User:Annettelancaster/sandbox

Annettelancaster (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Week 1 Discussion 2
Social Entrepreneurship VS Traditional Entrepreneurship Model

A social entrepreneur intends to develop a product, service or process from which society will benefit. According to Bacq and Janssen (2011) the definition of a social entrepreneurship organization is one that is a not-for-profit organization but sets up profit-generating events so that they can survive financially and become more independent of the donations and subsidies that they do receive. The two main components of social entrepreneurship that distinguish this model from the other three are social objective and entrepreneurial strategy (pp. 385-386). For example, Duke University Health System, being a not-for-profit healthcare organization with a purpose to help the under-served population in the community subscribes to this model (Seelos & Mair, 2005).

At first glance, the Duke University School of Nursing appears to follow more closely to the traditional entrepreneurship model in that the goal is to create a product and service (e.g. healthcare lessons and education instruction) for which a customer will pay. However, it also incorporates aspects of social entrepreneurship in that its goal is to create product and service from which society will eventually benefit via the nurses and other healthcare professionals who come through the programs and graduate.

References

Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business horizons, 48(3), 241-246.

Week 2 Discussion 1
Diversity in Organizations

Social Entrepreneurship VS Traditional Entrepreneurship Model A social entrepreneur intends to develop a product, service or process from which society will benefit. The phrase “social entrepreneurship” is often used when referring to the quickly increasing amount of companies that have developed models for competently and proficiently providing the most fundamental human needs that the current market and organizations have unsuccessful at satisfying. According to Bacq and Janssen (2011) the definition of a social entrepreneurship organization is one that is a not-for-profit organization but sets up profit-generating events so that they can survive financially and become more independent of the donations and subsidies that they do receive. The two main components of social entrepreneurship that distinguish this model from the other three are social objective and entrepreneurial strategy (pp. 385-386).

The aim of a traditional business entrepreneur is to generate profits from the risks and opportunities that they are willing to take. A business enterprise like Walmart would be an example of a traditional entrepreneurship entity that is owned by the business entrepreneur (Sam Walton’s heirs) to achieve the business goals that have set. Their business motive is strictly financial, and it does not have a goal of benefiting the community. But rather a common complaint from the community is that when a Walmart is built it lowers nearby housing prices (Pope & Pope, 2015).

At first glance, schools could appear to be following closely to the traditional entrepreneurship model in that the goal is to create a product and service (e.g. lesson plans and instruction) for which a student will pay. However, when dealing with nursing schools it incorporates aspects of social entrepreneurship in that its goal is to create product and service from which society will eventually benefit via the nurses and other healthcare professionals who come through the programs and graduate.

In 1977 upon returning to his home country of Egypt, one social entrepreneur, Ibrahim Abouleish, found his country to be in very despondent economic conditions with a lot of social issues. He developed the idea to “heal the land and the people”, and received the “Alternative Nobel Prize” for his Sekem initiative (Mair & Schoen, 2007). The mission of the organization Sekem is to support the development of the individual, society and the earth, through the initiative’s various economic, social and cultural activities.

Jeff Skoll, the founder of e-Bay, gave 4.4 million pounds to start a social entrepreneurship research center (Skoll, 2009). Social entrepreneurship provides an awareness that could kindle provoke thinking and kindle new concepts for more socially acceptable and sustainable business strategies and organizational forms. Because it contributes directly to internationally recognized sustainable development (SD) goals, social entrepreneurship may also encourage established corporations to take on greater social responsibility. According to the results of a study done by Smith, Bell and Watts (2014) it was found that social entrepreneurs actually exhibit statistically significantly higher levels of creativity, risk taking, and need for autonomy than traditional entrepreneurs (Smith, Bell, & Watts, 2014). While the goal of the traditional entrepreneurial entity is to create a product, service or process for which a consumer will pay, the social entrepreneur aims to create a product, service or process from which society will benefit. Social entrepreneurship basically integrates the ingenuity of the traditional entrepreneurship model with the vision of changing certain aspects of our society (Seelos & Mair, 2005) which is why I think that social entrepreneurship best protects against prejudice and racism within organizations.

References

Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.

Mair, J., & Schoen, O. (2007). Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context of developing economies: An explorative study. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1), 54-68.

Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2015). When Walmart comes to town: Always low housing prices? Always? Journal of Urban Economics, 87, 1-13.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business horizons, 48(3), 241-246.

Skoll, J. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: Power to change, power to inspire. Innovations, 3(4), 3-5.

Smith, R., Bell, R., & Watts, H. (2014). Personality trait differences between traditional and social entrepreneurs. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(3), 200-221.

