everyday running of the business:
“As soon as you get going you need an auditor and an accountant, or
accounting software if you’re going to do it yourself of course. Customer
software, billing software: I’m thinking of the administrative bit that you often
have to – for the most part – do yourself to start with.”
“...once you get going and don’t have any systems it doesn’t work very well to
take care of these things.”
In addition to this, Henrik also felt that the accelerator had been a bit of a
‘bubble’, a bubble whose bursting was made all the more painful by the doldrums
of the Scandinavian summer holiday period:
“Things are almost dead in Scandinavia in the summertime. It’s almost
impossible to run a company in the summer here.”
“Afterwards I felt as if we had been a little isolated, as if we’d been living in a
little bubble. It felt as if we’d been living in this social entrepreneurship bubble.
We’d been there for almost two months. So it felt strange to come out of it,
definitely. Booster was really good as you got such a good, encouraging
response – especially with Denise as a support the whole time. So yes, I
guess that bubble burst.”
As with several of the Booster graduates, Henrik expressed disappointment at the
lack of follow-up after the accelerator. Describing the cohort as being composed
of “wandering people”, he emphasized the need for an online solution to
overcome the geographical challenge of keeping in touch:
“I think we perhaps needed a forum or a private group on Facebook, where
we could have talked to one another – a bit like a ‘team of expertise’. We live
a long way from one another and I think it would have been a convenient
solution. I think that would have been very good for all of us, especially as we
all trust each other. ”
“I’m thinking of an alumni network or similar.”
Jönköping International Business School
222
To many people’s surprise, after spending the summer in Scandinavia Henrik did
not return to Brazil, but instead began studying entrepreneurship at university.
Henrik describes how while still in Brazil, he applied to the university “as a bit of
a joke to see whether I would get in”. However, when he was admitted he was
forced to take the offer seriously and realised that he needed to take advantage
of the opportunity. He found the initial months hard work and frustrating, as he
attempted to keep his startup going while studying for exams and writing
assignments:
“The thought has really hit me, ‘Is this right for me? Should I really be sitting at
a school desk studying a load of theory, when I already have an enterprise
going that I want to work on?’ ”
Henrik described his attitude to his studies as giving the first term a go and
“probably also the first year” before deciding whether to continue with his
studies. In the end he decided to stay on and when I discussed his choice with
him, he again commented on his desire to find a team to work with in developing
his enterprise:
“The reason I’m studying here is because I want to see what it’s like to be... a
cog in something much bigger. Where there are resources, where there are
professional colleagues who know their stuff, where you don’t have to pull the
whole load by yourself, do you know what I mean? It was more about that.”
When Henrik was interviewed several months after the accelerator, Garbage
Garments had had a slow few months. The women’s cooperative who
manufactured the t-shirts had for example, been forced to relocate due to the
parent organisation
93
being expelled from Brazil. Henrik was also having
difficulties with the two young men he was employing as the enterprise’s local
representatives – and felt uncertain about whether he would be able to employ
them long-term. In Sweden he had also had to abandon the partnership he had
initiated with several individuals, to build the enterprise’s webpage. Despite these
setbacks, a year after the accelerator Garbage Garments had sold almost 500 t-shirts
and Henrik had convinced several well-known public figures to be ‘ambassadors’
for the brand. Henrik had also initiated a partnership with a public relations
bureau for the marketing of the t-shirts and was once again in the final of a
business plan competition.
During the interview a year after his graduation from Booster, it becomes clear
that Henrik is in the race ‘long-term’. He describes the challenges of trying to
93
Henrik’s former ’employer’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
223
launch a fashion brand in the context of an economic depression, but also
describes his own attitude and response:
“We’re living in an economic downturn and people don’t spend so much
money on clothes, at the same time as there is enormous competition – but it
doesn’t affect us that much as we don’t have very many outlays.”
“Now we’re lying – a bit like the wolf – in wait. We will find our way – our prey,
and when the economic downturn has disappeared we’ll be ready to strike. By
then we’ll have taken the time to prepare ourselves and then we’ll just be able
to ride on the wave.”
Two years after the accelerator, it appears that Henrik’s strategy at least enables
his enterprise to survive, if not necessarily to grow. It is still possible to order t-
shirts on his website and on his blog he describes the one year anniversary of his
enterprise: with t-shirt sales, cake and champagne. On his blog Henrik describes
the public event and it appears that he has finally found one of the things he has
been looking for, namely a business partner. Nonetheless, his t-shirts only tell a
single story at the moment, and the webpages of Garbage Garments and his NGO
are only updated sporadically. In a year Henrik will graduate from university and
only time will tell whether Garbage Garments will develop beyond the small, part-
time social initiative that it is at present.
4.4.5 Different horses and different courses
An important question with regards to the social entrepreneurial typology that I
develop at the beginning of this section has to do with relevance. In a study of
learning there is little point in discussing different types of social entrepreneur, if
all of the types learn the same things in a similar manner. This study suggests
however, that this is not the case and that social entrepreneurs’ learning differs
according to their backgrounds and startup stage. In the following paragraphs I
discuss the similarities and differences displayed by the four exemplars described
in the previous section. I discuss these with reference to intentions and attitudes,
the outcomes of learning and the process of learning. I also discuss how the
Booster entrepreneurs related to different aspects of the accelerator; including
mentors, coaches, managers, peers – and ‘space’.
4.4.5.1 Stage and Intent
In my theoretical discussion I noted the important role that ‘intent’ plays in
learning. The social entrepreneurs used as exemplars are linked to different
categories, but were also at different stages in venture development – with the
exception of Marie and Steven. These differences were to a certain extent
associated with different intentions upon arrival at the accelerator, as seen in table
4.4. The table illustrates how early stage entrepreneurs (-1 and 0) are more
Jönköping International Business School
224
‘action-oriented’ than those at a later stage. As the venture progresses, it appears
that entrepreneurs increasingly wish to ‘critically appraise’ their strategies – with
both Barry and Henrik displaying this intention. Henrik’s intent is however, allied
to action – and Marie (at an earlier stage) is clear about what she wishes to achieve
in terms of practical steps.
The importance of distinguishing between expatriate and indigenous social
entrepreneurs – as well as social entrepreneurial type – is seen in the difference
between Marie and Steven. Both individuals are at the ‘concepting’ stage, but
Steven displays a confusing mix of the emphases from the ‘innocent’ and
‘veteran’ categories. He shares Barry’s concern for a critical appraisal of his
enterprise, but also Henrik’s desire for training. My impression is that it is
Steven’s background as ‘indigenous’ on the one hand – and as a non-profit
manager on the other that explains these differences. Steven may be an
experienced non-profit manager within the confines of his local environment,
but as he begins to venture into a more business-oriented, international arena he
feels less confident. Consequently he reports a similar intent to that of the
‘innocent’ category.
Table 4-4: Social entrepreneurs' intentions.
Factor /
entrepreneur
Barry (V-E) Marie (KI-E) Steven (CE-I) Henrik (I-E)
Stage Validation (1) Concepting (-1) Concepting (-1) Commitment (0)
Intent
Critical appraisal
Inspiration
Space to rethink
Funding
Business plan
Idea > action
Advice
Critical appraisal
Training
Exposure
Funding
Learn about
‘global SE’
Develop concept
Training
Mentoring
Determine
‘direction’
4.4.5.2 Outcomes of Learning
When it come to the outcomes of learning (what the four entrepreneurs learned),
some interesting differences emerge (see table 4.5). With regards to identity, all
of the categories of social entrepreneur mentioned appropriating a measure of a
social entrepreneurial identity to some extent – with the exception of
‘knowledgeable improviser’ Marie. This was a clear trend among the social
entrepreneurs with strong professional identities (one of the defining features of
the ‘knowledgeable improviser’ type). Individuals who identified themselves to a
lesser extent with a profession were more inclined to ‘learn’ an identity – even
when they had many years of managerial experience (as in Barry’s case). Here
there was a strong emotional aspect to learning, with Steven and Henrik in
particular emphasising the ‘lonely’ nature of social entrepreneurship in emerging
economies. In contrast, the learning of ‘confidence’ was something that veteran
entrepreneur Barry did not mention – whereas this was something noted by all
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
225
of the others. What was perhaps most surprising, was Barry’s emphasis (as a
‘veteran’) of the importance of emotions-oriented learning, which he described
in terms of inspiration.
It appears that the scope of learning is narrower for the ‘veteran’ and
‘knowledgeable improviser’ categories, than for ‘innocents’ and ‘confident
entrants’. Both Steven and Henrik describe their learning much more in terms of
‘becoming’ a social entrepreneur, than the other two. For Henrik this
development apparently has to do with a move towards a more action-oriented,
pragmatic attitude and pattern of thinking. For Steven it relates to the mental
‘framing’ of his enterprise in terms of a more sustainable, hybrid venture – and
to his learning of associated ‘for-profit’ skills. Barry and Marie frame much of
their learning in venture-related terms and appear to learn ‘what does and doesn’t
work’ with regards to their enterprises, as opposed to their persons. Marie does
mention developing a more ‘in-your-face’ attitude, but does not describe personal
development to the degree that Steven and Henrik do. These differences have
clear implications for the design and management of accelerators. It is probable
that the ‘becoming’ aspect of social entrepreneurship implies a different
educational content and process, than aspects that focus more on the
development of narrow capabilities and the assessment of the venture concept.
Table 4-5: The content and process of social entrepreneurs' learning.
Factor /
entrepreneur
Barry (V-E) Marie (KI-E) Steven (CE-I) Henrik (I-E)
Learning
outcomes
(‘what’)
SE identity
Inspiration
Some fine-
tuning of
venturing skills
Confidence
Network
Learning what
works / doesn’t
Confidence
How to work as
a hybrid venture
Identity:
belonging /
connecting to an
SE community
How to be an
entrepreneur
Seeing the
whole picture:
- Of the venture
- Of the
venture’s
context
Identity:
belonging /
connecting to an
SE community
The
learning
process
(‘how’)
Reflection
Emotion
Action
Dialogue
Reflection
Emotion
Reflection
Dialogue
Emotion
Action
Action
Dialogue
Emotion
Attitude to
learning
Open to
learning, curious
Managing own
learning
Eager to interact
Open to
learning, curious
Managing own
learning
Open to learning
Instructor-led
learning
Eager to interact
Open to
learning, curious
Jönköping International Business School
226
4.4.5.3 Learning Processes
When the learning of the four exemplars is related to the existential learning
process discussed by Jarvis (transforming experience primarily through either
emotions, action or reflection), further differences emerge. As illustrated in table
4.5, most of the social entrepreneurs describe learning through all three
processes. However, it is clear that one or two ‘transformational routes’ often
dominated. The learning processes described by entrepreneurs during and after
the accelerator often reflect their intentions at the start of the programme –
underlining the significant impact of intent on learning. The learning process
described by Barry for example, emphasizes the role of reflection and emotions
– and he came to the accelerator hoping to critically assess his venture and to be
inspired. The learning process described by Marie and Henrik centred more on
‘dialogic action’: learning how to work effectively as an entrepreneur by taking
action in a social context characterised by dialogue. Once again Steven stands out
as the ‘confident entrant-indigenous’. Despite describing working hard to meet
all the accelerator deadlines (action), when he discusses learning it is more often
in terms of reflection and dialogue. Dialogue appears to be a key route by which
he ‘gets his head round’ the new model of enterprise implied by hybridity. In
contrast to Marie and Henrik therefore, he appears to learn through a process of
‘dialogic reflection’. Nevertheless, all four exemplars learn some aspect of social
entrepreneurship through the emotional ‘route’. For Barry the transformation of
experience through emotions appears to be linked to inspiration and meaning.
Marie also learns inspiration in this manner. The emotions-based learning of
Steven and Henrik however, seems to be more oriented to combatting feelings
of loneliness and isolation: it is about ‘belonging’ and identity.
4.4.5.4 The Role of Human Actors in Learning
My third research question focuses on how different actors in accelerators affect
the learning of social entrepreneurs. The four entrepreneurial exemplars in this
chapter described their learning in relation to these actors, in ways that suggest
that they valued different contributions or roles. At times the importance of these
roles is only apparent by their absence – with the exemplars sometimes noting
that they needed a particular form of support during the accelerator, but failed
to receive it. These support roles are summarised in table 4.6.
With regards to the roles of mentors, there are clear differences between the roles
valued by veteran Barry and the other exemplars. As an experienced manager,
Barry felt he only really needed someone to help him learn who to connect to, in
order to take the next step in his startup. I term this role the ‘opportunitor’ as it
relates to the role of providing entrepreneurs with possibilities they can exploit
(such as connections). Without this intervention it is probable that they would
not have been aware of the opportunity – or taken longer to become aware of it.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
227
Table 4-6: Roles Valued by Social Entrepreneurs in the Accelerators.
Factor /
entrepreneur
Barry (V-E) Marie (KI-E) Steven (CE-I) Henrik (I-E)
Stage Validation (1) Concepting (-1) Concepting (-1) Commitment (0)
Mentor role
valued by
entrepreneur
(or desired)
Opportunitor Pace-maker
Opportunitor
Discussant
Pace-maker
Counsellor
Role model
Opportunitor
Counsellor
Coach role
valued by
entrepreneur
(or desired)
Expert Expert Expert
Role model
Expert
Role model
Manager
role
valued by
entrepreneur
(or desired)
Opportunitor
Facilitator
Pace-maker
Cohort cultivator
Pace-maker
Opportunitor
Problem-solver
Facilitator
Peer role
valued by
entrepreneur
(or desired)
Discussant
Inspirer
Discussant
Challenger
Expert
Enthusiast
Discussant
Enthusiast
As with Barry, ‘knowledgeable improviser’ Marie also emphasized her mentor’s
role in learning as that of a provider of connections (‘opportunitor’), but added
the role of sounding-board (‘discussant’). In contrast to Steven and Henrik
however, she did not describe her mentor in terms of an ‘expert’ or an advisor
(the ‘counsellor’ role). Nonetheless, she did value her mentor’s role as a provider
of structure and ‘tempo’ during the accelerator. I refer to this role as that of the
‘pace-maker’ – and it was a role that Steven also identified as a useful mentor
contribution. It appears therefore, that mentors are only expected to take on a
more advisory role when social entrepreneurs are generally inexperienced (as with
‘innocent’ Henrik) – or when they lack experience in the field of social / hybrid
entrepreneurship (the case of Steven). Steven (moving from the non-profit arena
towards hybridity), felt furthermore, that he needed a mentor who was a ‘role
model’. This emphasis was shared by other social entrepreneurs such as Kenny
(A2), who described the importance of having a mentor with experience in the
type of startup they were engaged in.
With regards to coaches’ roles, entrepreneurs generally valued only a few
contributions. Their main emphasis was on the ‘expert’ role, that is: the provision
of in-depth knowledge about a specific aspect of startups. Once again there is a
clear distinction between the more experienced individuals Barry and Marie –
and the less-experienced social entrepreneurs Steven and Henrik. Steven and
Henrik described learning from coaches as a result of perceiving some of them
as ‘role models’. Although Marie also described the impact of these practicing
social entrepreneurs on her learning – in terms of a ‘wholeness creating’
Jönköping International Business School
228
contribution – this coach role seemed to have greater significance in the learning
of less-experienced social entrepreneurs.
When it comes to the manager roles valued by the four exemplars, clear differences
again emerge. Barry and Steven (‘veteran-expatriate’ and ‘confident entrant-
indigenous’) both emphasized managers’ roles in helping them learn who to
connect to (‘opportunitors’). This role is also emphasized by the A3 participants,
many of whom are from the ‘knowledgeable improviser-indigenous’ category.
This is not surprising, given the fact that most of the social entrepreneurs in the
‘indigenous’ category had undeveloped networks in Scandinavia. This meant that
they relied heavily on accelerator staff in order to learn who they could connect
with. Furthermore, managers also played an important role as ‘problem solvers’
for many of the ‘indigenous’ participants. In this role they took care of many of
the practical issues faced by the entrepreneurs, thus enabling them to focus more
on their startups. Interestingly, more experienced entrepreneurs Barry and Marie
both emphasized the importance of managers taking on a ‘pace-maker’ role with
regards to their learning. Steven did not mention this, but discussed the same role
in relation to his mentor. Henrik, the least experienced of the four, did not
mention this aspect at all. This may suggest that insight into the need for structure
in learning, comes with age and experience. Nonetheless, my impression is that
the role of ‘facilitator’ is closely related to that of the pace-maker, as both roles
focus on promoting optimal conditions for learning. Barry and Henrik both
expressed their appreciation for this aspect of managers’ roles. Only Marie noted
the importance of the manager role of ‘cohort cultivator’ (the promotion of a
positive group dynamic). Given the ‘stormy’ group process in A2 this is not
surprising. It is also probable that this managerial role is valuable in accelerators,
but is for the most part invisible and taken for granted. The contribution made
by this role may only become apparent when it is absent.
With regards to the roles of peers in accelerators, the four exemplars often
discussed the cohort’s contribution in a similar manner. The role of fellow
entrepreneurs as ‘discussants’ was often mentioned – and I suggest that this role
forms part of the ‘facilitator’ function, when it comes to learning. Managers
facilitate learning from other accelerator actors by structuring relationships (for
example: by scheduling group interaction). Peers facilitate learning by making
themselves available to one another both in these structured contexts and in
more informal settings. Nonetheless, ‘confident entrant’ Steven appeared to
value peers’ ideas in a more expert-oriented manner. The other three
entrepreneurs discussed their learning in terms of a ‘give and take’ dialogue
between equals, while Steven appeared to value input primarily from more
experienced peers (such as Isaac). It is worth noting however, that although
veteran Barry valued his fellow entrepreneurs as discussants, at the end of the
accelerator he admitted that in terms of learning he was only really inspired by
them – and did not generate very many new ideas from this interaction.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
229
Once again there is a contrast between the roles valued by more experienced
social entrepreneurs and those less experienced. Barry and Marie refer to peers’
roles as ‘inspirers’ and ‘challengers’, while Steven and Henrik both describe peers’
value in terms of the encouraging enthusiasm they show for their ventures (what
I term the ‘enthusiast’ role). The value of peers’ roles can thus be viewed as
having both a dialogical and an emotional aspect. What is important to note
however, is that all of the exemplars transformed experience into learning
through emotions, even if the type of learning achieved was different. Less-
experienced entrepreneurs learned to be confident through their peers’ taking on
of the ‘enthusiast’ role. More experienced entrepreneurs learned to persevere and
to excel, as their peers inspired and challenged them.
4.4.5.5 The Role of Non-human Factors in Learning: ‘Space’
Scholars often discuss entrepreneurs’ development in incubators as relating to
the provision of ‘space’ for development (for example: Hjorth, 2013;
Lichtenstein, 1992). Although many publications discuss incubators in relation
to physical space, the aforementioned scholars note the existence of space that
has a more psychological or developmental character. Their ideas are echoed in
Smith’s (2011) discussion of different types of learning-oriented space in
development programmes for entrepreneurs. My observations are similar to
those of Smith and suggest that the four social entrepreneurs valued different
aspects of accelerator ‘space’. These aspects are illustrated in the table below and
relate to opportunities to reflect, discuss, act and belong.
One of the important ideas that emerged from entrepreneurs’ descriptions of
accelerator ‘space’ is that the same general type of space is valued in a slightly
different way by each exemplar. It also appears that social entrepreneurs spend
dissimilar amounts of time in these different categories of space. My impression
however, is that with the exception of Marie (‘knowledgeable improviser-
expatriate’), it is difficult to know whether differences relate to background or to
venture stage. As noted earlier, the strong professional identity of the
knowledgeable improviser appears to reduce their need to develop a clear identity
as a social entrepreneur – which implies that the ‘identity’ aspect of community
space will be less valued by this category of social entrepreneur.
Accelerators provide entrepreneurs with space to reflect, but it appears that the
focus of reflection varies with both stage and background. Early-stage
entrepreneurs such as Marie and Henrik use reflective space to think about what
they will do in the future. Social entrepreneurs who have progressed further or
who are moving sideways to hybridity, use reflective space to ask “Am I doing
the right thing?” and “Am I doing things right?”. In other words: they reflect on
issues related to effectiveness and efficiency. In terms of proportions, it appears
that social entrepreneurs at the ‘validating’ and ‘concepting’ stages of venture
creation, spend comparatively more time in reflective space during accelerators,
Jönköping International Business School
230
than for example: individuals at the commitment stage. However, the case of
social entrepreneurs who engage in a ‘sideways’ move from non-profit/charity
to hybrid enterprise, appears to introduce an additional factor that is not
accounted for by venture stage or social entrepreneurial type. Social
entrepreneurs engaged in this process appear to spend a large proportion of their
time in accelerators reflecting on the implications of such a shift.
When the four social entrepreneurs discuss their interaction with others in the
accelerator, they very often do so with reference to learning. Consequently,
‘dialogical space’ (the opportunity to interact with others, implying discussion)
appears to be an important contribution of accelerators. In table 4.7 I have noted
that each of the four exemplars discusses ‘space’ in the accelerator in terms of
the opportunity to talk to others – and to learn from them. However, it appears
that there are nuances to this learning. All of the social entrepreneurs, with the
exception of veteran Barry, mention the ‘being challenged’ aspect of learning in
dialogical space. By this I refer to experiences of disjuncture that occur when
entrepreneurs talk to others and meet an expectation that pushes or stretches
them. For example: Steven’s experience of being told by Isaac that he should
consider expanding his venture to all of Africa. It is possible that the absence of
this type of disjuncture in Barry’s experience, may be related to the lack of other
participants with similar (veteran) experience – or at a similar stage of venture
development.
The four exemplars also associate dialogical space with ‘ideas’ – but once again,
the type of idea-oriented learning differs. Barry (veteran at the validation stage)
associates dialogue with a state of mind that facilitates new ideas, while Marie and
Steven (at the concepting stage) describe learning that is linked to better ideas.
Henrik (at the commitment stage) associates dialogue with solutions-oriented ideas,
that is: problem-solving – and with understanding. This latter type of idea was
mentioned by several of the social entrepreneurs and relates to individuals’
sensemaking. As entrepreneurs discuss their ideas with one another they often
experience disjuncture that relates to the ‘splintered’ nature of the different parts
of their enterprises. Material tools (such as ‘business model canvas’) combine
with discussion to convey the idea that the pieces of the puzzle should fit together.
Dialogue is one means by which entrepreneurs experiment with different ways
of ‘putting the puzzle together’: it is a tool for sensemaking.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
231
Table 4-7: Aspects of ‘Space’ described by the four Exemplars.
Factor /
entrepreneur
Barry (V-E) Marie (KI-E) Steven (CE-I) Henrik (I-E)
Stage Validation (1) Concepting (-1) Concepting (-1) Commitment (0)
Reflective
space
= opportunity
to…
Be creative
Re-think
Critically assess
Think things
through
Critically assess
Think
Plan
Dialogical
space
= opportunity
to…
Learn from
others:
Find new ideas
Develop /
maintain affect
Learn from
others:
Be challenged
by others
Create better
ideas
Develop /
maintain affect
Learn from
others:
Be challenged
by others
Create better
ideas
Learn from
others:
Be challenged
by others
Understand my
venture
Solve problems
Develop /
maintain affect
Action
space
= opportunity
to…
Meet key
stakeholders
Develop
business plan
Develop
enterprise
Act despite fear
Develop
business plan
Meet key
stakeholders
Act despite fear
Focus on sales
Experiment
Community
space
= opportunity
to…
Develop identity
Develop /
maintain affect
(trust)
Mirror others’
entrepreneurial
behaviour
(trust)
Break isolation Develop identity
Develop /
maintain affect
Mirror others’
entrepreneurial
behaviour
Break isolation
(trust)
The other paragraphs suggest that although all four of my entrepreneurial
exemplars used dialogical space to develop ideas, the ideas they developed were
subtly different in emphasis. A similar trend is also apparent with regards to the
learning social entrepreneurs associated with ‘action space’. To begin with, it is
clear that veteran Barry appeared to spend less time than his peers in this area.
Although he was clearly working on his startup during the accelerator, his work
seemed to be more of a continuation of a routine he had already begun, rather
than something he would otherwise not had ‘space’ for. In contrast, Marie and
Steven (at the concepting stage), and Henrik (commitment stage) clearly
experienced the accelerator as ‘space to act’. Learning and not action is the main
focus of this study, and so I will not comment extensively on this aspect of
accelerator space. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the three social
entrepreneurs mentioned above did not engage in action apart from learning, but
instead learned in and through action. Furthermore, learning in the context of
Jönköping International Business School
232
action was often linked to the emphases associated with other accelerator
‘spaces’. How this was achieved is discussed below.
The clearest example of the how learning ‘spaces’ interrelate in accelerators is
seen in Steven’s work with his business plan (see section 4.4.3). Steven describes
an intense process of writing (taking action), sending his work to his mentor and
receiving feedback (dialogue) – and then
incorporating feedback into new action
(reflection and new action). The process
is clearly reminiscent of Kolb’s (1984)
experiential learning theory, with the
added dimension of dialogue.
Remembering Steven’s description of his
busy life in Central Africa (a “ditch”), the
value of the space created by the
accelerator becomes clear. Steven has the
opportunity to take action and to learn
from this action with the help of others.
In this particular instance he learns in the
area where three categories of accelerator
space intersect (see figure 4.3).
Henrik describes a learning process somewhat similar to that of Steven, with
regards to the development of his enterprise. Although he characterises his
learning more in terms of experimentation, the ‘spaces’ that provide him with the
opportunity to experiment appear to be the same as in Steven’s case. Henrik is
able to experiment (action) and to reflect on his action, in the light of the
reactions he receives from other actors in the accelerator (dialogue) – as well as
customers.
The above examples discuss entrepreneurs’ learning primarily in relation to their
ventures. Nonetheless, two of the four exemplars discuss learning in terms of
‘behaving courageously’, that is: behaving in a manner they would not have done
prior to the accelerator. Marie and Henrik both describe a process of ‘learning to
be brave’ and associate this aspect of learning with the entrepreneurial culture of
the accelerator. Based on their comments, my interpretation is that this aspect of
Marie and Henrik’s learning involved a process of becoming [a social
entrepreneur]. Part of this process is affective in nature (emotions-based) and has
to do with feelings of both fear and confidence. Neither of the two entrepreneurs
report a cognitive process of learning courage, but instead describe a process that
appears to be more ‘social’ in nature – following a logic of: “members of my
group do it > I belong to this group > I will do it”. This process lends weight to
Jarvis’ suggestion that disjuncture may be resolved primarily through emotions –
dialogic
space
action
space
reflective
space
Figure 4-4: Venture-
oriented Learning at the
Intersection of
Accelerator Spaces
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
233
rather than following the full experiential learning cycle proposed by Kolb and
others.
In terms of accelerator ‘space’ therefore,
person-oriented processes of ‘becoming’
seem to be associated with the three spaces
of ‘dialogue’, ‘community’ and ‘action’ (see
figure 4.5). ‘Reflective space’ may also play
a role in processes of becoming, but in
interviews it is difficult to know whether
individuals are taking the opportunity to
reflect for my sake (as an interviewer) – or
if this reflection also played a part in their
own learning prior to the interview.
In accelerators the practice of recruiting
entrepreneurs as ‘cohorts’ can contribute to
the development of close relationships between participants. This temporary
closeness (which Rebecca-A3 described as “family”) forms part of what I term
“community space”, even if it is not the only part. Community space related to
exemplars’ learning in slightly different ways, but was associated with the
development of identity, the breaking of isolation, an entrepreneurial
‘personality’ and trust.
Although the development of identity can be linked to the social
entrepreneurship ‘label’, community space is not only about the appropriation of
an occupational identity. More experienced entrepreneurs (such as Barry and
Marie) appeared to treat the social entrepreneurial identity ‘on offer’ by the
accelerator in a pragmatic manner: they acknowledge the fact that society
considers them to be social entrepreneurs, but only find this ‘interesting’. They
feel secure in what they are doing regardless of the label, but are willing to use
the label if it benefits their enterprises. In contrast, Steven and Henrik have
experienced the loneliness of working as social entrepreneurs to a higher degree
than Barry and Marie – or are more sensitive to this isolation. For them
community space appears to be associated with ‘learning an identity in order to
belong’. This appeared to be the case for Steven in particular, with Henrik
seeming to have a greater need for an occupational identity different to that of
the soldier/security guard.
Although the appropriation of a social entrepreneurial identity is one aspect of
‘becoming’, community space also appears to facilitate a process of
entrepreneurial becoming that is more oriented towards behaviour. Marie and
Henrik both describe coming to act differently during the accelerator and often
discuss their learning in relation to the attitudes displayed by the cohort (such as
dialogic
space
action
space
community
space
Figure 4-5: Person-
oriented Learning at the
Intersection of
Accelerator Spaces
Jönköping International Business School
234
courage) – or by other ‘inhabitants’ of community space, such as visiting social
entrepreneurs. Veteran entrepreneur Barry does not refer to this type of learning
and nor does Steven. This seems to infer that entrepreneurs are able to ‘catch’
behaviour from other individuals at a similar stage of venture development and
from those with more experience. However, entrepreneurial behaviour does not
appear to be ‘upwardly contagious’ – that is: from less experienced to more
experienced entrepreneurs. This contrasts with Barry’s description of the
inspiration he received from less-experienced participants.
The above paragraphs reflect what is clearly a ‘social’ form of learning. By being
grafted onto a social entrepreneurial community – what Lave and Wenger (1991)
term “legitimate peripheral participation” – accelerator participants begin to
appropriate not only the formal identity of more established community
members, but also their behaviour. The contrast in Marie and Steven’s learning
in community space however, suggests that this process does not occur
automatically and may be de-railed by other factors. In Steven’s case such factors
could include the lack of a clear role-model (his mentor was too ‘business-
oriented’), his ‘perceived task’ (in contrast to Marie he was more concerned with
networking than learning) and possibly conflict (he respected veteran
entrepreneur Isaac, but did not feel respected by him).
Although community space in accelerators is directly associated with processes
of ‘becoming’ (through social learning), it also appears to play a supportive role
with regards to other aspects of psychological space. Although it is linked to the
development of individual identity, community space is inherently ‘other-
oriented’. It also appears to be ‘grown’ by entrepreneurs during the accelerator,
in that participants learn ‘who they can trust’ and ‘learn to trust’ as time goes by.
If entrepreneurs learn that they can trust all – or most – of the members of the
cohort, a larger amount of community space becomes available. The experience
of Barry and Henrik in the first accelerator suggests that community space ‘seeps’
into other categories of space, on the basis of trust. Entrepreneurs who trust one
another initiate discussions at a deeper level (in dialogic space) – and are often
more willing to work together on challenges faced by a single entrepreneur (in
action space). Clearly however, this influence is reciprocal. Discussing venture
challenges with other entrepreneurs and helping out with aspects of their
ventures often has a positive impact on community space.
4.4.5.6 Summary
The main implication of my discussion in the preceding sections is that managers
need to take the backgrounds of social entrepreneurs into account when they
design and manage accelerators. Not only with regards to educational content,
but also in terms of the roles emphasized by managers, coaches and mentors –
and in terms of the activities that accelerator ‘space’ should promote. These
issues are discussed in more depth in chapter five (Explaining Social
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
235
Entrepreneurial Learning) and are therefore not discussed further at this point.
Rather, I conclude by noting that I have answered the question posed at the
beginning of this section. That is: to what extent are the types of social
entrepreneur that I develop relevant to the discussion of social entrepreneurial
learning in accelerators? I believe that I have shown that, allied to the influence
of venture stage, different social entrepreneurial ‘types’ engage in distinct
processes of learning in accelerators – and accomplish different outcomes as a
result.
4.5 Learning in Accelerators: the 7 ‘F’s
In this section the majority of the answers to research question four
94
are
presented. In the literature, accelerator outcomes are often described in a manner
that gives precedence to a relatively small number of ‘macro’ measurements –
such as venture survival, the sale of the venture or the raising of investment (see
section 1.7). Nonetheless, a foundational assumption in the design of accelerators
is that ‘macro’ outcomes such as the above rely on the development of several
other, less obvious ‘fitness’-oriented capabilities. Often these assumptions are
not verbalised and must be deduced from the design of the programme itself,
even if accelerator managers occasionally describe some of their assumptions in
more detail
95
. At other times managers appear unaware of these less obvious
outcomes, or of accelerators’ side-effects. The purpose of this study (to explore
the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators) assumes that there is a
relationship between learning and the long-term development of the enterprise.
For this reason, although I do not entirely ignore the more obvious venture
outcomes (such as venture survival and the raising of investment), I devote much
of this section to a description of the more ‘micro’ outcomes of the Booster
accelerators, as these relate to social entrepreneurial learning.
In one of my early reports to NSE I described accelerator outcomes in terms of
three ‘F’ words (friends, focus and feedback) – and unwittingly mixed process
(feedback) and outcomes (friends
96
). After more systematic study I suggest that
accelerator outcomes as they relate to learning can be summarised in terms of
seven ‘F’ words. Two of these are ‘social’ in nature (‘friends’ and ‘family’) and
five relate more to the venture and the entrepreneur (‘focus’, ‘flexibility’, ‘facility’,
‘faith’ and ‘failure’). A further two terms (‘fame’ and ‘finance’) are outcomes of
the accelerator process, but are not necessarily related to learning. A final term
94
In which ways does the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators affect their development and
that of their enterprises?
95
See for example, my summary of Frank and Isabelle’s ideas in section 4.3.2 “Designing for
development”.
96
I.e.: an expanded network.
Jönköping International Business School
236
(‘fitness’) refers to the combined effect on the enterprise, of entrepreneurs
developing capabilities associated with the first eight
97
. Naturally these terms do
not entirely capture the content of each outcome and in the Booster accelerators,
some outcomes were more common than others. Furthermore, some terms
(such as ‘focus’) refer as much to process as they do to outcome. For example:
the term ‘friends’ (which refers to entrepreneurs’ expanded networks) refers to
an outcome experienced by participants both during and after the accelerator.
Nonetheless, some of the members of this expanded network (peers, coaches
and mentors) clearly contributed to the process of venture development in the
accelerator itself. In other words, the ‘friends’ aspect of the Booster accelerators
can be seen as both an outcome and an instrument.
As I discuss accelerator outcomes that are less tangible in nature, I do not initially
distinguish the A1 entrepreneurs from those in A2 and A3. Instead I highlight
and discuss differences between cohorts and participant typologies as they arise.
Furthermore, as this study is primarily about the process of entrepreneurial
learning, I devote less attention to important accelerator outcomes such as the
building of legitimacy, that are not clearly linked to learning. Outcomes that are
more directly related to the learning of social entrepreneurs are discussed in
sections 4.5.1 to 4.5.7.
4.5.1 FOCUS: Learning What and Why
An important aspect of enterprise development has to do with the entrepreneur’s
ability to understand their venture idea, structure and refine it – and convince
others of its viability. In many accelerators the most visible part of this three-part
process is the third one: the ‘selling’ of the venture idea both in the form of a
verbal ‘pitch’ (to an audience of investors at the end of the programme) – and in
the form of a written business plan. The success of this final part of the
accelerator process relies however, on the developmental processes associated
with the other two. Investors are seldom convinced by pitches or plans that
suggest that entrepreneurs have a weak understanding of their enterprises and of
the factors critical to their success. In the Booster accelerators, entrepreneurs
discussed their business plans both in terms of the process by which they were
developed - and as an independent product (or outcome) of the accelerator
process.
With regards to the process side of the business plan, entrepreneurs often
described how they developed a more holistic understanding of their enterprises
during the accelerator. In other words, they moved from having a limited
perception of their ventures (perhaps only focusing on their product or service),
97
‘Failure’ (the ninth term) is omitted from “fitness”, as although it may be a desirable outcome in the
long-term development of the entrepreneur, it is not an outcome many ventures wish to achieve.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
237
to one that included other key aspects – such as context, customers, financing
and marketing. Often they linked the development of this ‘helicopter’ perspective
to strategic tools such as Business Model Canvas. In particular, entrepreneurs at an
early stage of venture development (generally all of the participants, apart from
those in the ‘expert’ typology) identified ‘understanding their ventures’ and the
related ‘tools for understanding’ theme as important outcomes of the accelerator.
When asked to identify the main contribution of the accelerator a year after its
conclusion; less-experienced, early-stage entrepreneurs typically provided
answers similar to that of Gabriella (A1):
“I did not know how important the business model was, now working on it (and
still a long way achieving it) it has been really useful for me to understand my
own project.”
More experienced entrepreneurs whose ventures had progressed a little further
also commented on the accelerator’s contribution to their understandings of their
ventures. Their comments however, tended to be more nuanced – probably
reflecting differences in the degree of validation they expected (and received) at
the accelerator. In other words, more experienced entrepreneurs whose ventures
were at a later stage of development were asking slightly different questions in
the accelerator. Their questions tended to echo sentiments such as: “I’m pretty
sure my venture idea works at a small scale, but can it grow?”, rather than: “How
can I turn my venture idea into a viable product or service?” Consequently,
although all of the entrepreneurs appreciated the holistic, strategic focus
engendered by the accelerator; the background to this strategic focus was
different. More inexperienced, early-stage entrepreneurs were adopting a
strategic perspective as they moved from idea towards operations – while more
experienced, later stage entrepreneurs were adopting a strategic perspective as
they maintained operations and began to think about growth. All of the
entrepreneurs were also involved in a process of venture validation, even if the
more experienced entrepreneurs often appeared to have a few more answers to
the challenging questions posed by their mentors and the accelerator coaches.
When asked about the accelerator’s contribution at the end of the third
accelerator, ‘’veteran’ entrepreneur Thomas described his experience in the
following way:
“Well, increasing our network… which is what I came here for also. Scanning
the interest of people in this field, social entrepreneurship, and seeing how
they react to our value proposition. That has been validated, so I like that, I
see that people get it, and… support it. It’s also helping us to become
investment ready, which is really the target and goal.”
(Duncan) Okay. How is it helping you though?
Jönköping International Business School
238
“Well, by forcing me to take the strategic role of the company, and change
focus from operation to… So, it’s a structure that helps me achieve what
needs to be done.”
Thomas’ comments reflect the experience of many of the entrepreneurs who
participated in the accelerator while maintaining the operations of their nascent
venture. Their experience suggests that accelerators develop a strategic
perspective through a curious mix of freedom and compulsion. On the one hand
the accelerator ‘liberates’ entrepreneurs by providing them with ‘space’ in which
to engage in enterprise activities they had previously been unable to prioritise. At
the same time however, the accelerator schedule and structure forces
entrepreneurs to address aspects of their ventures that they had not previously
attended to – and given the choice, might have continued to neglect. Heidi’s (A2)
reflections six months after the accelerator illustrate how for some participants,
the writing of a business plan is of value not so much for its value as a planning
or marketing tool, but rather as a tool for structuring entrepreneurs’ thinking
about their ventures:
“I think it was all really good, we did my business plan, which I’m not following
that well but it was helpful to think about all the aspects.”
Other entrepreneurs’ comments reinforce this impression, suggesting that the
accelerator structure (including the development of a business plan) not only
provides entrepreneurs with an umbrella perspective of their enterprise, but also
ensures that they pay attention to the ‘nitty-gritty’ of each component of their
venture. Andrew’s partner Chris
98
(A1) described the contribution of the
programme in the following way:
”The platform was a learning place that made everyone stronger, the ideas
better, even if some ideas do not make it, the experience will shape people
who will make new ones. Building trust and giving a clear vision of what is
needed for an idea to become a business is priceless.”
As noted earlier, this ‘helicopter’ perspective helps entrepreneurs adopt a
strategic (rather than purely operational) perspective on their ventures – so that
they understand their enterprises in a ‘holistic’ manner. Chris’ comment suggests
that this perspective is also useful because it helps entrepreneurs see what is
missing from their ventures. However, his comment also illustrates the
combination of the macro (“a clear vision”) and the micro (“the ideas better”)
perspectives that the Booster programme engendered.
98
Chris did not participate in the accelerator, but was in constant communication with his business
partner Andrew throughout.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
239
Despite the advantages many entrepreneurs associated with their work on a
business plan during the accelerator, it is worth commenting on some of the
downsides described by a few individuals. When the writing of a business plan is
viewed as part of the ‘structuring’ function of accelerators, it appears that the
unreflected application of this structuring tool can have negative consequences.
For example, commenting on the development of her fellow A2 entrepreneurs,
Marie suggested that Steven had spent too much time on his business plan and
too little time networking – an action she attributed to his mentor’s wish for him
to develop a business plan during the accelerator. Despite describing Steven as
one of the more enthusiastic and ‘alert’ participants, she also commented that
she had noticed him working on his business plan during lectures. Her comments
appear be accurate, as Steven himself commented on the stress he experienced
in relation to this activity:
“Then we see the pressure and stress. It has been highly stressful in this… for
me in particular, because we have to deliver a plan by the end and we have
the obligation to do that.”
