Entrepreneurship: is it good enough to be social? John F. McVea and Michael J. Naughton Introduction • The term Social Entrepreneurship has experienced a huge growth in influence over that last decade. The literature proposes a number of advantages to social entrepreneurship as a frame of reference: • Promoting innovation within non-profits • Leveraging and focusing scarce philanthropic resources • Faster response to strategic challenges • Infusion of business skills to non-business world • Involvement of non government assets in social problems • Creation of hybrid (blurred) organizations between for profit and non profit worlds. It is widely observed that practice has outpaced theoretical development leading to little agreement on definitions or frameworks for social entrepreneurship. We believe that widespread and unchallenged acceptance of the term Social Entrepreneurship masks some dangers and has contributed to confusion in the field. We believe that if we apply some insights from Catholic Social Teaching to the issue of social entrepreneurship we can move beyond the false dichotomy of Entrepreneurship/ Social Entrepreneurship and identify three specific entrepreneurial strategies which support a more robust discussion of the nature of the work that is entrepreneurship. We believe that the field would benefit from spending less time discussing social entrepreneurship and more time discussion the nature of the good entrepreneur. • • • • • The dangers of naïve acceptance of Social Entrepreneurship • • • The rhetorical risk: • Narrow definition: if S.E. is simply used to rebrand non-profits then much of the value of the new activities, hybrid design, stimulation of new resources and innovation is lost. • Implied dichotomy: if “good” ventures are termed “social” it can imply that other forms of entrepreneurship are “asocial” or “anti social” • Boundarylessness: In contrast, if all business activities are deemed “social”, to some degree or other, then the term loses all meaning focus on the distinctive phenomenon that is S.E. Despite these risks we are more concerned with a risk beyond rhetoric; the risk of undermining the meaning of work, particularly from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching. While this perspective is drawn from the Catholic tradition, accepting the content of CST does not require acceptance of Catholic faith (Guitan, 2009). The three goods of social entrepreneurship • We are concerned by the side-effects of a concentration thesis that suggests that the moral responsibilities of entrepreneurship can be concentrated in a subset of businesses called social enterprises, presumably leaving other enterprise to simply concentrate on serving themselves. • We are concerned by the impact such a concentration thesis could have on the conception of the meaning of work beyond the world of social enterprise. • We are concerned with how such an approach can focus attention solely on the altruistic contributions of entrepreneurial ventures as the sole measure of their contribution to the Common Good • Instead we propose that, rather than trying to determine the difference between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, it would be more productive to focus on the questions “What is Good Entrepreneurship? What action and activities define that goodness?” • We further propose that, by apply the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching, we can identify three specific strategies through which entrepreneurial ventures may contribute to the Common Good thus suggesting that good entrepreneurship requires a focus on: 1. Good Goods. The primary way an entrepreneurial venture can contribute to the Common Good is by bringing into existence new products and services which are inherently good and which enrich lives and minimize any unintended harms. This can include what we call the “entrepreneurship of the mundane”, that is, the manufacture of the nuts and bolts and basic necessities of life as well as the creation of life saving treatments. However, inclusion of good goods as a primary moral contribution of entrepreneurship must also require of the entrepreneur analysis of what goods are not good, and what aspects of even good goods should be redesigned or rethought in order to minimize unintended consequences. We find, in our discussions, that this is a much under appreciated dimension of the good of entrepreneurship. 2. Good Work. The second way an entrepreneurial venture can contribute to the Common Good is through the nature of the work that is carried out by the venture. This dimension has several aspects both internal and external to the entrepreneur: • The development of good character in the entrepreneur. This aspect of the good is derived from the subjective dimension of work, that is, just as how-we-work ends up changing the world, so working-on-the-world changes us. Most professionals spend the majority of their waking hours at work. As habits, character and wisdom are developed through experience and activity, for the entrepreneur, doing good work is an important opportunity to develop character. Society as a whole is better off for having good, successful entrepreneurial leaders who, through that calling, can become leaders of character. This dimension of the entrepreneurial good is widely unappreciated even by entrepreneurs themselves • Good relations with employees, customers and other stakeholders. Value creation and trade creates opportunities for the building of social relationships. The central question is “Are you in good relation with those with whom you create value?’ Do your employees have opportunity to develop as people? 3. Good Wealth. The third way the good entrepreneur can contribute to the Common Good is through the creation of good wealth. Good wealth requires a balance of reward for labor/ creativity with the provision of a living wage to all. Good wealth is often captured by individual action but has social strings attached. From the CST perspective the creation of good wealth implies a particular solidarity with the poor. One way to contribute to the common good is to donate altruistically to those in need. But even here, altruism is only one of a number of possible strategies. Good entrepreneurs may also contribute by donating their time or their particular skills. Indeed, since the donation of time and work often requires physical interaction with those in need, it often generates a solidarity of far greater integrity. Finally, it must be emphasized that altruism, for the entrepreneur, is always dependent, indeed subsequent to the creation of good wealth in the first place. Literature cited Alvord, Sarah, David L. Brown, and Christine W. Letts, 2004. “Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 40:260. Benedict XVI, Caritas et veritate,   Boschee, Jerr. 1998 “What does it take to be a social entrepreneur?” National Centre for Social Entrepreneurs (www.socialentrepreneurs.org/whatdoes/html), 5pp.   Cannon, Carl. 2000. “Charity for profit: how the new social entrepreneurs are creating good by sharing wealth” National Journal, June 16: 1898-1904.   Christie, Michael and Benson Honig. 2006. “Social entrepreneurship: New research findings.” Journal of World Business. 41: 1-5.   Dees, Gregory, J., 1998. “The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship,’” Original Draft: 10/3.   Drucker, P.F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.   Fowler, Alan. “NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation?” Third World Quarterly, 21(4): 637-654.   Gregg, S. and G. Preece: 1999, Christianity and Entrepreneurship (The Centre for Independent Studies Limited, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia).   Hibbert, Sally A., Gillian Hogg and Theresa Quinn. “Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: The case of the Big Issue in Scotland.” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 7(3): 288-301.   Johnson, Sherrill, 2000. “Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurship,” Canadian Center for social Entrepreneurship. (http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/Publications/).   John Paul II, Pope.: 1992 Laborem Exercens (On Human Work): 1981, in D. J. O’Brien and T. A. Shannon, (eds.), Catholic Social Thought (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY).   John Paul II, Pope.: 1992 Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern): 1987 in D. J. O’Brien and T. A. Shannon, (eds.), Catholic Social Thought (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY).   Kennedy, R., G, Atkinson, and M. Naughton, (eds.): 1994, Dignity of Work: John Paul II Speaks To Managers and Workers (University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland).   Mair, Johanna and Ernesto Noboa, 2003. “Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Enterprise get Formed,” IESE Business School.   Mair, Johanna and Ignasi Marti, 2006. “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight,” Journal of World Business. 41: 36-44.   Melé, D.:2001, ‘A Challenge for Business Enterprises: Introducing the Primacy of the Subjective Meaning of Work in Work Organization’, (http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/mgmt/le/papers/mele.htm) Conclusions We have argued that, while there is great promise in the contemporary social entrepreneurship movement, there are also a number of important dangers. We propose that, if we confront rather than acquiesce to these dangers, we can use the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching to broaden the scope of entrepreneurial ventures that we study, to enrich the moral dimension of entrepreneurial strategy and to deepen the teaching of entrepreneurship as a whole. We recommend the following to move toward these contributions: • Incorporate social entrepreneurship into entrepreneurship in a way that enhances the three goods of entrepreneurship. Specifically we propose replacing the questions “What is social entrepreneurship?” with the questions “What does it mean to be a Good entrepreneur?” From this perspective we can then apply what we have called the three goods of entrepreneurship as a means of supplying critical challenge and inspiration to all forms of entrepreneurship such that the true moral dimension of this critical force in our lives comes into fruition. • Encourage research within the entrepreneurship discipline that addresses traditional social entrepreneurial issues such as micro lending, fair trade products, etc. • Develop bridge courses such as Theo/Cath 306 which help students understand and experience the meaning of the good entrepreneur as well as connect students to the spiritual and moral principles of a good entrepreneur. • Expose entrepreneurship students to so-called social entrepreneurs as well so-called conventional good entrepreneurs so they can see the spectrum of entrepreneurial activities. © File copyright Colin Purrington. You may use for making your poster, of course, but please do not plagiarize, adapt, or put on your own site. Also, do not upload this file, even if modified, to third-party file-sharing sites such as doctoc.com. If you have insatiable need to post a template onto your own site, search the internet for a different template to steal. File downloaded from http://colinpurrington.com/tips/ academic/posterdesign. Acknowledgments I am indebted to Michael Naughton and Laura Dunham for their reflections and thoughts on this paper.
View full slide show