Week 2 Discussion 2
Summary of Theories

Social Identity Theory: This theory explains the effects of anonymity and identifiablity on group behavior with reference to computer-mediated communication which challenges traditional models and ideas of deindividuation. The traditional models are based on the hypothesis that factors such as group immersion and anonymity can eventually produce a loss of identity and therefore an individual’s loss of control over their behavior. Reicher, Spears, and Postmes (2011) contend that models like this depend on an individual’s perception of what “self” is. This can also be viewed as a “personal” hypothesis referring to that which makes all individuals different. This hypothesis is rejected in favor of the notion that “self” can be characterized at numerous different levels not excluding the categorical self and the personal self. Therefore, a social identity model of deindividuation (SIDE) was created. There is significant evidence proving that deindividuation manipulations increase in effect, first, via the ways in which they affect the salience of social identity (and therefore the compliance to categorical norms) and, second, via their effects on strategic considerations that relate to one’s expression of social identities. In their study, the researchers also concluded that the standard deindividuation paradigm of remaining anonymous while in a social group does not lead one to uncontrolled behavior, but rather it can help to maximize the opportunity of their group members to fully voice their collective opinions and identities (Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995). Theory of Intersectionality and Feminist Theory: Cole (2009) discusses the feminist and critical race theories suggesting that they offer the idea of intersectionality which explains analytic approaches that reflect the meaning and consequences of multiple categories of identity, difference, and disadvantage at the same time (Cole, 2009). Since several criticizers first purported that feminism has alleged to speak collectively for all women, feminist researchers have become intensely aware of the limits of gender as a single analytical classification. According to McCall (2008), feminists are possibly the only ones in the academy in the scope to which they have accepted the idea of intersectionality – the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relations and subject formations – as itself a central category of analysis. One may suppose that in conjunction with related fields, intersectionality is the most significant theoretical influence that women’s studies has made thus far (McCall, 2008). But in spite of its popularity, there has been a significant amount of misperceptions regarding what the concept actually means and how it can or should be applied in feminist analysis (Davis, 2008).

References

Cole, E. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170-180. (PscyInfo AN# 38333138).

Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist theory, 9(1), 67-85.

McCall, L. (2008). The complexity of intersectionality. In Intersectionality and Beyond (pp. 65-92). Routledge-Cavendish.

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European review of social psychology, 6(1), 161-198.

Week 3 Discussion 1
Annotated Bibliography: Duke University School of Nursing Social Communication Strategies

Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 78-89. This article is about how the cooperative learning experience has progressively become a popular form of active pedagogy employed in institutions of higher education. This case study explores the relationship between cooperative learning and academic performance in higher education, specifically in the field of Communication. The results of this study indicated that being involved in cooperative learning is a strong predictor of a student’s academic performance.

Bleakley, A. (2013). Working in “teams” in an era of “liquid” healthcare: What is the use of theory?. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(1), 18-26.

The buzzword “team” is used throughout healthcare literature as if it has a transparent, and one single meaning. Recently, it has also become a mantra in many organizational documents on policy. However, the term “team” is often a challenged and vague term, which requests much theoretical sophistication for a definition. New forms of team working in healthcare contexts can be understood as a complex set of practices and a                discourse – both performed, and in written context - and talked about as a supplementary practice. Cultural–historical activity theory can also be responsible for a valuable approach to understanding these processes, in a global era where the desire for stable networks (a will-to-stability) may be secondary to the need for a will-to-adaptability. According to the research, a new vocabulary has emerged in theoretical accounts to describe activities of a developing work order, in terms of a shift from stable “networking” to unstable “knotworking.” Nevertheless, this theoretical language can be overwrought and may push away many current practitioners. Goold, A., Craig, A., & Coldwell, J. (2008, January). The student experience of working in teams online. In ASCILITE 2008: Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology?: Proceedings of ASCILITE 2008. Deakin University.

Teamwork skills are part of a suite of professional skills that employers expect graduate students to already have and be able to apply when entering in the workforce. The findings of this survey showed that students valued the opportunity of being able to work in diverse teams. The students supported the view that their opinions were valued while working in teams. The student views of how teaching should be conducted in units with online teams were also able to be expressed. Concerns about team interactions, technological barriers, communication and cultural issues, and other pedagogical issues were also raised.

References

Bleakley, A. (2013). Working in “teams” in an era of “liquid” healthcare: What is the use of theory? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(1), 18-26.

Goold, A., Craig, A., & Coldwell, J. (2008, January). The student experience of working in teams online. ASCILITE 2008: Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology?: Proceedings of ASCILITE 2008, pp. 343-352.

Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 78-89.