When asked whether his single-minded focus on the business plan was his own
choice or forced upon him by Booster, Steven said that it was a combination of
the two:
“I think it's both ways. If you complete a process then you feel satisfied,
otherwise you feel like you didn't, you know, take full advantage of the
opportunity. And then the other aspect is also to see a plan that can translate
into a funding document and also to have a document that you can feel
confident to present to investors.”
It is difficult to know whether Steven’s use of most of his time at the accelerator
to write a business plan was effective. It clearly prevented him from networking
during the programme (he asked NSE to change his airline ticket so that he could
stay on in the city for a further week after the accelerator, in order to develop his
network). Nonetheless, a year after leaving Booster he reported sending a copy of
his plan to someone who expressed an interest in supporting his work – so his
efforts may have paid off. What his experience does make clear however, is that
different accelerator activities compete with one another for entrepreneurs’
attention – and that it is often difficult to strike an effective balance between
them.
The above paragraphs discuss how the process associated with writing a business
plan led to valuable outcomes for accelerator participants – and at times, to the
neglect of other aspects of the accelerator. For many entrepreneurs however, the
business plan was valued not primarily because of the process of reflection
associated with it, but more as an accelerator product. Many participants perceived
a sound business plan to be an important factor in attracting investment.
Jönköping International Business School
240
Consequently, for them the ‘space’ created by the accelerator was important in
enabling them to put together a convincing written description of their
enterprises and their plans for the future. At this point however, the particular
challenges of working in the ‘hybrid’ arena of social entrepreneurship made
themselves felt…
The first accelerator adopted an approach to social entrepreneurship that
emphasized the need for enterprises to make a ‘business case’ for their activities.
Consequently, Catrin (who came from a development agency/NGO
background) lamented the lack of support in writing grant proposals. In the
second accelerator a similar emphasis was maintained and most of the
entrepreneurs appeared to appreciate the effort devoted to securing the income
side of the enterprise (more of this in the next section). In particular participants
expressed appreciation for the teaching of one of the coaches on the ‘social value
proposition’ of the enterprise
99
. Isaac (A2) described the impact of this session
in the following way:
”Well, my skills in my social value proposition and… understanding the entire
social value proposition framework was a thing that I did not understand fully.
To me, I just believed that… you just had to come up with a marketing
slogan… for me it was a marketing slogan. But he… outlined and broke it
down to the simplest detail, that the social value proposition is not about
marketing, but it’s supposed to be a way of doing business for the enterprise.”
As an experienced manager, Isaac appeared able to adapt the session on social
value creation to his own applications for funding – and later credited the
accelerator with giving him the conceptual tools to write a successful grant
application. For other entrepreneurs however, the mixing of the for-profit world
with that of the not-for-profit was confusing. As Heidi (A2) commented:
“It sounds like there are really a lot of problems. It doesn’t seem like this
super-good investment opportunity, but it seems like a good impact
opportunity, but that’s more of an NGO kind of thing rather than a… business
plan investment.”
Heidi’s experience suggests that there are challenges associated with structuring
an accelerator programme for social entrepreneurs around a business plan model
intended for for-profit ventures. In A2 Heidi was the only entrepreneur who
commented on this discrepancy, but in A3 several participants expressed
frustration over the fact that they did not receive adequate training in
99
My impression is that the development of a ’social value proposition’ is more about the ’why’ of the
enterprise, whereas tools such as ’business model canvas’ and the business plan, contribute more to an
understanding of the ’what’.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
241
distinguishing between a business plan oriented towards traditional investors and
plans oriented towards grants in the not-for-profit sector. I have been unable to
account for why this dissatisfaction was so much more apparent in A3, given the
similarities of the programme and the cohorts to one another. What
entrepreneurs’ comments do suggest however, is that the task of writing a
business plan is often useful in terms of process: individuals are forced to reflect
on the adequacy of their ventures and to address weaknesses. What is also clear
nevertheless, is that many entrepreneurs value the business plan as a product: it is
written primarily for others’ benefit and not for themselves. Problems appear to
arise when entrepreneurs orient themselves on the basis of their business plan or
grant proposal, rather than on the basis of other tools (such as business model
canvas). Such tools appear to focus more on increasing the entrepreneur’s
understanding of their own enterprise, rather than on ‘selling’ the venture to
investors or grant administrators.
4.5.2 FLEXIBILITY: Learning How – an Alternative Mindset
An unexpected outcome that emerged from the interviews with the A2
entrepreneurs was the role of the Booster accelerator in helping participants move
from a purely non-profit/charity position, to one that was more ‘hybrid’ in
character. The cohort in the second accelerator consisted mainly of
entrepreneurs with a background in African NGOs and development agencies –
the majority of which depend on time-limited grants for funding. Consequently,
most of the entrepreneurs in A2 came to the accelerator with a mentality that
was both ‘project’ and ‘grant’ oriented. In other words, they were used to
obtaining money by writing convincing project proposals for development
projects that lasted for a period of one to four years. The entrepreneurs who
identified this outcome belonged almost entirely to the ‘indigenous’ typology and
both less-experienced and ‘veteran’ participants commented on it. For the most
part, the enterprise-oriented ‘charity>hybrid’ shift was associated with three ‘sub-
processes’ of learning and action. One of these had to do with a change in
mindset and two with the way in which entrepreneurs structured their
enterprises. However, these sub-processes should not necessarily be seen as
separate outcomes of learning, but are often related aspects of an overall shift in
behaviour, informed by insight.
With regards to the shift in mindset, entrepreneurs described a multi-faceted move
from a charitable, ‘project-oriented’ mindset towards a ‘business model’
approach. Kenny (A2) described this shift in the following way:
“Before I came, I had a notion that this is a non-profit and that I should keep
seeking grants for people to help us to help others. In the course of… in the
course of my training here, I discovered that no matter whatever mission you
are, for-profit/non-profit, you should be able to design a way that you can
Jönköping International Business School
242
sustain yourself. That even grant-givers, donors whatever… don’t wish for you
to be looking up to them or looking up to others. They want to see your model,
your business model… to be sustainable. And I got that from here and I know
how to be sustainable right now.”
These quotations illustrate the several components of the shift in mindset
described by some entrepreneurs. Isaac and Kenny both describe a mindset prior
to the accelerator that was oriented towards charity-based organising – and hence
a dependence on a short-term cycle of applying for funding, running a project –
and applying for more funding. In contrast, many of the sessions in the
accelerator emphasized the importance of on the one hand, a workable long-term
business model – and on the other, a clear [social] value proposition. Isaac (A2)
described the contrast in thinking in the following way:
“I’m coming from a grants side of funding development projects. So, I knew a
lot [more about] that than impact investment. The value proposition process is
what I didn’t know. So I just knew about writing ‘my mission is this, my
objectives are that’. The real impact proposition, the value proposition was
missing from my vocabulary. And I learnt a lot about that.”
Isaac’s comment suggests that even experienced managers in the field of
development (who had no trouble putting together a mission statement and
identifying project objectives), were challenged when the accelerator asked them
to create a long-term, sustainable business model – and to identify their value
proposition.
After the accelerator, several entrepreneurs described adopting a new way of
organising their enterprises. Some (such as Lewis-A2) described a radical switch
from charity to for-profit:
“One of the impacts it’s had on my business plan, is that initially I did not have
a specific business proposition. What I had was like a goal and objectives,
that kind of a non-profit orientation. And now we are taking the business for-
profit orientation which demands that we don’t only talk of goals and
objectives. No, investors want to hear about goals, they want to hear about
the business proposition and how it will add value – and generate revenue.
So that aspect really… I think if you look at most of our businesses when we
came here, it was more like reading a non-profit kind of proposal. So it has
changed from that. I can say for myself, it has transitioned from that to a for-
profit business plan.”
A more common change among the A2 entrepreneurs was one from a purely
charity-oriented enterprise to one characterised by hybridity. Steven described
what this involved for his enterprise:
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
243
”Firstly it was just a programme within the organisation, it wasn’t an
autonomous structure by itself, I just had it as a sub-programme within the
organisation. But with the accelerate I had to carve it out, as an initiative, as a
social enterprise, because the organisation was a charity. So before, I was
operating it as a programme within the charity. So I think… I did not have a
clear, good map as to how to make the programme to be a new, profitable
enterprise by itself. But during the accelerator I had time to work on that so it
is now having its own model, different from the model of the charity.”
In contrast to Lewis then, Steven continues to conduct some of his ‘social’ work
within his enterprise’s parent organisation, which is a charity. However, the work
that he was developing during the accelerator (community libraries) is now
located within a separate organisation that he hopes can generate enough revenue
to become self-sustaining. Steven’s shift in mindset and business model was
similar to that apparent among many of the ‘indigenous’ A2 entrepreneurs.
Lewis’ shift (from non-profit to for-profit) was more unusual. Nevertheless, both
types of restructuring illustrate an important contribution of social venture
accelerators, namely that of helping charity-funded organisations move towards
a hybrid (or even a for-profit) model of enterprise.
4.5.3 FAITH: Learning How – Confidence, Passion and Courage
Something that emerged in my interviews with entrepreneurs, that is not
apparent in their responses to the more formal questions asked in application
forms, about their expectations – is the accelerator’s function as a source of
affirmation. Few if any participants state in their applications that they want to
participate in the programme in order to ‘test the water’. However, their
interviews make it clear that many entrepreneurs feel very uncertain about their
ventures at the start of the accelerator. As they participate they are trying to find
answers to questions such as: “Is my venture idea a good one?”, “Is this going to
work?”, and “Does anybody apart from me think this is a good idea?”. The
answers to these questions may result in part from cognitive processes (for
example: reflecting on venture feasibility), but it appears that they also have
emotional and practical dimensions.
In terms of emotions, I suggest that ‘confidence’ is a useful ‘umbrella’ term for
summing up emotional outcomes that in my NVivo analysis I coded as ‘feeling
encouraged’, ‘feeling proud’, etc. Two excerpts from interviews and one from a
focus group illustrate how entrepreneurs expressed these emotional outcomes –
and what they attributed them to:
Catrin (A1) [to Barry]: “I really appreciate how you pushed me up a little bit
and made me feel better about myself and what I’m doing, quite selfishly. And
I, whenever I read about your project, like back in the UK still, I was like ‘Wow,
wow! I mean this is exactly what I think Africa needs!’ Like we talk about
Jönköping International Business School
244
alternative energies, but for them there isn’t an alternative. The alternative
right now is walking for days or choking on the fumes and when they’re trying
to cook – so I love the project that you have conceived and come up with and
are driving.”
Heidi (A2): “I think overall, it [the accelerator] provided me with confidence to
continue with Good Glass, knowing that I was doing something people
thought was cool – and that mostly I was managing in line with other people's
suggestions.”
(Duncan to Steven): “Okay, so if you just summarise the contribution of the
accelerator, how would you summarise it?”
Steven (A2): “It gave me more confidence... so I am more convinced about
the innovation, I speak with a lot of confidence and authority now; that is what
I think it has helped.”
The above excerpts suggest both emotional content and process. First of all, all
of the entrepreneurs clearly began the accelerator with doubts about their
ventures and their own abilities to succeed. Heidi for example, is uncertain firstly
about whether what she is doing is worthwhile – and secondly, about whether
she is managing her enterprise effectively. After the programme all three
entrepreneurs feel more confident about their ventures, and also (in the case of
Catrin and Heidi) about their own capabilities. In terms of process, the interviews
with Catrin and Heidi suggest that there is a significant ‘others-oriented’ basis for
entrepreneurs’ belief in themselves and their ventures. Heidi talks of what
“people” think about her venture and her way of managing – and Catrin
describes how her confidence has grown as a result of ‘veteran’ entrepreneur
Barry’s feedback. It appears that as she describes the impact of his feedback on
her own self-esteem, she is also ‘boosting’ Barry’s confidence – by telling him (to
use Heidi’s term) that she thinks his venture is “cool”.
Almost all of the Booster entrepreneurs described some type of increase in
confidence as a result of the accelerator. In interviews with ‘veteran’
entrepreneurs however, terms that reflect emotional outcomes such as ‘feeling
encouraged’ and ‘feeling more confident’ are almost non-existent. This may
reflect the fact that many of their ventures had moved beyond the ‘proof of
concept’ phase – or that they possessed a higher level of self-esteem due to more
experience in management. Nonetheless, two entrepreneurs from the ‘veteran’
category (Barry-A2 and Thomas-A3) suggest that ‘inspiration’ was an important
part of the accelerator for them. Barry for example, cites inspiration as one of his
reasons for participating in the programme:
“I felt that I’d been sitting for so long in my own bedroom, that it was… it felt
healthy to be subjected to… critical assessment. And even hearing what other
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
245
entrepreneurs are doing and becoming inspired and getting a little energy and
so forth.”
Even after completing the programme, Barry described ‘inspiration’ as one
reason for wanting to stay in touch with NSE and the other entrepreneurs. In
A3, Thomas began to discuss the same theme when I asked him about the roles
played by the accelerator staff. He responded:
”They complement each other well, so one plays group psychology on us, the
other one gives us structure, the other one gives… inspiration.”
In contrast to Barry however, Thomas felt that the accelerator needed to have
more inspirational content. He continued by saying:
“The programme would need to be a little bit more visionary… that’s the
element missing. So, that, er… some inspiration to show, ‘Hey we have an
amazing opportunity to use social enterprise for this – and these are the
benefits and this is the potential’ ”.
Other entrepreneurs also mention the importance of becoming inspired during
the accelerator. Nonetheless, the ‘veteran’ entrepreneurs are alone in displaying
on the one hand confidence in their own ventures and abilities (suggesting a
certain emotional resilience) – and at the same time, an awareness of their need
for the inspiration and energy they associate with being exposed to other social
entrepreneurs. These contrasts may reflect different emotional ‘needs’ at
different stages in venture development, with inspiration perhaps increasingly
necessary if social entrepreneurs are to overcome the long-term challenge of
establishing their enterprises. Marie’s (A2) graphic description of the role of
inspiration (or hope) in her own venturing process suggests that this may indeed
be the case:
“Sometimes it’s been really inspiring with some of the speakers, who have
given me a little hope and strength to cope. Because it’s pretty heavy, getting
something going. Now and then you feel ‘Oh hell! How am I going to cope with
this?’ Then you rest for a few days and think about the positive bits.”
In the Booster accelerators, several entrepreneurs appeared to link the
development of ‘courage’ to the encouragement and inspiration they received
from their peers. ‘Courage’ is a difficult factor to discuss, as it is clearly linked to
emotions, yet also appears to require practical action if we are to be certain that
it has actually been developed. Henrik (A1) describes a learning process that has
practical implications, but that also appears to involve both cognitive (i.e.
reflection) and emotional dimensions:
Jönköping International Business School
246
“What I’ve learned about myself – and I think this is really interesting – is that
I’ve been a little scared of sending out t-shirts. Even though I’ve received
orders, I’ve been a little scared and I’ve sort of delayed.”
(Duncan): “Why do you think you felt that way?”
“I think it’s because I was afraid of criticism. Now this is our first collection and
so it kind of functions as a test. If you think of it that way it feels a bit better
actually – and then you kind of dare to do it. And I guess that’s a major lesson,
you can’t wait for it to be perfect, because it doesn’t really become perfect.
You never get going if you keep on waiting.”
In the above process, Henrik (A1) describes feeling an emotion (fear/doubt),
thinking about the emotion and then transforming the emotion through the practical
step of sending out his t-shirts, despite his fear. During A2 Heidi described a
similar process: nervously presenting her products to a retailer (expecting a
noncommittal or negative response) – and being instead surprised by their
positive reaction (“So that was a good feeling.”). As mentioned in section 4.42,
Marie (A2) suggests that courage is also developed through exposure to other
entrepreneurs and their apparent confidence (regardless of whether this is
genuine or feigned). She commented on the fact that she had become more
‘cocksure’ during the accelerator and when asked why this had happened she
attributed it to the other entrepreneurs displaying that attitude.
4.5.4 FACILITY: Learning How – Knowledge and Skill
Although a major contribution of the accelerator to entrepreneurs’ development
had to do with a changed perspective on their ventures, most participants also
described the learning (or enhancing) of particular abilities – or ‘facilities’
100
. At
this point it is worth reflecting on the fact that logically, entrepreneurs might be
expected to learn the skills taught during the accelerator. It is therefore important
to realise that the development of specific venturing skills in different accelerator
programmes will often be related to the content of the programme. As noted in
section 4.1 however, the degree to which skills are learned may be affected by the
characteristics of the accelerator process and the agents that populate it. In the
Booster accelerators, entrepreneurs identified three main areas in which their skills
were enhanced: communication, financial management and impact evaluation.
In many accelerators and incubators a great deal of attention is paid to ‘selling’
the venture in a variety of forms, in view of the overall emphasis on preparing
ventures for growth and investment (Hjorth, 2013). The Booster accelerators were
100
The term ‘facility’ is used in the sense of ability; as reflected in Parragon’s (2002) definition of the
term as meaning “aptitude, dexterity”.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
247
no exception and entrepreneurs from all of the typologies described becoming
more skilled in both the verbal and written marketing of their enterprises.
Specifically this involved verbal ‘pitching’ skills and related computer skills, such
as the preparation of MS PowerPoint slides. It also included the ability to design
websites and use social media tools – and perhaps most importantly, the ability
to ‘package’ their ventures in different ways depending on the audience. ‘Veteran’
entrepreneur Isaac (A2) described his learning in this area, in the following way:
“And then my communication: how you effectively apply the internet, social
media. How you design your information, education and communication
strategy. That experience and exposure made me have the particular skills
and the knowledge of how I could best repackage my proposal. My coming to
the programme helped me repackage my proposal, and by the time I
repackaged it and came back over here [East Africa], I was able to sell my
idea in a way that was very, very, very forward looking – and in a way that
was marketable in the eyes of other partners.”
In the above quote Isaac describes the combination of knowledge and practical
skill that he needed to develop in order to communicate effectively. On the one
hand, an enhanced awareness of differences in expectation between different
types of investor – and on the other, the ability to adapt presentations in order
to communicate effectively with these audiences.
An increase in communication-oriented skills was attested to by all ‘types’ of
accelerator participant. In contrast, enhanced knowledge and skill in the area of
financial management was something that the less experienced entrepreneurs
tended to describe. In A2 and A3 considerably more time was devoted to helping
entrepreneurs understand different forms of revenue generation and prepare
finance-related documents. Unsurprisingly therefore, many participants
described an increase in financial ability after the programme. Nonetheless,
‘veteran’ entrepreneurs tended not to identify skills in financial management as
an outcome, describing instead their enhanced knowledge of alternative revenue
streams. For example, when Isaac was asked about the accelerator’s main
contribution one year after graduation, his answer included:
“Knowledge about fundraising and other modalities of financing my start up.”
Despite the fact that entrepreneurs (with the exception of the ‘veteran’ group)
described learning financial skills during the accelerator, some participants still
felt they needed more. Steven (A2) for example, when asked if anything was
missing from the accelerator wrote:
“Little time devoted to financial and cash flow statements.”
Jönköping International Business School
248
Steven’s comments reflected the feelings of several less-experienced
entrepreneurs and in particular those with a weak business background (the
majority of the ‘African’ entrepreneurs in A2) – or lower levels of education. The
second accelerator raised managers’ awareness of the ‘double-edged’
combination of opportunity and obstacle that is associated with the recruitment
of social entrepreneurs from developing countries. On the one hand, many of
these entrepreneurs appeared to be engaged in ambitious social ventures, with
unique access to vulnerable populations. At the same time, the very
characteristics that allowed them access to these populations (and fuelled their
passion for helping them), also appeared to be linked to significant ‘holes’ in their
entrepreneurial capabilities. Nelson was perhaps the most obvious example of
this, with his background as a child soldier in West Africa resulting in a ‘patchy’
education and undeveloped social skills. Nonetheless, he was engaged in an
ambitious social venture designed to reduce the stigmatisation of ex-child
soldiers and facilitate their integration into society. Although Nelson is an
extreme example, many other entrepreneurs in A2 and A3 shared his experience
of either growing up in (or presently residing in) impoverished communities –
such as urban slums or refugee camps. After the accelerator most of these
entrepreneurs described learning important financial skills, but at graduation
some had clearly learned far more than others.
During interviews, many of the entrepreneurs with a background in NGOs and
similar organisations described skills associated with social impact. As noted
earlier, one of these (the identification of a clear social value proposition) is linked
primarily to outcomes that relate to perspective and communication.
Nevertheless, another outcome relates to the measurement of social impact, with
many entrepreneurs describing an increase in their knowledge and skills in this
area. As the following quote from Kenny (A2) illustrates, the development of
this capability once again seemed to involve both insight and the practical
application of knowledge to the social venturing process:
(Duncan): “And then the second [thing you learned] was…
“Measure impact. I send SMS to people teaching English vocabulary. How do
I know if what they are listening to, they are using – if they benefiting? I just
keep sending! For example: before I was sending, sending all the time… all I
know is that it says, ‘message sent’. Did the person get it: yes or no? Is he
benefiting? Is he improved? Is it changing his life? It was a big issue for me…
During the course of my accelerator, two months, eight weeks; I’ve been able
to see ways on how I could imagine it.”
(Duncan): “And actually measuring the impact then?”
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
249
“Yeah. I could now know… for example: I send the word to 1 000 persons. At
the end of this month, the month of March, 800 replies. I ask a question on the
28th of this month. 800 people reply out of the 1 000.”
Having worked in NGOs myself I was initially surprised at entrepreneurs’
enthusiasm over their new-found tools for social impact – in my experience most
projects are evaluated. On reflection however, I realised that a possible
explanation is linked to the conducting of a lot of development work in project
form. Evaluation is not always conducted by those responsible for running the
project – and even when managers are involved, the evaluation may take place at
the end of the project (when managers are preoccupied with obtaining new
funding), rather than on an ongoing basis. For many entrepreneurs therefore,
their new capabilities in measuring social impact were linked to a new
understanding of their enterprises – as ventures that needed to have a sustainable,
long-term model of value creation.
4.5.5 FRIENDS: Learning Who – Expanded Network
In keeping with the observations of scholars such as Feld (2012) and Cohen
(2013b) the Booster entrepreneurs identify the development of their networks as
a key accelerator contribution. Although this outcome is not always framed in
terms of entrepreneurial learning, Johannisson (1993) argues that the ‘know who’
aspect of entrepreneurial competency is important. He suggests that it involves
developing not only knowledge about individuals and organisations that could
benefit the enterprise, but also knowledge about how to make use of these
networks. I emphasized the distinction between these two aspects of learning in
my discussions with accelerator managers – and it is interesting that Hjorth (2013,
p. 39) makes a similar observation in his study of the TCP
101
incubator.
Consequently, although I do not conduct a network analysis in this study,
network development was clearly an important aspect of entrepreneurs’ learning
in the accelerators and is therefore discussed below.
When asked about the most important contributions of the programme, most of
the responses provided by the social entrepreneurs included phrases such as the
following:
“A larger network of people” (Barry, A1)
“Contacts. I met people who helped me a lot and who are still doing it”
(Gabriella, A1)
101
TCP / ’The Creative Plot’ is an incubator in southern Sweden that focuses on startups in the cultural /
creative sector.
Jönköping International Business School
250
“I was able to establish a partnership with [name of NGO and individual]. I
met [her] at one of the NSE Booster events at SocNet” (Nelson, A2)
“Broadened my contact base with suppliers of goods and services relevant to
my startup development stage” (Isaac, A2)
When examined in more detail, entrepreneurs’ responses suggest that several
different types of contact can be found under the ‘umbrella’ term “network”.
Despite the relatively low number of impact investors in Scandinavia, several
entrepreneurs described making contact with individuals or organisations that
were useful to them in terms of finance. This type of expanded network ranged
from contact with charities that were willing to share existing sources of funding
in Scandinavia, to contact with government-sponsored funds associated with
development agencies such as Sida. On the whole however, the African
entrepreneurs in A2 and the ‘expert’ entrepreneurs in all three accelerators were
particularly disappointed at the relatively low level of impact investment available.
Isaac’s response to the “what was missing?” question in the one year follow up
is typical:
“There should have been a well-planned program to enable us as
entrepreneurs to showcase our startups to impact and other investors. The
few pitch events organized – and that those we attended lacked high-profile
investors. International organizations and other entities with the resources for
partnerships should have been invited”.
In addition to the financial role played by entrepreneurs’ learning about the ‘who’
side of enterprise, many individuals also commented that the accelerator had
helped them gain access to people who had insight into particular aspects of their
‘industry’ – or of the geographical area they were targeting. Gabriella (A1) for
example, described how she had come into contact with a firm that manufactured
plastic containers. This contact enabled her to gain a more accurate idea of the
cost of manufacturing her product and also provided input with regards to the
technical parameters she needed to incorporate in her design:
“Though the main company who was up to be part of my startup got problems
to develop the team project, I am still in contact with them and they keep on
giving their advice”.
The above paragraphs suggest that present-day thinking about the contribution
of accelerators with regards to networks, is generally accurate. In all of the
accelerators there was a very real sense of the entrepreneurs ‘coming in from the
cold’: of their moving from a relatively isolated position in which (as social
entrepreneurs) they had little knowledge of who might be relevant to their
enterprises, to a position of greater knowledge and ‘connectedness’.
Furthermore, two of the ‘veteran’ entrepreneurs (Isaac-A1 and Thomas-A3)
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
251
suggested that the accelerator also added value by providing them with access to
‘richer’ content in terms of a social entrepreneurial network, than that available
in their home countries. One aspect of their development as social entrepreneurs
seemed to be associated with their being able to relate to a larger social
entrepreneurial community. In this community they were able to find individuals
with the necessary experience to act as role models and advise them. They
suggested that due to the relative newness of social entrepreneurship in their
home countries (and the resultant small size of the SE community), they had
previously been unable to identify such individuals. Isaac (A1) described his
experience in the following way:
“Scandinavia I think by this time has an advanced social entrepreneurship
fraternity, and so the problems that we’re going through here, social
entrepreneurs in Scandinavia passed through them a long time ago. So the
problems I was having in starting up and moving forward and scaling up my
programme were something that they had already done […] so they were able
to advise me accordingly, and that was extremely helpful.”
In keeping with Granovetter (1973) therefore, one function of accelerators is to
provide entrepreneurs with the network of weak ties they require to develop
opportunities more effectively. This role appears to be especially important in
programmes (such as Booster and TCP) that target less traditional startups – and
where accelerators are required to take on a “door-opening” role (Hjorth, 2013,
p. 41). It appears that in many developing countries the ‘knowledge about who
to talk to’ is simply not available for social entrepreneurs to learn – at least not
to the extent it is found in countries with a stronger tradition of social
entrepreneurship. This is illustrated by Henrik’s (A1) comment in week two of
the first accelerator:
“I’m building my network every day, much faster than in Brazil. I’ve collected
piles of business cards.”
The African social entrepreneurs in A2 were particularly keen to learn about the
‘who’ of Scandinavian investors and social entrepreneurs. Accelerator managers
experienced their interest as unbalanced and ‘exaggerated’ at times – but the work
of Smith-Doerr and Powell (2005) may provide an explanation for their
behaviour. These scholars suggest that when individuals are excluded from
mainstream economic networks, they find ways to overcome this exclusion.
Although they use female and immigrant entrepreneurs as examples, it is
probably that many of the African entrepreneurs find themselves in a similar
position. They are ‘excluded’ in a double meaning: firstly from traditional
economic life (they are social entrepreneurs) and secondly, from the Western
phenomenon of social entrepreneurship and impact investment. In their eyes,
accelerators such as Booster may provide them with access to these networks and
to associated financial resources. At the same time, it is also possible that the
Jönköping International Business School
252
intensive nature of accelerators provides entrepreneurs with short-term access to
the ‘dense’ networks that Dufays and Huybrecht (2013) associate with the
diffusion of ideas.
An interesting aspect of the Booster accelerators that may be a result of the global
recruitment process is the ‘temporary’ nature of the cohort network. Scholars
such as Feld (2012) and Hallen et al. (2013) emphasize the role played by
accelerators in embedding entrepreneurs into a long-term ecosystem of helpful
fellow entrepreneurs. Hallen et al. in particular suggest that accelerator ‘alumni’
become an increasingly useful resource for new cohorts, as they represent an
existing and ‘committed’ network. This type of development is notably absent in
the Booster accelerators, despite my suggestion to NSE managers that they spend
more time maintaining contact with graduates. In the absence of a centrally
coordinated network, entrepreneurs could nonetheless be expected to take their
own initiatives with regards to networking after the accelerator – but this does
not appear to have happened. One year after the accelerator, entrepreneurs from
both A1 and A2 report that they only have sporadic contact with other graduates.
They also report that even where they do stay in touch, that contact is of a
primarily ‘social’ (as opposed to ‘business’) nature. Naturally there are a few
exceptions: with Barry’s ‘adoption’ of Gabriella as an informal mentee an unusual
example in A1 – and Peter’s ongoing contact with Kenny and Marie in A2. Peter’s
comments on the nature of this ‘alumni networking’ suggest that the graduate
network may be an untapped resource:
“[I have contact with] Kenny - we keep networking, information-sharing about
upcoming opportunities for the good of our startups, like GSBI
102
[…] Young
Leaders forum. Marie - we don’t talk directly but she has made referrals for
organisations to us, for information sharing and networking”.
4.5.6 FAMILY: Learning Who – Being a Social Entrepreneur
At the beginning of my study, one of the theoretical frameworks that I
considered using to inform my analysis was that of situated learning – and in
particular, theories related to ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998; Wenger,
Trayner, & de Laat, 2011). Although this no longer forms the backbone of my
study, many of the ideas of situated learning are clearly relevant to the education
of social entrepreneurs and to accelerators, as testified to by Susan Howorth’s
(2012) use of these theories in her discussion of the education of practicing
entrepreneurs. In the Booster accelerators I usually initiated my first interview by
asking participants how they usually introduced themselves to others – as a way
of gaining insight into how they construed their own identities. I was then able
to reflect on any changes in this identity as the accelerator progressed. Interviews
102
Global Social Benefit Institute
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
253
suggest that for some entrepreneurs it is important to ‘become’ a social
entrepreneur, while others appear disinterested. For example: in A1 Gabriella
rapidly appropriated the ‘social entrepreneur’ identity associated with the
accelerator, while Edward was dismissive of it. Importantly, both of them were
experienced professionals in the design industry
103
, with the main differences
between them perhaps that of age (Edward was in his twenties, Gabriella in her
mid-forties) – and background (Gabriella immigrated to Scandinavia as an adult).
During the A1 accelerator Edward commented on the term ‘social entrepreneur’
in the following manner:
“I still don’t really see myself as a social entrepreneur. What drives me is more
the challenge, to dig into things… how ideas can be taken further and have
more… impact. If you look at my education I’m an art director and I do that
kind of job too, but no… I don’t know. I don’t go around calling myself a social
entrepreneur. I hardly call myself an entrepreneur.”
A year after the accelerator Edward had abandoned his startup and his attitude
towards the term ‘social entrepreneur’ had changed very little:
“Today I'm engaged in another startup, that probably matches all the criteria
for actually being a social enterprise, but we never talk about ourselves using
those terms.”
In contrast to Edward, his partner Alice described the introduction of the term
‘social entrepreneur’ as “an unbelievably welcome term” – perhaps reflecting the
difficulty she had experienced in describing to colleagues and friends what she
was going to do in the accelerator (“hippy advertising”!) Similarly, Gabriella (A1)
also appropriated the term ‘social entrepreneur’ for herself eagerly. Early on in
the accelerator she enthused over the term, describing how she had
communicated her new identity to her friends in Argentina:
(Duncan): Had you heard this term ‘social entrepreneur’?
“No, never! I wrote to my friends in Argentina, those who are my customers.
My customers are sort of my friends [laugh], and they work with NGOs… a lot.
I sent a letter to one of them and asked, ‘Do you know what a social
entrepreneur is? Because now I’m part of it!”
Gabriella continued by describing her friends’ situation as part of the NGO
community in Argentina – describing in passionate and colourful terms the ‘up
and down’ existence of the NGO manager: the constant applying for money,
103
I.e.: ’knowledgeable improvisers’ from the perspective of Cope & Watts (2000).
Jönköping International Business School
254
working intensely when a grant was received and then reducing activities
drastically as funds run out. She appears to have a missionary zeal for bringing
her friends into the social entrepreneurial fold:
“I want to go to Argentina as soon as possible to tell them and to think about
how we can change things or work in a different way, I want to do that.”
Unfortunately two years later – despite Gabriella’s enthusiasm, Frida (the A3
accelerator manager) commented to me that she believed Gabriella had now
given up on her venture, even if it still exists on paper. It therefore appears that
although the appropriating (or not) of a social entrepreneurial identity may be an
interesting factor in the accelerator process, it is probably not a decisive one in
terms of venture survival and impact.
Despite inconclusive evidence concerning the impact of the development of a
social entrepreneurial identity on venture performance, it is worth noting that for
many entrepreneurs their identity as ‘alumni’ of the accelerator was important.
This was particularly so in A2 and A3 among entrepreneurs working in
environments with a weak infrastructure for social entrepreneurship – but even
the A1 cohort commented on their wish for such a network. For example,
Henrik:
“It would be fun to have some kind of Facebook group or something, a forum
for everyone who did Booster. I’m thinking of an alumni network or something
similar.”
The A2 entrepreneurs from developing countries were especially concerned with
maintaining a long-term relationship with NSE – something that managers
initially seemed to have difficulty comprehending. In my A2 report I commented
on this and Karen’s response was that NSE did not have the resources necessary
to engage in the kind of follow-up the entrepreneurs desired. After A1, Karen’s
response to my questions about follow-up was that she expected it to be self-
organising and that if the entrepreneurs felt it was important they would organise
it themselves. Consequently, in terms of consciously establishing a ‘community
of practice’ and following up accelerator participants, there was clearly an initial
mismatch between the expectations/wishes of the entrepreneurs and NSE’s own
capacity and prioritising. After the A3 programme a Facebook group was created
for the Booster alumni, administered by the programme managers.
4.5.7 FAILURE: Learning When – and If
Accelerator publicity often emphasizes the contribution of their programmes to
enterprise development. Nonetheless, my survey of the Booster accelerators
suggests that programmes can occasionally play an important role in ‘terminating’
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
255
ventures (or entrepreneurs) that are unlikely to succeed. Edward in A1 was
perhaps the clearest example of this process, responding to the question about
the accelerator’s main contribution in the one year follow-up, in the following
way:
“I learned how difficult it is to move from idea to having a working prototype”.
Edward’s partner in GoodLink was Alice, who took more time to arrive at the
conclusion that their venture idea was not going to work. Alice tried to keep the
venture going in her spare time for several months after Edward’s exit. In
contrast, after the accelerator Edward rapidly came to the conclusion that, based
upon his new understanding of what was required in order for the venture to be
a success, he was not prepared to go on. He described his main reason for
abandoning his startup as having both an affective and resource-related aspect:
“Lack of motivation and resources to execute the idea”.
When Edward’s experience is compared to that of Marie (A2) and Andrew (A1),
it is possible to discern three distinct types of ‘closure’ outcome in accelerators.
Edward’s closure was based on his learning about the ‘pain’ associated with
developing a new social venture – and his judgement that he was not prepared
to pay the price. Andrew’s experience (closure after several months of attempted
venture development after the accelerator) was based on his assessment that his
venture was not making progress, despite participation in the accelerator. Marie’s
experience suggests a third model of closure, in that following the accelerator she
felt unconvinced by the model she had developed and therefore replaced it with
another one. Naturally it is difficult to demonstrate an irrefutable link between
participation in an accelerator and the decision to terminate a startup, or abandon
a product and/or a business model. Nonetheless, it is clear that in several cases
the ‘closure’ decision was taken shortly after participating in the Booster
programme. It is also difficult to judge whether closure was justified – but if we
assume that it was, then the accelerator has clearly saved both the entrepreneur
and society considerable resources.
4.5.8 FAME: Legitimacy and Exposure
In addition to the learning-oriented outcomes discussed in the preceding section,
several other outcomes of the Booster accelerators were emphasized by the
entrepreneurs. The most important of these are the related outcomes of
‘legitimacy’ and ‘exposure’.
Despite the title of this dissertation, the experience of many social entrepreneurs
in developing countries is that of being ‘on an island’. Social entrepreneurship is
a relatively new phenomenon and even if it gaining acceptance in many Western
Jönköping International Business School
256
societies, in emerging economies the idea of ‘hybrid’ enterprise is a new one.
Writing of the South African context Kobus Visser (2011, p. 244) notes for
example, that: “the experience in South Africa is one of narrow-mindedness and
isolation […] the role of social enterprise is neither recognized nor rewarded at
any level”. Consequently, social entrepreneurs often struggle to make themselves
understood by government authorities and similar institutions, which are only
familiar with ‘pure’ forms of enterprise: for-profit businesses and charities. Isaac
(A2) described this situation in the following way:
“It’s very difficult to establish a social enterprise of the nature of my enterprise
in Africa, and you see most of the time many people don’t believe you, and
that being the case, what happens is that you are all alone fighting to
succeed. Fighting to gain recognition first of all, fighting to launch your
programme. Number two, fighting to get identified and accepted by the
donors, and by other funding and financing institutions.”
It is possible that social entrepreneurs in developing countries are unusually
isolated from entrepreneurs with similar ventures. However, the accelerator
literature (for example: Feld, 2012), suggests that even in Western contexts
entrepreneurs suffer from a lack of recognition and that a key function of
accelerators is to provide them with legitimacy – or ‘fame’, if we are to employ
an ‘F’ word. Acceptance to (and participation in) a programme suggests to
onlookers that participants are bona fide entrepreneurs.
In the Booster accelerators it was at times clear that the social entrepreneurs
understood the important role of legitimacy more than the accelerator managers.
In A2 for example, the ‘African’ entrepreneurs regularly asked managers to invite
representatives from their embassies to accelerator events. Often the managers
complied with their requests, although my impression is that they were initially
puzzled by the request. Kenny’s (A2) experience after the accelerator however,
suggests that accelerators do confer a large degree of legitimacy on participating
entrepreneurs:
“Actually at the accelerator… at the accelerator people believed in what I was
doing, but when I came back people believed more because I had more
authority: ‘He has been trained, you understand; he knows what he is doing’. I
got more involved with acquaintances, more respect, and all that. Like: ‘Oh
you’ve gone for training!’ and ‘You’re doing okay!’ – and stuff like that.”
Some entrepreneurs began to make use of their increased legitimacy while the
accelerator was still going on. Marie (A2) for example, used her participation in
the accelerator as an excuse to ask individuals to advise her or to take an active
role in her venture:
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
257
“I feel that I need to get a grip of this now and actually approach those who I
want to have with me in this [her venture]. I think I get a little more courage
from the accelerator. I take advantage of it quite a lot too, I say: ‘Now I’m at
this point in my project’.”
Another ‘fame’-related outcome of the accelerator that is closely related to
legitimacy, is that of ‘exposure’. Most entrepreneurs were very much aware of the
publicity surrounding the accelerator and were eager to take advantage of it in
order to market their enterprises. Edward (A1) described the accelerator as a
“platform” and Thomas (A3) talked about his experience in the following way:
“Most importantly, coming back to a developed country… and being able to
network with professionals, strategically. People who… learn about us – and
it has an outreach affect that is useful, that we’re not just in our own world
there doing what we do. That now we get the opportunity to reach more
people, inspire people, and… build bridges and create synergies with people.”
Comments from entrepreneurs after the accelerator suggest that they are hopeful
that their status as ‘alumni’ will continue to help them stay in the public’s (and
investors’) eyes, months and even years after their graduation. Frequently, when
asked about what NSE can do to support them in the future, they are unable to
identify concrete training needs – but do ask that the organisation continue to
publicise their ventures on their website and in the ongoing activities of NSE.
4.5.9 FINANCE: Investment and Revenue
4.5.9.1 Accelerator 1
In this section I briefly comment on the development of the Booster ventures after
the accelerator, in terms of income. This is not the main focus of this study, but
enables readers to make a more informed assessment of the relative impact of
entrepreneurs’ learning on enterprise development. Subsequently, in sections
4.5.10 and 4.5.11, aggregated data on survival and growth, and sourced
investment and revenue
104
are shown for all of the A1 and A2 ventures in relation
to entrepreneur type and venture stage.
Very few of the A1 ventures reported growth a year after the accelerator. It is
difficult to determine if this was the result of a lack of investment, or if their lack
of progress discouraged investment. Regardless of the cause, one year after the
first accelerator, few entrepreneurs reported being able to raise investment (see
104
In this section I distinguish between income that is sourced externally from investors, funders or
loans (’investment’) and income that ventures generate from sales or similar ’internally driven’
processes (’revenue’).
Jönköping International Business School
258
table 4.8). Henrik reported that he had managed to increase his revenue streams
after the accelerator and almost two years later he is still marketing (and I assume
selling) his product on the Garbage Garments webshop. Barry was initially
successful in raising funding and managed to raise enough investment to receive
a second round of matched funding from the Sida Innovations against Poverty
programme. However, one year after the accelerator he was already foreseeing
difficulties in raising further funding and commented:
“Current funding will last until September
105
and we are unlikely to get more
funding […] as the income doesn't cover the costs the prospects are not
good.”
“Our product needs to be modified, version 2, based on all input we have
gotten from customers, but we have no funding for this.”
These comments suggest that one year after the accelerator Barry was already
beginning to feel the effects of the general lack of investment in alternative
energy ventures that hit Scandinavia in 2013 (Fröberg, 2013). It appears that this
lack of funding was an important factor in changing his level of engagement in
CellSun from that of a full-time occupation to that of a part-time, or side-line
activity.
Table 4-8: Investment & Revenue - Accelerator 1.
Entrepreneur Venture Investment after 2 years
Alice GoodLink none
Edward GoodLink none
Andrew C-Cure none
Barry CellSun raised investment
Catrin Imbani raised investment
Gabriela Brottle none
Henrik Garbage Garments increased revenue
4.5.9.2 Accelerator 2
Although the ventures that participated in A2 were in considerably better health
than the A1 ventures a year after the accelerator, the A2 ventures experienced
mixed outcomes in terms of investment and revenue (see table 4.9). Bottle Art did
not report investment, but described a significant increase in revenue from sales
105
I.e.: about 1 ½ years after leaving the accelerator.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
259
– even if Heidi continues to donate her management services to the enterprise
free of charge. Isaac’s venture expanded rapidly after the accelerator, as he
received the large amount of funding from USAID that he applied for while at
Booster. Jamal reported no investment or other type of funding, while Kenny
reported obtaining a loan of € 3 000 from a local NGO.
Table 4-9: Investment & Revenue - Accelerator 2.
Entrepreneur Venture Investment after 1 year
Heidi Bottle Art No investment, increased
revenue.
Isaac MobiClin Major project funding.
Jamal AgriTech No investment.
Kenny Afri-Text Obtained loan from NGO.
Lewis BioVolt Status unknown
Marie Better Work Negotiating with investors.
Nelson Pistols to Ploughs Some project funding.
Peter AfriPads Significant project funding.
Steven Bibl. Communitaries Minor donations/sponsorship.
Marie hoped to finalise a partnership agreement with a large Scandinavian
importer in the months following the one year follow up, but had not yet been
able to source investment. Pistols to Ploughs obtained funding for a pilot project
from an NGO that Nelson met at the accelerator. AfriPads (Peter-A2) received
funding of €180 000 from Sida’s matching fund programme for social innovation
and a further $ 7 000 USD from the United Nations. Steven (A2) in contrast, had
only received minor sponsorship from a local publisher.
4.5.10 FITNESS: Venture Survival and Growth
In this section, I provide details of venture survival and growth for accelerators
one and two. As this dissertation is based on a longitudinal study only limited
data are available however, for accelerator three.
4.5.10.1 Accelerator 1
As noted previously, recruitment to the first accelerator took place in a relatively
short period of time. This, coupled with NSE’s lack of experience in running
accelerators, seems to be reflected in the performance of the participating
ventures, as summarised in table. 4.10. Table 4.10 does not show all of the
information pertinent to the ventures included, nor reflect the uncertainty
associated with some of the data. Alice and Edward were the entrepreneurs least
Jönköping International Business School
260
interested in participating in interviews in A1 and this reluctance was also
reflected in later responses to questionnaires. However, in Alice’s last response
she commented that she was operating the venture in her spare time and that her
partner taking care of finances (Edward) had left the venture. GoodLink is not
listed on her LinkedIn profile and the only reference to the venture on the
internet is the old film made about their product during the accelerator.
Table 4-10: Venture outcomes-Accelerator 1.
Entrepreneur Venture Status after 2 years
Alice GoodLink Very low level of activity
Edward GoodLink Startup abandoned
Andrew C-Cure Startup abandoned
Barry CellSun Still operating, but side-line
Catrin Imbani Still operating
Gabriela Brottle Very low level of activity
Henrik Garbage Garments Still operating, but side-line
Consequently, it appears that the venture has either been abandoned or is
operating at a very low level. Nonetheless, despite giving up on GoodLink, Alice’s
venture partner Edward had not altogether abandoned the idea of creating social
impact through enterprise. Commenting on his decision to leave GoodLink he
wrote:
“Today I'm engaged in another startup that probably matches all the criteria
for actually being a social enterprise.”
One year after A1, Andrew reported that he had abandoned C-Cure. Prior to this
I heard that his partner in the venture had left the startup and begun to work for
a large electronics firm. Imbani is still in business and has managed to source Sida
financing through the Innovations against Poverty programme. However, on Catrin’s
LinkedIn profile she states that she was involved with Imbani only until February,
2013 – seven months after the end of the accelerator. Gabriela’s venture still
exists on paper, but one year after the accelerator she was very down and
commented:
“Last November I was feeling that the project was so near to be real, but last
May the whole thing felt down in a hole. I have found it hard to go on with it
now, mainly because I got very disappointed”.
Almost two years after the accelerator it is clear that Gabriella is making very
little progress and NSE manager Frida commented that she thinks that she has
given up on Brottle. Henrik in contrast, maintains a low, but constant level of
activity in Garbage Garments (see case study) – and has recruited a partner to the
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
261
venture. Barry’s venture seemed to be the most promising in the months
following the accelerator, but almost two years afterwards he now lists another
occupation and organisation under “Experience” on LinkedIn. This suggests that
he has recently been forced to make CellSun more of a side-line occupation – a
suggestion supported by the lack of updates on his venture’s webpage and
Facebook page.
4.5.10.2 Accelerator 2
Data is not available to enable a ‘two year after’ analysis of the A2 ventures and
a ‘one year after’ analysis is provided instead (see table 4.11).
Table 4-11: Venture outcomes-Accelerator 2.
Entrepreneur Venture Status after 2 years
Heidi Bottle Art Still operating, some growth
Isaac MobiClin Significant growth
Jamal AgriTech Still operating, but side-line
Kenny Afri-Text Still operating, some growth
Lewis BioVolt Status unknown
Marie Better Work Still operating, some growth
Nelson Pistols to Ploughs Still operating, some growth
Peter AfriPads Still operating, some growth
Steven Bibl. Communitaries Still operating, some growth
As was the case with the A1 entrepreneurs, the outcome table does not do justice
to the different type of development experienced by the accelerator participants.
With the exception of Lewis (who did not reply to any of the follow-up emails
and questionnaires) and Jamal, all of the entrepreneurs reported experiencing
some kind of growth after the accelerator. In contrast to A1, no one reported
abandoning their ventures – even if Jamal’s responses suggest that he has made
little or no progress since leaving the programme.
Heidi reported that Bottle Art had moved into new premises and had employed
several new employees. She summarises the progress made in the year after the
accelerator in the following words:
“We opened a shop - hired four more full-time employees. We have expanded
our product line, moved our workshop, increased production, created
partnerships with retail outlets and other small production workshops that
make things for our shop”.
Jönköping International Business School
262
Isaac’s venture expanded rapidly after the accelerator, as he received the large
amount of funding from USAID that he applied for while at Booster – as well as
a smaller amount from the United Nations in response to a sudden spate of
flooding in Indonesia. Consequently, he spent the following year travelling
around Africa and Asia, recruiting personnel, and setting up his mobile clinics
and local offices in the countries in question.
Jamal moved into a local incubator soon after the accelerator and began
partnering with his coach there. He also made a visit to the farmers he was
targeting in South Asia, but did not receive the response he expected. In his
response to the question about current challenges in the one year follow-up he
wrote:
“Difficulties in engaging the farmers. I travelled there and talked to them. It
was hard to mobilise them. There are also other forces opposed to people
becoming more independent – rich people in the area who need the farmers
for cheap labour.”
More than a year after the accelerator Jamal is still struggling to identify exactly
how his venture will operate and who he will partner with. Kenny reports that
his texting service is still in operation and that he has been able to recruit new
individuals to his team. He is also developing his product and has been able to
secure a loan from a local NGO. Marie’s venture continues to develop, despite a
radical restructuring during the summer after the accelerator – during which she
both changed the name of her venture and decided to develop a different
product. After this change her mentor was convinced of the feasibility of the new
idea and is now a partner in the venture. She is also close to finalising an
agreement with a large Scandinavian wholesaler (who imports goods from
factories in Asia and China) and is negotiating with several other large firms.
Nelson’s venture continues to operate, but it is difficult to obtain reliable
information about his activities. Throughout the accelerator his emphasis was on
raising money for his venture and he appeared to expend far less effort on
developing his business plan and social value proposition. The five month
follow-up interview was difficult to conduct due to a poor internet/telephone
connection and provided little new information about his venture’s development.
The same was true of the one year follow-up questionnaire, in which he lists the
challenges facing the venture as simply: “Seek funding for Business”. Despite
this apparent obsession with funding, Nelson’s reply to the questionnaire makes
it clear that he came into contact with a Scandinavian NGO while at the
accelerator, that is prepared to partner with him. The NGO agreed to fund a
pilot project and after a planned visit to West Africa, hopes to partner with Pistols
to Ploughs in scaling up the project.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
263
Peter’s venture continues to operate and is in a phase of expansion and product
refinement. AfriPads was expanding its network of female entrepreneurs and sales
representatives as Peter responded to the one year follow-up and had received
significant funding. Peter is also in negotiations with impact investors from the
United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Steven’s venture (Bibliothèques Communitaries) expanded after the accelerator,
setting up its first ‘genuine’ community library
106
and becoming increasingly
visible as an actor in Steven’s home country. Steven emphasizes the community-
oriented nature of his enterprise and suggests that this may have been a factor in
its slow development:
“My start up is a community driven programme and it requires some
community mobilisation efforts. This takes time because grass root
communities react differently to the concept”.
Regardless of the reason for its pattern of development, Bibliothèques
Communitaries has been able to source significantly less funding than most of the
other ventures, only reporting a small donation from a local publisher.
4.5.11 Venture Type and Stage, and Performance
When venture performance is assessed in relation to the type of entrepreneur
initiating the venture and to venture stage, several patterns emerge (see table
4.12).
First of all, in terms of survival, enterprises initiated by indigenous social
entrepreneurs appear to stand a greater chance of staying in business after the
accelerator process, when compared to all other types of enterprise. All of the
ventures whose status is ‘startup > part-time’ and ‘startup abandoned’ are
associated with expatriate social entrepreneurs. Even expatriate social
entrepreneurs with long experience (such as Barry), reported reducing their
engagement in their enterprises to that of a ‘part-time’ or ‘side-line’ occupation
as time went by. In contrast, the only enterprise run by a more experienced
indigenous entrepreneur
107
(Isaac), experienced significant growth after the
accelerator.
Social enterprises founded by expatriate entrepreneurs who engage in a startup
on the basis of their professional experience/identity (the ‘knowledgeable
106
The pilot library was located at the NGO office.
107
Lewis (A2) is also classified as ‘veteran-indigenous’, but did not respond to requests for follow-up
interviews, nor fill in the survey one year after the accelerator.
Jönköping International Business School
264
improvisers’) also appear less likely to survive and more likely to develop into
part-time occupations. It is possible however, that stage is a factor in these
outcomes, as many of the social entrepreneurs in the ‘knowledgeable improviser-
expatriate’ category entered the accelerator at the vulnerable ‘concepting’ phase
of venture development. In contrast, many of the indigenous social entrepreneurs
in this category had already progressed to the ‘commitment’ or ‘validation’ stages.
Unfortunately survey data is not yet available for most of these (A3) ventures,
but interviews suggest that all of the ventures associated with this group are still
in business – and in many cases, thriving.
Despite the general tendencies outlined above, several exceptions can be found,
among both the ‘expatriate’ and ‘knowledgeable improviser’ entrepreneurs. Marie
(A2, KI-E) had spent many years in the regions at which her product is targeted,
and her enterprise developed healthily after the accelerator. Heidi’s venture (A2,
I-E) also reported significant development after the programme. Although she
did not have the professional experience of
Marie, Heidi is similar to her in having many years of experience in the region
where her social enterprise is located – and her familiarity with the region may
be enhanced by the fact that she lives there.
When the performance of the Booster enterprises in terms of sourced investment and
revenue is related to entrepreneur ‘type’, and to venture stage; a less distinct pattern
emerges (see table 4.12). Both ‘indigenous’ and ‘expatriate’ entrepreneurs
succeeded in raising ‘substantial’ or ‘moderate’
108
investment after the accelerator,
but it is important to note that for two of the ‘expatriate’ entrepreneurs this is a
truth that requires modification. Barry (A2, ‘veteran-expatriate’) was able to raise
initial funding, but was subsequently unable to raise enough funding to grow his
enterprise. Imbani, the enterprise that Catrin (A1, ‘innocent-expatriate’) was
associated with while at the accelerator, received funding from Sida more than a
year after the accelerator – but by that time Catrin was no longer associated with
the enterprise. When the stage enterprises were at during the accelerator is
brought into the equation, it is clear that the two enterprises that had reached a
more advanced stage – attaining what Start-up Commons (2014) terms
“minimum viable product” and “validation” – were able to source significantly
higher levels of funding. Both of these enterprises were led by ‘indigenous’
entrepreneurs. Only one venture that was at the ‘pre-startup’ stage during the
accelerator (Marie /Better Work) reported sourcing significant investment within
a year of graduation.
108
Defined as at least $ 5 000 USD.
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
265
N
a
m
e
/
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
A
c
c
.
P
r
o
v
e
n
a
n
c
e
C
a
t
.
S
t
a
t
u
s
a
t
s
t
a
r
t
*
*
S
t
a
t
u
s
a
f
t
e
r
1
y
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
B
a
r
r
y
/
C
e
l
l
S
u
n
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
V
-
E
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
L
e
w
i
s
/
B
i
o
V
o
l
t
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
I
s
a
a
c
/
M
o
b
i
C
l
i
n
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
s
c
a
l
i
n
g
(
2
)
r
a
p
i
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
T
h
o
m
a
s
/
T
o
u
r
F
a
i
r
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
V
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
i
c
e
/
G
o
o
d
l
i
n
k
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
n
o
n
e
A
n
d
r
e
w
/
C
-
C
u
r
e
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
n
o
n
e
E
d
w
a
r
d
/
G
o
o
d
l
i
n
k
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
n
o
n
e
M
i
r
i
a
m
/
B
e
t
t
e
r
W
o
r
k
A
2
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
K
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
t
e
a
d
y
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
l
a
/
B
r
o
t
t
l
e
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
K
I
-
E
i
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
-
2
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
n
o
n
e
O
l
g
a
/
R
o
u
g
h
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
s
A
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
t
i
e
n
c
e
/
F
a
i
r
C
a
r
e
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
b
e
c
c
a
/
S
p
r
e
a
d
I
T
A
3
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
K
I
-
I
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
V
i
n
a
y
/
S
u
n
p
o
w
e
r
A
3
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
i
a
K
I
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Z
a
y
d
/
P
u
r
e
t
e
c
h
A
3
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
s
t
K
I
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
r
i
n
/
I
m
b
a
n
i
A
1
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
C
E
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
l
e
f
t
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
n
o
n
e
H
e
i
d
i
/
B
o
t
t
l
e
A
r
t
A
2
N
o
r
t
h
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
E
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
t
e
a
d
y
g
r
o
w
t
h
n
o
n
e
S
t
e
v
e
n
/
B
i
b
l
.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
a
i
r
e
s
A
2
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
s
o
m
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
i
n
o
r
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
N
e
l
s
o
n
/
P
i
s
t
o
l
s
t
o
P
l
o
u
g
h
s
A
2
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
o
m
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
s
o
m
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
P
e
t
e
r
/
A
f
r
i
P
a
d
s
A
2
E
a
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
o
m
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
W
i
l
l
i
s
/
A
f
r
i
C
h
o
c
A
3
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
C
E
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
H
e
n
r
i
k
/
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
G
a
r
m
e
n
t
s
A
1
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
I
-
E
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
0
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
m
i
n
o
r
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
N
a
d
i
a
/
F
e
m
i
c
h
a
r
g
e
A
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
I
-
E
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
(
-
1
)
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
J
a
m
a
l
/
A
g
r
i
T
e
c
h
A
2
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
*
I
-
E
i
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
-
2
)
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
>
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
n
o
n
e
K
e
n
n
y
/
A
f
r
i
-
T
e
x
t
A
2
W
e
s
t
A
f
r
i
c
a
I
-
I
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
s
o
m
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
i
n
o
r
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
/
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
*
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
a
n
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
n
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
w
h
o
i
m
m
i
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
s
a
n
a
d
u
l
t
.
*
*
S
t
a
g
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
r
t
u
p
C
o
m
m
o
n
s
(
2
0
1
4
)
Table 4-12: Venture performance related to category, stage and
performance.
Jönköping International Business School
266
A challenge with regards to the analysis of indicators of venture performance
(such as survival, growth and investment) is that it is difficult to know which
factors are the causes and which are the results. For example: were ventures
abandoned due to difficulties in sourcing investment, or is the lack of investment
simply a consequence of entrepreneurs terminating their startups? Despite this
difficulty, it is possible to distinguish a pattern for ventures operating in
developing countries and led either by ‘indigenous’ entrepreneurs or ‘expatriate’
entrepreneurs living in developing countries (for example: Heidi-A2). These
ventures tend to survive longer, but attract only low or very moderate amounts
of investment/funding – even if some also report increases in their revenue
streams. For more reliable conclusions to be made however, a more extensive
quantitative analysis is necessary – and as this study emphasizes the learning
process in accelerators, this is not a task that I embark on here.
4.5.12 Conceptualising Accelerator Outcomes
In the preceding sections the main outcomes of the Booster accelerators have been
identified. For each outcome I have attempted to ‘dig beneath the surface’ in
order to provide readers with a richer and more nuanced understanding of each
area. I concluded by discussing the more obvious outcomes of the Booster
accelerators, for example: venture survival, growth and investment. These
outcomes are tangible in nature and therefore relatively easy to identify. In the
initials sections however, I introduced several outcomes of learning that are more
intangible and harder to measure (for example: expanded network, clearer ideas
and increased confidence). Despite the ‘fuzzy’ nature of these outcomes, initial
reports from the A2 and A3 entrepreneurs in particular, suggest that they
enhance venture performance. Nevertheless, this study clearly demonstrates that
the intangible benefits associated with accelerators are incapable of ensuring
venture success in isolation. This is most apparent in the contrasting outcomes
experienced by the two ‘veteran’ entrepreneurs Barry and Isaac. Despite the fact
that both individuals participated in very similar accelerators, had long experience
and extensive networks, and were highly committed to their ventures – one
venture succeeded and the other did not. Some of the factors associated with
failure are discussed in section 5.8.
The outcomes associated with the Booster accelerators are depicted in the figure
below. The outcomes depicted by the triangles in the figure suggest that
accelerator outcomes are not only related to the development of new knowledge,
but also to other factors. These other aspects may involve knowledge, but in
order to capture their meaning more sufficiently it is necessary to recognise that
other factors are involved. For example: an expanded network is not only the
result of an entrepreneur’s learning about the existence of other actors, but also
these actors’ awareness of the entrepreneur and their willingness to interact with
Social Entrepreneurs and Accelerators
267
them. For this reason I suggest that it is useful to refer to accelerator outcomes
in terms of both enhanced knowledge and capabilities (Obrecht, 2011).
In figure 4.6 some outcomes are outlined in bold lines, while others are not. This
is done in order to differentiate between outcomes that were clearly seen in the
accelerators studied – and outcomes that were not so pronounced. For example:
most entrepreneurs commented on the role the accelerator played in helping
them clarify their ideas, but relatively few individuals were able to source
financing after the programme. Similarly, all the entrepreneurs commented on
the contribution the accelerator made in the form of an expanded network
(‘friends’) – but comments that related to belonging to a community of practice
(‘family’) of social entrepreneurs were less common
Despite differences in the frequency of a contribution being named by
entrepreneurs, I believe it is nevertheless important to include each of them in
the ‘outcomes’ diagram. An awareness of the different areas in which accelerators
have the potential to contribute to nascent ventures can assist managers as they
design future programmes. This understanding could help managers to ‘niche’
their accelerators, by focusing development efforts on particular areas such as
network or skills development – or the exposure of participating ventures to a
particular audience. Managers could emphasize the particular contributions of
their programmes by using different-sized triangles to illustrate areas that their
Figure 4-6: Main Outcomes of the Booster Accelerators
Jönköping International Business School
268
accelerators pay particular attention to – or neglect. This in turn, would enable
entrepreneurs to make more informed choices when considering applying to a
number of accelerators.
Having identified the main outcomes of the entrepreneurship education
‘intervention’ discussed in section 4.3, I now move on to discuss the ‘why’ of
social entrepreneurial learning in accelerators. What are the underlying processes
that explain the outcomes of accelerator education?
269
5 Explaining Social Entrepreneurial
Learning in Accelerators
5.1 Overview
In this section I develop a theory of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators. In
chapter two I synthesised theories of entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurship
education and adult education in the figure reproduced below.
Intent
Learning-oriented
DESIGN
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE &
CAPABILITIES
Long-term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Creating
disjuncture
Transforming
disjuncture
Acting-
Feeli ng-
Thinking
Intent
The ENTREPRENEUR
Immersion in
Learning Process
Figure 5-1: A preliminary model of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators
Jönköping International Business School
270
The figure is a basic conceptualisation of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of entrepreneurial
learning in accelerators and provides what Whetten (1989, p. 491) describes as a
“framework for interpreting patterns, or discrepancies in our empirical
observations.” As he points out however, in order to make a theoretical
contribution it is necessary to begin to explain the processes associated with the
‘what’ and the ‘how’. In subsequent sections I therefore discuss my empirical
observations using this figure as a conceptual ‘scaffold’. As I do so, I refine and
modify the figure by first of all adding ‘meat’ to its ‘bones’ – and secondly, by
modifying it where necessary.
5.2 Background and Stage: the Two ‘Givens’
Jarvis (2010) suggests that the ‘life-world’ of the adult has a significant effect on
their learning. In keeping with Dewey (1938) he argues that individuals generally
make sense of new situations by referring to previous experiences. In the context
of accelerators the adults in question are entrepreneurs – and in this study social
entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs’ accounts of the accelerator process suggest
that initially, two main factors affect their learning: their backgrounds and their
ventures’ stage of development.
5.2.1 The Entrepreneur and their Life-world
The complexity of the individual’s life-world is overwhelming and it is naturally
impossible for a short academic text to do justice to its impact on the
development of the person. Despite this complexity, entrepreneurs’ accounts of
the accelerator process underline the idea that individuals do not enter the
programme as ‘empty vessels’, but rather with intricate patterns of experience
that affect their learning in distinctive – and at times unexpected ways.
As noted in chapter four, one of the outcomes of the second Booster accelerator
had to do with the creation of a more ‘business’ oriented mindset among the
entrepreneurs. The majority of participants in A2 came from an African
background and had been active in ‘third sector’ organisations such as non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and charities. In A1, Catrin (a Western
European) shared this orientation, suggesting the existence of a particular third
sector ‘mindset’ that is linked not only with particular geographical settings (the
developing world), but also with particular organisational contexts. Frequently,
this mindset assumes that organisations prosper on the basis of funding, rather
than investment – and by means of a cycle of projects, rather than an ongoing,
sustainable business model. Despite the accelerators emphasis of the business
case it was clear in both accelerators that ‘old habits die hard’. For example: after
several weeks in A1, when asked about her particular needs Catrin asked for more
input on writing successful grant applications. In A3 Willis was asked the same
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
271
question and asked for more contacts with funders
109
. In A2 requests such as
these coincided with entrepreneurs’ comments that they were undergoing a
radical change in how they thought about their enterprises. These comments
appear to contradict one another and may indicate a contrast between what
Argyris and Schön (1996) term the “theories in use” and “espoused” theories of
the entrepreneurs. It is also possible however, that the comments reflect a
genuine inner struggle and an ongoing, iterative (as opposed to linear) process of
change.
The impact of a ‘life-world’ that is linked to development aid and third sector
organisations also seems to be related to the entrepreneur’s attitude to this world
and their perception of the accelerator’s place in it. Gabriella (A1) for example,
had many friends who worked in NGOs and clearly had vicarious experience of
the ‘hand-to-mouth’ life of project-based charity organisations. Consequently she
was dissatisfied with the NGO/charity model and as she learned more about
social entrepreneurship, she perceived it as a radical break with this negative
experience. In contrast, it appeared that many of the entrepreneurs who had a
background in NGOs understood the accelerator to be an additional actor in the
development aid field, rather than an actor in a distinct organisational arena. This
was particularly clear in the case of the entrepreneurs who were participating in
an accelerator for the second time (Nelson and Peter in A2 and Willis in A3).
Nelson and Willis had both participated in the programme run by the Unreasonable
Institute and Peter had completed the Global Social Benefit Accelerator at Santa Clara
University. Their understanding of the Booster accelerator appeared to be that it
was not so much a radical alternative to aid-funded NGOs, but more of an
additional actor in the same field – and not least, an excellent way of expanding
their network of funders.
Building on the above examples, I suggest that entrepreneurs’ ‘life-worlds’ have
on impact on their learning in terms of magnifying or minimising their
experiences of disjuncture. Writing as a social constructionist, Jarvis (1987)
argues that the experiences that individuals are exposed to do not in themselves
contain meaning, but that individuals attribute meaning to their experiences. In
accelerators, entrepreneurs’ perception of social entrepreneurship as a radical
alternative to development aid is more likely to be perceived as a significant
disjuncture when it contrasts with the experience of the entrepreneur. From the
perspective of Piaget (1952) this in turn may stimulate a process of
accommodation (the restructuring of mental models), rather than of assimilation
(the modification of what seems to fit existing mental models). However,
entrepreneurs who are relatively satisfied with the NGO/charity system – and
who understand the accelerator as an actor in this system – may initially be less
109
In both of these cases there is a small but significant difference between on the one hand: ”grant
application” and ”business plan”, and on the other hand: ”funder” and ”investor” (or venture capitalist).
Jönköping International Business School
272
disposed to experience the degree of disjuncture necessary to engage in
accommodative, as opposed to assimilative learning. Entrepreneurs who are
dissatisfied with the NGO/charity system (such as Gabriella-A1), appear to be
more pre-disposed to engage in a restructuring of their mental models. However
it is also possible to interpret the behaviour of the social entrepreneurs through
the lens of Hjorth’s (2011) Deleuzian theory. From that perspective one could
argue that for the social entrepreneurs with an extensive background in
aid/charity, a considerably larger “provocation” was required in order to create
the affect needed for ‘deterritorialisation’ to take place.
What is useful about Hjorth’s conceptualisation of the idea of ‘provocation’ is
that it enhances our understanding of the ‘black box’ of disjuncture that
educational theorists such as Piaget and Jarvis identify as the building block of
learning. By introducing concepts such as deterritorialisation and decoding, it is
easier to catch a glimpse of the micro processes associated with these
experiences. However, the contrasting experiences of Gabriella – and Nelson,
Peter and Willis (as described above) are important to analyse further. At first
glance Gabriella might seem to be the entrepreneur with the highest potential for
taking on board the ideas of social entrepreneurship. She has relatively little
‘territory’ to rid herself of and can quickly progress to the decoding phase of
learning. However, the very fact that she has so little luggage to encumber her in
this transition, also means that she takes very little with her on her ‘new’ journey
– and indeed, with the passing of time her social entrepreneurial journey proved
to be fairly short. Nelson, Peter and Willis on the other hand were required to
undergo a more radical process of deterritorialisation (the “uprooting” from old
“habits and practices”- Hjorth 2011, p.57), before they could engage in decoding
and subsequently experimentation. Nonetheless, it is arguable that the depth of
experience that accompanied them on the learning process – once transformed,
was important to the development of their enterprises.
In addition to their professional backgrounds, aspects of the entrepreneurs’ life-
worlds that affected learning in the accelerator also include gender, ethnicity,
religion and entrepreneurial experience. With regards to gender, Marie (A2)
commented on her instinctive interaction with Heidi:
“Heidi and me, we’ve helped each other and given one another feedback [...]
but we were the only women and... I guess, the only Westerners.”
The interaction facilitated by shared gender appears to be reinforced by factors
such as ethnicity and culture. Among the A3 entrepreneurs for example, Patience
tended to interact more with Rebecca – who was not only female, but also came
from the same country. This dynamic is clearly similar to that in A2, where Marie
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
273
and Heidi associated their interaction with both gender and culture
110
. In addition
to this however, there was also a clear gender division in A3 when it came to
interaction, despite the NSE’s successful attempt at recruiting an equal number
of males and females. Nonetheless, in A3 Patience commented on the way in
which shared faith enriched her relationship with her mentor (they were both
Christians) – suggesting that additional factors can contribute to interaction.
Even the sharing of a simple habit such as smoking (A3: Willis and Vinay)
appears to stimulate interaction.
The behaviours discussed above illustrate the impact that the life-world of the
entrepreneur has on their interaction with other individuals. In more abstract
terms it appears that when entrepreneurs enter accelerators, they are alert to
signals from other participants that suggest commonality. Interaction is initially
based on basic (or obvious) characteristics, such as gender and ethnicity. The case
of Patience and her mentor however, suggests that if alternative sources of
commonality are discovered, effective interaction can develop at a quicker pace.
This idea implies that activities that foster the discovery of commonalities among
accelerator participants may be an effective way of fostering interaction.
In addition to the factors discussed above, Diamanto Politis (2005) suggests that
entrepreneurs are characterised by different career orientations. I suggest that
these orientations (linear, expert, spiral and transitory) frequently interact with
the entrepreneurial typologies developed in section 4.4 – and affect
entrepreneurs’ intentions and learning. Although the study of career orientations
is not the main focus of this study, it appears that they do influence the
accelerator outcomes. Henrik’s behaviour prior to entering the accelerator for
example, suggests that he values variety – and that his career orientation may be
‘transitory’ in character. The strong identification of Edward and Alice with their
professions suggests that they have an ‘expert’ career orientation – and it is
possible that this orientation is common to entrepreneurs in the ‘knowledgeable
improviser’ category. Barry displays many of the characteristics of the ‘spiral’
career orientation (emphasising creativity and personal development) – while
Isaac and Lewis’ concern with status implies a ‘linear’ (hierarchical) orientation.
Nonetheless, an additional ‘others-oriented’ career orientation appears to be at
work in many of the Booster entrepreneurs, suggesting that the four career
orientations discussed by Brousseau et al. (1996)
111
may not adequately explain
the orientations of social entrepreneurs. The definition of this ‘fifth’ career
orientation lies however, outside of the scope of this study. Nonetheless, my
110
These two female entrepreneurs did not come from the same country, but shared a common
’Western’ culture.
111
Politis’ (2005) discussion builds on the ideas of these scholars.
Jönköping International Business School
274
empirical material clearly suggests that career orientations exist and that they are
an important part of entrepreneurs’ ‘life-worlds’ when they enter accelerators.
A final way in which the entrepreneur’s life-world affects their learning in an
accelerator has to do with their entrepreneurial experience. Bandura (1965; 2006)
suggests that individuals are able to learn ‘vicariously’ by observing others directly
or, as they become more capable, by learning about others through text or
narrative. Blenker and Christensen (2010) discuss the roles that practicing
entrepreneurs can play in entrepreneurship education and suggest that in
education for entrepreneurship; entrepreneurs can take on the roles of mentor,
reality check or role model. The experience of the entrepreneurs in the Booster
accelerators extends the ideas of these scholars by suggesting additional factors
that facilitate vicarious learning. Once again the idea of similarity is central.
Several entrepreneurs comment that their interaction with practicing
entrepreneurs helped them learn, primarily because of perceived common
ground. In A1 for example: Henrik enthused about the visit by a well-known
Scandinavian social entrepreneur:
“I thought he was really good. Mostly I think because it was so unbelievably
good to talk to him, as he had sort of done the same things as I’ve done, we
understood each other really well and he had experienced a lot of what I had
experienced in Brazil.”
In A3 Rebecca made a similar comment after a study visit to a successful
Scandinavian social enterprise. However, her comment reflects not so much
shared startup experience, but rather experience in the same environment:
“I was amazed with the idea and it inspired me to be more innovative. They
have a solution at almost at every stage… So I was inspired, yeah. And they
also have a branch in East Africa and the scenario that they described was
very familiar. So, I kind of identified myself faster with them and I liked their
solution.”
The above examples illustrate not only the contribution of practicing
entrepreneurs to entrepreneurship education, but also the role played by the
individual’s previous experience
112
in enhancing (or reducing) opportunities for
vicarious learning. Rebecca refers to her awareness of areas of commonality as
part of a process of ‘identifying’ with visitors. For both Henrik and Rebecca
shared experience seems to infer relevance – and relevance in turn encourages a
positive attitude to learning. Importantly, Rebecca suggests that commonality
accelerates ‘identification’ and hence, learning.
112
Part of what Jarvis refers to with the term “lifeworld”.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
275
In the context of student-oriented entrepreneurship education, Blenker and
Christensen (2010) emphasize that care must be taken when involving practicing
entrepreneurs in teaching activities. They suggest that the individuals be selected
who are appropriate to the purpose – or the envisaged end result – of the
education. This clearly implies that the educational strategy espoused by Blenker
and Christensen involves a ‘future-oriented’ logic. This is perhaps inevitable, as
their discussion relates primarily to the education of students with little
entrepreneurial experience. My study suggests however, that a different logic
operates when nascent [social] entrepreneurs participate in education. Nascent
entrepreneurs appear to assess the relevance of education (in this case the input
of practicing entrepreneurs), by being alert to comments that indicate shared
experience. This implies that when interaction with practicing entrepreneurs is
included in the education of nascent entrepreneurs, a ‘past-oriented’ strategy
needs to be combined with the ‘future-oriented’ strategy discussed by Blenker
and Christensen. Nascent entrepreneurs seem to assess the relevance of inputs
from practicing entrepreneurs with reference to past experience, before they are
willing to take on board ideas that are more oriented towards the future.
5.2.2 Entrepreneurial Stage, Industry and Context
Among the Booster entrepreneurs, the impact of the individual’s life-world was
not limited to factors such as ethnicity, gender, religion and experiences of
entrepreneurship. In addition to these aspects; factors such as entrepreneurial
stage, industry and geographical context also affected individuals’ interaction.
After the first accelerator, entrepreneurs were asked what was most important to
them as they interacted with their peers: being in a similar industry or being at a
similar stage of enterprise development. Their response was remarkably
consistent, with entrepreneurs who expressed a preference saying it was more
important to be at a similar stage of development. Isaac (A2) expressed a similar
preference, but nevertheless emphasized the importance of industry-specific
input:
(Duncan): “I’m also thinking about the industry versus the stage thing… does
it matter if you’re from different industries, if you’re at the same stage in the
business process? Or is it even better to be putting like, health entrepreneurs
together…?”
“Not really. Social enterprise, the concept is the same. You may be attacking
a different problem, but the concept of developing an enterprise is the same.”
[…] But away from that, separate industry specific coaching sessions must be
organised and these individual coaching sessions must target or must look at
where each enterprise is in the development stage.”
(Duncan): “So if I understand the way you’re talking about it, it should be more
industry focused and less focused on the stage of the enterprise. If you have
Jönköping International Business School
276
to choose between the two, would you prefer to be talking to another
entrepreneur at the same stage as you or somebody at a different stage but in
the same industry? What is the best?”
“I’d rather be talking to an entrepreneur at the same stage as me. That’s more
relevant.”
Naturally some social entrepreneurs commented that it was also useful if their
peers were working in a societal context similar to theirs (for example: in sub-
Saharan Africa). Some said that they had found it useful to interact with others
who were using similar technologies (for example: mobile phones), but Barry
(A1) was adamant that recruiting entrepreneurs from the same industry would
have a negative impact on the cohort’s creativity and diversity. These findings echo
the experience of the entrepreneurs studied by Hjorth (2011) in the TCP
incubator. In the TCP context, incubator managers emphasized the idea that
cohort heterogeneity was a key factor in both establishing a culture of dialogue –
and also speeding up the creation of this culture. These ideas have clear
implications for practitioners and suggest that when recruiting startups,
accelerator managers need to aim first of all for a homogenous group in terms of
participating ventures’ stage of development. It is also useful if entrepreneurs are
targeting markets with similar characteristics. However, recruiting entrepreneurs
from the same industry does not appear to have a positive impact on accelerator
dynamics and may even reduce (or delay) the development of an effective
learning climate. These observations are supported by Susan Smith’s (2011, p.
230) research, in which she emphasizes that the creation of “peer-to-peer
learning space” is dependent on entrepreneurs being in the same “boat”. This
study adds to her findings however, by suggesting that some aspects of the
entrepreneur’s ‘boat’ (such as ‘stage’) are more important than others, with
regards to the development of learning-oriented interaction.
Entrepreneurs’ ideas about the ideal make-up of the accelerator cohort suggest
that the recruitment process is extremely important to the subsequent
functioning of the accelerator – and not only because good selection procedures
will enhance startup performance. Rogers (1969) suggests that individuals tend
to engage more intensely in learning that is relevant – and therefore meaningful
to them. This study suggests that for interaction with peers to be perceived as
meaningful by accelerator participants, the accelerator needs to recruit
entrepreneurs in a similar situation. Participants’ comments suggest that for
nascent social entrepreneurs it is the shared experience of being at a similar stage
in the founding a new enterprise that is perceived as most meaningful. Although
entrepreneurs tend to interact with one another on the basis of gender and shared
culture/ethnicity, when they discuss the relevance of peer interaction a shared
‘stage’ of venture development takes precedence over other factors.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
277
Rogers’ (ibid.) discussion of the role of perceived relevance on the learning
process is a useful complement to Jarvis’ ideas. It partly explains the ‘same stage’
principle of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators that is one of the
contributions of this study. Nonetheless, insights from the literature on
cooperative learning suggest that entrepreneurs may feel that they risk losing out,
if their peers are at a different stage of development. Johnson, Johnson and Smith
(2007) argue that learning is enhanced when individuals believe that their own
success in learning is linked to the successful learning of their peers. They term
this phenomenon “positive interdependence” and contrast it with a situation of
“no interdependence”. In accelerators A1 and A2 the entrepreneurs whose
enterprises had reached a later stage of development (Barry and Isaac) described
their learning in terms very similar to those that Johnson et al. (ibid.) use to
describe a situation of no interdependence. For example, Barry (A1) described
his reason for advocating a ‘same stage’ recruitment in the following way:
“I think it’s good if you’re at the same stage. If someone is commercialising
and someone else is… well, I guess you could learn from one another, but
then you’ll be completely uninterested in each other’s problems.”
Johnson et al. (2007) characterise learning in a context of no interdependence as
“a situation in which individuals perceive that they can reach their goal regardless
of whether other individuals in the situation attain or do not attain their goals”
(ibid., p.17). In A1, veteran social entrepreneur Barry interacted with his peers at
a level similar to that exhibited by the other entrepreneurs, even if he commented
that he received very little back apart from inspiration. In A2, Isaac (also a
‘veteran’) was forced to rely on his mentor and on visiting speakers for new
learning. In contrast to Barry however, he was less inclined to engage in
interactions where he felt that he was more often on the ‘giving’, rather than the
‘receiving’ end.
Entrepreneurs’ comments on their interactions with one another suggest that the
literature on cooperative learning may provide future studies of accelerators with
important insights. In particular, the notion of positive cathexis (the “investment
of positive psychological energy in objects outside of oneself”) appears to be
useful (Johnson & Johnson 2007, p.17). A more complete account of
entrepreneurial learning in accelerators might be created if Jarvis’ ideas are
complemented with those of Revan’s (1969) – on the role of meaning and
relevance in education – and with the ideas of cooperative learning scholars.
These additions appear to offer credible explanations of the underlying
psychological factors that affect learning in the context of a group (or cohort) of
learners.
By adding detail to the conceptual scaffolding described at the beginning of this
chapter, it is now possible to refine the part of the initial figure that was labelled
Jönköping International Business School
278
“The Entrepreneur”. My discussion of the impact of entrepreneurs’ life-worlds
on the accelerator process suggests that it is problematic to model accelerators
from the perspective of a single individual. Instead it is more useful to focus on
the characteristics of the cohort. Consequently, the initial scaffolding can now be
modified to take this understanding into account (see figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2 illustrates my suggestion that some characteristics of accelerator
cohorts are more important than others and furthermore, that they influence
outcomes in different ways. The black horizontal bars indicate factors that relate
primarily to the potential for peers to contribute to the development of other
participants’ ventures. [Shared] stage is printed in bold to emphasize its overriding
importance in stimulating peer interaction that relates to venture development.
The white horizontal bars indicate cohort characteristics that were observed to
influence the probability of peers forming bonds that facilitated effective
interaction – and hence, learning. It is important to note however, that some of
these factors are less universal in operation and may only be important when
other factors come into play. Gender for example, did not appear to have a
significant impact in the first accelerator (which was ethnically more
homogeneous than the two subsequent cohorts). It appeared to have more of an
impact in the second and third programmes – while in the second accelerator
gender and culture coincided, making it difficult to know which of the two
factors had the most impact on the group dynamic.
To summarise therefore: initial experiences of commonality (gender, culture,
ethnicity) appear to provide a basic, yet clearly significant foundation for peer
interaction. These basic sources of commonality represent the first ‘stage’ of a
two-stage learning ‘rocket’ where the contribution of peers to the second stage
Figure 5-2: Entrepreneurial characteristics that
influence interaction in accelerator cohorts
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
279
(effective venture development) is primarily influenced by the experience of
being at a similar stage of venture development.
5.3 The Perceived Task
Boud and Walker (1991, p. 15) suggest that among adult learners, intent has a
significant impact on learning – providing “a particular orientation within a given
situation […] a reason why learners come to the particular learning event […] a
particular focus of consciousness: the direction of our perception along particular
lines”. Entrepreneurship scholars discuss among other things the development
of the intent to start a new venture (Krueger, 2009a; Mair & Noboa, 2006), but
these discussions tend to focus on a more macro, long-term vision of venturing.
Although there were some exceptions in the Booster accelerators (for example:
Edward A2), the majority of participants had already developed an intent to
found an enterprise. Consequently, they were participating in the programme
with the overall intent to found a social enterprise – but came to the accelerator
with a more specific task (or set of tasks) in mind. For example: to connect with
investors, write a business plan or develop some aspect of their venture.
Interviews with accelerator participants suggest that the tasks entrepreneurs have
in mind as they enter the programme have a significant impact on the accelerator
process. This was particularly apparent with regards to some of the A2
participants with a background in African NGOs. Several of these entrepreneurs
apparently believed that in Scandinavia funding and investment would be easy to
obtain. Consequently, when asked about their needs, concerns and expectations
in an early focus group; fundraising, investment and the setting up of an office
in Scandinavia (to nurture funders/investors) were among the entrepreneurs’
priorities. For example:
Isaac: “I need to get assistance on how to set up office presence in
Scandinavia and use it as a gateway to access funding from Europe.”
Nelson: “To get connected to funders and investors for my project.”
These expectations contrasted with the needs identified by other entrepreneurs
in A1 and A2. These participants focused more on outcomes that had to do with
learning and networking – even if they did not omit the investment aspect
altogether. For example:
Catrin (A1): “Business model, individual coaching, writing grant applications
(prioritised); marketing to customers, product/service design, networking,
team-building, leadership (useful, but not a priority).”
Jönköping International Business School
280
Jamal (A2): “To get help with the business plan. To get interaction and
reflections from fellow participants and others. To establish business
partnership and connections. To get information about available funding.”
Hjorth (2013) suggest that fourth generation incubators make heavy demands on
the skills of their management teams, who he portrays as institutional
entrepreneurs attempting to cater to the particular needs of each incubatee. The
managers in the Booster accelerators were faced with similar challenges as they
met a diverse set of expectations from the social entrepreneurs in each
programme. Consequently it emerged that an important managerial task was that
of ‘managing expectations’. Although managers had attempted to do this during
the recruitment process, in A2 in particular it was clear that they had been unable
to do so. Consequently, they were faced with the uncomfortable task of bring
several of the entrepreneurs ‘down to earth’. As the A2 manager Karen
commented:
“When you talk to Lewis he comes with a lot of different inputs, but I still have
the feeling that he… it’s a bit of a Utopia, he sees that which he wants above
all else.”
The matching of entrepreneurs’ expectations with the capacity of the
accelerator and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial ecosystem seems
to be important, as not all entrepreneurs were able to come to terms with
the reality of the accelerator offering. Lewis for example, was highly critical
of the A2 accelerator’s failure to take care of participants’ practical issues
(such as cooking) – and halfway through the programme he was clearly
concerned at the prospect of finishing the accelerator with ‘only’ his
learning as an outcome:
“We have to move forward and really get the required financing to start the
business, because it would be… self-defeating, if out of this we go without
financing the business.”
After leaving the accelerator Lewis appeared to cut himself off from NSE and
the other social entrepreneurs, with the exception of Isaac – ignoring requests
for interviews and the one-year follow-up questionnaire. He represents perhaps
the most extreme example of how expectations affect entrepreneurs’ attitudes to
the accelerator, even if traces of disappointment over the difficulty of raising
investment are found in several other interviews. During the A2 accelerator,
managers were acutely aware of the African entrepreneurs’ unrealistic
expectations with regards to finding investment – and they discussed and
attempted to manage these. With the benefit of hindsight however, it is possible
to see that other A2 entrepreneurs also had expectations of the accelerator that
were not fulfilled – for example: with regards to the quality of interaction
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
281
between entrepreneurs. Heidi and Marie were particularly concerned about the
failure of the cohort to provide a high level of peer coaching, but their
expectations were not managed as actively by accelerator managers as those of
the ‘funding-oriented’ participants.
What is important to understand about the task-orientation of entrepreneurs is
that it appears to influence their participation in the accelerator. It is difficult to
isolate the effect of entrepreneurs’ expectations on the accelerator process from
the impact of other factors such as the practical concerns in A2. Nonetheless,
the task-orientation of participants did seem to have an impact on the way in
which entrepreneurs approached the programme. Nelson for example, seemed
to perceive the entrepreneurial task during the accelerator as primarily one of
sourcing funding. Lewis seemed to be intent on sourcing funding, but was also
keen to increase the legitimacy of his venture and hoped to develop his business
skills. Subsequently, in the accelerator environment, Nelson appeared less keen
to maximise his learning in seminars – even if he seemed to ‘wake up’ now and
again, when a subject he perceived as particularly relevant came up. Lewis took
copious notes during seminars and even recorded many of them – but neither of
the two appeared particularly interested in contributing to other entrepreneurs’
ventures, nor of taking on board ideas from the other social entrepreneurs. In
week 7 of A2 I made the following field note after a chat with accelerator
manager Karen:
“The strain of running the accelerator (and participating in it) is showing and
Karen is very tired and feels unable to live up to the diverse expectations of
the entrepreneurs. She commented that she is finding the behaviour and
attitudes of two entrepreneurs (Lewis and Isaac) especially irritating, as they
seem unable/unwilling to take feedback, despite being good at providing it for
others.”
The apparent ‘disengagement’ of some entrepreneurs in A2 was something that
irritated not only the accelerator managers, but also other entrepreneurs. This
irritation was not only an emotional burden, but also affected the learning of
other accelerator participants and their willingness to engage with the rest of the
cohort in an inclusive manner. Marie’s experience in A2 has already been
described (section 4.4.2), but Heidi (A2) also described similar feelings. However,
she added an account of her strategy for coping with her irritation:
“I was getting quite frustrated at the beginning […] and I mean it doesn’t really
have anything to do with me so it shouldn’t really bother me, but when
everyone’s just talking about funding and… connecting with people and I was
like ‘did you read any of the emails? Have you looked at the website? [laugh]
This isn’t what it’s about, you know’. Or for me that’s not what it’s about”.
Jönköping International Business School
282
“But I’ve got over it basically. Whenever we have the seminars and people
they... their phone’s still going off, people are on their computer the whole
time. And I just sit in the front, so I can’t see them and then… whatever, if
they’re looking bored and not paying attention and whatever, I’ll just do the
best that I can to get as much as I can out of it.”
These quotations illustrate primarily the negative impact that other
entrepreneurs’ attitudes can have on the learning environment of the accelerator.
Naturally, when entrepreneurs display a positive attitude the learning
environment improves dramatically, both in the seminar sessions and often in
the more informal peer-to-peer interaction. Entrepreneurs’ disillusioned
comments in week 4 of A2 contrast for example, with Rebecca’s comment in
week 4 of the third accelerator:
“In a few weeks we have become like siblings!”
Naturally, when accelerator participants were irritated with one another they were
less likely to interact with those whom they found irritating. The entrepreneurs
did not explicitly describe avoiding other participants or ‘freezing them out’ –
but by asking them who they tended to talk to most, clear patterns of interaction
and ‘non-interaction’ surfaced. Entrepreneurs tended to talk to those individuals
who they felt were attentive and learning-oriented – and also receptive to others’
ideas. Conversely, they seldom described interacting with those individuals who
they portrayed as arrogant, disinterested and concerned only with the progress
of their own ventures. Entrepreneurs’ understandings of their ‘primary task’ in
the accelerator appeared to affect their engagement in seminars and with their
peers – and as a result, their own learning and that of others. Importantly, there
is a possibility that as entrepreneurs progress through the accelerator they may
come to view their primary task differently. However, this was not obvious in
the Booster accelerator, even if entrepreneurs (such as Isaac) – who were initially
sceptical of programme activities – came to appreciate them more as time went
by.
When the content of the above paragraphs is summarised in graphic form, I
suggest that in the accelerator context, Boud and Walker’s (1991) ‘intent’ is more
accurately captured by the term ‘perceived task’. The entrepreneurs’ understandings
of what they wish to achieve through the accelerator affects their attitude to
learning and towards their peers. This relationship and the new factor ‘attitude’
is depicted in figure 5.3 and expanded on further in the next section.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
283
5.4 Perceptions of Value and Effectiveness
In the above paragraphs I have described the impact of entrepreneurs’
perceptions of the task at hand on their attitudes towards learning and
interaction. My interviews and observations of the three Booster accelerators
suggest however, that ‘perceived task’ is not the only factor that influences
attitude. Two other factors also appear to influence entrepreneurs’ attitudes: the
way in which they view programme content and their perceptions of their peers.
Figure 5-3: An expanded model of factors that influence
entrepreneurs' participation in the education process
Jönköping International Business School
284
5.4.1 Perceived Value of Content
As with entrepreneurs’ understandings of their primary task during the
accelerator, interviews suggest that participants’ views of the value of the
educational content of the accelerator can vary as the programme progresses.
However, to a certain extent it also appears that attitudes to the content of the
accelerator were influenced not so much by the confidence of the participants in
their own abilities, but rather by the position they chose to adopt to the content.
Barry (A1) was one of the most experienced entrepreneurs, yet appeared to be
very open to new ideas and to the critiquing of his venture by individuals with
less experience than himself. A similar attitude was displayed by Peter (A2) who
despite having been through the St. Clara programme described his attitude in
the following way:
“I’m open to learning, so I didn’t have that [a low patch]. Everything to me
counts […] when you reflect over it, take what is relevant and leave what is
not relevant. So when I was coming, I came empty. So everything that you
give me it’s like – I come like an empty car. You go to a fuel station, they put
gasoline in you, once the car is full, you go.”
Isaac (A2) and Lewis (A2) in contrast, were more critical of the educational
content of the accelerator – and their first impressions may have been influenced
by the fact that it was a woman running the programme
113
. Consequently, and in
contrast to his fellow ‘veteran’ Barry (who attended most of the seminars), Isaac
was initially clearly selective with regards to the seminars he attended. However,
with time his sceptical attitude changed and he came to appreciate the content of
the accelerator more, as Karen describes:
“I talked to him in the second week and said I completely understood that he
had made quite a lot more progress than most of them and has a lot of
education and that maybe all the lectures won’t give that much […] Then he
said ‘No problem, don’t worry about that.’ I said that we would understand if
he felt he had to go home to take care of business.
Then he said he wanted to stay, because he gets a lot out of this and has
found another perspective – that there are other ways of finding funding then
just applying for development aid.”
113
During A2 some of the entrepreneurs suggested that the reason some of their colleagues were
sceptical of the content was due to the managing of the accelerator by a woman. The possibility of this
interpretation being correct is supported by the (positive) comment of another African entrepreneur in
A3, who during the first week expressed surprise that such a good programme had been put together by
a female team.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
285
The data gathered in the three accelerators suggests that entrepreneurs display
four basic types of attitudes/behaviour, with regards to interacting with the
formal educational activities of the programme. Firstly, less experienced
‘innocent’ participants such as Gabriella (A1) found everything interesting:
“My idea was a little aside in my working life. Now thanks to Booster, the
project is more alive than ever. I could not have reached so much information
and so much interesting feedback from people with the right knowledge, if I
had kept on working on my own.”
A second type of behaviour was displayed by more experienced entrepreneurs
such as Peter, Marie and Edward (‘knowledgeable improvisers’ and ‘confident
entrants’). They appeared to attend most of the sessions, but paid more attention
to new material (Peter: “you reflect over it, take what is relevant and leave what
is not relevant”). The most experienced entrepreneurs (‘veterans’ Barry, Isaac and
possibly Lewis) displayed a third type of behaviour, in that were more selective
with regards to accelerator content and often chose to skip a session in order to
concentrate on other tasks. Nonetheless, experience (i.e. familiarity with the
content on offer) does not entirely explain the attitudes of all of the entrepreneurs
towards the programme content. Social entrepreneurs who perceived their
primary task at the accelerator to be that of sourcing funding (Nelson, Isaac and
Lewis) often displayed a fourth type of attitude/behaviour, namely a general
disinterest in the content of seminars, regardless of topic.
5.4.2 Perceived Value of Cohort
Social entrepreneurs’ attitudes to the accelerator programme appeared to be
influenced not only by their perceptions of their primary task and the value of
the programme’s educational content, but also by their initial perceptions of the
value of their peers. In all the accelerators, entrepreneurs naturally came to value
interaction with certain of their peers more than others. For example: in a focus
group in the final week of A1, Barry talked about Catrin’s venture being most
similar to his own and therefore the most interesting for him. Nonetheless, in
both A1 and A3 entrepreneurs’ attitudes to the accelerator seemed to be
influenced by their assumption that everybody in the cohort was of value and in a
position to contribute to one another’s’ ventures. Although entrepreneurs did
not explicitly voice this assumption, the inclusive atmosphere of trust described
by Henrik (A1) seems to take this for granted:
”I think it’s [the accelerator] been very good for all of us, especially as we all
trust each other. We were very open to one another in Booster and that was
fantastic.”
Jönköping International Business School
286
As noted earlier, the atmosphere in A2 contrasted greatly with that in A1 and A3.
In trying to identify the reasons for this difference, it appears that one root of
disunity was the attitudes of some of the entrepreneurs to one another. In
particular there appeared to be a social divide among the African entrepreneurs,
based on the status attached to Isaac and Lewis’ experience in large projects and
the United Nations. Both men were at pains to describe their previous experience
of top management in the introductory sessions of week one – and Lewis
emphasized that he was at the same ‘level’ as Isaac in a subsequent interview:
“Somebody that I have interacted with, based on his background, is Isaac.
Me and him have been consultants: community development, training and
also public health areas, so we’ve had a lot of commonalities. […] and those
commonalities really are relating our experiences at a different level.”
“We [Isaac and Lewis] interact a lot and we really look at issues and we share
a lot. Not that I don’t want to share with others. You always find someone at
your level.”
The positioning by Isaac and Lewis of themselves at the ‘top’ of the
entrepreneurial pecking-order in the A2 accelerator, was not appreciated by other
entrepreneurs. Many individuals found this positioning offensive, particularly
those at the ‘bottom’ – such as Peter, who continued to farm part-time despite
graduation from university. Peter described the tension in the group in the
following manner:
“Something else… people are bossy, others want to show that they know a
little bit. I don’t like that crap, so as I told you I’m to myself. But I’ll not talk it
out, I will not share, I will just…”
(Duncan): “Ignore it?”
“Yeah. Ignore it. Which is common, I think that I’ve seen that it is common in
our group. We have people who want to be high… and then others, you know,
want to be like [makes ‘stuck up’ noises] and you’re like: ‘All right, okay, but
that’s you!’ We all have different… characters.”
The significance of the perceived positioning of individuals in the group is
important, not so much because it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behaviour – but rather
because of its impact on the group dynamic. In A2 it was clear that, in contrast
to A1, there was very little venture-oriented peer-to-peer interaction when the
entire cohort was present. At a check-in in week seven I made the following
observation:
“The entrepreneurs responded with total silence to Karen’s question about
their business plans and looking around the room, there were quite a few
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
287
folded arms (Kenny, Lewis: suggesting a closed, defensive attitude?). Karen
appeared to unconsciously reflect this attitude as she in turn folded her arms
as she continued to speak. Jamal made a few non-committed comments, as
did Heidi – and Jamal’s role as one of the spokesmen for the group was clear.
Nelson was busy on his computer Skyping, but stopped after about 10
minutes as the discussion became more engaging.”
To a certain extent the above observation may reflect the ‘roller-coaster’ nature
of the accelerator process. Accelerator managers commented on the challenge of
managing the unpredictable emotional ‘swings’ in the cohort – pointing out that
a few evenings before the awkward discussion described above, the group had
celebrated Isaac’s birthday in an apparently cheerful manner. Nevertheless,
Peter’s comments suggest that one of the sources of the underlying tension in
the group was the perception of several entrepreneurs that they were not ‘valued’
by Isaac and Lewis. As noted previously, Karen also felt that the pair was willing
to give feedback to others, but not to receive it. It appears therefore that an
attitude of ‘give and take’ is important, if a “dialogic culture focused on learning”
is to develop among the accelerator cohort (Hjorth, 2013, p. 38). This reciprocity
in turn appears to build on the perception among entrepreneurs, that all of their
peers have at least something useful to contribute. Where this attitude is missing,
the evidence from A2 suggests that the cohort rapidly splinters into smaller
constellations of peers.
When the factors discussed in the above paragraphs are included in my graphic
portrayal of the accelerator process, detail is added to the additional component
of ‘attitude’ that was added in the last section (see figure 5.4). In the context of
the TCP incubator Hjorth (2013) emphasized the need for potential incubatees
to display “coachability” during the screening process. This aspect is clearly part
of the attitudinal component of the entrepreneur’s ‘life world’ as they enter
accelerators. However, although it may only be necessary for entrepreneurs in
incubators to display openness to learning from managers and other ‘senior’
incubator figures – in accelerators there appears to be a need for entrepreneurs
to display an openness to learning from other individuals in the cohort.
Jönköping International Business School
288
Figure 5-4: Factors that influence entrepreneurs' attitudes
towards learning-oriented activities in accelerators
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
289
5.5 Splace for Learning
In his study of the TCP incubator, Hjorth (2013) concludes by suggesting that
future incubators will become effective by focusing on ‘space’ rather than ‘place’.
In other words on the ‘climate’ of the programme, rather than the location of
entrepreneurs in a physical location. While I agree with this emphasis, my study
strongly suggests that it is not easy to disconnect the one from the other. In this
section I discuss various aspects of the ‘space’ created for social entrepreneurs
by the Booster accelerator. To begin with my discussion focuses on the ‘climatic’
or ‘cultural’ aspects of the programme, but as I progress it will become clear how
the physical, material aspects of ‘place’ make themselves felt. Consequently, a key
implication of this section is that effective accelerators succeed by working with
‘splace’. “Splace” is a term used by architecture student Paul Hajian (1982, p. 3)
to discuss “the qualities of the places we love, those essences that make space
place”. However it is a term also used by Flossie Peitsch (2012, p. 260), who
defines it among other things as a “context within which one can construct
meaning”. Peitsch cites human geographer Edward Relph (1976) in arguing for
the inseparability of place and space. Relph argues that “however we feel or know
or explain space, there is always some associated sense or concept of place”
(Relph 1976 cited in Peitsch, 2012, p. 258). As will be seen in the following
paragraphs, the evidence collected in this study suggests that Relph’s observation
is accurate.
From the perspective of learning theory, I suggested in chapter two that a key
objective in non-formal entrepreneurship education is the creation and
resolution of disjuncture. This infers that accelerator design needs to focus on
facilitating situations that help entrepreneurs experience these two processes.
However, it is important to recognise that learning is not the only goal of
accelerators. The ‘focus’ part of the accelerator contribution centres as much on
enhancing the entrepreneur’s ability to devote time and effort to their venture, as
it does on learning. To coin Hjorth’s (2013, p.51) term, it is important to create
“space” for both learning and doing. Similarly, although learning about the ‘who’
is part of the networking ingredient in accelerators, it is not the only part.
Consequently, accelerator design usually involves a compromise between several
different objectives, only one of which is learning.
In this section most of the answers to research question two
114
are developed.
However, as will become clear in later sections it is difficult to completely isolate
the impact of accelerator design from other factors. The ‘people’ factor addressed
114
In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by the non-human ‘objects’
(primarily educational design) that are associated with entrepreneurship education in accelerators?
Jönköping International Business School
290
by research question three
115
is especially important; as mentors, coaches,
managers and peers provide the ‘filling’ for the various ‘vessels’ that make up
accelerator design. On the one hand it is possible to depict the activities of these
four groups of individuals by means of the structured diagrams – or schedules –
of accelerator activities (see section 4.3.3). At the same time it is important to
remember that these individuals are independent agents who sometimes behave
in an unpredictable manner within this frame. As will be seen, they may even
create their own frames. Nonetheless, in this section accelerator design is
discussed based on the assumption that individuals’ behaviour can be managed
to a certain extent – by means of (among other things) non-human, material
objects. In the next section (5.6), the limits to this predictability are noted – and
the impact of the ‘human’ side of accelerators discussed.
5.5.1 Managing the Formal – Non-formal mix
In chapter two I noted La Belle’s (1982) argument that both formal and non-
formal contexts of learning typically include some of the characteristics of all
three emphases (formal, non-formal and informal). This suggestion is mirrored
in the Booster programme, where there it is possible to identify several core
‘formal’ activities (primarily the regular lectures and the obligatory assignments),
interspersed with non-formal and informal activities. In chapter four I described
how the Booster programme generally follows the traditional accelerator
educational model of ‘lecture by expert’, followed by ‘individual coaching by
expert’ and ‘application by individual’. Lectures are held at specific times for the
whole group (mirroring the educational model of formal settings), but from then
on the educational process becomes increasingly that of non-formal contexts of
learning. In the individual coaching session with the ‘expert’, the entrepreneur
and the session speaker have an equal say in what is brought up for discussion.
After this session the onus is entirely on the entrepreneur with regards to what to
focus on from the session – and when to focus on this content (if at all). This
progression from an expert-driven process to one that is learner-driven is
depicted in figure 5.5.
The lower part of the figure – depicting the gradual move from expert-driven to
learner-driven learning at the ‘micro’ level in the accelerator – can also be used
to model the accelerator process from a more macro perspective. Although this
progression was never entirely achieved in the Booster accelerators in terms of
formal design, in practice managers tended to ‘relax’ their expectations of
entrepreneurs as the accelerator progressed – with regards to lecture attendance
115
In which ways is the learning of social entrepreneurs influenced by their interaction with the different
human actors within accelerators (managers, mentors, coaches and peers)?
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
291
Formal
lecture
Indivi dual
coaching
Indivi dual practice
Formal
Non-formal
Figure 5-5: The move from a formal to a non-formal learning
orientation
and even assignments. Entrepreneurs were expected to attend all activities in the
first four to five weeks of the accelerator. However, as managers became more
aware of the status of entrepreneurs’ ventures and of their particular
development needs, this expectation was toned down. In some cases an effort
was also made to arrange extra sessions to cover emergent learning needs that
had not been foreseen at the start of the programme. Marie (A2) suggests that
this progression from general to specific is important:
“Towards the end you didn’t want to have those general lectures, but rather to
dig into the details. Then it might have been better to have been able to
choose what you wanted help with. After a while perhaps you could tailor it a
little more. The basics to start with, work with the basics for the first three
weeks and then specialise in whatever you feel you need the most.”
A similar process of refinement also appears to be necessary as the accelerator
progresses, in terms of the intensity of the more ‘formal’ programme ingredients
(such as lectures and individual coaching sessions). In accelerator one in
particular, managers were forced to revise the programme schedule towards the
end of the accelerator – in the face of entrepreneurs’ protests that they were no
longer able to fit the accelerator ‘puzzle’ together. It was apparent that a series of
accelerator activities (assignments, networking and venture development
activities) peaked during the last two to three weeks of the programme – and that
few entrepreneurs could cope with this pressure.
From a theoretical perspective, the impact of the intensive nature of accelerator
programmes on learning may be explained by reference to several processes –
and in particular to the twin processes of creating and resolving dissonance. Jarvis
(1987) emphasizes the idea that for learning to occur, individuals must first
recognise the existence of dissonance and secondly, respond to it. In his
discussion of ‘non-learning’ in non-formal educational settings, he suggests that
when practitioners have “too many commitments” they may be prevented from
Jönköping International Business School
292
considering the lessons available to them in a learning situation (ibid., p.139). He
terms this type of non-learning “non-consideration”. This type of non-learning
is reflected in entrepreneurs’ descriptions of their experiences in accelerators –
and it has important implications for programme design. To begin with, it
underlines the importance of striking an appropriate balance between the
creation of dissonance and its resolution. Entrepreneurs make it clear that they
can only cope with a limited amount of information during their short ‘stay’ at
the accelerator, even if it is unclear as to what this limit is
116
. In order for learning
to be effective therefore, it appears that accelerators first of all need to be
designed so that the most strategic areas of dissonance are brought to the
attention of entrepreneurs. However, programmes also need to be designed so
that it is realistically possible for entrepreneurs to both consider dissonance and
resolve it. Furthermore, this process of learning needs to be designed so that it
occupies a space in the accelerator that is proportionate to other tasks, such as
networking or the practicalities of venture development. As Barry (A1) makes
clear, if this balance is not achieved, accelerator activities begin to compete with
one another:
“In a lecture, it’s not just if it’s boring that I think about other things, it’s almost
the opposite. It has to be inspiring, because if it’s boring I start to think about
my to-do list and so on”.
Entrepreneurs’ experience seems to suggest that accelerators need to be designed
in a manner that facilitates significant experiences of dissonance early on in the
programme, or at least in the first four to five weeks (assuming an eight-week
programme). This design parameter would theoretically allow for accelerator
staff to support entrepreneurs in resolving this dissonance during the remainder
of the programme. It may also be important to compartmentalise ‘packages of
dissonance’ to particular periods of time in the accelerator programme. This
possibility is discussed further in the section ‘forests and trees’.
The above paragraphs describe how the Booster accelerator programmes are
designed to facilitate a learning process that progresses from being primarily
expert-driven to being increasingly learner-driven. This can give the impression
of an increasingly unstructured learning environment, but this is only true to a
certain extent. At the end of A1 several entrepreneurs suggested that future
accelerators incorporate clearer, obligatory ‘assignments’ into the programme.
Even ‘veteran’ managers such as Barry underlined the usefulness of being given
‘homework’ and the important role played by having someone else follow up on
it:
116
And naturally, the limit can be expected to vary between individuals.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
293
“I would suggest that you look at the model [name of a Scandinavian
incubator] has for its startup course, with meetings once a week that are very
intense, followed by homework until next week’s session. Then the next
session is started with a review of the homework and discussions around it”.
Comments such as these led accelerator managers to be clearer about their
expectations of entrepreneurs in subsequent programmes – expectations that
specified both what needed to be achieved and by when it needed to be done.
When asked about their feelings about this apparently formal, ‘school-like’
ingredient in the otherwise non-formal learning environment, entrepreneurs
were without exception positive. As Rebecca (A3) commented
117
:
“At the end of the day we are looking at a situation where it’s benefiting my
enterprise. So… everything should have a time limit. Because you cannot tell
me ‘Okay, you send me your business plan after going back to East Africa’. It
would be a different setting”.
“We achieve, but in our own kind of sluggish way. You might say that within a
week – but within a week, which particular day? So I really appreciate that
about our programme and I think it’s something positive, if you’re to progress.”
The Booster entrepreneurs emphasized the role that structure played in keeping
them on target and helping them make progress. Several entrepreneurs also
commented on the probability of tasks not getting done in their home
environments. Consequently, it appears that accelerators first of all facilitate
learning by creating space for the transformation of experience through action.
Accelerators provide space for entrepreneurs to do things that they never get
round to doing in the everyday lives of their startups – and this action is
frequently associated with learning. Importantly however, the character of the
space that accelerators create is initially structured and not simply empty.
Furthermore, programme structure is not based entirely on educators ideas of
what needs to be learned (a formal learning environment), nor only on
entrepreneurs’ instincts about what they need to learn (a learner-driven, informal
context). Instead, learning space in accelerators is non-formal in character,
striking a delicate balance between the experience of educators and the needs of
the nascent venture.
117
Rebecca made these comments in two different interviews, with four weeks between them –
suggesting that for her, this was an important characteristic of the accelerator.
Jönköping International Business School
294
5.5.2 Working with the ‘Forest’ and the ‘Trees’
A comment made by entrepreneurs in all of the accelerators had to do with the
difficulty of working on so many different areas of their ventures at once. The
intensive nature of the Booster programme often resulted in several speakers
visiting the accelerator in a single week and at times giving lectures on very
different aspects of social entrepreneurship. This was especially so in A1. In A2
and A3 it was possible to plan speakers’ visits more strategically – but at the same
time, managers also decided to invite speakers back to the accelerator after two
to three weeks. The spacing of their visits was intended to give the entrepreneurs
time to put into practice what had been taught in the first session, so that speakers
had more ‘material’ to work with on their return. In both A1 and A2 however,
entrepreneurs complained that the design of the programme tended to ‘splinter’
their attention. As a result they had trouble in remembering the content of earlier
sessions and experienced difficulty in making progress with so many ‘balls’ in the
air at once. Barry (A1) therefore recommended that NSE adopt the more
modular approach he had experienced in another startup course:
“It frees up time for everyone to work on their ideas and develop them further
with the new knowledge that has been acquired, before starting the next
subject/session/lesson”.
From a theoretical perspective, entrepreneurs’ comments suggest that substantial
thought needs to go into the timing and number of educational activities that
focus on the creation of disjuncture. Clearly, during the Booster accelerator social
entrepreneurs experienced a series of disjunctures in a relatively short period of
time, yet felt unable to resolve all of them to their satisfaction. Cohen (2013a)
describes a similar experience of “mentor overload” in her study of ‘general
technology’ accelerators in North America. Indeed, it seem probable that it was
this ‘peppering’ of participants with experiences of disjuncture, that led to almost
all of the entrepreneurs describing their experience of the accelerator as ‘intense’.
In A1 Henrik made it clear that he associated “lots and lots of information” with
physical tiredness and a risk of “burn-out”. Kenny’s colourful comments in A2
also suggest that the intensity of the accelerator may not always be conducive to
effective learning:
“Here… [referring to weeks 6-8 on his diagram of the stress levels in the
accelerator] too many deadlines, too much rush, too many… it creates this
[making rapid banging noise]. Until now I’ve not recovered!”
As noted before, a major challenge in accelerators is to create an effective balance
between the recognition of disjuncture and its resolution. Entrepreneurs’
comments suggest however, that this process is not only a question of quantity,
but also of balance and structure. In other words: although it may not be possible
to completely ‘isolate’ the different activities of a nascent venture from one
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
295
another, most participants agreed that it was helpful to focus on one area at a
time and as far as possible, to ‘finish’ that area before moving on to a new area.
Entrepreneurs’ comments about the importance of ‘compartmentalising’
learning appear to be in tension with one of the contributions they associated
with the accelerator, namely: the development of an overview of their ventures
and insight into their ‘place’ in society. This perspective seems to emerge in three
distinct ways. First of all, accelerator participants (particularly in A1) increasingly
came to understand themselves as part of a global movement of social
entrepreneurs. In A1 more sessions were devoted to introducing social
entrepreneurship as a specific category of entrepreneurship and it was clear that
several entrepreneurs incorporated this ‘message’ into their own identities. At
times the development of a social entrepreneurial identity was ‘reactive’ in
character and grounded in frustration with what they perceived as the
ineffectiveness of other solutions to societal challenges (such as charities). For
example, early on in A1 Gabriella commented:
“I worked all the time with NGOs and in Argentina, they still work with the
same system of funding and they have to look for money, sometimes money
comes, sometimes it doesn’t”.
“All my friends in Argentina […] I send my projects or my posters that they
ask me to do – as NGOs. I sent a letter to one of them and asked, ‘do you
know what a social entrepreneur is? Because now I’m a part of it!’ (laugh)”
The development of a social entrepreneurial identity illustrated by Gabriella’s
comment emerged primarily in A1 and reflects aspects of what Etienne Wenger
(1998) terms a ‘community of practice’. Nevertheless, Gabriella’s development
of identity was unusually ‘reactive’ in character. Other A1 participants (such as
Henrik) discussed the development of a social entrepreneurial identity more in
terms of discovering a ‘label’ for their activities (“the understanding about what
it is we are doing”). Interestingly, in A2 fewer sessions focused on providing
entrepreneurs with a background in social entrepreneurship and participants
rarely commented on their status as social entrepreneurs. This implies that
accelerators are able to influence the way in which entrepreneurs ‘frame’
themselves and their ventures. In terms of design therefore, accelerators can give
participants a sense of being part of a bigger movement by helping them interact
with both other members of their cohort and more experienced social
entrepreneurs. In Booster, meetings with the latter often took place at ‘events’,
such as the social entrepreneurship evenings at SocNet. Nonetheless, it appears
that greater impact is achieved by combining the experience of meeting other
social entrepreneurs with factual sessions that explain this experience.
The second way in which the Booster accelerators helped entrepreneurs gain a
perspective on their enterprises, was by providing them with the tools to see their
Jönköping International Business School
296
ventures as a ‘whole’, as opposed to only seeing parts of it – and in particular
those parts that demanded attention. Heidi (A2) for example, describes both
what tends to happen in the everyday life of a startup and the difference the
accelerator programme makes:
“You really need to… take time with these things. And that’s why it’s really
good to be here. Because otherwise, you can say, ‘I need a communications
strategy. I’m going to communicate, okay. That’s my strategy!’ (laugh) But
here, then you really have to think what… even if you don’t write it down, have
a… You know? It needs to be… cohesive and go with all your business, all
these things.”
Heidi’s comment illustrates the ‘focus’ contribution of accelerators, in that she
describes how the programme forced her to focus attention on important areas
of her venture, for a long enough period to make a difference. Interviews with
other entrepreneurs (for example: Marie-A2) suggest that accelerators’ provision
of time is an important factor in enabling participants to get to grips with the
details of their ventures, while also attempting to see the ‘bigger picture’. ‘Focus’
is therefore a factor that is both liberating and constricting in its effects.
Entrepreneurs are ‘freed’ from the pressures of their every-day venture operations,
but at the same time they are freed to a fairly stringent set of requirements and
expectations. They are not only expected to spend time developing the nitty-
gritty ‘pieces’ of their ventures – but furthermore, to assemble all these pieces
together in a single, cohesive unit. Many of the Booster entrepreneurs found the
‘business model canvas’ tool helpful in integrating the diverse set of narrow
themes addressed by visiting experts. By introducing this tool at an early stage in
the accelerator, managers provided entrepreneurs with what David Ausubel
(1960) terms an “advance organiser”. However as noted earlier, participants
118
also underlined the role of the visits by practicing entrepreneurs in helping them
‘capture’ the essence of their enterprises.
Entrepreneurs’ experiences suggest that for optimal learning to occur in
accelerators, they need to be designed in a manner that constantly cycles between
the ‘forest’ and the ‘trees’. As learning theorist Winifred Hill (1997, p. 150)
comments: “Given the complexity of structure […] there is a constant danger of
not seeing the forest for the trees, of […] missing the most important aspect of
what one is trying to learn”. In accelerators entrepreneurs need to be able to work
on specific aspects of their ventures, without losing their sense of the bigger
picture. Nonetheless, the bigger picture of the enterprise is one that not only
exists in the present, but also in the future – implying that there is a need for
entrepreneurs to manage what Barbara Bird (1995, p. 59) terms “temporal
tension”. Experiences from Booster suggest that it is relatively easy to help
118
For example: Marie (A2).
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
297
entrepreneurs with specific areas of venture development, primarily through
visits by experts in those fields. Support in achieving an impression of the venture
as a whole is a more difficult task and seems to be achieved by a combination of
factors, including material tools that help create ‘wholes’ (such as business model
canvas) and ‘structure-breaking’ visits by experienced entrepreneurs. This
suggests that the creation of ‘forest’ is not only achieved by ‘advance’ organisers
as suggested by scholars such as Ausubel (ibid.), but also by ‘ex post facto’
organisers. That is: individuals or tools that help entrepreneurs place previous
episodes of learning into context. These aspects of accelerator design resemble
the sensemaking strategies discussed by Weick (1995), who also emphasizes the
‘backwards looking’ character of learning.
The third way in which the NSE programme helped accelerator participants gain
perspective was by enabling them to see alternative courses of action. Often
entrepreneurs came to the accelerator ‘locked into’ a particular mindset or course
of action, but left with an understanding that a broader set of alternatives existed.
As Marie commented in A2:
“I became aware of different roads that I could take, with regards to how you
can… I haven’t applied for any money, but still you see ‘Yes, there are
actually these possibilities…’ Yes, a bit like that.”
In terms of design, the generation of alternative courses of action seems to be an
‘instinctive’ contribution of accelerators. Simply by coming in from their ‘islands’
entrepreneurs are exposed to a large number of alternative models – whether in
theoretical terms (options presented by experts) or through the practical
examples they are exposed to. The latter examples are often seen in the
accelerator cohort, or in entrepreneurs that visit the accelerator – or to whom
the cohort pays a visit. Naturally, mentors and other entrepreneurs may also
suggest alternative courses of action, as individual entrepreneurs interact with the
various actors present in the accelerator ‘ecosystem’.
5.5.3 Managing the Dynamics of Place – and Space
Although I have characterised accelerator programmes as non-formal contexts
for entrepreneurial learning, it is clear from entrepreneurs’ experiences that
significant amounts of learning also take place in informal settings. Marswick and
Watkins (2001, p. 25) suggest that informal learning “may occur in institutions,
but it is not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of
learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner”. In the Booster accelerators,
important contexts in which this type of learning occurred were the areas in
which entrepreneurs interacted when they were not participating in formal
accelerator activities. For example: SocNet and their accommodation. Despite the
‘learner-driven’ character of informal learning, it is important to note that
Jönköping International Business School
298
accelerator activities can be designed to facilitate informal learning, by providing
conducive environments and opportunities for entrepreneurs to interact
effectively with one another. Booster managers recognised the need for
consciously promoting interaction in each of the accelerators, but initially
underestimated the need to promote interaction throughout the programme – and
even afterwards. This insight is reflected in the inclusion of team-building
sessions at the beginning of each accelerator, sessions that were however phased
out as the programme progressed. Marie (A2) was especially critical of this
omission:
“There was nothing [interaction] scheduled and nobody wanted it. I think it’s
both the group and the [accelerator] leadership. […] If we are to be able to
give stuff to one another, then you have to put it into the schedule.”
Marie’s comment suggests that interaction is not only a result of effective design,
but also entrepreneurs’ attitudes (more of this in the next section). It does appear
however, that because interaction is one of the prerequisites for informal
learning, in the Booster accelerators more effort could have been made to facilitate
interaction among entrepreneurs in the later stages of the accelerator.
When it comes to the impact of the SocNet ‘space’ on informal learning the
entrepreneurs’ comments were generally positive. This suggests that the placing
of accelerator participants in an environment conducive to interaction with like-
minded peers was an effective strategy for enhancing learning. As noted earlier
however, learning is only one of several goals associated with accelerators.
Consequently, several entrepreneurs described the SocNet environment as being
conducive to interaction, but not to concentrated work (such as writing a
business plan). In a focus group that discussed the role played by SocNet; Edward,
Catrin and Alice (A1) described its function in the following manner:
“I would say it was good to have that space, but it didn’t really work for me or
for us. To sit there really getting things done.” (Edward)
“So quite often, if I go to SocNet it’s because I know I don’t have really
focused, serious work to do.” (Catrin)
“The whole atmosphere is still very much inviting – for just the fact that you’re
like, standing up and not sitting, like… so most people will feel they can
approach you and start talking.” (Alice)
What the above quotes do not clarify is the dynamic interplay between the SocNet
environment and entrepreneurs’ interactions with others. Many entrepreneurs
worked from their accommodation when they wished to ‘get things done’.
Naturally therefore, towards the end of the accelerator – as deadlines approached
and they were trying to complete tasks – they tended to spend less time at SocNet
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
299
and more time in their accommodation. This in turn reduced the amount of
interaction they were exposed to. In A3 this tendency was apparent as early as
week four, with Nadia commenting that s/he wished there were more scheduled
activities at SocNet. Her response when I asked her to explain why (“this would
commit people to come here and to work more here”) suggests that many of the
Booster entrepreneurs were already conducting a large proportion of their work
from their accommodation. Nadia was not sharing accommodation with the
other A3 entrepreneurs and clearly felt that her interaction with the cohort was
reduced by this behaviour. From a design perspective therefore, the trend
described above suggests that as accelerators progress, it becomes increasingly
necessary for managers to consciously facilitate informal learning.
In the first accelerator the question of accommodation appeared to be a non-
issue. The cohort was fairly homogenous in terms of ethnicity and background,
and the social entrepreneurs interacted well with one another in formal, non-
formal and informal settings. In the second and third accelerators, it became clear
that ‘secondary’ space
119
had a greater impact on interaction than was anticipated.
In particular it was clear that the ‘borders’ created by accommodation often
carried over into the cohort, reinforcing differences of ethnicity and gender. In
A2 this provoked the creation of at least two sub-groups within the cohort, based
primarily on ethnicity (the Africans and the ‘other’s). In A3, the cohort also
displayed a tendency to interact on the basis of sub-groups, even if this behaviour
was less obvious than in A2 and was based on both gender and ethnicity. The
development of the group dynamic in both A2 and A3 strongly suggests
however, that the design of ‘secondary’ spaces such as accommodation has a
significant impact on interaction – and consequently, on informal learning.
The idea that physical spaces can influence entrepreneurs’ learning fits well with
the experiences of the entrepreneurs studied by Hjorth (2013) in the TPC
incubator. Physical space at TPC was characterised as unconducive to creativity
and networking
120
– and manager Debora noted that she was forced to “broker”
relationships between participants “due to the logistics of space” (Hjorth, 2013,
p. 28). Hjorth only discusses the impact of what I term ‘primary’ space in his
study – and interestingly, suggests that managers need to emphasize ‘space’ over
‘place’. I agree with the logic underlying his suggestion and it is worth noting that
Susan Smith (2011) also prefer to discuss learning in terms of socially constructed
‘spaces’, rather than in relation to physical ‘place’. However, both the Booster
experience and his own study at TPC strongly suggest that in many contexts it is
119
This term assumes that SocNet can be referred to as ’primary’ space. Susan Smith (2011) suggests
that spaces are ‘enacted’ by learners and consequently does not discuss place and space in the same
manner I do. Her concept of ‘social space’ is however, very similar to what I term ‘secondary’ space.
120
An entrepreneur commented: “I don’t spend much time here, because the place itself is dead boring”
(Hjorth 2013, p.33).
Jönköping International Business School
300
difficult to create ‘space’ for entrepreneurial development, without taking into
account the impact of physical ‘place’. Consequently, in the next section I add
‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ [physical] spaces to my diagram of the accelerator
process
121
, as factors that provide a setting for programme activities. Interaction
does not take place in a vacuum, but in particular physical environments that
influence the character and outcomes of the accelerator process.
5.5.4 The Dual Nature of Time
Until now I have discussed ‘splace’ in terms of the physical environments in
which accelerator activities take place. The locations associated with accelerators
can either facilitate interaction (by locating the programme at SocNet accelerator
participants were able to interact with a larger group of social entrepreneurs) –
or they may constrain interaction (entrepreneurs’ interactions were shaped along
gender lines at their apartments). Nonetheless, it is also possible to conceptualise
space as a temporal phenomenon that facilitates and constrains entrepreneurs’
activities, in a less obvious – yet just as effective manner – as physical space.
Hallen et al. (2013) suggest that from a theoretical perspective, the short duration
of accelerators has the potential to affect entrepreneurial development negatively,
both in terms of learning and tie formation. My study confirms this to a certain
extent, as several entrepreneurs make it clear that the pressure to make progress
during a limited period of time affected their behaviour. In A1 for example,
entrepreneurs asked managers to remove planned sessions so that they could
devote more time to completing key aspects of their ventures (such as business
plans). Entrepreneurs also displayed a tendency to spend more time by
themselves in the last weeks of the accelerator, in order to complete tasks. This
move by the social entrepreneurs back towards their ‘islands’ could mean that
opportunities for learning are lost – if we assume that interaction with experts
and peers is the primary vehicle of learning in accelerators. However, it is also
possible that by engaging in practical work entrepreneurs may still be engaging
in the resolution of disjunctures created in earlier stages of the accelerator. From
the perspective of Jarvis (1987) therefore, it is possible that entrepreneurs resolve
disjuncture through action in the latter stages of accelerators. In other words,
although opportunities for the creation of disjuncture appear to become fewer
as the accelerator progresses, this does not mean that learning has ceased.
Instead, it is possible that different types of learning characterise different stages
of the accelerator. The creation of disjuncture and its resolution through
reflection and emotion may characterise the earlier stages (weeks one to five),
with the resolution of disjuncture through practice becoming increasingly
dominant as the accelerator progresses (weeks six to eight).
121
See figure 5.6.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
301
Despite Hallen et al.’s (ibid.) suggestion that the short duration of accelerators
may affect entrepreneurs’ performance negatively, the experiences of the Booster
social entrepreneurs suggest that ‘time’ has primarily a positive impact on venture
development. Almost all the entrepreneurs commented on the importance of
being able to dedicate time to the development of their startups – time they
would not otherwise have made available. As Jamal (A2) commented:
“I think I was given enough time to develop the idea, work on my business
plan and so on, so it’s given me quite a lot.”
The suggestion by Hallen et al. (2013) - that entrepreneurs in accelerators may
engage in sub-optimal learning - is based on the idea that if they had not
participated in the accelerator, they might have learned other things during the
same period. Social entrepreneurs’ reflections after the Booster accelerator
however, suggest that the learning that takes place in accelerators is qualitatively
different from the learning that takes place in the day-to-day life of nascent social
entrepreneurs. This difference is emphasized by Barry (A1) who was surprised
by it:
“It wasn’t conscious, but I notice it now when I’m sitting here on this course
[…] there are parts of my brain that are otherwise far too inactive that relax
and cut loose.”
As noted earlier, some scholars have suggested that the ties formed in
accelerators may be too weak to be of any use in transferring significant learning
among participants. This study suggests however, that although this may be a
risk, many entrepreneurs were able to develop surprisingly ‘thick’ ties during the
eight week programme – and that these ties did not thicken only towards the end
of the accelerator, but relatively early on
122
. My findings are therefore more
similar to those of Cohen (2013b) – whose study noted that peer bonds in
accelerators form quickly, but deeply.
What I found surprising in the Booster experience, is the short-term nature of the
ties formed during the accelerator. For the entrepreneurs interviewed by Hallen
et al. (2013), the expanded network facilitated by the accelerator was a key long-
term contribution
123
. Although it is too early to assess the impact of the A3
programme, follow-ups of the first two accelerators suggest that entrepreneurs
were able to form relationships of surprising intensity in a short period of time –
but that they maintained very few of these relationships after the programme.
This may be a result of the global nature of the Booster cohorts when compared
122
Rebecca’s (A3) quote reflects the speed of this process: “In a few weeks we have become like
siblings!”
123
For example, one entrepreneur is quoted as saying: ”The network is the thing that’s really lasted.”
Jönköping International Business School
302
to the cohorts of more traditional accelerators, but could also be linked to the
perception of NSE staff that they did not have the resources needed to help
graduates keep in touch with one another.
From a design perspective, the experiences of the Booster entrepreneurs suggest
that managers need to be aware of how time influences entrepreneurs’ learning.
Knowing that the pressure of time influences entrepreneurs to interact less with
one another towards the end of a programme, might lead managers to include
more structured forms of interaction during this period and to reduce the
number of formal, content-oriented activities. Understanding time as a resource
might also lead managers to structure programmes in such a way as to provide
entrepreneurs with sufficient time to accomplish key objectives, such as business
plans. On this note it is worth reflecting on the fact that several of the social
entrepreneurs (Peter, Nelson and Willis) were participating in an accelerator for
the second time. When I asked Willis why, he said that he needed to participate
in at least two programmes in order to gain a more complete understanding of
the concepts they introduced. His comment lends weight to my earlier suggestion
that there seems to be a limit to the amount of knowledge participants can
absorb, during the duration of an accelerator.
When the time factor is included in my conceptual ‘scaffold’ it is possible to
depict its dual nature (i.e. as both a source of stress and as a resource) in the
manner depicted in figure 5.6. In the figure, the multi-faceted nature of
‘entrepreneurial learning splace’ is first of all depicted by locating the vital process
of learning ‘as a whole person’ (through emotion, action and reflection) at the
core of the overall context for learning. Learning takes place through the
experience and resolution of disjuncture, but is always situated not only in
temporal space (time) – but also in human and material
124
‘space’.
Drawing on Smith (2011) I suggest that ‘space’ in accelerators is oriented towards
dialogue, reflection, community-building and action. Smith suggests that four
‘human’ concepts of learning space exist and proposes a further concept, that
of “peripheral space”. However, she does not identify what I term ‘action-
oriented space’. I omit the former category and add the latter one, based on my
interpretation of the empirical data gathered during my study. Smith also uses the
term “social space” to refer to what I term ‘space for community building’. The
development of ‘human space’ is discussed in more detail in section 5.6. Before
that however, I will briefly comment on the impact of pedagogy on
entrepreneurial learning in accelerators.
124
Material space could also be referred to as ’place’, but I retain the term ’space’ to emphasize that it is
one of several types of ’space’, all of which enhance or detract from the entrepreneur’s ability to learn.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
303
.
5.5.5 Pedagogy for Nascent Social Entrepreneurs
Initial impressions of entrepreneurs’ comments about the learning process in the
Booster accelerators seem to support the general mood of opinion among scholars
of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning. That is: the idea that
learning for and in entrepreneurship is most effective when it is based on an
experiential philosophy. Entrepreneurs were often critical of speakers who they
felt spent too much time talking about theoretical concepts, rather than practical
application. When discussing how to improve the accelerator in an A1 focus-
group, Edward made a comment that illustrates this:
Figure 5-6: A model of learning ‘splace’ in accelerators, depicting the interplay
of ‘human’ space, time, and primary and secondary physical space.
Jönköping International Business School
304
“More individual coaching I think. Maybe fewer lectures, more individual
coaching and above all… lectures versus workshops. Like some speakers
we’d rather have had in a workshop. So that instead of talking, act
125
. Jackie
for example: good lectures, but I would rather have had her in a workshop
where we sort of worked with our… business models.”
Comments such as the above were common and suggest that in accelerators,
relatively short lecture sessions – followed by practice and coaching, are often
effective in achieving knowledge-oriented objectives. Several of the social
entrepreneurs from developing countries had relatively short experiences of
formal education (i.e. primary and secondary school, and college or university).
These individuals appeared to ‘switch off’ in lectures earlier than their peers,
suggesting that an even more appropriate structure might have been a series of
concept-practice ‘sandwiches’. In other words: the structuring of instruction so
that a lecture that would normally be given in a single one-hour session, would
instead be given in four fifteen minute portions – with each part followed by
practical work, coaching and discussion. Such an didactical strategy would take
into account Gagné’s ‘conditions of learning’ concept, which refers to (among
other factors), “the initial capabilities of the learner” (Gagné, 1984, p. 21).
Despite entrepreneurs’ clear preference for action-oriented learning, their
comments suggest that it is important not to confuse their demand for relevance
with a preference for a form of education based on ‘do, then reflect’ – nor with
a desire for basic skills training. In A1 an attempt was made to structure
entrepreneurs’ learning by means of weekly reflections, but few participants were
willing to structure their learning in this (for them) artificial manner. As Alice
commented:
“Personally I would still cut down on the reflection part. But again, I’m giving it
a chance to prove itself useful before disregarding it actively […] this is very
new and somewhat uncomfortable for my way of working”.
In section 2.1.3 I noted that several scholars suggest that effective
entrepreneurship education should be based on strategies such as those of the
‘reflective practitioner’ or ‘action learning’. Entrepreneurs’ comments do not
contradict these recommendations, but they do modify them somewhat. Instead
of following a clear ‘act then reflect’ cycle (the reflection on action of Argyris &
Schön, 1978), the Booster entrepreneurs seemed to engage in both activities
simultaneously. Their practice seems to be more accurately reflected by Schön’s
(1983) later discussion of how professionals reflect in action. In A2 I was
fascinated by Nelson’s account of his learning process during a lecture
126
. He
125
The Scandinavian [sic] word used here can also be translated as “do!”.
126
There is no audio recording of this account, but I made a note of it shortly afterwards.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
305
described how he listened to the lecture (apparently drifting in and out, attention-
wise), while working on his website and asking questions of his mentor at the
same time, via email (during this particular session his mentor was online. During
a period of no more than two hours, four to six emails that referred to
modifications he was making to his website (as he received input from the
lecture) were sent – and responded to. This illustrates the capacity many Booster
entrepreneurs seemed to have, for ‘thinking on their feet’: evaluating new
knowledge, applying it to their ventures and then re-evaluating it – in quick
succession.
Interviews with entrepreneurs suggest that a philosophy of experiential education
does not necessarily require the emphasis of primary experience over secondary
(or vicarious) experience. The acquisition of practical skills and the reinforcement
of operations-oriented knowledge (such as financial analyses) seemed to be
facilitated by educational structures that interwove the acquisition of new
knowledge with its application. In other words: education based on what Jarvis
(2010) terms ‘primary’ experience. Nonetheless, knowledge that seemed to play
a more strategic role in venture development (such as a move towards hybridity or
the development of a social value proposition), seemed to be acquired through
both primary and secondary experience. This infers that what practicing social
entrepreneurs evaluate in the context of education, is not so much the mode of
education (learning by doing or learning from others), but rather its relevance. This
supports Gibb’s (2002) advocacy of a ‘need-oriented’ educational strategy when
working with practicing entrepreneurs.
To scholars familiar with the practices of entrepreneurs and small business
owners, Gibb’s educational strategy may appear self-evident. Nevertheless, this
study contributes to our understanding of what nascent entrepreneurs mean by
the term ‘relevance’. First of all, it is important to understand that ‘relevant’ is an
adjective that is subjective, rather than objective in character. A coach or mentor
may look at the entrepreneur’s venture and identify a specific contact or body of
knowledge as of relevance. However, if the entrepreneurs themselves do not
consider this input useful, then from an educational perspective, the input has
not yet achieved the relevance necessary to catch their attention. Furthermore,
entrepreneurs are not that different from other adults and consequently, as Boud
and Walker (1991) suggest, relevance is largely determined by purpose (or intent).
If an entrepreneur arrives at an accelerator primarily in order to raise investment,
they are unlikely to pay attention to managers’ suggestions that they contact
someone with valuable technical experience – unless somebody can convince
them that this contact is aligned with their intentions. Alternatively, it may also
be possible to support entrepreneurs in expanding their intentions and consequently,
the ‘filters’ that define what is and is not relevant to them.
Jönköping International Business School
306
Two final factors that seems to strengthen or weaken entrepreneurs’ perceptions
of relevance; have to do with credibility, and emotion and empathy. The Booster
entrepreneurs appeared to assess speakers from both a cognitive and emotional
standpoint. With regards to the cognitive aspect they seemed to prioritise speaker
‘credibility’ above the ‘plausibility’ of the session content. For example: in A3 an
external speaker held a session entitled ‘social, environmental and corporate
governance’. She had a background in large organisations and the A3
entrepreneurs were unanimous in critiquing the session for being too theoretical
and too distant from their own experience. They did not so much suggest that
what she said was untrue (assessing content plausibility), but rather that it was
unlikely to be useful to their own ventures – implying a perceived lack of
credibility due to the contrast in context. In the Booster accelerators, practicing
entrepreneurs often seemed to make an initial assessment of the value of a
session’s content, by referring to the credibility they attached to the speaker.
Credibility appeared to be established on the basis of similarities of experience,
for example: with regards to having started a venture, developed an effective
product or service, and having worked in a developing country.
The above paragraph gives the impression that the assessment of speaker
credibility is primarily a ‘cold’, cognitive process. Entrepreneurs’ comments
however, underline the role played by emotion in establishing credibility and
hence, the potential for relevance. Kenny (A2) provides a particularly clear
account of what a mentor needed to bring to the accelerator, in order to relate
effectively with him:
“He will see my struggle, he will see my pains. You understand? He will
understand… he will appreciate my efforts more. […] If you don’t like
business, for example, I’ll tell you what I’ve been through in my course of
being an entrepreneur. You will not value it, you will think it’s nonsense.”
What Kenny appears to be expressing is the idea that pedagogy for nascent social
entrepreneurs needs to be characterised by empathy. He seems to be saying that
he will be more inclined to listen to individuals who make him feel understood.
Indeed, the input he is appealing for seems to be almost therapeutic in nature.
Meetings with experienced entrepreneurs are valued not just because they are
associated with good advice at a cognitive level, but also because these individuals
are more likely to not only recognise the pain associated with entrepreneurship,
but also to value (or appreciate) it. The experience of several of the Booster
entrepreneurs is similar to the experiences identified by Hytti and Heinonen
(2013) in their discussion of identity work among academic entrepreneurs. In
their study, the entrepreneurial intentions of some academic staff were often
related to the extent to which experienced entrepreneurs shared their painful, yet
successful experiences of starting a new firm. Kenny’s comments suggest that if
experienced entrepreneurs interact with accelerator participants in an empathetic
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
307
manner, they are more likely to judge their input as relevant – and consequently,
are more prepared to engage in vicarious learning. This aspect of relevance is
however primarily affective (or emotion-related) in nature. Furthermore, it also
appears to promote the intention-oriented accelerator outcomes that I have
grouped under the label ‘faith’. By discussing the pain and anxiety of social
entrepreneurship, experienced entrepreneurs do not ignore the affective aspects
of education. Instead, they appear to infuse the painful experiences of less-
experienced entrepreneurs with meaning, enabling them to transform these
experiences into intention and insight.
An interesting difference between the Booster entrepreneurs and the prospective
academic entrepreneurs studied by Hytti and Heinonen (2013), is that the Booster
entrepreneurs were rarely enthusiastic about sessions with “heroic”
entrepreneurs who glossed over the challenges of entrepreneurship. In Hytti and
Heinonen’s study, male academics appeared to relate more to entrepreneurs who
adopted this approach in their visits – while females welcomed the more
“humane” approach of entrepreneurs who were open about the problems they
had faced. This contrast suggests that there is not a single, ideal pedagogy of
entrepreneurship education. For example: the roles that experienced
entrepreneurs are able to play in entrepreneurship education may not only be
related to the purposes of educators (as suggested by Blenker & Christensen,
2010), but also to the characteristics of the learner. Practicing social
entrepreneurs for example, appear to require experienced entrepreneurs to adopt
approaches that express empathy – whereas prospective entrepreneurs (such as
students) often have fewer entrepreneurial experiences for visitors to emphasize
with. Clearly, an approach that is effective in the education of prospective
entrepreneurs, may be less effective when working with practicing entrepreneurs
– or even counterproductive.
When the non-formal character of accelerator education is linked to a recognition
of the subjective nature of entrepreneurs’ perceptions of relevance, it becomes
clear that a pedagogy appropriate to practicing entrepreneurs also need to be
oriented towards contingency. Honig (2004) discusses the concept of
contingency primarily in relation to the role of business plans in entrepreneurship
education. Nonetheless, his ideas are also applicable to the more general theme
of pedagogy in non-formal approaches to education (such as accelerators). Honig
argues that neither entrepreneurs nor educators are able to predict a venture’s
development and that venture documents (such as business plans) therefore need
to be able to cope with this uncertainty. A similar argument can be made for non-
formal approaches to entrepreneurship education. Managers gather extensive
information about entrepreneurs’ backgrounds and about their ventures, but can
never predict the exact path along which a venture will develop. They are
therefore faced with the choice of either attempting to persuade entrepreneurs
of the relevance of their pre-accelerator design choices (i.e. the initial, rigid
Jönköping International Business School
308
schedule of accelerator activities) – or they can attempt to accompany
entrepreneurs on a somewhat less-structured journey of discovery.
In section 5.5.1 I suggested that learning in effective accelerators is characterised
by a gradual move from a formal strategy of instruction to one that is non-formal.
Non-formal pedagogy however, does not consist in simply abandoning
entrepreneurs to an instructional ‘vacuum’. To be effective it needs to involve a
deepening of the educator’s awareness of their situation and of emergent
opportunities for learning. In A3 for example, as managers became more familiar
with the ambitions and needs of the entrepreneurs, they arranged additional study
visits for some individuals. Furthermore, although the visits of most of the
speakers were scheduled before the start of the accelerator, it appears that some
coaches adopted a pedagogy of ‘structured contingency’ as they worked with the
entrepreneurs. Drawing on the comments entrepreneurs made about effective
coaches, this strategy appeared to first of all entail the coach familiarising
themselves with the entrepreneurs’ ventures before the visit. During their
subsequent visit, as they talked about their area of expertise, this knowledge
enabled them to ask ‘informed’ questions about entrepreneurs’ ventures, in
relation to their topic. Often an entrepreneur’s response would align sufficiently
with the topic under discussion, so as to become part of the session. In effect,
coaches who adopted this pedagogical strategy were bringing a large number of
figurative ‘Lego bricks’ to the educational table. Figuratively speaking, they
engaged with accelerator participants by placing their bricks
127
on the table and
asking the entrepreneurs to add their own bricks to the pile. Coaches would then
select some of the entrepreneurs’ bricks to add their own in order to develop the
topic – or add each entrepreneur’s ‘brick’ to their own, one after the other.
Entrepreneurs’ comments suggest that this was an effective approach:
“It was useful. It was good that the coach made it simple and applicable for
each case. It was good that she was detailed.” (Olga-A3)
“[name of coach] studied all our websites and gave hands-on tips on how to
improve them.” (Nadia-A3)
The above comments illustrate the idea that a ‘contingency-oriented pedagogy’
can involve both a ‘macro’ and a ‘micro’ perspective. At the macro level, the non-
formal approach allows managers to provide entrepreneurs with content that was
not designed into the programme at the start of the accelerator. At the micro
level the content of a session whose general theme was pre-determined varies,
depending on which of the entrepreneurs’ ‘bricks’ the coach decided to build
upon (and the number of bricks made available). What is important to
understand in both cases is that the process and the outcomes associated with a
127
That is: key insights or capabilities, based on their particular field of expertise.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
309
pedagogy of contingency, are emergent in character. Williams, Mackness and
Gumtau (2012) associate this type of learning with a paradox, in that learning is
“ordered yet unpredictable”. An important contribution of this study is its
identification and discussion of this unpredictability. In section 4.3.7
128
I
identified the variance in accelerator outcomes, despite strong similarities in
programme structure. In the next section I attempt to explain this variance,
suggesting that it occurs because entrepreneurial learning in accelerators is not
simply the product of management design, but instead the product of a complex
process of co-creation.
5.6 Co-creating Entrepreneurial Learning
One advantage of studying a series of accelerators run by the same organisation
– yet populated by different entrepreneurs – is that this research strategy
facilitates a discussion of the relative impact of programme design. To use the
language of Giddens (1984) it becomes easier to distinguish the impact of the
‘structure’ from that of the ‘agent’. Although the design of the Booster accelerators
evolved to a certain extent from A1 to A3 – and despite the fact that different
managers coordinated the three programmes, accelerator design was more
characterised by continuity than by change. Consequently, a large part of the
variance in both accelerator processes and outcomes appears to be linked to
differences between the entrepreneurs who participated in them. Hallen et al.
(2013) suggest that accelerators will tend to become more effective over time, as
they learn to “better structure their content and activities”. To a certain extent
my study supports this conjecture. However, the contrast in quality of interaction
between A1 and A2 – despite a refinement in programme design – suggests that
accelerator outcomes are affected by more than simply structure and networks.
A key contribution made by this study is the evidence it provides for the co-creation
of learning in accelerators. Learning is developed through the interaction of the
relatively constant population of managers, mentors and coaches – with the
constantly changing combinations of entrepreneurs. This process is discussed in
more detail in the following sections.
5.6.1 The Distinctive Roles of Mentors and Coaches
In several publications (Cohen, 2013m; Hallen et al., 2013), scholars discuss
entrepreneurs’ interactions with the individuals formally associated with
accelerators using the single term “mentor”. Cohen for example, uses this term
to describe both the single individual with whom entrepreneurs interact for the
duration of the programme and the variety of visiting speakers
129
with whom they
128
Similar structures, dissimilar interaction.
129
Her ”four or five mentors a day” (p.23).
Jönköping International Business School
310
interact on a one off basis. Consequently, one contribution of this study is its
distinguishing of the several different types of ‘outside expert’ roles in
accelerators.
In Booster entrepreneurs were allocated a single person upon entering the
programme, whose role it was to be their personal advisor for the duration of
the accelerator. Accelerator managers used the term ‘mentor’ to refer to these
individuals and this is the meaning given to this term in this section. The mentor’s
role was intended to be a broadly developmental one, providing the entrepreneur
with someone who was uniquely dedicated to the success of their venture for at
least the duration of the accelerator. Brockbank and McGill (2006) suggest that
two types of developmental role are associated with this type of long-term
relationship. One that focuses primarily on identifying opportunities for
development (“development alliance”) and one that functions to provide
opportunities (“traditional mentoring”). They suggest that both of these types
fall under the general umbrella of mentoring, but that the first type is more
mentee-led, while the second type tends to be more organisation-driven.
Although it is not the primary purpose of this study to discuss the different roles
mentors can take on, the Booster mentors often tended to emphasize one of the
above functions. Some entrepreneurs noted that their mentor’s main
contribution was to provide them with useful contacts (the traditional mentor
role, according to Brockbank and McGill). Other mentors focused more on
helping entrepreneurs develop themselves or their ventures, by means of
‘awareness-raising dialogue’ (the development alliance model) – and some
mentors contributed in both areas.
In addition to the individuals that follow entrepreneurs throughout the duration
of the programme; accelerators usually recruit a second, larger group of experts.
These individuals interact with entrepreneurs at specific points during the
accelerator and provide them with expert advice on a particular part of their
ventures (for example: financial management or marketing). Brockbank and
McGill (2006) suggest that, in common with long-term mentoring activities,
short-term developmental interaction can also be distinguished as either person-
oriented or organisation-led. They term person-oriented interventions
“counselling” and suggest that it relates primarily to problem-solving.
Organisation-led processes are termed “coaching” and focus mainly on skills
development.
In the Booster accelerators, visitors to the programme could be seen to fulfil both
of the above roles and frequently this was facilitated by the design of accelerator
activities. A typical visit by an ‘expert’ began with a lecture-type session of
instruction that was designed to improve entrepreneurs’ skills in a certain area
(the coaching role). In a subsequent session (usually in the afternoon of the same
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
311
day), the expert met with the entrepreneurs individually to discuss the application
of the skills introduced in the previous session, in their particular context. This
follow-up session was typically characterised by an approach that focused on
application and problem-solving (the counselling role). Despite the two different
roles taken on by short-term visitors, it appears nevertheless that they engaged in
a very different kind of interaction with accelerator entrepreneurs than that
engaged in by mentors. ‘Expert’ visitors to accelerators tended to ignore the
‘forest’ of the entrepreneur’s venture and devoted their attention almost entirely
to their own particular ‘tree’. Indeed one entrepreneur commented wryly that
each visitor appeared to think that their own particular area was the most
important. Mentors on the other hand appear more able to assist entrepreneurs
in ascertaining the relative importance of each expert’s contribution to the
particular needs of the startup.
In view of the differences discussed in the above paragraphs, I suggest that it is
important to distinguish between the role of long-term
130
mentor and short-term
expert. I suggest that the term ‘mentor’ be used to refer only to the individuals
allocated to entrepreneurs for the duration of the accelerator, for the purpose of
venture development. This is in keeping with contemporary scholarly practice in
the fields of psychology and leadership. The use of the term however, should not
ignore the fact that mentors can play different roles in venture development.
Previously I suggested that it is important that entrepreneurs be assisted in
gaining a ‘birds-eye’ view of their enterprises, so that they do not become bogged
down in the details of a single part of their startups. Clearly, mentors are in a
unique position to assist with this task and from a theoretical perspective this
role is an important ideal to strive for. In reality, not all mentors fill this role
effectively and may only contribute with very specific feedback that reflects their
(narrow) expertise. Their contribution may also be limited to providing contacts
that enable entrepreneurs to expand their networks, and gain access to additional
knowledge and resources. The most effective mix from the standpoint of the
social entrepreneur, appears to be one where mentors support entrepreneurs’
learning in both ways. That is: learning not only about ‘who’ (in order to gain
access to expertise and investment), but also about ‘what’ and ‘how’ (for example:
by helping them identify the value they seek to create or develop an effective
business model).
I suggest that it is useful to refer to the experts that visit the accelerator for a
relatively short period of time, as ‘coaches’. Nonetheless, as with the mentor
label, it is important to understand that coaches often engage in at least two types
of role: that of problem-oriented counselling and that of skill-developing
130
In the context of accelerators ’long-term’ refers to a period that may be as short as the duration of
the programme, even if some mentors continue to engage with entrepreneurs after the accelerator.
Jönköping International Business School
312
coaching. Nonetheless, when a coach is also an experienced [social] entrepreneur,
these roles are often complemented by that of the role model.
Although mentors and coaches do not vary from accelerator to accelerator to the
same extent as entrepreneurs in terms of personality and behaviour, it is clear
from entrepreneurs’ accounts that they are as much ‘agents’ as they are ‘structure’
in the programmes. What this implies, is that each meeting with a new
entrepreneur – or cohort of entrepreneurs – is unique in terms of the interaction
that takes place. This is particularly so with regards to mentors, who are usually
chosen to ‘match’ specific entrepreneurs in each accelerator. As a result, several
new mentors are often recruited to each new accelerator to address the particular
needs of each social entrepreneur. These mentors bring new approaches to
relating with the social entrepreneurs and to mentoring, which makes it difficult
for managers to ‘standardise’ the content of mentoring. Nevertheless, even in
the case of coaches, interaction may follow different patterns in each accelerator;
as entrepreneurs elicit different responses from the coaches – and vice-versa. In
a programme such as Booster (which recruits social entrepreneurs globally), the
potential for variation is perhaps unusually large – as A2 demonstrated. In the
second accelerator coaches interacted with two entrepreneurs with extremely
different backgrounds. On the one hand, Isaac: with a university education,
polished manners and long management experience in prestigious aid
organisations. And on the other hand, Nelson: the ex-child soldier with little
formal education, little business experience and a weak understanding of Western
social codes. Although I interviewed very few coaches, entrepreneurs’ accounts
suggest that the way in which coaches interacted with them affected their
attitudes and behaviour. For example: when Nelson describes his interaction with
his mentor, he clearly describes her attitude towards him and his venture:
“Most importantly I have had my mentor who is very loving and who cares for
the project that I'm running, who also has developed passion for the project
and wants to work with me”.
The above quote is short, but full of implications. Not only does Nelson describe
his response to his mentor’s attitude (he now considers his interaction with her to
be one of the most important contributions of the accelerator), he also shows
that his mentor’s attitude to his venture has developed over the course of the
accelerator (“…has developed passion”). The idea of the development of a
shared passion is something discussed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) in
their foundational discussion of co-creation processes. They position dialogue as
a key factor in the co-creation process, but suggest that it must “center around
issues of interest to both” (service providers and consumers) if it is to be effective
(ibid., p.9). Nelson’s experience was not shared by all of the entrepreneurs, which
suggests that interaction between mentors/coaches and social entrepreneurs
develops differently in accelerators. This variation supports my suggestion that
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
313
programme design is just one ingredient in the accelerator process. An important
second ingredient is the interaction that is co-created by the different agents in
the accelerators, two of which are mentors and coaches.
5.6.2 Managers’ Roles
A useful contribution of this study is its discussion of how social entrepreneurs’
interaction with mentors, coaches and peers contributes to their learning. Studies
of incubators (for example: Hjorth, 2013; Lichtenstein, 1992) at times emphasize
the role of programme managers
131
in enhancing the learning of incubatees, but
pay less attention to the impact of other relationships. Naturally however,
managers also influenced entrepreneurs’ learning in the Booster accelerators. Staff
took on several different roles over the three year period that is discussed in this
study, but the number of staff involved in the accelerators also varied. The
implications of this variation are discussed below.
The five main roles that managers in the Booster accelerators took on were those
of designer, facilitator, problem-solver, opportunitor and cohort cultivator. As described in
section 4.3.2, managers were responsible for designing a set of activities that
would help entrepreneurs develop their ventures. This ‘designer’ role is worth
noting, as it contrasts markedly with the prominent role played by Cohen’s
(2013a) “director experts” – as advisors to the entrepreneurs. In Booster a lot of
the design work was done prior to the accelerator, but as each accelerator
progressed and entrepreneurs’ particular needs surfaced, there was an
opportunity to customise and refine the programme. In section 5.5.1 I suggested
that as time goes by in accelerators, there is often gradual shift from a formal to
a non-formal learning environment. Importantly, this shift implies a change of
emphasis in managers’ roles. as they come to rely less on ‘predicting’
entrepreneurs’ needs (the role of the traditional designer) – and more on
obtaining an accurate impression of these needs and adapting programme design
in order to create an environment conducive to their solution (the role of the
facilitator). This change in roles reflects Sanders and Stappers’ (2008, p. 15)
discussion of “generative design thinking”. These scholars discuss how co-design
involves a ‘mixing up’ of roles and emphasize a new role for researchers and
designers, as providers of “tools for ideation and expression” (p.12). In the
Booster context, the ‘emergent design’ implied by this thinking was most obvious
in A1 and A3, but was less apparent in A2. In the second accelerator, a third role
– that of the ‘problem solver’ – severely limited managers’ ability to engage in the
facilitator role.
In A1 and A3 NSE was able to recruit several assistants to help with the
practicalities of running the accelerator. These individuals helped with tasks that
131
See for example: Hjorth’s (2013, p.46) discussion of managers as “institutional entrepreneurs”.
Jönköping International Business School
314
ranged from setting up coffee breaks to booking accommodation and travel. In
A3, one was even involved as a coach – while her companion coordinated the
‘networking’ side of the accelerator. In A2 however, only one assistant was
initially available and the practical responsibility for the day-to-day coordination
of the accelerator rested on manager Karen’s shoulders. This drop in staffing
coincided with the decision to recruit social entrepreneurs from developing
countries, with all the practical and cultural complications that this entailed. After
the accelerator, Karen described her frustration over being forced into a
‘problem-solver’ role, which in A2 involved an apparently continuous process of
‘fire-fighting’. This role did not prevent Karen from engaging in design activities
– most of which took place before the accelerator – but it did prevent her from
operating effectively in the ‘facilitator’ role.
A role that is at times similar to that of the ‘problem solver’ is that of the ‘cohort
cultivator’. This role is similar to the ‘group facilitator’ role described by
Lichtenstein (1992) in his study of the Enterprise Development Centre
132
(EDC)
in Boston. It refers to the effort managers put in to helping entrepreneurs get to
know one another and form productive relationships. In all three Booster
accelerators managers devoted several days to proactive team-building at the
beginning of the programme, but were criticised by several entrepreneurs in A2 for
not sustaining this effort in the weeks that followed. In A2 in particular, it was
difficult to maintain the initial proactive stance of ‘cultivation’ in the face of the
conflicts among the entrepreneurs and managers were forced to engage in
activities more similar to ‘weeding’ (i.e. conflict resolution). A3 entrepreneurs
however, commented on the contribution made by managers in not only
fostering good relationships (by stimulating and monitoring group processes),
but also by designing for a positive group dynamic (the inclusion of a session on
intercultural communication).
In my method section I discussed my own role as a ‘bearer of organisational
knowledge’. This role was clearly also taken on by managers in the second and
third accelerators. Managers were keen to learn from the accelerator process and
to assess the relative merits of different sessions, coaches and mentors – as well
as their own performance. Substantial efforts have been made to document the
Booster processes, but naturally a great deal of tacit knowledge has been
accumulated in the heads of the two managers involved in A2 and A3.
The final role that Booster managers clearly engaged in was that of the ‘pace-
maker’ (or ‘task-master’). This role is similar to that taken on by manager June
Lavelle in Lichtenstein’s (1992) study of the Fulton-Carroll incubator in Chicago.
It is more directive in nature than the ‘cohort cultivator’ role and focuses on
helping entrepreneurs progress through the accelerator programme. In practice
132
At the time of Lichtenstein’s study this was an incubator.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
315
it involved managers engaging in activities such as asking entrepreneurs about
their progress and reminding them about deadlines. At times mentors took on a
similar role, but interviews clearly indicated that not all mentors adopted a ‘bigger
picture’ perspective of the entrepreneurs’ ventures – suggesting that it was
important that managers took on this role.
The distinct roles and functions of managers, mentors and coaches can be
conceptualised in the following way (see figure 5.7).
NETWORKS
Managers
c
o
u
n
s
e
l
l
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
c
o
h
o
r
t
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
o
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
o
r
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
l
v
e
r
r
o
l
e
m
o
d
e
l
p
a
c
e
m
a
k
e
r
Mentors
Coaches
e
n
t
h
u
s
i
a
s
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
o
r
Intent
e
x
p
e
r
t
Figure 5-7: Tutor roles in the Booster Accelerators.
Jönköping International Business School
316
In this figure I note first of all the existence of three main learning-oriented actors
in accelerators: managers, mentors and coaches. I label these actors “tutors”,
given the orientation of the term towards educators who work with “a single
pupil or a very small group” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). Although the
entrepreneurial community surrounding the accelerator is not discussed in this
study, it does play a role in entrepreneurial learning and is depicted in the diagram
as a ‘network’ that the accelerator is embedded in. The various functions of the
tutorial actors within the accelerator (for example: counselling and expert
coaching) are included in the diagram. However, they are not restricted to any
specific category – even if the figure reflects the tendency of managers to take on
a greater range of roles than mentors and coaches. This reflects my observation
that although some functions are more commonly associated with a particular
group, at times other categories of tutor also carry out these functions. For
example: although mentors often take on the ‘opportunitor’ role (the provider of
connections or similar opportunities for development), this role is at time taken
by both managers and coaches. It is also important to note that although
managers invite mentors and coaches to the accelerator, it is difficult to achieve
complete agreement with regards to what should be achieved through their visits.
This is represented in the diagram by the presence of a ‘shadow’ intent on the
part of mentors and coaches.
5.6.3 The Impact of Cohort Characteristics on Learning
The interactions testified to by the entrepreneurs in the three Booster accelerators
suggest that the effectiveness of accelerator education is a result not only of
programme design, and the behaviour of mentors and coaches – but also of the
various ways in which social entrepreneurs act (and react), as they participate in
the accelerator. The diversity of ways in which individuals interact with a similar
accelerator design and an apparently similar pattern of relationships, lends weight
to my argument that accelerator outcomes are influenced as much by processes
of co-creation, as they are by programme design. In the Booster accelerators at
least three patterns of co-creation emerged that were particularly related to the
characteristics of the entrepreneurial cohort. These are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
5.6.3.1 Tone-setters: the Role of Influential Individuals
In all three accelerators one or two individuals appeared to play a greater role
than others in creating a particular ‘atmosphere’ within the accelerator –even if
this was less pronounced in A1. In A1 Henrik appeared to play a significant role
in creating a climate of cheerful energy and curiosity. In A2 two alternative
climates appeared to battle for supremacy, with Marie apparently the champion
of an open environment of equality and mutual engagement. The alternative
climate did not appear to have a clear champion, but seemed to be characterised
by one-up-manship, dissatisfaction and distrust. A3 was similar to A1 with
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
317
regards to the positive ‘feel’ to its group dynamic, even if it at times appeared that
Thomas was a little more proactive than his peers in taking steps to resolve
conflict. Two pairs of similar incidents illustrate my argument that agency trumps
design in the accelerator process. The first incident illustrates the vital importance
of entrepreneurial agency to the accelerator process, while the second one (in the
next section) illustrates the role of emotion in hindering learning.
As noted in section 4.3, in the third accelerator NSE staff decided to provide
entrepreneurs from with a daily allowance, in order to allow them to devote more
energy to the startup process and to minimise the conflicts associated with food
preparation in A2. Despite these changes and a reduction in the distance between
entrepreneurs’ accommodation and SocNet, in interviews with A3 entrepreneurs
it emerged that the potential for conflict still existed. In A2 a combination of
factors contributed to conflict among the large group of African entrepreneurs,
one of which (the refusal of some individuals to do their share of household
chores) appeared to be central. This conflict was partly resolved, but tainted the
atmosphere in the accelerator for the duration of the programme. In A3 the
climate in the group appeared to be energetic and cheerful, but when I discussed
the group dynamic with Thomas it emerged that Willis had attempted to get Zayd
and Vinay to do all his cooking for him
133
. In contrast to A2 however, Thomas
took immediate action to challenge this behaviour – apparently curtailing a
pattern of interaction that could have had a negative impact on the group
dynamic. Programme design in both accelerators was very similar, but the
development of the climate in the cohort was affected in very different ways by
the behaviour – and ‘counter behaviour’ of individual entrepreneurs.
5.6.3.2 Failing to learn: the role of emotion
In A1 and A2 two well-qualified entrepreneurs participated (Barry and Isaac), yet
the two individuals were associated with very different processes. In A1 Barry
adopted an attitude of openness and curiosity, apparently willing to receive
feedback from entrepreneurs with far less experience than him. Although he did
not get as much from the accelerator as he had hoped for, as a result of his
experience he was able to make a substantial contribution to the group – and
later took on the role of mentor for Gabriella. In contrast, interviews with A1
entrepreneurs suggest that Isaac was perceived as ‘too big for his boots’ by the
majority of the A2 entrepreneurs. This impression influenced both the climate in
the group and even managers’ attitudes towards him. Although the following
quote does not refer to Isaac alone, it is clear from other interviews that he is one
of the individuals ‘ignored’ by Peter:
133
A strikingly similar pattern of behaviour to that displayed by some of the A2 entrepreneurs.
Jönköping International Business School
318
“Something else… people are bossy, others want to show that they know a
little bit. I don’t like that crap, so as I told you I’m to myself. But I’ll not talk it
out, I will not share, I will just… ignore it. Which is common, I think that I’ve
seen that is common in our group”.
What is important in the above quote is not so much Isaac’s perceived attitude,
but rather the impact of his [perceived] attitude on other entrepreneurs’ learning.
Barry and Isaac were both experienced managers and it is probable that Isaac’s
peers in A2 could have learned as much from interacting with him, as Barry’s
peers did in A1. Drawing on Jarvis’ theory of adult learning however, it appears
that a similar experience of disjuncture (“Oh, this person knows more than me!”)
generates two very different outcomes. It appears that in both cases the
disjuncture is initially resolved by giving meaning to emotions
134
. This suggestion
is in line with Hytti and Nieminen’s (2013) discussion of entrepreneurial learning.
Drawing on Morris et al. (2012) they note that events produce “affective
reactions” in entrepreneurs and that these reactions are linked not only levels of
engagement, but are also characterised by either “positivity or negativity” (ibid.,
p.119). In Booster, Peter’s language (“that crap”) clearly shows that Isaac’s
perceived attitude is associated with a negative meaning
135
that has effectively
blocked Peter’s willingness to learn from him – even if Peter naturally feels that
he has learned something about Isaac. This example supports two arguments that
I make in this study. Firstly, my submission that managers, mentors, coaches and
entrepreneurs co-create accelerator processes together. And secondly, the
suggestion that entrepreneurial learning is significantly influenced by emotion.
5.6.3.3 Failing to learn: the role of previous educational experiences
In section 2.2.3 I noted Le Cornu’s (2005) suggestion that there is really no such
thing as ‘non-learning’. Even when individuals do not form radically new
interpretations of their experiences they still learn, even if this implies only the
slightest reinforcement of previous interpretations. Consequently, it is perhaps
more useful to coin Hallen et al.’s (2013) term “sub-optimal’ learning to refer to
instances when entrepreneurs learned less than envisaged by accelerator
managers, or perhaps developed different interpretations. In the Booster
accelerators as noted previously, stress was a factor that appeared to foster sub-
optimal learning – especially in the second half of the programme. However, it
also appeared that entrepreneurs reacted in different ways to the non-formal
environment that the accelerator provided for learning.
134
See section 2.2.2.3 ‘Transforming experience’.
135
This is the term Jarvis proposes. Based on their article, it is possible that Hytti and Nieminen would
instead employ the term “negative affective state”.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
319
Non-formal learning contexts rest uncomfortably between the structured,
teacher-centred expectations of formal learning environments and the
unstructured, individually-determined freedom of informal learning.
Furthermore, as I have noted; learning in the Booster accelerators tended to
progress from taking place in a more structured environment, to developing in a
slightly less structured form, as time went by. My impression is that this is a
typical feature of accelerators and that it is also an effective design parameter,
when the shift operates effectively. Most of the entrepreneurs appeared
untroubled by the accelerator’s non-formal approach to learning and adapted to
it. This was particularly so with the more experienced entrepreneurs, who often
had a clearer idea of their own capabilities and the knowledge or skills they
needed to develop. Isaac (A2) described his approach to workshops and
assignments in the following way:
“Sending somebody assignments through email is all theory, but the reality of
it is that they can only do so much.
(Duncan): “Did you have to prioritise between them, in one way or another,
or… did you sort of say, ‘This one I won’t do, because it’s just impossible and
this one is more important’?”
“Absolutely. For me, I look at first what is important for me. And I look at what
is important for my business. […] For instance, if you put me in a class where
somebody is coaching the basics of budgeting, that becomes irrelevant for
me. Absolutely irrelevant. I mean, it doesn’t add any value to my… enterprise.
So I decided to prioritise. And how I did it is by not taking certain assignments.
I didn’t see any relevance, quite frankly. […] I prioritised and decided to take
on only the few that mattered.”
Isaac’s comment suggests that he has understood the nature of non-formal
learning and the importance of his own role as a conscious ‘co-designer’ of the
learning process in the accelerator. He appears to perceive himself as having at
least as much say as the accelerator managers, with regards to the tasks he engages
in. He is also clearly prioritising between accelerator activities – to the point of
choosing not to do some assignments. His attitude to education was very similar
to that displayed by the entrepreneurs in A1 (who all had ‘Western’ backgrounds).
In A2 and A3 however, many of the entrepreneurs with African backgrounds
appeared more hesitant to prioritise among activities and in particular, to do so
by not participating in a workshop or not completing an assignment. One
explanation for this hesitancy could be entrepreneurs’ perception of the
accelerator as a ‘formal’ learning arena, similar to their previous experiences of
education. Peter (A2) described this contrast in the following way:
“There is an element of practicality as in – it’s hands on, that’s the difference.
It’s hands on in terms of the mentors, the coaches, they give you
Jönköping International Business School
320
assignments. You do them, but way back some of us have been taught how to
cram – you cram to pass. We are not taught how to… to do the thing your
way.”
Although my impression was that Peter had adapted well to the non-formal
environment of the accelerator, he commented several times, in different
interviews, on the contrast between his experiences of learning at university and
the approach that characterised the accelerator. My impression was that although
he recognised the non-formal character of learning in the accelerator, he did not
adapt to it to the extent of choosing not to participate in activities he found less
relevant. When I asked him to identify ‘low patches’ in the accelerator he made
the following comment:
“I’m open to learning, so I didn’t have that [a low patch]. Everything to me
counts. Everything to me counts – but as I said, when you reflect over it, take
what is relevant and leave what is not relevant. So when I came I came
empty. So everything that you give me it’s like – I come like an empty car.
You go to a fuel station, they put gasoline in you, once the car is full, you go.”
Peter’s comments suggest that he performed a mental ‘screening’ of accelerator
activities: participating in everything, but ‘ignoring’ input he felt was less relevant.
Veteran entrepreneurs Isaac (A2) and Barry (A1) however, seemed to engage not
only in the mental screening described by Peter, but also in a ‘physical’ (or
practical) screening. They recognised that assessing an activity as ‘irrelevant’
could have practical implications (don’t participate) – and they acted on their
assessments. Both strategies appeared to be effective in helping entrepreneurs
focus on the areas of greatest relevance to them, during the accelerator. What
appeared to cause problems however, was the tendency of some entrepreneurs
to treat a non-formal approach to learning as if it were formal. In A2, this
appeared to be the reasoning underlying the behaviour of entrepreneurs such as
Kenny and Steven. These entrepreneurs did not appear to assess accelerator
activities in a proactive manner and instead seemed to approach workshops and
assignments in a ‘school-like’ manner. As Steven commented:
“We don’t have time for interaction.”
(Duncan): “You don’t have time?”
“We have time for work, which is programmed by NSE. And when we get
home we have to create time for ourselves to do our own homework.”
Steven’s comment suggests that he is framing learning in the accelerator in terms
of a more formal approach (he uses the term “homework” and says that learning
“is programmed by NSE”). Kenny appeared to adopt a similar perspective and
both entrepreneurs seemed to view the structures for learning in the accelerator
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
321
(for example: assignments and deadlines) as taskmasters that needed to be
satisfied, rather than aids to development. Consequently, they attempted to
complete all the tasks assigned to them and participated in almost all of the
scheduled workshops. Their approach was associated with feelings of pressure
and overload, as witnessed to by Kenny’s diagram of the pressure he experienced
during the accelerator
136
- and by his interpretation of his drawing:
“Here [pointing to stress line on diagram]… too many deadlines, too much
rush, too many… It creates this [making rapid banging noise]. Until now I’ve
not recovered!”
My interpretation of entrepreneurs’ behaviour is that previous experiences of
learning can have a significant impact on the behaviour that entrepreneurs adopt
in accelerators. Entrepreneurs who fail to recognise the distinction between
formal and non-formal learning contexts – and who adopt a traditional student
role – are less likely to distinguish between relevant and less-relevant input and
to take action on their assessments. This can lead to high levels of stress, as it is
usually difficult to complete all the tasks associated with accelerators in a
satisfactory manner. Furthermore, by paying attention to ‘everything’,
entrepreneurs are less likely to spend sufficient time on strengthening the specific
areas of weakness (or strategic opportunity) associated with their particular
venture.
5.7 Social Entrepreneurship and Accelerators
As I near the end of my discussion of social entrepreneurs’ learning in
accelerators, it is natural to ask whether there is anything ‘special’ about
accelerators that educate social entrepreneurs. To what extent is my study
relevant to accelerators that focus on for-profit ventures – and what findings are
more restricted to ‘social’ ventures? This is a difficult question to answer with
any certainty, as few studies of accelerators have ‘dug below the surface’ and
discussed the accelerator process in detail, from the perspective of the
entrepreneur. Randall Stross’ (2012) account of day-to-day life in Y Combinator is
an exception, but his account is primarily descriptive in character. Similarly, there
are important differences in accelerator design and accelerator cohort, between
the programme he studied and Booster. Despite these contrasts, there seem to be
many similarities between the two accelerators with regards to process. Stross
describes for example, a similar emergence of ‘sub-groups’ within the cohort –
and Booster entrepreneurs would empathise with the constant pitch training that
the Y Combinator entrepreneurs also faced. Furthermore, the critical assessment
of participating enterprises is a common thread in both accounts. It also appears
136
On Kenny’s diagram the line representing stress rose rapidly towards ’high levels’ from week five
onwards, only dropping again in week eight.
Jönköping International Business School
322
that similar dynamics affect cohort selection. This study suggests that
entrepreneurs who have clear alternatives to a career in social entrepreneurship
(for example: the ‘knowledgeable improvisers’ and many of the ‘expatriate’ social
entrepreneurs), may be more likely than ‘indigenous’ entrepreneurs to consider
other career paths when the going gets tough. Managers at Y Combinator describe
their recruitment strategy as focusing on twenty-five year-olds. The logic
underlying this strategy revolves not around age, but because of entrepreneurs’
lack of alternative options: “no safe retreat” and “total commitment” (Stross,
2012, p. 22). Hjorth (2013) also comments on the importance of assessing
entrepreneur commitment when recruiting to incubators. This study therefore
contributes to our knowledge of both social entrepreneurship and accelerators,
by developing our understanding of the degree of commitment associated with
different categories of social entrepreneur. This knowledge can be expected to
help accelerator managers recruit social entrepreneurs in a more informed
manner.
The uniqueness of accelerators for social entrepreneurs appears to centre upon
three different factors. The centrality of the social value proposition, the affective
(or emotion-oriented) dimension of the accelerator and the move towards
hybridity. Unsurprisingly, in view of the nature of social entrepreneurship, a key
ingredient in Booster was its emphasis on helping entrepreneurs clarify, evaluate
and communicate the social value they seek to create. Frequently, the issue of
scaling was also addressed. These emphases can be expected to be found in other
accelerators for social ventures, as the creation of social value undergirds funders’
willingness to provide ‘patient capital’ – or grants. This aspect of the Booster
accelerators is seldom found in traditional accelerators, which tend to focus on
the commercial viability of participating enterprises.
Despite the central role of the ‘social value proposition’ in accelerators for social
ventures, the Booster experience suggests that programmes can ‘niche’ themselves
by emphasising two different aspects of their offerings. First of all, accelerators can
support entrepreneurs in clarifying their ventures’ contribution and marketing
themselves. This was clearly something done at Booster and it is important not to
under-value the accelerator’s role in helping entrepreneurs sharpen their focus.
This was achieved by firstly, helping participants identify the core contribution
of their ventures – and secondly, by encouraging them to channel more energy
in that direction. However, a distinct contribution that accelerators could make
(which was not quite as apparent at Booster) has to do with the effectiveness of
ventures’ activities. In their applications entrepreneurs are asked which social
challenge they are addressing, yet those who assess the applications sometimes
lack the expertise necessary to judge the future impact of their products or
services. For example: in the case of Steven and his library initiative (designed to
help schoolchildren gain access to textbooks), the accelerator mainly focused on
helping him develop a sound business plan, communication skills and convincing
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
323
financials. Relatively little attention was paid to the foundational questions “Are
libraries an effective tool for providing access to textbooks?” and “Are there
better alternatives?”. Similarly, the coaching Steven received was not geared
towards more effective libraries, but rather their establishment. Frequently,
recruitment to the accelerator is based upon the assumption that an
entrepreneur’s idea works and that by scaling it, it will provide an effective
solution in a particular environment. The disadvantage of ‘global’ accelerators –
in comparison to ‘local’ programmes such as Y Combinator – is that it is difficult
for recruiters to assess the impact and viability of a product or service that is
destined for an environment they are unfamiliar with.
The gist of the above paragraphs is that accelerators for social ventures are
distinct from traditional programmes when it comes to their focus on the
creation of social value. Furthermore, it is probable that accelerators can niche
their offerings on the basis of what they emphasize within the social value
‘theme’. Are they primarily concerned with scaling up (and possibly
commercialising) social ventures, or do they focus more on developing effective
[social] services and products – that is: social innovation? The two emphases do
not exclude one another, but accelerators may be more effective if they focus
primarily on one or the other.
A second distinctive characteristic of accelerators for social ventures (based on
the Booster experience) is the pivotal role played by ‘emotional’ learning. By this I
refer to the ‘faith’ and ‘family’ outcomes of the accelerator, reflecting
entrepreneurs’ accounts of how they developed confidence during the
programme, became inspired and developed a social entrepreneurial identity.
Nascent entrepreneurship is an ‘emotional’ affair, regardless of whether its intent
is to create financial or social value (Doern & Goss, 2012). Nonetheless, Maija
Renko (2013) suggests that nascent social ventures are characterised by their
founders’ distinctive “affective commitment” to a particular cause or social
group. She portrays this emotional ‘driver’ as more intense than the emotions
associated with the startup ideas of more traditional entrepreneurs. What few
scholars discuss though, is how social entrepreneurs maintain affective
commitment – and the consequences of being unable to do so. Many of the
Booster entrepreneurs associate the founding of a social venture in a developing
country with loneliness, isolation and incomprehension on the part of other
actors. Consequently, they often describe their experience of ‘leaving their island’
and participating in the accelerator, with enthusiasm – and they express concern
that they will be ‘forgotten’ when the programme ends.
In the Booster accelerators ‘inspiration’ was an accelerator outcome that
entrepreneurs commented on, regardless of category. The ‘family’ outcome
(identity and belonging) in contrast, appeared to be particularly valued by
entrepreneurs who felt they lacked the [social] entrepreneurial community that
Jönköping International Business School
324
the accelerator and SocNet represented. Both aspects however, seem to relate to
the larger theme of ‘meaning’: the experience of being involved in something
worth doing and of belonging to something bigger than oneself. The Booster
accelerators therefore, appear to have functioned as ‘meaning-makers’ and
‘meaning-maintainers’ for many participants. Entrepreneurs gained energy and
emotional resilience from the twin ‘messages’ expressed in most accelerator
activities: “What you are doing is worthwhile!” and “We belong together and what
we are doing is worthwhile!” Entrepreneurs’ comments suggest that these are not
secondary accelerator outcomes, but important emotional experiences that play
a significant role in helping them maintain focus and resilience.
A third distinctive outcome associated with the Booster accelerators is the
development of a hybrid identity by many participating ventures. Although this
is an outcome that not all accelerators for social ventures will produce, it would
clearly be an unusual outcome in a traditional accelerator. Writing in the context
of incubators, Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens (2012) suggest that enterprise
support programmes can gain competitive advantage by aligning their
competencies with their strategic position. In the context of social enterprise it
is possible to distinguish ventures that already have a clear hybrid identity from
those that are in the process of developing one (or wish to do so). This study
suggests that for accelerators serving social enterprises, one ‘strategic position’
could be that of facilitating a move from a non-profit, grant-oriented identity to
that of hybridity – or even full commercial viability.
5.8 There is More to Success than Learning!
A challenging outcome of my study of the Booster accelerators is one of its
‘secondary’ findings, namely its highlighting of the important role played by the
entrepreneurial ‘ecosystem’. In section 5.7 I noted the relative isolation of social
entrepreneurs in developing countries and the role played by accelerators in
reducing this isolation. Nonetheless, one of the more discouraging aspects of my
study relates to the difficulties experienced by ‘veteran’ entrepreneur Barry (A2).
Barry seemed to have everything going for him: many years of experience in top
management, openness to learning, ‘free’ R&D, an extensive network in
developing countries and access to initial funding. Despite these apparent
advantages, he has now returned to ‘conventional’, waged employment. In
contrast, Isaac (operating in the more traditional environment of grant-funded
development aid) seems to be prospering. Outcomes such as these suggest that
ventures operating in the ‘middle ground’ between for-profit business and not-
for-profits may be more vulnerable than enterprises that position themselves
clearly in one or the other. Impact (or ‘patient’) investment is a relatively new
phenomenon in Scandinavia and it appears that only a small proportion of
ventures that would benefit from this type of capital are able to obtain financing.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
325
It is also possible to partially explain negative outcomes with reference to the
wider investment climate for ‘new’ industries – such as alternative energy. While
I was conducting my study the journalist Jonas Fröberg (2013) discussed the rise
and fall of several ventures in the ‘cleantech’ industry. He noted that six firms
had been identified as the ‘hottest’ ventures in 2008, but that only four of them
were still operating with their original focus
137
in 2013. He commented:
“None of the ventures has shown a profit or been able to commercialise their
product.”
Fröberg suggested that cleantech firms have difficulty in obtaining the
investment necessary to scale. He also related this difficulty to the drastic
reduction in investment in cleantech firms in Scandinavia, in the past decade –
with Swedish investment sinking from 171 million Euros in 2009 to only 46.2
Euro in 2012. Fröberg cites an industry expert, who not only commented that it
takes time to establish a new industry, but also identified the ‘catch 22’ challenge
faced by the cleantech industry. That is: the difficulty of experiencing on the one
hand a rise in the number of new ventures being established, while at the same
time recognising private investors’ preference for investing in ventures at a later
stage of development.
Although social enterprises cannot necessarily be grouped together as an
‘industry’, they do seem to face many of the challenges confronted by cleantech
ventures. On the one hand, investors and funders are unfamiliar with the
phenomenon of social enterprise – and this seems to be associated with a
hesitancy towards investing in early-stage ventures. This idea is backed up by
Renko’s (2013) study of the challenges faced by nascent social entrepreneurs. She
concluded that “little support exists for those trying to make their way through
the early hurdles of building new social ventures offering radically new solutions”
(p.1061). At the same time, the total amount of capital available seems to be
insufficient. For this reason, organisations such as the International Labour
Organization (2012) underline the need for governments to improve the
“business-enabling environment”, if firms are to be able to operate in an
environmentally and socially sustainable manner. There is little use in third sector
organisations recognising firms with honours such as the World Wildlife
Foundation’s “Climate Solver” award
138
, if other aspects of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem do not facilitate the development of these types of enterprise.
137
Of the remaining two: one had gone bankrupt and the other restructured into a property business.
138
One of several awards given to Barry’s product.
Jönköping International Business School
326
5.9 Modelling Social Entrepreneurial Learning
in Accelerators
In this chapter I have developed the provisional model of entrepreneurial
learning in accelerators that I introduced in chapter 2 (see figure 5.8).
The original model was based on theories of learning derived from the literature
on adult learning, entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education.
Although the original framework conceptualises the learning process in an
informed manner, without studying entrepreneurs’ learning in an actual
accelerator it does not enable us to identify the relative impact of the factors
Intent
Learning-oriented
DESIGN
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE &
CAPABILITIES
Long-term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Creating
disjuncture
Transforming
disjuncture
Acting-
Feeli ng-
Thinking
Intent
The ENTREPRENEUR
Immersion in
Learning Process
Figure 5-8: The Preliminary Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in
Accelerators introduced in Chapter 2.
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
327
Figure 5-9: A Model of Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators.
Networks
Primary space
Secondary space
New or
Expanded
KNOWLEDGE
&
CAPABILITIES
Acting?
Feeling?
Thinking
Percei ved
Task
Attitude
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
d
i
s
j
u
n
c
t
u
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
d
i
s
j
u
n
c
t
u
r
e
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
1
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
2
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
3
TIME
? a resource
TIME
? a threat
Intent
Managers
Mentors
r
o
l
e
1
r
o
l
e
2
r
o
l
e
3
Coaches
LEARNING SPLACE
d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
o
n
Long?term
Busi ness
Outcomes
Jönköping International Business School
328
involved. Nor does it provide a nuanced picture of the learning process, in
relation to the variation that can be expected to be found in accelerators – with
regards to individual factors (such as background) and firm-related factors (such
as stage).
I have developed each part of the provisional model in a modular manner, adding
detail to each of factors associated with the learning process. Although I cannot
reproduce all of this detail in a single diagram, it is possible to show how my
study of the Booster accelerators has enabled me to modify the original concept –
and this development is seen in figure 5.9. As the figure shows, my empirical
material has enabled me to first of all add detail to several of the components of
the original diagram. For example: it is now possible to distinguish between
different educator roles and I have refined the general idea of entrepreneurial
intent to that of “perceived task”. More importantly however, my empirical study
has enabled me to make substantial changes to my preliminary model. My
understanding of entrepreneurial learning as co-created has for example, made
me portray learning as a process that, despite its construction by the individual,
is powerfully embedded in the accelerator cohort. Similarly, my original depiction
of the learning process as primarily linked to the accelerator’s capacity to design
learning experiences (the creation and transformation of disjuncture) has also
changed. The revised figure reflects my new understanding of the learning
process as both socially and materially ‘embedded’ (hence the term “splace”). I
have also been able to distinguish several learning-related outcomes – depicted
as triangles in the “new or expanded knowledge and capabilities” part of the
diagram.
When the revised model of entrepreneurial learning in accelerators is related to
my discussion of social entrepreneurial ‘types’ in section 4.4, it is possible to use
the model to discuss variation in the accelerator process. My impression is that
the revised model of the entrepreneurial learning process reflects entrepreneurs’
experiences in the Booster accelerators, regardless of entrepreneurial ‘type’ and
stage. Nonetheless, because entrepreneurs entered the accelerator with dissimilar
backgrounds and were at different stages of the entrepreneurial process, the
factors that affected their learning took on differing levels of significance. To
clarify this suggestion I discuss this idea below, with reference to two of the
Booster entrepreneurs.
Veteran social entrepreneur Barry (A1) came to the accelerator in the hope of
cultivating contacts with investors, to get ‘energy’ and to subject his venture to
outside scrutiny. These expectations (represented as “perceived task” in the
model), affected the manner in which he participated in the accelerator and the
area(s) of ‘splace’ that were important to him. Naturally, his expectations were
also linked to the roles that accelerator ‘tutors’ needed to fulfil in order for him
to learn effectively. In practical terms therefore, Barry’s background and
Explaining Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators
329
expectations were primarily associated with an emphasis of the “community” and
“reflection” aspects of accelerator ‘splace’. In view of his experience and the stage
he was at in venture development, the ‘tutor’ roles that would have best matched
his expectations were those of the facilitator, opportunitor and expert coach.
Confident entrant Steven (A2) also came to the accelerator in the hope of finding
investment, but was also eager to develop his enterprise with the help of
experienced advisors. Anxious to promote the legitimacy of his venture he
naturally emphasized the “community” aspects of ‘splace’, while also seeking the
advice of more experienced entrepreneurs (“dialogue”). As an African travelling
abroad for the first time he naturally made substantial use of tutors’ roles as
“problem solvers”. However, as the manager of a non-profit moving into the
world of sustainable business he was also heavily dependent on tutors filling the
roles of counsellor and expert coach. His decision to stay on in Scandinavia after
the accelerator suggests that tutors did not fill the role of “opportunitor” to his
satisfaction.
In the preceding paragraphs I have not mentioned the issue of accelerator
outcomes (the ten ‘F’s). It is however, reasonable to expect a match between the
expectations of social entrepreneurs (their “perceived tasks”) and the type of
outcome they experience in relation to their learning. For example, it was
reasonable for Barry to expect to learn capabilities associated with ‘finance’ and
‘focus’ during the accelerator. He felt no need however, to engage in the learning
associated with outcomes that other social entrepreneurs valued – such as ‘faith’
and ‘family’. It is nevertheless important not to over-emphasize the importance
of an exact match between entrepreneurs’ expectations and the outcomes
subsequently associated with their learning. One of the very foundations of
learning is ‘dissonance’: an encounter with the unexpected that offers the
potential for significant development. In Booster at least two outcomes of learning
were unexpected (in terms of ‘perceived task’), but nonetheless valuable. In A1
for example, Edward’s learning was associated with the unexpected decision to
abandon his startup (‘failure’). In A2 many of the African entrepreneurs came to
Scandinavia perceiving their task to be that of learning who to obtain investment
from (‘finance’). At the end of the accelerator however, many of them had begun
an unforeseen journey towards hybrid enterprise (‘flexibility’).
When the revised model of the learning process in accelerators is considered
from the perspective of ‘stage’ and the social entrepreneurial ‘types’ discussed in
section 4.4, two important implications emerge. The first implication has to do
with ‘coherence’ and relates to the need for accelerators to adopt a systemic
approach to programme design. By this I refer to the need for matching all of
the aspects of the learning environment to the ‘perceived task’ of the
entrepreneur, and the outcomes managers and entrepreneurs hope to achieve
through learning. Entrepreneurs with particular sets of expectations and at
Jönköping International Business School
330
certain stages of venture development, will often require corresponding areas of
accelerator ‘splace’ in order to learn effectively. Their learning will also be
enhanced if their characteristics and expectations are matched with the tutor roles
most suited to the enhancement of their learning.
The second implication of the revised model has to do with process
management. The co-created nature of learning in accelerators implies a shift in
emphasis on the part of educators, from prediction to control (to use the
language of effectuation). It is more important that tutors be skilled in facilitating
dynamic processes, rather than in implementing well-planned projects. In order
to function effectively, tutors need to be adept in the skills associated with non-
formal learning environments. This requires on the one hand, a perceptive and
sensitive awareness of the needs of not only the individual entrepreneur, but also
the accelerator cohort. It also demands an ability on the part of tutors, to take on
different roles – not only in relation to the characteristics of each individual
entrepreneur, but also to the learning they are engaged in at particular times
during the accelerator.
331
6 Conclusions & Contributions
This study has developed our understanding of social entrepreneurs’ learning in
accelerators in several ways. Naturally, some of its findings corroborate what is
already known about entrepreneurial learning and accelerators, even if this study
frequently adds detail or nuances to what other scholars have discussed.
However, this study does make several unique contributions to our
understanding of entrepreneurial learning and accelerators, particularly with
regards to the learning of social entrepreneurs and the roles accelerators play in
the development of social ventures. In this chapter I begin by discussing the main
theoretical contributions of this study, before moving on to discuss how my work
is helpful to practitioners and policy-makers. After this, some of the limitations
of this study are noted. Finally, I conclude that by conducting a detailed study of
social entrepreneurial learning in accelerators, this dissertation increases our
awareness of areas that we have not yet investigated with similar rigour – and
which require further study.
6.1 Theoretical Contributions
6.1.1 Contributions to Entrepreneurial Learning Theory
This dissertation’s contribution to the entrepreneurial learning literature centres
on four main areas: entrepreneurial learning in non-formal learning
environments, the role of ‘intent’, the learning of nascent entrepreneurs and the
learning of social entrepreneurs.
Extant scholarship at times depicts entrepreneurial learning as a homogenous
phenomenon: entrepreneurs are assumed to learn in a particular manner simply
because they are entrepreneurs. Frequently, scholars suggest that entrepreneurs
learn primarily from experience (Krueger, 2009c; Rae & Carswell, 2001).
Differences in background, industry, venture stage and other factors are not
always taken into account. Furthermore, scholars often fail to discuss the role of
context in entrepreneurial learning, despite a movement among entrepreneurship
scholars in recent years, that emphasizes this factor (Welter, 2011; Zahra, Wright,
& Abdelgawad, 2014). The aforementioned scholars argue that entrepreneurs are
always embedded in particular contexts – and it clearly arguable that they also
move from one context to another during the process of venture creation. A first
contribution of this study is consequently its introduction of the concepts of
formal, non-formal and informal learning environments to the entrepreneurial
learning literature. The use of these concepts enables scholars to distinguish
important characteristics of the contexts in which the learning of the individual
Jönköping International Business School
332
entrepreneur takes place. It becomes clear that scholars most commonly discuss
entrepreneurial learning in informal environments, despite the fact that a
significant number of entrepreneurs participate in more structured educational
programmes. Building on this distinction, this dissertation discusses
entrepreneurial learning in a particular, non-formal learning environment –
namely the accelerator.
By studying entrepreneurial learning in a non-formal context, this dissertation
has shown that the learning of entrepreneurs is associated with a variety of
learning processes, not all of which are experiential in nature. In particular, this
study suggests that in the non-formal environments associated with accelerators,
entrepreneurs’ learning is highly social in nature. Entrepreneurs make extensive
use of dialogue as they learn – and often learn aspects of identity by being in the
company of other entrepreneurs. Furthermore, although learning is at times
associated with action; I have shown that in the accelerator context,
entrepreneurs often associate learning with processes of reflection. This finding
brings into question the apparent assumption among scholars, that entrepreneurs
have a particular preference for an action-oriented style of learning. This study
raises the possibility that it is instead the learning context that influences
entrepreneurs’ learning styles, rather than individual preference. This possibility
is undergirded by another of this study’s findings – namely, that when
entrepreneurs move from informal learning contexts into more formal
environments, they at times ‘regress’ in terms of learning style - and adopt
instructor-oriented behaviour.
In adult learning theory, scholars emphasize the decisive role of intent in learning.
Entrepreneurship scholars however, tend to discuss the development of
intention, rather than its impact on learning – or discuss intent in general terms,
as the ambition to start a business (Hopp & Sonderegger, 2014; Piperopoulos &
Dimov, 2014). This study suggests however, that entrepreneurs are intentional at
a much more ‘micro’ level and are often very aware of what they wish to achieve
through a particular activity or interaction. Consequently this dissertation
expands scholars’ understanding of the role of intent[ion] in entrepreneurial
learning. By framing intention as the “perceived task” of the entrepreneur, this
study highlights how entrepreneurs’ attitudes to learning are shaped by the
relevance they attach to educational activities. Scholars have previously discussed
the narrow learning foci of small business owners in general terms (see for
example: A. A. Gibb, 1983), but this study begins to unravel the sub-factors that
help determine entrepreneurs’ perceptions of relevance. Relevance is framed as
“perceived value” and is shown to relate to both educational content and human
actors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Importantly, this study notes that in
contrast to entrepreneurship educators – who tend to adopt a ‘future-oriented’
view of relevance – practicing entrepreneurs often determine relevance in a
Conclusions & Contributions
333
manner that integrates a ‘past-oriented’ perspective that focuses on ascertaining
the credibility of the people they interact with.
As noted earlier, scholars at times discuss entrepreneurial learning without taking
into account factors such as context. This study discusses entrepreneurial
learning as a process that is influenced by venture stage. Although all of the
entrepreneurs in this study were at an early overall stage of venture development
(i.e.: nascent entrepreneurs), it was still possible to identify stage-related
differences in the content of learning and the learning process itself. This
suggests that in non-formal learning environments, entrepreneurs engage in
cycles of reflection and action as they work with their startups. In the
conceptualising and validation stages learning seems to be associated with intense
processes of dialogue and reflection, whereas in more ‘practical’ stages (such as
commitment), entrepreneurs learn through the action-oriented processes more
commonly discussed by scholars. That is: through experiential learning.
Nonetheless, even where this is true this study suggests that scholars seeking to
explain the process of experiential learning will benefit from drawing on the work
of contemporary theorists such as Jarvis, rather than on the older work of
Kolb
139
. This dissertation contributes to the entrepreneurial learning literature by
introducing the ideas of Peter Jarvis, as a means to understand entrepreneurs’
learning processes that the Kolb cycle does not explain adequately. For example:
entrepreneurial learning that develops through the resolution of experiences of
disjuncture by both affective (emotions-driven) and cognitive (reflection-driven)
pathways.
In addition to discussing entrepreneurial learning in relation to a particular
category or stage of entrepreneurship
140
, this dissertation also contributes to
theory by discussing the particular case of social entrepreneurial learning. As noted
earlier, this study emphasizes the idea that entrepreneurial learning is a
heterogeneous phenomenon associated as much with variation, as with similarity.
Evidence for this suggestion is provided by my discussion of the distinct learning
outcomes associated with the learning of nascent social entrepreneurs, as well as
by a smaller body of evidence that suggests they engage in slightly different
learning processes. This study suggests that in terms of outcomes, effective social
entrepreneurs learn to identify and give voice to a distinctive and convincing
‘social value proposition’. More importantly, I identify a learning outcome that
relates to a conceptual shift among some categories of nascent social
entrepreneur, whereby they learn to operate as sustainable, hybrid enterprises –
rather than as project-oriented charities or non-profits. In terms of the learning
139
That is, on his depiction of the learning process as following the cycle of Concrete experience,
Reflective observation, Abstract conceptualization and Active experimentation (Kolb, 1984).
140
That is: nascent entrepreneurship.
Jönköping International Business School
334
process, this study provides initial evidence for the centrality of affect in social
entrepreneurial learning. It appears that for social entrepreneurs, emotions do
not only play a role in inspiring individuals to begin the venturing process – but
also in continuing with it. Experienced social entrepreneurs are often aware of
the need to maintain affect and manage their learning in order to achieve both
emotional and cognitive outcomes.
6.1.2 Contributions to Business Incubation Theory
When this study is viewed from the perspective of the literature on business
incubation, several contributions emerge. First of all, this dissertation expands
our understanding of a relatively new type of incubation – accelerators – about
which scholars know relatively little. Scholars have called for studies of
accelerators that provide a more detailed understanding of the accelerator
process – and for studies of accelerators that recruit different categories of
enterprise (Hallen et al., 2013). This dissertation responds to this call by
conducting a detailed study of entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators – and by
focusing on a programme that recruits a particular type of enterprise (social
ventures). By gathering and analysing ‘rich’ data in an abductive manner, a
process-oriented model of entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators is developed.
This model contributes to our understanding of how entrepreneurs learn in the
context of accelerators, by first of all identifying the main factors that influence
entrepreneurs’ learning – and showing how they relate to one another. However,
the model also contributes to the development of scholarly knowledge about
accelerators, by providing a conceptual framework that future studies can refine
and expand.
By framing accelerators as non-formal environments for entrepreneurs’ learning,
this study expands scholars’ understandings of how context influences learning.
The distinction that I make between three types of learning environment
141
is
useful for understanding how and by whom venture-oriented learning is initiated.
Maria-Carmen Pantea (forthcoming) also discusses the importance of social
context with regards to the learning of youth entrepreneurs in non-formal
contexts. Nonetheless, this study contributes to scholars’ knowledge by moving
beyond the conceptualisation of accelerators as non-formal contexts for learning
– to a discussion of how accelerators’ learning environments change as time goes
by. In particular, with reference to the gradual shift from more formal, instructor-
initiated learning – to a non-formal, learner-led form of interaction.
One of the more prominent contributions of this dissertation is its discussion of
learning ‘splace’. Here this study contributes to not only the literature on
incubators and entrepreneurial learning, but also to entrepreneurship education
141
That is: formal, non-formal and informal.
Conclusions & Contributions
335
scholarship. Although the concept of ‘learning spaces and places’ is clearly
relevant to scholars of entrepreneurial learning, the subject has not been
extensively discussed in the literature
142
. In contrast, the concept of space is
attracting increased attention among incubator scholars (Hjorth, 2013).
Consequently, this study contributes to entrepreneurial learning scholarship by
adding the concept of learning spaces to existing knowledge. I suggest that this
is a useful contribution, because the concept of space is not dependent on the
existence of formal or non-formal learning environments. Instead, entrepreneurs
can be expected to make use of different categories of space in both informal
and more formalised contexts. With regards to the literature on incubators, this
study contributes by adding considerable detail to scholars’ discussions of how
space and place are associated with venture development. Here my use of the
term “splace” underlines the interdependence of psychological ‘space’ and
physical ‘place’. This dissertation also expands on previous work by showing how
time both enhances and restricts entrepreneurs’ perceptions of incubator ‘splace’.
In the more formal learning environments of higher education it is probable that
students’ learning can be optimised if educators pay attention to each aspect of
‘splace’. Many educators already emphasize activities that encourage students to
spend time in ‘reflective’, ‘dialogic’ and ‘action’ space – but accord less attention
to ‘community’ space. This study contributes to scholars’ knowledge by
providing a conceptual tool with which they can assess the relative emphasis in a
learning activity, of each of the four aspects. Additionally, my discussion of
‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ physical spaces contributes to the literature by
highlighting the role played by the places in which learning takes place. Scholars
of entrepreneurship education frequently discuss pedagogy as if the only factors
in learning relate to instructor-, student- and technique. This study makes it clear
that education does not take place in a vacuum and that the characteristics of
physical spaces have an impact on learning.
The above paragraph hints at this study’s contribution to the literature, in terms
of incorporating what Erdélyi (2010) terms a “material” perspective, into a theory
of the learning process in non-formal environments, such as accelerators.
Nonetheless, this dissertation also expands our understanding of incubator
processes by identifying several key human ‘roles’ that facilitate learning. In doing
so this study first of all creates a nuanced understanding of the roles referred to
by scholars such as Cohen (2013a), and Miller and Bound (2011), using the
generic terms “director experts” and “mentors”. This study shows how several
of the more specific roles (or ‘functions’) that I identify, may be filled by different
actors within the accelerator ecosystem. This places more emphasis on the task
of ensuring that someone fills each of the roles, rather than on the rigid linking of
142
Smith (2011) discusses space and is an exception, even if the key-words in her dissertation suggest
that she does not position herself as a scholar of entrepreneurial learning.
Jönköping International Business School
336
each role to a particular actor. Furthermore, this study also shows how the
learning of different categories of social entrepreneur – at different stages of
venture development – requires the emphasis of different educator roles, or
combinations of role.
Diverse categories of social entrepreneur – and different stages of venture
development – are logically associated with variations in the learning that
entrepreneurs wish to achieve by participating in accelerators. This study extends
scholars’ understanding of how accelerators enhance venture development, by
identifying ten ‘F-words’ that reflect different aspects of their impact. Many of
these factors relate to foundational aspects of entrepreneurial capability that are
not always identified in studies that use more quantitative measures of incubator
performance
143
. These factors provide a useful framework that other scholars
might use in future studies of accelerators, but also serve to highlight less
obvious, but nonetheless valuable programme effects. Outcomes such as
entrepreneurial “failure” and “facility” may have a positive societal impact in the
long-term, but can be difficult to identify with more simplistic, short-term
measures.
Zahra (2007) and Davidsson (2005) note that scholars sometimes make a
contribution by reinforcing knowledge about a particular phenomenon – often by
examining it in a new context. Several of this study’s contributions enhance
knowledge in this manner, suggesting that some accelerator processes and
outcomes (for example: the development of clear ideas and legitimacy) change
very little, even when a different category of enterprise is in focus. Similarly, in
keeping with the studies of scholars such as Cohen (2013a), Hallen, Bingham and
Cohen (2013), and Miller and Bound (2011); this study provides additional
evidence for their finding with regards to the main outcomes and ingredients of
accelerators. Some of the ‘F-outcomes’ discussed in section 4.5 are also identified
by these scholars, albeit using different terminology. Hallen, Bingham and Cohen
for example, identify legitimacy (fame) and expanded networks (friends) as key
outcomes that facilitate entrepreneurs’ access to resources. They also suggest that
accelerators become more effective as they gain experience, an idea that is
supported by this study. Both Cohen (2013a), and Miller and Bound (2011)
identify a process of refinement and a concentration on a core business
proposition (focus) as an important ingredient in the acceleration process. Stross
(2012) and Cohen (ibid.) also note that entrepreneurs can ‘pivot’ during the
accelerator process to embrace alternative venture ideas. This development is
very similar to the ‘flexibility’ contribution identified in this study in that it
involves a widening of vistas, even if this takes place in the for-profit sector.
143
For example: sourced investment and/or venture growth.
Conclusions & Contributions
337
A final contribution made by this study to the incubator literature – but perhaps
one of its more important findings – is its conceptualisation of the learning
process in accelerators as co-created. As Hjorth (2013) points out, policy-makers –
and indeed, many scholars – often discuss incubator practice on the basis of an
unspoken assumption that it is possible to distinguish a single, optimal design.
This study clearly shows that learning processes in incubators are the product of
the interaction of a large number of factors, among which the intention of the
entrepreneur is particularly influential. By modelling the learning process in
accelerators, this dissertation extends our understanding of incubator processes
by not only noting that learning is co-created, but also by providing a coherent
explanation of how this process evolves.
6.1.3 Contributions to Social Entrepreneurship Theory
In this study I make contributions that engage with more than one scholarly
‘conversation’. One such contribution has to do with my development of Cope
and Watt’s (2000) entrepreneurial career typology (i.e.: their identification of
entrepreneurs as ‘innocents’, ‘knowledgeable improvisers’, ‘confident entrants’,
and ‘veterans’). Although it is clearly possible to develop their model further, this
study incorporates insights from scholars of ‘international’ social
entrepreneurship and uses these to develop the model further. My new typology
enables scholars to distinguish distinct types of social entrepreneur, on the basis
of not only their past experience (managerial or professional), but also on their
degree of ‘embeddedness’ in the societies they target. Although I frame my
contribution in terms of an enhancement of knowledge in the nascent field of
international social entrepreneurship (Desa, 2012), it is clearly possible for other
scholars to use the added factor of embeddedness at a more local level. For
example: it may be more easy for a social entrepreneur with a background in
inner cities, to grow a successful venture in that context – than for someone with
an ‘outsider’ background.
I have chosen to ground this particular discussion in the social entrepreneurship
‘arena’. Nonetheless, in discussing social entrepreneurial learning in relation to
previous experience and venture development, I am also contributing to
conversations about entrepreneurial identity and entrepreneurial intentions.
Markowska (2011) discusses the development of entrepreneurial competency in
relation to entrepreneurs’ balancing of business-oriented and professional
identities. I extend some of her findings by showing how the professional
identities of social entrepreneurs at times limit the propensity of individuals, to
adopt the social entrepreneurial identity ‘on offer’ in accelerators. This study
provides further empirical support for her suggestion that professional ties are
able to influence entrepreneurs’ development ‘at a distance’, without immediate
physical proximity.
Jönköping International Business School
338
6.1.4 Contributions to Entrepreneurship Education Theory
I began this dissertation by arguing for the ‘bringing together’ of the at times
distinct emphases among entrepreneurship educators, on either ‘education’ or
‘training’. This study has reinforced my conviction in this area, as the Booster
entrepreneurs clearer engaged in a significant amount of abstract, conceptual
reflection (surely a process associated with ‘education’?) – despite scholars’
portrayal of their learning as predominantly pragmatic and experiential. This
study contributes to our understanding of entrepreneurship education by
emphasising the common ground that exists between potential entrepreneurs
144
and practicing entrepreneurs, with regards to the centrality of relevance.
Entrepreneurs and students both interact with educators in an intent-filled
manner and their learning is shaped by whether or not they perceive content and
process to be relevant to their ‘perceived task’. This study shows that in the
context of accelerators, social entrepreneurs learn from a variety of didactical
approaches. I suggest therefore, that the effectiveness of an approach relates not
so much to the means by which knowledge is developed (lecture or workshop),
but to the perceived relevance of the knowledge to the learner’s intent. The
implication for entrepreneurship educators – regardless of ‘audience’ – is that it
is more important to interact with learners with a view to creating relevant
learning – than it is to focus on the ‘instrument’ of learning.
I have already discussed the concepts of formal, non-formal and informal
learning environments as a contribution to literature on entrepreneurial learning.
Nonetheless, by introducing these concepts I also make a contribution to
entrepreneurship education scholarship. Rather than making an artificial
distinction between ‘training’ and ‘education’ based on who is doing the learning
(students or entrepreneurs) – or on the instruments used in education (lectures
or workshops), it may be more useful to focus on the characteristics of the
learning environment. This study positions the formal – non-formal continuum
as a more useful means of classifying different types of entrepreneurship
education. Instead of attempting to artificially classify learning-oriented activities
as either ‘education’ or ‘training’, I suggest it is more useful to position them
along a scale based on structure and learner-centeredness.
6.2 Contributions to Practice
One of the advantages of conducting interactive research is that research findings
often have an impact on practice before they are published in academic circles.
This was clearly the case with this dissertation and accelerator managers witness
144
Usually students.
Conclusions & Contributions
339
to the impact that my study has had on the development of the Booster
programme.
In more concrete terms this study has a wide range of implications for
practitioners. With regards to the recruitment of entrepreneurs to accelerators, this study
underlines the importance of enlisting individuals or ventures at a similar stage
of development – but not from the same industry. In the context of social
entrepreneurship the importance of ‘industry heterogeneity’ may need to be
interpreted as the avoidance of cohorts that only recruit individuals with a
background in charities or NGOs. As the learning process in accelerators is co-
created, managers need to focus more on recruiting a group that can interact
effectively and create value for one another – rather than the most promising
individuals. Because learning is enhanced by ‘positive heterogeneity’ managers
also need to pay particular attention to entrepreneurs’ intentions with regards to
participation in accelerators. It is important that programmes have the capacity
to fulfil individual’s expectations, but it is just as important that entrepreneurs
come to the accelerator with an attitude of openness – not only to receiving
feedback, but also to providing it.
With regards to the accelerator process itself, this study contributes to practice
by emphasising managers’ roles as ‘facilitators of splace’. ‘Positive splace’ is at the
core of accelerators and is all about opportunity: entrepreneurs are given the
possibility to do something they are otherwise unable to do – or would not be
able to do in such a short space of time. By identifying key educator roles and
linking these to different categories of entrepreneur, this study enables educators
to maximise their contribution to the development of splace. As splace is co-
created, manager behaviour cannot guarantee positive outcomes – but can make
their development much more likely. This study helps managers become aware
of the different factors that contribute to the development of splace – and this
awareness can lead to proactive action. For example: by being aware of the
existence of primary and secondary ‘place’ – and of how these factors affect the
cohort – managers can take steps to enhance their positive effects and minimise
their detrimental aspects. By being aware of the different combinations of roles
that need to be filled in relation to distinct entrepreneurial types and stages,
managers can ‘map’ existing educator roles and ensure that they not only adopt
appropriate roles at different times – but also adapt their roles to the particular
needs of each entrepreneur.
By identifying a large number of ‘micro’ learning processes and outcomes, this
study enables practitioners to develop particular programme strengths and
emphases. It will often be difficult – or even undesirable – for accelerators to
excel in developing all nine of the ‘F-words’ associated with venture ‘fitness’. By
becoming more aware of the potential learning associated with accelerators,
managers are able to ‘niche’ their programmes – or to adapt them to the
Jönköping International Business School
340
characteristics and ambitions of different cohorts (Vanderstraeten &
Matthyssens, 2012). As with many phenomena it is difficult to discuss factors
that have not been ‘named’ – even if managers are instinctively aware that
learning is taking place. This study gives managers the conceptual tools they need
to discuss learning objectives with accelerator participants. However, it also
enables prospective participants to make more informed decisions when applying
to accelerators or when thinking about the timing of their participation.
6.3 Implications for Policy
Accelerators are trendy. The success of high-profile programmes has inspired not
only investors, but also the public sector to launch their own initiatives.
Nonetheless, these initiatives are seldom based on an informed understanding of
the potential, risks and character of accelerators. This study is one piece in a larger
‘puzzle’ of research that enables policy-makers to take more informed decisions
about support. For policy-makers faced with decisions about whether or not to
fund accelerators, this dissertation provides a useful basis for conducting ‘due
diligence’. Accelerator managers can be expected to show an awareness of the
particular outcomes of learning their programmes have the potential to achieve
– and the factors needed to facilitate these outcomes. They can also be expected
to understand the types of role, instruction and ‘splace’ needed to address the
needs of diverse categories of entrepreneur. This study provides policy-makers
with the conceptual foundation needed to address ‘intelligent questions’ to
organisations seeking support in order to develop new accelerators.
This dissertation is also useful for policy-makers because it suggests that
accelerators are useful tools not only for enhancing entrepreneurs’ learning at a
specific stage of development (hence the term “seed accelerator”), but also at
other stages. Because of the experimental nature of the first Booster programmes,
an unorthodox ‘mix’ of entrepreneurs was recruited – at several different stages
of development. This study suggests that accelerators are able to enhance the
learning of entrepreneurs at many different stages of development, even if cohort
dynamics improve when entrepreneurs are at the same stage. This finding opens
the door for further experimentation – and the use of accelerators as focused
instruments that can address entrepreneurs’ learning needs in a variety of
industries and at many different stages.
This study focuses on accelerators for social entrepreneurs and an important
finding relates to how managers of charities and NGOs learn to become more
financially sustainable – and more focused. This ‘sideways’ move towards
hybridity is an important accelerator contribution. It suggests that from the
perspective of policy-makers with responsibility for development aid (for
example: Sida and DFID), accelerators may be useful tools for helping
organisations in emerging economies attain a greater measure of self-sufficiency
Conclusions & Contributions
341
and effectiveness. This study underlines however, the important role that
‘embeddedness’ plays in influencing venture outcomes. Only a small proportion
of expatriate social entrepreneurs appear able to convert accelerator learning into
healthy enterprises in emerging economies. At the same time, although
‘indigenous’ enterprises are linked to higher survival rates, only a small
proportion have been able to capitalise on accelerator learning and grow their
enterprises.
The challenges discussed in the preceding paragraph highlight a final
contribution that this study makes to policy-maker knowledge, namely the vital
role played by entrepreneurial ecosystems. A recurring complaint among the Booster
entrepreneurs had to do with the lack of investment at the end of the programme.
Entrepreneurs left the accelerator with refined, ‘do-able’ ideas – but were
generally unable to turn these ideas into reality. This trend underlines the need
for policy-makers to view accelerators as one important part of a greater
entrepreneurial ecosystem. For accelerators to be effective the venture
environment needs to provide programmes with optimal conditions both before
and after acceleration. Accelerators need to be run in a context characterised by
extensive and productive networks if participants are to be able to experience
sufficient disjuncture – and to transform this disjuncture into effective learning.
At the same time, resources need to be available in an appropriate form at the
end of programmes, to enable entrepreneurs to build on their learning. In the
context of social entrepreneurship the term ‘appropriate’ is especially important.
Many of the Booster entrepreneurs were making the move from charity to hybrid
enterprise. However, the social entrepreneurial learning ecosystem had not made
the same journey and development agencies continued to interact with graduates
on the basis of a ‘publicly-funded grant’ mentality. Money was made available
(for example: in the form of the Innovations against Poverty matched grants).
However, funding was associated with such a level of detail in applying for
support – and reporting progress – that the entrepreneurs who received grants
felt uncertain about whether the effort was worth it. Social entrepreneurs who
have received support from the European Social Fund report a similar mismatch
between the needs of the entrepreneur and the traditions of public
administration. Consequently, this is clearly a part of the social entrepreneurial
ecosystem that policy-makers need to address.
6.4 Limitations
As with any quantitative or qualitative discussion of learning, the findings of this
study are limited by the author’s ability to pose relevant questions to the social
entrepreneurs who participated in the study – and to interpret their responses
correctly. This process was particularly challenging due to the heterogeneous
sample of social entrepreneurs (in terms of nationality), in particularly the second
and third accelerators. Consequently, it is possible that a researcher with another
Jönköping International Business School
342
cultural background would have interpreted entrepreneurs’ responses in a slightly
different manner. Although I sought to minimise this possibility by means of
interviews with accelerator managers, ‘sounding boards’ and in-depth discussions
with the social entrepreneurs; I have naturally been unable to completely account
for the impact of my own world-view in the stories I tell.
A second limitation of this study relates to the first and has to do with the
theoretical ‘lens’ through which I interpret entrepreneurs’ accounts. This study
relies very much on the work of scholars of learning (such as Jarvis), who adopt
a constructivist view of learning. Although I often integrate aspects of social
learning theory in my discussion, I have not switched lenses completely – and so
it is probable that a social learning theorist (such as Wenger), would have
identified different aspects of learning than I have. A similar critique can also be
made of my development of a social entrepreneurial typology in section 4.4. Few
typologies are able to take into account all of the factors affecting behaviour and
my categories are no exception. I have for example, accorded more weight to the
ideas of Cope and Watts (2000) – and devoted less attention to Politis’ (2005)
ideas about career orientations. A more developed typology might be able to take
the two aspects into account, as there is evidence in my empirical data of the
influence of both.
A final
145
limitation of this study has to do with its generalisability. In this study
my ambition has been to achieve what Firestone (1993) terms “analytical
generalizability”. My aim is to generalise to a theory (as opposed to a population),
which naturally implies that my findings achieve relevance through analytical –
as opposed to statistical – inference (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Although my study
develops theory that is to some extent characterised by the logical coherence and
parsimony that Pfeffer (1982) associates with ‘good’ theory, my findings are
limited in the sense that they are not generalizable to a ‘population’ of
accelerators. The Booster accelerators were in some ways different from
accelerators that recruit ‘traditional’ for-profit entrepreneurs – and the
Scandinavian context contrasts with the environment in which many accelerators
operate (such as North America). Factors such as these should prevent academics
and practitioners from assuming that factors that were important (or negligible)
in this study, will have exactly the same influence in other programmes.
Nonetheless, this limitation underlines one of the main findings of this study –
namely; that because of the process of co-creation, no two accelerators will ever
be exactly the same.
145
By this I mean ’last in the list’, as there are naturally other limitations to this study that I have not
discussed here.
Conclusions & Contributions
343
6.5 Future Research
This study has focused on some aspects of social entrepreneurs’ learning in
accelerators at the expense of others and as noted above, is not without its
weaknesses. Although it has moved significantly ‘closer’ to entrepreneurs’
experiences in comparison with other studies, it still relies excessively on
individuals’ retrospective accounts of the accelerator process. Consequently, it is
probable that an even more detailed ‘micro’ account of the accelerator process
would emerge, if other data-collection techniques were adopted. Kusenbach
(2003) for example, advocates the phenomenological technique of the ‘go-along’
for developing an understanding of subjects’ everyday lives, emphasising among
other things the approach’s usefulness for collecting information about how
individuals interact with ‘space’. Naturally, similar techniques such as shadowing
(Czarniawska-Joerges, 2007) and “diary dialogue” (Bergman & Johannisson,
2011), could generate the rich, ‘minute-by-minute’ data that would help scholars
gain a deeper understanding of the accelerator process.
By prioritising insight into social entrepreneurs’ experiences of the accelerator
process, this study has devoted comparatively little energy to the study of the
activities of managers, mentors and coaches. Cohen (2013a) has discussed
managers’ roles in more detail – but as noted earlier, this study suggests that the
roles adopted by accelerator managers vary from programme to programme (and
perhaps even from accelerator to accelerator, within the same programme).
Consequently, future research could develop knowledge about entrepreneurs’
learning in accelerators by examining differences in the roles taken on by these
three categories of advisor, in different programmes and with reference to
venture outcomes. It would also be useful to develop knowledge about social
entrepreneurs’ particular requirements with regards to educational content and
process, at different stages of development and in different industries. In
particular, further research is needed into the learning needs of practicing social
entrepreneurs – especially those working in developing countries. The
development of a social entrepreneurial ‘arena’ reflects that of the business
community at large, in terms of its increasingly global character (Zahra, Newey,
& Li, 2014). Consequently, it is probable that practitioners will be have to
integrate insights from the literature on international entrepreneurship into their
activities, if accelerator programmes for social entrepreneurs are to develop and
maintain their effectiveness.
Two additional areas of research merit future study, only one of which has been
discussed at any length by accelerator scholars. A phenomenon that is hardly
mentioned by scholars (with the exception of ‘demo day’) is the accelerator
‘event’. Many accelerators hold several different types of event over the course
of their programmes; ranging from grandiose, well-rehearsed events for investors
– to more informal get-togethers for local entrepreneurs. These events appear to
Jönköping International Business School
344
provide accelerator participants with opportunities for networking, brain-
storming and similar activities. Very little is known however, about the role these
events play in the development of the entrepreneur and their venture.
Another theme that scholars could usefully explore is that of ‘individual vs. team’
participation. Cohen (2013a) suggests that accelerators which recruit venture
teams to their programmes (as opposed to individual entrepreneurs) associate a
wide range of benefits with this practice – including improved organisational
communication, deeper knowledge of one another and better comprehension of
the knowledge ‘on offer’. I am not aware of any studies of accelerators (or of
entrepreneurial learning) that have conducted comparative studies of the learning
associated with these two options. Such a study would lend new meaning to the
emphasis inherent in the title of this study, namely: that no entrepreneur is an
island!
345
References
Abbott, A. (1992). What do cases do? Some notes on activity in sociological
analysis. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case?: exploring the
foundations of social inquiry (pp. 53-82). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ahl, H. J. (2002). The Making of the Female Entrepreneur; JIBS Dissertation Series
No.15. (PhD), Jönköping University, Jönköping.
Akola, E., & Heinonen, J. (2008). From Methods to Outcomes – Analysing
Entrepreneurship Training Programmes in Five European Countries.
Entrepreneurship, learning and networking, 47-68.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Constructing Research Questions: Doing Interesting
Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology - New Vistas for
Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications Inc.
Anderson, C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in
a stress setting: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 446.
AoM. (2013). Professional Development Workshop: Accelerating Research on
Accelerators Annual Meeting Program: Academy of Management.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach.
Reading, MA: Addision Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory In Practice: Increasing Professional
Effectiveness. San Francisco: ERIC.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, method and
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and
retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of educational psychology, 51(5),
267.
Ayres, L., & Knafl, K. A. (2008). Typological Analysis. The SAGE Encyclopedia
of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. In L. M. Given
(Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 901-903).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Azmat, F., & Samaratunge, R. (2009). Responsible entrepreneurship in
developing countries: understanding the realities and complexities. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(3), 437-452.
Baird, R., Bowles, L., & Lall, S. (2013). Bridging the “Pioneer Gap”: The Role of
Accelerators in Launching High-Impact Enterprises: Aspen Network of
Development Entrepreneurs / Village Capital.
Jönköping International Business School
346
Bandura, A. (1965). Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial learning. Advances in
experimental social psychology, 2, 1-55.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and
social context: Cambridge University Press.
Bechard, J.-P., & Toulouse, J.-M. (1991). Entrepreneurship and education:
viewpoint from education. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 3-
13.
Beck, D. (2008). Context-based Social Entrepreneurship Education: A systemic action
research on SEED programs, Indonesia. Paper presented at the Oikos PhD
Summer Academy.
Beine, M., Docquier, F., & Rapoport, H. (2008). Brain Drain and Human Capital
Formation in Developing Countries: Winners and Losers*. The Economic
Journal, 118(528), 631-652.
Benner, P. E. (1994). The tradition and skill of interpretive phenomenology in
studying health. In P. Benner (Ed.), Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring,
and ethics in health and illness (pp. 99-129). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Benner, P. E., & Wrubel, J. (1989). The primacy of caring: Stress and coping in health
and illness: Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman.
Benson, G. L. (1992). Teaching entrepreneurship through the classics. Journal of
Applied Business Research (JABR), 8(4), 135-140.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: Doubleday New
York.
Bergman, F., & Johannisson, B. (2011). Enacting Soc(ie)tal Entrepreneurship –
Challenges and Practices. Paper presented at the ICSB, Stockholm.
Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal
of Business Venturing, 9(3), 223-242.
Bird, B. (1995). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial competency. Advances in
Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 2(1), 51-72.
Bjorvatn, K., & Tungodden, B. (2009). Teaching Business in Tanzania:
Evaluating Participation and Performance. NHH Dept. of Economics, Discussion
Paper No. 15.
Blenker, P., & Christensen, P. R. (2010). Hunting the entrepreneurial expertise:
entrepreneurs in education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of Research in
Entrepreneurship Education: International perspectives. Vol. 3 (Vol. 3, pp. 43).
Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2011). The questions
we care about: paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education.
Industry and Higher Education, 25(6), 417-427.
References
347
Bloom, G. M. (2006). The Social Entrepreneurship Collaboratory (SE Lab): A
University Incubator for a Rising Generation of Social Entrepreneurs In A.
Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change
(pp. 271-306). New York: Oxford University Press.
Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility: a critical introduction (2
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Blundel, R (2007). Critical realism: a suitable vehicle for entrepreneurship
research? In: Neergaard, H. & Ulhøi, JP (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research
methods in entrepreneurship (pp.49-74). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Borella, P. (2012). Startup Sauna: Accelerating Startups from Northern Europe
& Russia. Espoo: Aalto University Center for Entrepreneurship / TEKES.
Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise: Routledge.
Botkin, J. W., Elmandjra, M., & Malitza, M. (1979). No limits to learning. London:
Pergamon Press.
Boud, D. J., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into
learning: Routledge.
Boud, D. J., & Walker, D. (1991). Experience and Learning: Reflection at Work. Adults
Learning in the Workplace. ERIC / Deakin University. Victoria (Australia).
Bowen, G. A. (2008). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12-23.
Bradbury, S. (2013). Chattanooga's Gig Tank entrepreneurs ready to tout their
businesses Times Free Press.
Brock, D. D. (2008). Social entrepreneurship teaching resources handbook Available at
SSRN 1344412 Retrieved fromhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344412
Brock, D. D., & Steiner, S. D. (2008). Social entrepreneurship education: Is it achieving
the desired aims? Paper presented at the United States Association for Small
Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE).
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2006). Facilitating reflective learning through mentoring and
coaching. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Brockhaus, R. H. (2001). Foreword. In R. H. Brockhaus, G. E. Hills, H. Klandt,
& H. P. Welsch (Eds.), Entrepreneurship education: a global view. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing.
Brookfield, S. D. (1988). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larson, R. (1996). Career
pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. The Academy of
Management Executive, 10(4), 52-66.
Jönköping International Business School
348
Brundin, E., & Nordqvist, M. (2008). Beyond Facts and Figures: The Role of
Emotions in Boardroom Dynamics. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 16(4), 326-341.
Brännvall, R., & Johansson, J. (2012). Innovation in underserved markets: a study of
innovation capabilities in social business ventures. Njord Consulting.
Buchanan, I. (2010). The place of social enterprise in UK contemporary policy.
In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills Approach (pp.
7-18). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Buckley, M. R., Wren, D. A., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1992). The role of managerial
experience in the management education process: status, problems, and
prospects. Journal of Management Education, 16(3), 303-313.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Calverley, J. (2010). SMEs in Asia. Toronto: Standard Chartered Bank
Carrier, C. (2007). Strategies for teaching entrepreneurship: what else beyond
lectures, case studies and business plans? In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of
research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 143-159). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring start-up event
sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 151-166.
Casasnovas, G., & Bruno, A. V. (2013). Scaling Social Ventures: An Exploratory
Study of Social Incubators and Accelerators. Journal of Management for Global
Sustainability, 1(2), 173-197.
Cell, E. (1984). Learning to learn from experience. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Chambers, E. (2000). Applied ethnography. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2 ed., pp. 851-869). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications Inc.
Chang, J., Benamraoui, A., & Rieple, A. (2014). Learning-by-doing as an
approach to teaching social entrepreneurship. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 51(5), 1-13.
Chrisman, J. J., McMullan, W., Ring, J. K., & Holt, D. T. (2012). Counseling
assistance, entrepreneurship education, and new venture performance. Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 1(1), 63-83.
Chrisman, J. J., & McMullan, W. E. (2004). Outsider Assistance as a Knowledge
Resource for New Venture Survival. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(3),
229-244.
Cohen, S. L. (2013a). How to accelerate learning: entrepreneurial ventures participating in
accelerators. (PhD), University of North Carolina.
Cohen, S. L. (2013b). What Do Accelerators Do? Insights from Incubators and
Angels. innovations, 8(3-4), 19-25.
References
349
Commission of the European Communities. (2008). “Think Small First”: A
“Small Business Act” for Europe. Brussels: Commission of the European
Communities.
Coombs, P. H., Ahmed, M., & Israel, B. B. (1974). Attacking rural poverty; how
nonformal education can help. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Cooper, S., Harrison, R., & Mason, C. (2001). Entrepreneurial histories and
geographies: A reappraisal of the role of the incubator organization. Paper presented at
the Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference.
Cope, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative
phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604-623.
Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000). Learning by doing–an exploration of experience,
critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), 104-124.
Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000). Learning by doing–an exploration of experience,
critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), 104-124.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
CSN. (2013). Åldersgränser. fromhttp://www.csn.se/utomlands/krav/aldersgranser
Curran, J., & Stanworth, J. (1989). Education and training for enterprise:
problems of classification, evaluation, policy and research. International small
business journal, 7(2), 11-22.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (2007). Shadowing: and other techniques for doing fieldwork in
modern societies: Copenhagen Business School Press DK.
Dahlstedt, M., & Hertzberg, F. (2012). Schooling entrepreneurs:
Entrepreneurship, governmentality and education policy in Sweden at the
turn of the millennium. Journal of Pedagogy, 3(2), 242-262.
Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L. & Karlsson, J. (2002) Explaining society:
Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.
Davidsson, P. (2005). Special Topic: The Power of Replication. Researching
Entrepreneurship, 175-188.
Dawson, A., & Hjorth, D. (2012). Advancing family business research through
narrative analysis. Family Business Review, 25(3), 339-355.
De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K., & van der Sijde, P. (2003). Education
and training for entrepreneurs: a consideration of initiatives in Ireland and
The Netherlands. Education+ Training, 45(8/9), 430-438.
Deakins, D., & Freel, M. (1998). Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process
in SMEs. The Learning Organization, 5(3), 144-155.
Jönköping International Business School
350
Dees, J. G. (2011). Social ventures as learning laboratories. Tennessee's Business,
20(1), 3-5.
Desa, G. (2012). Resource Mobilization in International Social Entrepreneurship:
Bricolage as a Mechanism of Institutional Transformation. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 36(4), 727-751.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dey , S. (2013, July 20). Mentoring, the new seed capital investors bring to start-
ups: Early-stage investors plug the gaps in the start-up ecosystem. Business
Standard. Retrieved fromhttp://www.business-standard.com/article/
companies/mentoring-the-new-seed-capital-investors-bring-to-start-ups-
113072000729_1.html
Dick, R. (1990). Convergent Interviewing (3 ed.): Interchange.
Doern, R., & Goss, D. (2012). From barriers to barring: Why emotion matters
for entrepreneurial development. International small business journal.
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to
business ethics: Harvard Business Press.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive
approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560.
Dufays, F., & Huybrechts, B. (2013). Connecting the dots for social value: A
review on social networks and social entrepreneurship.
Economic Commission for Europe. (2000). Best practice in business incubation.
Geneva: United Nations.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management
field research. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy
of Management. The Academy of Management Review (pre-1986), 14(4), 532-550.
Elmes, M. B., Jiusto, S., Whiteman, G., Hersh, R., & Guthey, G. T. (2012).
Teaching Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation From the Perspective of
Place and Place Making. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4),
533-554.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity Theory as a Framework for Analyzing and
Redesigning Work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.
Erdélyi, P. (2010). The Matter of Entrepreneurial Learning: A Literature Review. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Organizational Learning,
Knowledge and Capabilities (OLKC), Northeastern University, Boston, MA,
USA.
References
351
Erikson, T. (2003). Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences
among potential entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 10(1), 106-112.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (2003). Narrating Social Structure: Stories of Resistance
to Legal Authority. American journal of sociology, 108(6), 1328-1372.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2007a). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: a general
perspective (Vol. 1). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2007c). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: contextual
perspectives (Vol. 2). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2010). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: international
perspectives (Vol. 3). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Feld, B. (2012). The power of accelerators Startup Communities: Building an
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City (pp. 109-119). Hoboken: Wiley.
Fenwick, T. J. (2001). Experiential Learning: A Theoretical Critique from Five
Perspectives. Centre on Education and Training for Employment (Information
Series No. 385).
Fetterman, D. M. (2009). Ethnography: Step-by-step. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Fiet, J. O. (2000a). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(2), 101-117.
Fiet, J. O. (2000c). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(1), 1-24.
Finkle, T. A. (2007). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty from
1989-2005. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 10, 1-25.
Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as
applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.
Florida, R., Mellander, C., & Stolarick, K. (2008). Inside the black box of regional
development—human capital, the creative class and tolerance. Journal of
Economic Geography, 8(5), 615-649.
Forrest, S. P., & Peterson, T. O. (2006). It's called andragogy. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5(1), 113-122.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman
Publishing.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Freire, P. (1998). Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Fröberg, J. (2013, July 5). Sex heta bolag inom miljöteknik blev sex iskalla. Svenska
Dagbladet. Retrieved fromhttp://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/teknik-
och-telekom/sex-heta-bolag-inom-miljoteknik-blev-sex-iskalla_8321088.svd
Jönköping International Business School
352
Gadotti, M. (1996). Pedagogy of praxis: A dialectical philosophy of education: SUNY
Press.
Gagné, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of
human performance. American psychologist, 39(4), 377.
GAN. (2013). The Network. fromhttp://gan.co/the-network
Garavan, T. N., & O'Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship Education and
Training Programmes:: A Review and Evaluation–Part 1. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 18(8), 3-12.
Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about
entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28.
Ghauri, P. (2004). Designing and conducting case studies in international
business research. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 109-124). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Gibb, A., & Ritchie, J. (1982). Understanding the process of starting small
businesses. International small business journal, 1(1), 26-45.
Gibb, A. A. (1983). The small business challenge to management education.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 7(5), 3-41.
Gibb, A. A. (1993). The enterprise culture and education: Understanding
enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and
wider educational goals. International small business journal, 11(3), 11-34.
Gibb, A. A. (1997). Small Firms' Training and Competitiveness. Building Upon
the Small business as a Learning Organisation. International small business journal,
15(3), 13-29.
Gibb, A. A. (2002). Creating conducive environments for learning and
entrepreneurship: living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty
and complexity. Industry and Higher Education, 16(3), 135-148.
Gibb, A. A. (2007). Creating the entrepreneurial university: do we need a wholly
different model of entrepreneurship. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research
in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 67-103). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration:
University of California Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday
Anchor.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
References
353
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on
entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small
business management: a ten-year literature review. International small business
journal, 15(3), 56-77.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology,
78(6), l.
Griffith, J. (2010). Leadership and management skills development in social
enterprises. In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills
Approach (pp. 99-111). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases
of naturalistic inquiry. ECTJ, 30(4), 233-252.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1999). At the border of narrative and
ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), 561.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2009). Analyzing narrative reality: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gunn, R., & Durkin, C. (2010a). Stakeholder participation and involvement in
social enterprises. In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A
Skills Approach (pp. 45-57). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Gunn, R., & Durkin, C. (Eds.). (2010c). Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills Approach.
Bristol: The Policy Press.
Habermas, J. (1974). On social identity. Telos, 1974(19), 91-103.
Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation
research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55-82.
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of
sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2).
Hajian, P. (1982). The essence of splace. (Master of Architecture), Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Massachusets.
Hallen, B. L., Bingham, C. B., & Cohen, S. L. (2013). Do Accelerators Accelerate? A
Study of Venture Accelerators as a Path to Success. Working paper.
Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning: a review and
research agenda. In R. T. Harrison & C. Leitch (Eds.), Entrepreneurial learning:
conceptual frameworks and applications (pp. 3-23). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: Researching
the interface between learning and the entrepreneurial context.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 351-371.
Headd, B. (2003). Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure
and failure. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 51-61.
Jönköping International Business School
354
Heinonen, J., & Akola, E. (2007). Entrepreneurship training and entrepreneurial
learning in Europe: results from the Entlearn project. Tampere: Turku school
of economics. Tampere.
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and training:
Ashgate Publishing.
Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and Mental Models:
Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Innovative and Entrepreneurial Activities.
Journal of Management, 21(6), 1057.
Hill, W. F. (1997). Learning: A survey of psychological interpretations (6 ed.). New York:
Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman.
Hjorth, D. (2011). On provocation, education and entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(1-2), 49-63.
Hjorth, D. (2013). Don't sit on it! A study of what no longer can be called
incubation. Lund: The Creative Plot, Ideon Innovation.
Hochberg, Y. V., & Kamath, K. (2012). US Seed Accelerator Rankings: Kellogg
School of Management, Northwestern University.
Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2010). Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Networked
Learning. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Networked
Learning, Aalborg.
Hoffman, D. L., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. (2012). Analysis of Accelerator
Companies: An Exploratory Case Study of Their Programs, Processes, and
Early Results. Small Business Institute® Journal, 8(2), 54-70.
Hoggan, C. (2014). Transformative Learning Through Conceptual Metaphors:
Simile, Metaphor, and Analogy as Levers for Learning. Adult Learning, 25(4),
134-141.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-
based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3),
258-273.
Hopp, C., & Sonderegger, R. (forthcoming). Understanding the Dynamics of
Nascent Entrepreneurship—Prestart-Up Experience, Intentions, and
Entrepreneurial Success. Journal of Small Business Management.
Howorth, C., Smith, S. M., & Parkinson, C. (2012). Social Learning and Social
Entrepreneurship Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
11(3), 371-389.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Hytti, U., & Heinonen, J. (2013). Heroic and humane entrepreneurs: identity
work in entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 55(8/9), 886-898.
References
355
Hytti, U., & Nieminen, L. (2013). Enacted experiences: analysing drama in
entrepreneurial training. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 14(2), 117-128.
Hytti, U., & O’Gorman, C. (2004). What is “enterprise education”? An analysis
of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four
European countries. Education+ Training, 46(1), 11-23.
Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of
learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396-406.
ILO. (2012). Moscow Conference highlights convergence of countries’ policies
and the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda [Press release]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/media-centre/press-
releases/WCMS_195589/lang--en/index.htm
International Trade Administration. (2013). Small & Medium-Sized Exporting
Companies: Statistical Overview, 2010. Retrieved January 15, 2013, fromhttp://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/smeoutlook/index.asp
Isaacs, E., Visser, K., Friedrich, C., & Brijlal, P. (2007). Entrepreneurship
education and training at the Further Education and Training (FET) level in
South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27(4), 613-630.
Jamieson, I. (1984). Schools and enterprise. In A. G. Watts & P. Moran (Eds.),
Education for enterprise (pp. 19-27). Cambridge: CRAC, Ballinger.
Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context (3 ed.). London: Croom Helm.
Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice (3 ed.).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Jarvis, P. (2006a). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. New York:
Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2006m). Towards a philosophy of human learning: an existentialist
perspective. In P. Jarvis & S. Parker (Eds.), Human learning: An holistic approach
(pp. 1-15): Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2010). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice (4 ed.).
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Jenkins, A. (2012). After Firm Failure: Emotions, learning and re-entry. (PhD),
Jönköping University, Jönköping. (JIBS Dissertation Series no. 84).
Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). Content and thematic analysis. In D. F. Marks &
L. Yardley (Eds.), Research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 56-68).
London: Sage Publications.
Johannisson, B. (1992). Entrepreneurs as Learners: Beyond Education and Training.
Paper presented at the Conference Internationalizing Entrepreneurship
Education and Training, Dortmund.
Jönköping International Business School
356
Johannisson, B. (1993). Entrepreneurial competence and learning strategies. In
R. Larsson, L. Bengtsson, K. Eneroth, & A. Malm (Eds.), Research in Strategic
Change. Lund: Lund University Press.
Johannisson, B. (2005). Entreprenörskapets väsen. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Johansson, B. (1993). Infrastructure, accessibility and economic growth.
International Journal of Transport Economics, 20(2), 131-156.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative
learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology
Review, 19(1), 15-29.
Johnstone, B. A. (2007). Ethnographic methods in entrepreneurship research. In
H. Neergaard & J. P. Ulhøi (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in
entrepreneurship (pp. 97-121).
Jones, C., & Matlay, H. (2011). Understanding the heterogeneity of
entrepreneurship education: going beyond Gartner. Education+ Training,
53(8/9), 692-703.
Jordan, T. (2011). Skillful Engagement with Wicked Issues A Framework for
Analysing the Meaning-making Structures of Societal Change Agents.
INTEGRAL REVIEW, 7(2).
Katz, J. A. (1995). Managing practitioners in the entrepreneurship class.
Simulation & Gaming, 26(3), 361-375.
Kautonen, T. (2008). Understanding the older entrepreneur: Comparing third
age and prime age entrepreneurs in Finland. International Journal of Business
Science and Applied Management, 3(3), 3-13.
Kautonen, T., Down, S., & South, L. (2008). Enterprise support for older
entrepreneurs: the case of PRIME in the UK. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14(2), 85-101.
Kickul, J., Janssen-Selvadurai, C., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). A Blended Value
Framework for Educating the Next Cadre of Social Entrepreneurs. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 479-493.
Kierkegaard, S. (1959). A Kierkegaard anthology. New York: Modern Library.
Kirby, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the
challenge? Education+ Training, 46(8/9), 510-519.
Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2014). Social entrepreneurial learning and human rights
education In M.-C. Pantea, R. Diroescu, & M. Podlasek-Ziegler (Eds.), Young
people, entrepreneurship and non-formal learning: a work in progress (pp. 239-254).
Brussels: SALTO-Youth Participation Resource Centre.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
References
357
Kloosterman, R. C., & Rath, J. C. (2003). Immigrant entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad
in the age of globalization: Oxford and New York: Berg.
Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education. New York: Association
Press New York.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards a Theory of Applied Experiental
Learning. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Group Processes. Chichester: Wiley.
Kolb, D. A., Lublin, S., Spoth, J., & Baker, R. (1986). Strategic management
development: using experiential learning theory to assess and develop
managerial competencies. Journal of Management Development, 5(3), 13-24.
Krueger, N. F. (2009a). Entrepreneurial Intentions are Dead: Long Live
Entrepreneurial Intentions. In A. L. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.),
Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind (Vol. 24, pp. 51-72): Springer New York.
Krueger, N. F. (2009c). The micro-foundations of entrepreneurial learning and…
education: the experiential essence of entrepreneurial cognition. In G. P. West
III, E. J. Gatewood, & K. G. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of university-wide
entrepreneurship education (pp. 35-59). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(3).
Kulothungan, G. (2010). What do we mean by ‘social enterprise’? Defining social
entrepreneurship. In R. Gunn & C. Durkin (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A
Skills Approach (pp. 19-28). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Kumar, K., & Ormiston, J. (2012). Bounding research settings. In R. G. Seymour
(Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods on Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 106-123).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education:
Development, Trends, and Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
29(5), 577-598.
Kurt, L. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology the go-along as ethnographic
research tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455-485.
Kyrö, P. (2006). The continental and Anglo-American approaches to
entrepreneurship education—differences and bridges. In A. Fayolle & H.
Klandt (Eds.), International entrepreneurship education, issues and newness (pp. 93-
111). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
La Belle, T. J. (1982). Formal, nonformal and informal education: A holistic
perspective on lifelong learning. International Review of Education, 28(2), 159-
175.
Jönköping International Business School
358
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular
(Vol. 3): University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ladzani, W. M., & Van Vuuren, J. J. (2002). Entrepreneurship training for
emerging SMEs in South Africa. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(2),
154-161.
Lall, S., Bowles, L., & Baird, R. (2013). Bridging the “Pioneer Gap”: The Role of
Accelerators in Launching High-Impact Enterprises. Innovations: technology,
governance globalization, 8(3-4), 105-137.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social - an introduction to actor-network-theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Le Cornu, A. (2005). Building on Jarvis: Towards a holistic model of the
processes of experiential learning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 37(2), 166-
181.
Lennon, M. (2013). The startup accelerator trend is finally slowing down.
Retrieved from:http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/19/the-startup-
accelerator-trend-is-finally-slowing-down/
Levinsohn, D. S. (2013). Disembedded and beheaded? – a critical review of the
emerging field of sustainability entrepreneurship. International Journal of
entrepreneurship and small business, 19(2), 190-211.
Lewis, D. A., Harper-Anderson, E., & Molnar, L. A. (2011). Incubating Success.
Incubation Best Practices That Lead to Successful New Ventures. Michigan:
U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration /
Institute for Research on Labor, Employment, and the Economy, University
of Michigan.
Lewis, V. L., & Churchill, N. C. (1983). The five stages of small business growth.
Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30-50.
Lichtenstein, G. A. (1992). The significance of relationships in entrepreneurship: A case
study of the ecology of enterprise in two business incubators. (PhD), University of
Pennsylvania.
Liñán, F. (2007). The role of entrepreneurship education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.),
Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 230-247).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Madsen, E. L., Borch, O. J., & Wiklund, J. (2006). Developing dynamic
capabilities in small firms: The role of entrepreneurial orientation,
entrepreneurial activities and firm resources. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, 26 (16), Article 3.
References
359
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A source of
explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create
a Social Venture are Formed'. Social Entrepreneurship, 121–135.
Man, T. W. Y. (2007). Understanding entrepreneurial learning: A competency
approach. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8(3), 189-
198.
Man, T. W. Y., Lau, T., & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competitiveness of small and
medium enterprises: a conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial
competencies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(2), 123-142.
Marketing Charts. (2014). Demographics of US College Graduates in 2013.
Retrieved September 15, 2014, fromhttp://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/demographics-of-us-college-
graduates-in-2013-39773/
Markowska, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial Competence Development: Triggers, Processes &
Consequences. (PhD), Jönköping University, Jönköping. (JIBS Dissertation
Series no. 71).
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New
directions for adult and continuing education, 2001(89), 25-34.
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of
human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship
education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211-224.
Martin, F. (1997). Business incubators and enterprise development: neither tried
or tested? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 4(1), 3-11.
McGee, J. (2013). Meet the Jumpstart Foundry teams that will pitch to investors
this month. Nashville Business Journal. Retrieved from:http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2013/08/07/jumpstart-2013-
companies-take-on.html
McMullan, C. A., & Boberg, A. L. (1991). The relative effectiveness of projects
in teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 9(1),
14-24.
Merriam-Webster. (2014). The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary. Retrieved
November 26, 2014, fromhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Jönköping International Business School
360
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New directions for
adult and continuing education, 1997(74), 5-12.
Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory
in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman Jr, H. J. (1978).
Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review,
546-562.
Miller, P., & Bound, K. (2011). The Startup Factories: The rise of accelerator
programmes to support new technology ventures. London: NESTA.
Miller, T. L., Wesley, C. L., & Williams, D. E. (2012). Educating the minds of
caring hearts: Comparing the views of practitioners and educators on the
importance of social entrepreneurship competencies. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 11(3), 349-370.
Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3), 5.
Mirabella, R., & Young, D. R. (2012). The development of education for social
entrepreneurship and nonprofit management: Diverging or converging
paths? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(1), 43-57.
Miron, D., & McClelland, D. C. (1979). The Impact of Achievement Motivation
Training of Small Businesses. California Management Review, 21(4), 13-28.
Mishler, E. G. (1995). Models of narrative analysis: A typology. Journal of Narrative
& Life History.
Moingeon, B., & Edmondson, A. (Eds.). (1996). Organizational learning and
competitive advantage: Sage.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., Schindehutte, M., & Spivack, A. J. (2012). Framing
the entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 11-
40.
Mullins, J. (2009). Launching a new venture. fromhttp://www.london.edu/newsandevents/news/2009/03/Launching_a_ne
w_venture_957.html
Mumford, A. (1999). Effective learning. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel
& Development.
Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives,
teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education+ Training, 52(1), 20-47.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known
Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.
Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. G. (2014). Teaching Entrepreneurship: A
Practice-Based Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
References
361
Neergaard, H., Tangaard, L., Krueger, N. F., & Robinson, S. (2012). Pedagogical
Interventions in Entrepreneurship from behaviourism to existential learning. Paper
presented at the Institute for small business and entrepreneurship, Dublin,
Ireland.
Nelson, J., Ishikawa, E., & Geaneotes, A. (2009). Developing inclusive business
models: A review of Coca-Cola’s manual distribution centers in Ethiopia and
Tanzania. Harvard Kennedy School and International Finance Corporation.
Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream.
Edinburgh: Canongate Books Ltd.
Obrecht, J.-J. (2011). On the relevance of the concept of entrepreneurial
capabilities. International Journal of entrepreneurship and small business, 13(2), 107-
125.
Ojala, A., & Heikkilä, J. (2011). Entrepreneurship training for new ventures.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 297-310.
Oliver, P. (2003). The student's guide to research ethics. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Oxford Dictionaries. (2015). fromhttp://oxforddictionaries.com
Pantea, M.-C. (forthcoming). On entrepreneurial education: dilemmas and
tensions in nonformal learning. Studies in Continuing Education.
Parragon. (2002). Queen's English Dictionary and Thesarus of the English Language.
Bath: Parragon.
Peitsch, F. (2012). The Immortal Now Reflections on Learning, Life and Work (pp.
255-272): Springer.
Pepin, M. (2012). Enterprise education: a Deweyan perspective. Education+
Training, 54(8/9), 801-812.
Perren, L., & Ram, M. (2004). Case-study Method in Small Business and
Entrepreneurial Research: Mapping boundaries and perspectives. International
small business journal, 22(1), 83.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). New York:
International Universities Press New York.
Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (forthcoming). Burst Bubbles or Build Steam?
Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and
Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Small Business Management.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007a). Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic
Review of the Evidence. International small business journal, 25(5), 479-510.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007b). Simulating Entrepreneurial Learning Integrating
Experiential and Collaborative Approaches to Learning. Management learning,
38(2), 211-233.
Jönköping International Business School
362
Pittaway, L., & Thorpe, R. (2012). A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A
tribute to Jason Cope. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9-10), 837-
859.
Platt, J. (1992). Cases of cases... of cases. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.),
What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 21-52). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual
framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399-424.
Politis, D., & Gabrielsson, J. (2005). Exploring the role of experience in the
process of entrepreneurial learning. Lund Institute of Economic Research. Working
Paper Series, 2005/1.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business
Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co?creation experiences: The next
practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Preuss, L. (1999). Ethical Theory in German Business Ethics Research. Journal of
Business Ethics, 18(4), 407-419.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone, the collapse and revival of civic America. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Rae, D. (2004). Practical theories from entrepreneurs' stories: discursive
approaches to entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 11(2), 195-202.
Rae, D. (2005a). Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 323-335.
Rae, D. (2005c). Mid-career entrepreneurial learning. Education+ Training,
47(8/9), 562-574.
Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2001). Towards a conceptual understanding of
entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 8(2),
150-158.
Ravasi, D., & Turati, C. (2005). Exploring entrepreneurial learning: a comparative
study of technology development projects. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1),
137-164.
Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Marketing
Under Uncertainty: The Logic of an Effectual Approach. Journal of Marketing,
73(3), 1-18.
Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2005). Knowing What to Do and Doing What You
Know: Effectuation as a Form of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Journal of Private
Equity, 9(1), 45-62.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness: Pion London.
References
363
Renko, M. (2013). Early Challenges of Nascent Social Entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1045-1069.
Reynolds, P., & Miller, B. (1992). New firm gestation: Conception, birth, and
implications for research. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 405-417.
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to
create radically successful businesses: Random House Digital, Inc.
Riessman, C. K. (1994). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Ltd.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, Ltd.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science
students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Rivetti, F., & Migliaccio, M. (2014). Accelerator Programs: Promoting Entrepreneurship
Through Learning. A Comparative Case Study. Paper presented at the Insitute for
Small Business and Entrepreneurship; The Future of Enterprise: The
Innovation Revolution, Manchester.
Rogers, A. (2004, November 24, 2014). Looking again at non-formal and
informal education – towards a new paradigm. Retrieved November 24,
2014, fromhttp://infed.org/mobi/looking-again-at-non-formal-and-
informal-education-towards-a-new-paradigm/
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Colombus: Charles E. Merill Publishing
Company.
Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn. 3rd edition, Merrill: New
York
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910.
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes
of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18.
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (Eds.). (2009). Learning and expanding
with activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and
sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 20(4), 222-237.
Jönköping International Business School
364
Scheiber, L. A. (2014). Social capital and the target population. Social Enterprise
Journal, 10(2), 121-134.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Allen &
Unwin.
Schütz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
London: Basic books.
Scott-Jones, J., & Watt, S. (2010). Ethnography in social science practice. London:
Routledge.
Scott, M., & Bruce, R. (1987). Five stages of growth in small business. Long Range
Planning, 20(3), 45-52.
SEC. (2010). Social Enterprise Coalition. Retrieved 10/11/2010, 2010, fromhttp://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/
Sida. (2010, 2010-07-15). Business for Development (B4D) – programme of
collaboration with industry. Retrieved 2010-09-17, fromhttp://www.sida.se/English/Partners/Private-sector/Business-for-
Development-B4D/
Simpson, L. C. (1995). Technology, time, and the conversations of modernity. New York:
Routledge.
Smith-Doerr, L., & Powell, W. W. (2005). Networks and economic life. In N. J.
Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (Vol. 2, pp.
379-402).
Smith, B. R., Kickul, J., & Coley, L. (2010). Using simulation to develop empathy
and motivate agency: an innovative pedagogical approach for social
entrepreneurship education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in
entrepreneurship education: international perspectives (Vol. 3, pp. 13-24). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:
Theory, method and research: London: SAGE Publications Limited.
Smith, K. B. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy
classification. Policy Studies Journal, 30(3), 379-395.
Smith, S. M. (2011). SME leaders’ learning in networked learning: An Actor-network
theory and Communities of Practice theory informed analysis. (PhD), Lancaster
University, Lancaster.
Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A
Paradoxical Leadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs: Challenges,
Leadership Skills, and Pedagogical Tools for Managing Social and
Commercial Demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3),
463-478.
References
365
SSE. (2013). Learning approach. Retrieved September 10, 2013, fromhttp://www.the-sse.org/course-components
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. London: Sage.
Stanworth, J., & Gray, C. (1992). Enterprise Education: Action-Based Research
with Training Policy Implications. International small business journal, 10(2), 11-
23.
Startup Commons. (2014). Startup Key Stages. Retrieved September 29, 2014,
fromhttp://www.startupcommons.org/startup-key-stages.html
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style?
American psychologist, 52(7), 700-712.
Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Strauss, A. L. (1995). Research issues and an interactionist theory of action. Mind,
Culture & Activity, 2 (1).
Stross, R. (2012). The Launch Pad: Inside Y Combinator. New York: Penguin.
Taylor, D. W., & Thorpe, R. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: a process of co-
participation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2), 203-211.
Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical
review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 26(2), 173-191.
Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2013). A theory in progress? Issues in
transformative learning theory. European journal for research on the education and
learning of adults, 4(1), 33-47.
Thalsgård Henriques, C. (forthcoming). Study of the Copenhagen-based incubator
Symbion. (Ph.D), Copenhagen Business School.
Thiru, Y. (2011). Social Enterprise Education: New Economics or a Platypus? In
G. T. Lumpkin (Ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth;
Special Volume on Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Vol. 13, pp. 175-200).
Thompson, J. L. (2008). Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship: where
have we reached?: A summary of issues and discussion points. Social Enterprise
Journal, 4(2), 149-161.
Timmons, J. A., & Spinelli, S. (1994). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the
21st century (8 ed.). Boston: Irwin.
Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2007). The distinctive challenge of educating social
entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on
entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2),
264-271.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: a guide for organizational and social
research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jönköping International Business School
366
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Vanderstraeten, J., & Matthyssens, P. (2012). Service-based differentiation
strategies for business incubators: Exploring external and internal alignment.
Technovation, 32 (12), 656–670.
Vanevenhoven, J. (2013). Advances and Challenges in Entrepreneurship
Education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 466-470.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications Inc.
Weil, S., & McGill, I. (Eds.). (1989). Making sense of experiential learning.
Buckingham: Open University Press / Society for Research in Higher
Education.
Welsch, H. P. (2010). The Twelve Tribes of Entrepreneurship. In W. W.
Gasparski, L. V. Ryan, & S. Kwiatkowski (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: Values and
Responsibility (pp. 37-61). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and
ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value
creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework.
Netherlands: Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open Universiteit.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Williams, R., Mackness, J., & Gumtau, S. (2012). Footprints of emergence.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 49-90.
Winkel, D. (2013). The Changing Face of Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of
Small Business Management, 51(3), 313-314.
Visser, K. (2011). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: context, relevance and
extent. Industry and Higher Education, 25(4), 233-247.
Visser, W. (2010). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of
business. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 5(3), 7-22.
Worsham, E. L. (2012). Reflections and Insights on Teaching Social
Entrepreneurship: An Interview with Greg Dees. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 11(3), 442-452.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
References
367
Young, W., & Tilley, F. (2006). Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The
shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(6), 402-415.
Zahra, S. A. (2007). Contextualizing Theory Building in Entrepreneurship
Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443-452.
Zahra, S. A., Newey, L. R., & Li, Y. (2014). On the Frontiers: The Implications
of Social Entrepreneurship for International Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137-158.
Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. (2014). Contextualization and the
advancement of entrepreneurship research. International small business journal,
32(5), 479-500.
Zigmond, N. (2000). Reflections on a Research Career: Research as Detective
Work. Exceptional children, 66(3), 295-304.
369
Appendices
1. ‘Friday Feedback’ Questionnaire (A1)
1. What is your name?
2. What are your strongest impressions from the past week? (please describe
feelings, surprises, important issues that have come up – and things that
you have learned/are learning)
3. What do you feel is the greatest challenge/issue that you and your emerging
enterprise are facing just now? (name several issues if you wish)
4. If you have a question or comment, or if you feel worried or irritated about
an issues, please write a little about this below.
5. What do you feel is the biggest change that could be made in the Booster
programme to improve it?
6. If you wish, please feel free to make further comments below – if you feel
these do not correspond to the above questions.
Jönköping International Business School
370
2. Interview Guide for Interview 1 (A1)
Sensitizing concepts
Identity, Belonging, Learning
Introduction
1. Background to interview, interview purpose and content
2. Information about confidentiality / anonymity
Background
3. Where do you come from/where did you grow up
4. What did your parents do (occupation)
5. Were you parents “socially engaged” in any way?
Previous work experience
6. Have you worked previously (prior to this start-up)?
7. With what? Where?
Venture development
8. Tell me the story of how the idea for (name of new firm/product) came about and
how you came to be involved with Booster.
Previous understanding of social entrepreneurship
9. Do you know anybody who you would call a social entrepreneur?
10. Who? What do you they do?
11. Do you consider yourself to be a social entrepreneur?
Conclusion
12. Opportunity for comments and/or questions.
Appendices
371
3. Interview Guide: Week 4 (halfway)
Introduction
Thank-you for taking time for this interview!
Today's interview should take between 30 and 45 minutes.
The main thing we want to know is how you feel you are getting on in the accelerator
- and what we can do to make it more relevant to your needs.
But I am also interested in learning more about your particular approach to working in
the accelerator. Perhaps you are doing something that helps you get more out of
your time here?
If it's alright with you I record the interview, so that I can focus more on what you are
saying instead of only taking notes?
Does that sound reasonable?
Some background
1. If you were to introduce yourself and your work to somebody, what would you call
yourself? (e.g.: profession)
2. How did you find out about the accelerator?
3. What it was that made you apply to participate in the Booster programme?
4. What stage is your start-up at? Or, how far had you progressed before coming
here?
Your experience
5. Please tell me about your experience of the accelerator so far...
- and when I say "accelerator" I mean everything associated with it, not just the
formal sessions.
6. Is there anything that you have found particularly challenging (or difficult) so far?
7. What have been the highlights of the past 4 weeks?
8. Have there been any ‘low’ patches, or experiences you would rather not have
had?
9. Based on your experience at the moment, if you were to describe Booster’s
impact on the development of you and your business, what would you say is its
main contribution so far?
Jönköping International Business School
372
Interaction
An important idea in Booster is that of ‘interaction’: interaction not only with your
mentor, but also with the other Booster participants, visiting speakers and people at
SocNet.
10. Have you found any particular individuals to be particularly helpful during the past
weeks?
11. How much do you talk to the other entrepreneurs about your start-up?
12. In which ways do you find it helpful to talk to the other entrepreneurs?
13. Do you find any of the other entrepreneur’s ideas particularly useful? (- and why?)
- Or maybe someone else’s ideas almost never useful? (- and why?)
14. Could the accelerator be structured in another way, to help you get more out of
the experience / skills of your fellow entrepreneurs?
15. How do you feel so far about the mentor who has been allocated to you?
Structure
16. What do you think about the way in which the accelerator is structured so far?
e.g.: is there a good balance between visits by speakers and time to work on your
start-up, or network?
17. What do you think of the ‘deliverables’ and ‘deadlines’ that NSE have set up?
18. How useful have you found the sessions on Word & Excel?
Events
19. So far there have been several events. Have you found any of them useful? –
and if so, in which way?
wk 1: Start-up Day @ [name of city] School of Entrepreneurship
wk 2: Kick-off event
wk 3: Mingle with business lab
wk 3: Social enterprise visit
wk 4: Speed-dating w/mentors
Appendices
373
Suggestions for improvement
20. Can you think of any ways in which the accelerator could be improved?
e.g.: do we need to adjust the content, or perhaps the accelerator process?
- Perhaps you are aware of something or someone that is making it difficult for
you to learn effectively?
Your specific needs / goals
21. Is there anything specific in terms of content or support that you haven't received
so far, and that you would really like to get in the coming weeks?
22. Do you have any particular goals that you wish to achieve in the coming weeks?
Booster staff
23. What role have the Booster staff (names of staff) played in the development of
your start-up in the past weeks?
- Can they do anything differently in order to help you more?
Conclusion
I think that's about all my questions for today...
24. Do you have anything that you wish to add, that I have missed or that you want to
comment on?
- Maybe you want to ask me a question?
Once again, thank-you very much for taking the time to talk to me!
Jönköping International Business School
374
4. Interview Guide: Week 8
146
Introduction
Thank-you for taking the time to talk to me, I know you are very busy!
Today I want to get your final impressions of the accelerator, focusing on 4 main
areas... (impact, process, interaction and learning)
1. But first, tell me a little about your experience of the accelerator, what has it been
like for you?
Impact
"the role of the accelerator in the context of the entire development of my social
enterprise"
If you take a step back in your imagination and look at the big picture: "the development
of your enterprise over time from birth to maturity"...
2. How would you describe the impact of these past 8 weeks in Scandinavia on you
and your enterprise?
- What parts of the bigger puzzle has Booster helped put in place?
- In which way (if any) are you or your enterprise different, at the end of A1?
3. What have you achieved in the past 8 weeks?
- Had you hoped to achieve anything that you didn’t achieve?
Process
4. If you were to draw 3 lines to illustrate how much interaction, learning and pressure
you have experienced during the programme, what would it look like?
(learning in green, interaction in blue, pressure in red)
5. Do you want to comment on what you've drawn?
146
Graduation week
Appendices
375
Interaction
One of the main ideas in business accelerators is that to help you and your business
to develop, we try and help you interact with accelerator staff, with your mentor, the
other entrepreneurs, etc., etc.
6. Can you tell me a little about who you have interacted with most during the
accelerator - and the interactions you found most helpful for your development?
7. Did you find that any particular events or contexts were especially good for
interaction?
8. What was it like to have a mentor assigned to you, for the duration of the
accelerator?
Learning
‘learning experiences’
Finally, if we just talk briefly about the approach to learning which the accelerator has
adopted...
9. What you think about the way in which the accelerator was structured, with regards
to helping you learn?
- Were there any speakers or sessions – or ways of structuring the different themes
in the accelerator – that made it easier for you to learn? - or harder?
10. If you think about the speakers or sessions that sticks with you most, what was it
that made it/them effective?
Conclusion
I think that’s almost it from my perspective...
11. But before we finish: what do you think NSE could do to improve the accelerator?
12. What do you think about the composition of the cohort: who should we recruit?
(stage, industry, etc)
13. Is there anything you wish to add? Perhaps you have a question for me?
Next step
After a few months I will send you a copy of your interviews so you can comment on
them if you wish.
I will contact you in about 6 months’ time for a second follow up:
-to get an update
- to get reflections on the impact of Booster with more perspective
Thank-you and good luck!
Jönköping International Business School
376
5. Interview Guide – Six-month Follow-up
Introduction
Thank-you for taking the time to help us with our follow-up of the Booster accelerator!
The interview today focuses on 4 themes:
• Your situation today (and that of your enterprise)
• A look back at the past 5-6 months since your left the accelerator.
• Your networking.
• The future.
Current situation
1) Are you still working on the start-up idea you worked on while at Booster?
a) If NOT:
i) Why not?
ii) What are you doing instead?
b) If YES:
Please tell me a little about your situation today? (please include some information
about each of the areas below):
- progress on sourcing finance / investment
- progress on building a team
- how have the sales (or delivery) of your product/service developed?
- what social impact do you feel you are having?
- any other developments in your start-up that you would like to mention.
What “stage” in the start-up process are you at today? (e.g.: idea stage,
developing product/service, testing your business model (pilot), scaling up, etc)
Looking back...
Now that you have had time to digest some of your impressions from the
Accelerator:
If you look back at the past year (in which the accelerator has only been one of
many happenings – a “chapter in the book” of your start-up):
2) In which ways do you feel that you or your start-up have developed?
a) What was it that made this development take place? How did this happen?
Appendices
377
3) Did NSE / Booster have any part in the development that you describe?
a) And if so, what role did the accelerator play?
4) Do you feel that you do anything different today in relation to your start-up, if you
compare your behaviour to what you did before the accelerator? Or perhaps you
think in a different way?
5) Do you feel that the accelerator provided you with the support that you needed,
in relation to your start-up’s stage of development?
a) Do you feel that you needed a different type of support? Or should the
support have been provided in a different manner?
6) Do you feel today that any of the accelerator activities were especially valuable?
(which ones?)
a) If so, why does this / do they feel important to you?
Network & mentor
7) Have any happenings or any individuals been especially important for your own
development, or your enterprises development in the past months? (and if so,
describe these briefly)
a) Why have these happenings/these individuals been important? (i.e.: what
impact have they had?)
8) Do you still have contact with your mentor?
a) If you answer no:
i) Why not? (please provide some details)
ii) Would you like to have more contact?
b) If you answer yes:
i) How often do you have contact?
ii) How do you contact one another? (e.g.: physical meeting, Skype,
telephone)
iii) Does this contact help you or your enterprise develop, or is your
contact more of a social nature?
9) Do you have contact with anybody else who you met during the accelerator?
a) Who do you have contact with?
b) In which way do you contact one another? (e.g.: Facebook, physical
meetings, Skype)
c) What do you usually talk/write about?
d) Does the contact help your or your enterprise develop in any way? (and if
so, how?)
Jönköping International Business School
378
Future
10) What do you feel is the next step that you need to take in developing your start-
up? (and why?)
11) Which questions and challenges are you struggling with at the moment?
12) Is there anything in particular that you feel you need to learn how to do, in order
to take the next step?
13) Is there any support (knowledge, infrastructure, tool, etc) that NSE could provide
you with now or in the near future, that would help you work more effectively with
your start-up? Or help you take the next step in its development?
Summary
14) Has anything else happened in your life since you left the accelerator that you
feel has had an impact on your enterprise?
15) Is there anything you have a question about, that you would like NSE (or me) to
answer – or is there anything else that you would like to add?
Thank-you very much for taking the time to answer these questions!
Appendices
379
6. Questionnaire – 12 Month Follow-up
It is about a year since you graduated from the Booster Accelerator - and soon a new
group of entrepreneurs will take part in a third Accelerator.
However, we haven't forgotten you and every now and again we hear news from you,
or about you. Nevertheless, we would like to get a more structured idea of what you
are doing now, and whether or not you are still involved in your start-up. So we hope
you don't mind taking a few minutes to fill in this survey. It is very important for us, as
without your feedback we will have difficulty in assessing the long-term impact of the
Accelerator.
Thank you very much for your help with this!
1. What is your name?
2. What is the status of the start-up that you were engaged in when you participated
in the Accelerator? (choose the answer that most closely mirrors your situation)
? My start-up is still alive and is making a profit.
? My start-up is still alive and is clearly making progress towards breaking
even.
? My start-up is still alive, but is not making progress (e.g.: developing
product/service, team, sales, etc.)
? My start-up is still alive, but I have left the start-up team.
? I have shut down my start-up.
? I have put my start-up on "hold" (e.g.: I am busy with other things, but
haven't given up).
? None of the above.
If you wish you can comment on your answer below...
3. If you are no longer involved in the start-up that you were engaged in when you
participated in the Accelerator, what are the main reasons for closing down /
leaving the team?
Jönköping International Business School
380
4. If you are still engaged in your start-up, what progress have you made since the
end of the Accelerator?
? I have recruited other individuals to my start-up team
? I have developed my product / service offering
? I have tested my product / service
? I have sold my product / service to customers
? I have found investment / funding
? I am in regular contact with investors / funders
? I have developed my business "system" (marketing, financial management,
sales, etc.)
? I have increased my revenue streams
? I have increased my profit/bottom-line income
? I have increased my social impact (if yes, please specify how in the box
below).
? Other (please specify)
5. If you are still engaged in your start-up, which of the following alternative best
describes your current situation?
? I spend most of my working week on running or developing my start-up.
? I am self-employed and spend about half of my working week on my start-
up, and the other half on activities that bring in money on a regular basis.
? I am self-employed and spend most of my working week on activities that
bring in money on a regular basis, I work on my start-up in my spare time.
? I am employed by another organisation and work on my start-up in my spare
time.
? I am in part-time/full-time education and spend most of my working week
studying, I work on my start-up in my spare time.
? Other (please specify)
6. A year has now passed since the Booster accelerator finished.
With the benefit of hindsight, what was the main contribution that the Accelerator
made to your start-up?
7. With the benefit of hindsight, what was missing from the Booster Accelerator
programme, which would have helped you with your start-up?
8. If you are still engaged in your start-up, what are the main challenges that you are
facing at the moment?
Appendices
381
9. Has anything really exciting happened in your start-up in the past year? (if so
please provide a brief description)
10. Have you encountered any significant set-backs in the past year? (if so please
provide a brief description)
11. Which of the following individuals do you still keep in touch with - and in which
roles
147
? (i.e.: do you just keep in touch for social reasons, or do you also discuss
ideas/issues that have to do with your start-up)
12. If you have been able to obtain funding, how much have you been able to source
and in what form?
? investment from an individual (e.g.: 'angel' investor)
? investment from an organisation (e.g.: venture capitalist)
? project funding from an NGO or development agency
? loan from an NGO or development agency
? bank loan
? crowd funding
? gift / loan from friends/family
? gift / donation from private individual(s)
? gift / donation from a business/organisation
? other (please specify in space below)
Approximate amount (please specify currency: USD, SEK, etc.). If "other" what is
the source of your funding?
13. Additional comments, questions or ideas...
THANK YOU very much for taking the time to answer these questions.
Take care, good luck and stay in touch!
147
On the questionnaire all of the names of the social entrepreneurs were listed. Respondents were
asked to indicate whether the contact was primarily of a social or venture-related character.
Jönköping International Business School
382
7. Stress, Interaction & Learning Diagram
The Booster entrepreneurs were asked to draw three lines on an A4 sheet of paper
divided into ‘eight-weeks’ (on the horizontal axis). The vertical axis represented
a continuum of low to high and the three differently coloured lines represented
stress, learning and interaction. The diagram below is that of Patience (A3).
383
JIBS Dissertation Series
No. 001 Melander, Anders (1997): “Industrial wisdom and strategic change – The
Swedish pulp and paper industry 1945-1990”, (Business Administration).
No. 002 Marmefelt, Thomas (1998): “Bank-industry networks and economic evolution
– An institutional-evolutionary approach”, (Economics).
No. 003 Wiklund, Johan (1998): “Small firm growth and performance –
Entrepreneurship and beyond”, (Business Administration).
No. 004 Braunerhjelm, Pontus (1999): “Knowledge capital, firm performance and
network production”, (Economics).
No. 005 Frankelius, Per (1999): “Företagande över tid – Kontextuellt perspektiv och
visuellt beskrivningsspråk”, (Business Administration).
No. 006 Klaesson, Johan (2001): “A study of localisation economies and the transport
sector”, (Economics).
No. 007 Hatemi-J, Abdulnasser (2001): “Time-series Econometrics Applied to
Macroeconomic Issues”, (Economics).
No. 008 Alhager, Eleonor (2001): “Mervärdesskatt vid omstruktureringar, Iustus
förlag AB”, (Law).
No. 009 Hugoson, Peter (2001): “Interregional Business Travel and the Economics of
Business Interaction”, (Economics).
No. 010 Pettersson, Lars (2002): “Location, Housing and Premises in a Dynamic
Perspective”, (Economics).
No. 011 Paulsson, Thomas (2002): “Decision Making, Risk, and Utility –
Assessments and Applications of Alternative Decision Models”, (Economics).
No. 012 Brundin, Ethel (2002): “Emotions in Motion – The Strategic Leader in a
Radical Change Process”, (Business Administration).
No. 013 Wiklund, Hans (2002): “Arenas for Democratic Deliberation – Decision-
making in an Infrastructure Project in Sweden”, (Political Science).
No. 014 Florin Samuelsson, Emilia (2002): “Accountability and Family Business
Contexts - An Interpretive Approach to Accounting and Control Practices”,
(Business Administration).
No. 015 Ahl, Helene J. (2002): “The Making of the Female Entrepreneur – A
Discourse Analysis of Research Texts on Women’s Entrepreneurship”, (Business
Administration).
No. 016 Olsson, Michael (2002): “Studies of Commuting and Labour Market
Integration”, (Economics).
Jönköping International Business School
384
No. 017 Wigren, Caroline (2003): “The Spirit of Gnosjö – The Grand Narrative and
Beyond”, (Business Administration).
No. 018 Hall, Annika (2003): “Strategising in the context of genuine relations: An
interpretative study of strategic renewal through family interactions”, (Business
Administration).
No. 019 Nilsson, Ulf (2003): “Product costing in interorganizational relationships – A
supplier’s perspective”, (Business Administration).
No. 020 Samuelsson, Mikael (2004): “Creating new ventures: A longitudinal
investigation of the nascent venturing process”, (Business Administration).
No. 021 Bruns, Volker (2004): “Who receives bank loans? A study of lending officers’
assessments of loans to growing small and medium-sized enterprises”, (Business
Administration).
No. 022 Gustafsson, Veronica (2004): “Entrepreneurial Decision-Making:
Individuals, tasks and cognitions”, (Business Administration).
No. 023 Agndal, Henrik (2004): “Internationalisation as a Process of Strategy and
Change – A Study of 16 Swedish Industrial SMEs”, (Business
Administration).
No. 024 Ejermo, Olof (2004): “Perspectives on Regional and Industrial Dynamics of
Innovation”, (Economics).
No. 025 Barenfeld, Jesper (2005): “Taxation of Cross-Border Partnerships: Double-
Tax Relief in Hybrid and Reverse Hybrid Situations”, (Law).
No. 026 Hilling, Maria (2005): “Free Movement and Tax Treaties in the Internal
Market”, (Law).
No. 027 Brunninge, Olof (2005): “Organisational self-understanding and the strategy
process”, (Business Administration).
No. 028 Blombäck, Anna (2005): “Supplier brand image – a catalyst for choice:
Expanding the B2B brand discourse by studying the role corporate brand image
plays in the selection of subcontractors”, (Business Administration).
No. 029 Nordqvist, Mattias (2005): “Understanding the role of ownership in
strategizing: a study of family firms”, (Business Administration).
No. 030 Karlsson, Tomas (2005): “Business Plans in New Ventures: An Institutional
Perspective”, (Business Administration).
No. 031 Johnson, Andreas (2005): “Host Country Effects of Foreign Direct Investment:
The Case of Developing and Transition Economies”, (Economics).
No. 032 Nyström, Kristina (2006): “Entry and Exit in Swedish Industrial Sectors”,
(Economics).
No. 033 Salvato, Carlo (2006): “Micro-Foundations of Organizational Adaptation. A
Field Study in the Evolution of Product Development Capabilities in a Design
Firm”, (Business Administration).
JIBS Dissertation Series
385
No. 034 Gråsjö, Urban (2006): “Spatial Spillovers of Knowledge Production – An
Accessibility Approach”, (Economics).
No. 035 Dahlqvist, Jonas (2007): “Assessing New Economic Activity – Process and
Performance in New Ventures”, (Business Administration).
No. 036 Andersson, Martin (2007): “Disentangling Trade Flows – firms, geography
and technology”, (Economics).
No. 037 Nilsson, Désirée (2007): “Essays on Trade Flows, Demand Structure and
Income Distribution”, (Economics).
No. 038 McKelvie, Alexander (2007): “Innovation in New Firms: Examining the role
of knowledge and growth willingness”, (Business Administration).
No. 039 Garvi, Miriam (2007): “Venture Capital for the Future - Implications of
Founding Visions in the Venture Capital Setting”, (Business
Administration).
No. 040 Rosander, Ulrika (2007): “Generalklausul mot skatteflykt”, (Law).
No. 041 Hultman, Jens (2007): “Rethinking adoption – Information and
communications technology interaction processes within the Swedish automobile
industry”, (Business Administration).
No. 042 Hilling, Axel (2007): “Income Taxation of Derivatives and other Financial
Instruments – Economic Substance versus Legal Form: A study focusing on
Swedish non-financial companies”, (Law).
No. 043 Sjölander, Pär (2007): “Simulation-Based Approaches in Financial
Econometrics”, (Economics).
No. 044 Hang, Min (2007): “Media Business Venturing: A Study on the Choice of
Organizational Mode”, (Business Administration).
No. 045 Lövstål, Eva (2008): “Management Control Systems in Entrepreneurial
Organisations – A Balancing Challenge”, (Business Administration).
No. 046 Fridriksson, Helgi-Valur (2008): “Learning processes in an inter-
organizational context – A study of krAft project”, (Business
Administration).
No. 047 Naldi, Lucia (2008): “Growth through Internationalization: a Knowledge
Perspective on SMEs”, (Business Administration).
No. 048 Wiberg, Daniel (2008): “Institutional Ownership - the Anonymous Capital:
Corporate Governance and Investment Performance”, (Economics).
No. 049 Eklund Johan E. (2008): “Corporate Governance, Private Property and
Investment”, (Economics).
No. 050 Glemdal, Michael (2008): “Gubben på kullen - Om den smärtsamma
skillnaden mellan politiska intentioner och praktiska resultat”, (Political
Science).
Jönköping International Business School
386
No. 051 Bohman, Helena (2008): “Trade, Knowledge and Income Distribution”,
(Economics).
No. 052 Rendahl Pernilla (2008): “Cross-Border Consumption Taxation of Digital
Supplies - A Comparative Study of Double Taxation and Unintentional Non-
Taxation of B2C E-Commerce”, (Law).
No. 053 Mellander, Charlotta (2008): “The Wealth of Urban Regions - On the
Location of Creative Individuals and Firms”, (Economics).
No. 054 Johansson, Monica (2008): “Organizing Policy - A Policy Analysis starting
from SMEs in Tuscany and the County of Jönköping”, (Political Science).
No. 055 van Weezel, Aldo (2009): “Entrepreneurial Strategy-Making Mode and
Performance: A Study of the Newspaper Industry”, (Business Administration)
No. 056 Hellerstedt, Karin (2009): “The Composition of New Venture Teams: Its
Dynamics and Consequences”, (Business Administration).
No. 057 Hunter, Erik (2009): “Celebrity Entrepreneurship and Celebrity Endorsement:
Similarities, differences and the effect of deeper engagement”, (Business
Administration).
No. 058 Gerson, Anna (2009): “Compensation of Losses in Foreign Subsidiaries within
the EU: A Comparative Study of the Unilateral Loss-Compensation Mechanisms
in Austria and Denmark”, (Law).
No. 059 Dahlström, Tobias (2009): “Causes of corruption”, (Economics).
No. 060 Languilaire, Jean-Charles (2009): “Experiencing work/non-work -
Theorising individuals' process of integrating and segmenting work, family, social
and private”, (Business Administration).
No. 061 Nguyen Tan, Phat (2009): “Transfer Pricing: The Vietnamese System in the
Light of the OECD Guidelines and the Systems in certain Developed and
Developing Countries”, (Law).
No. 062 Karlsson, Ann Britt (2009): “Institutionalisering av ansvar i kommunal
revision – Lärande organisering”, (Political Science).
No. 063 Johansson, Sara (2010): “Knowledge, Product Differentiation and Trade,
(Economics).
No. 064 Ots, Mart (2010): “Understanding value formation - A study of marketing
communications practices at the food retailer ICA”, (Business Administration).
No. 065 Raviola, Elena (2010): “Paper meets Web: How the institution of news
production works on paper and online”, (Business Administration).
No. 066 Palmberg, Johanna (2010): “Family Ownership and Investment Performance”,
(Economics).
No. 067 Borgström, Benedikte (2010): “Supply chain strategising: Integration in
practice”, (Business Administration).
JIBS Dissertation Series
387
No. 068 Wikner, Sarah (2010): “Value co-creation as practice: On a supplier’s
capabilities in the value generation process”, (Business Administration).
No. 069 Karlsson, Peter (2011): “Issues of Incompleteness, Outliers and Asymptotics in
High-Dimensional Data”, (Statistics).
No. 070 Helin, Jenny (2011): “Living moments in family meetings: A process study in
the family business context”, (Business Administration).
No. 071 Markowska, Magdalena (2011): “Entrepreneurial Competence Development:
Triggers, Processes & Consequences”, (Business Administration).
No. 072 Cui, Lianguang (2011): “Innovation and network development of logistics
firms”, (Business Administration).
No. 073 Norbäck, Maria (2011): “Making Public Service Television: A study of
institutional work in collaborative TV production”, (Business
Administration).
No. 074 Dzansi, James (2011): “Essays on Financing and Returns on Investment”,
(Economics).
No. 075 Månsson, Kristofer (2012): “Issues of multicollinearity and conditional
heteroscedasticy in time series econometrics”, (Statistics).
No. 076 Balkow, Jenny (2012): “In the Middle: On Sourcing from China and the Role
of the Intermediary”, (Business Administration).
No. 077 Karlsson, Hyunjoo Kim (2012): “Dynamics of macroeconomic and financial
variables in different time horizons”, (Economics).
No. 078 Bjerke, Lina (2012): “Knowledge flows across space and firms”, (Economics).
No. 079 Högberg, Andreas (2012): “Corporate Governance, Legal Origin and Firm
Performance: An Asian Perspective”, (Economics).
No. 080 Wictor, Ingemar (2012): “Born Globals: Rapid International Growth in New
Ventures”, (Business Administration).
No. 081 Skoglund, Per (2012): “Sourcing decisions for military logistics in Peace Support
Operations: A case study of the Swedish armed forces”, (Business
Administration).
No. 082 Haag, Kajsa (2012): “Rethinking family business succession: From a problem to
solve to an ongoing practice”, (Business Administration).
No. 083 Zeebari, Zangin (2012): “On Median and Ridge Estimation of SURE
Models”, (Statistics).
No. 084 Jenkins, Anna (2012): “After firm failure: Emotions, learning and re-entry”,
(Business Administration).
No. 085 Ghazawneh, Ahmad (2012): “Towards a Boundary Resources Theory of
Software Platforms”, (Informatics).
Jönköping International Business School
388
No. 086 Backman, Mikaela (2013): “Regions, Human Capital and New Firm
Formation”, (Economics).
No. 087 Casanovas, Inés (2013): “Online Education in Universities: Moving from
Individual Adoption to Institutionalisation of an Information Technology
Innovation”, (Informatics).
No. 088 Nilsson, Pia (2013): “Price Formation in Real Estate Markets”,
(Economics).
No. 089 Sallander, Ann-Sophie (2013): “Ömsesidiga överenskommelser enligt
skatteavtal”, (Law).
No. 090 Trenta, Cristina (2013): “VAT in Peer-to-peer Content Distribution –
Towards a Tax Proposal for Decentralized Networks”, (Law).
No. 091 Boers, Börje (2013): “Organizational identity construction in family businesses
a dualities perspective”, (Business Administration).
No. 092 Mansoor, Rashid (2013): “Assessing Distributional Properties of High-
Dimensional Data”, (Statistics).
No. 093 Hartmann, Benjamin (2013): “Consumption and Practice: Unfolding
Consumptive Moments and the Entanglement with Productive Aspects”,
(Business Administration).
No. 094 Hartmann, Berit (2013): “Bridging the GAAP? IFRS in accounting practice”,
(Business Administration).
No. 095 Månsson, Kristofer (2014): “Essays on Nonlinearities and Time Scales in
Macroeconomics and Finance”, (Economics).
No. 096 Larsson, Johan P. (2014): “Nonmarket Interactions and Density
Externalities”, (Economics).
No. 097 Öner, Özge (2014): “Retail Location”, (Economics).
No. 098 Johansson, Anette (2014): “Ways forward – effectual and causal approaches
to innovation in the Swedish magazine industry”, (Business Administration).
No. 099 Almlöf, Hanna (2014): “Bolagsorganens reglering och dess ändamålsenlighet:
En aktiebolagsrättslig studie om ägarledda bolag”, (Law).
No. 100 Jafari, Hamid (2014): “Postponement and Logistics Flexibility in Retailing”,
(Business Administration).
No. 101 Warda, Peter (2015): ”Knowledge, Location and Trade”, (Economics).
No. 102 Weiss, Jan F. (2015): ”Essays on Externalities, Regulation, Institutions, and
Firm Performance”, (Economics).
No. 103 Parada Balderrama, Maria José (2015): “Developing Governance Structures
in the Family Firms: From adoption to institutionalization”, (Business
Administration).
JIBS Dissertation Series
389
No. 104 Laurell, Hélène (2015): “The Role of Industry Context for New Venture
Internationalization”, (Business Administration).
No. 105 Levinsohn, Duncan (2015): “No Entrepreneur is an Island: an Exploration
of Social Entrepreneurial Learning in Accelerators”, (Business
Administration).
doc_902058329.pdf