List of Supported Video Sites Video Source URL Support Embed Code Support Extract Title Support Extract Author Support YouTube Yes Yes Yes Yes Vimeo Yes Yes Yes Yes Dailymotion Yes Yes Yes No Discovery No Yes Yes No Howcast Yes Yes Yes No Influxis No Yes No No Khan Academy No Yes Yes Yes MIT Yes Yes Yes No National Geographic ® Yes Yes Yes No SchoolTube ScienceStag e ScreenCast TeacherTube ® TED Yes Yes Yes*** No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Adobe TV No Yes No No
View full slide show




} << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << "Stacks: #1 (" << s1 << ") #2(" << s2 << "Queues: #1 (" << q1 << ") #2(" << q2 << "Are Stack 1 and Stack 1 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Stack 2 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Stack 3 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Stack 4 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 2 and Stack 2 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Stack 3 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Stack 4 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 3 and Stack 3 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Stack 4 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 4 and Stack 4 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Stack 4 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Stack 4 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Stack 4 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Stack 4 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Queue 1 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((q1 "Are Queue 1 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((q1 "Are Queue 1 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((q1 "Are Queue 1 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((q1 "Are Queue 2 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((q2 "Are Queue 2 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((q2 "Are Queue 2 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((q2 "Are Queue 3 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((q3 "Are Queue 3 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((q3 "Are Queue 4 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((q4 ") ") == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == #3 #3 s1) s2) s3) s4) q1) q2) q3) q4) s2) s3) s4) q1) q2) q3) q4) s3) s4) q1) q2) q3) q4) s4) q1) q2) q3) q4) q1) q2) q3) q4) q2) q3) q4) q3) q4) q4) (" << s3 (" << q3 ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" << ") #4 (" << s4 << << ") #4 (" << q4 << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl << ")\n"; ")\n\n"; endl; endl; endl; endl; endl; endl; endl; endl; Chapter 5 – Page 8 cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout
View full slide show




Rationale for government provision Does the need for Social and Cultural Cohesion justify government intervention? Yes US population is very diverse The need to share common experience to avoid breaking apart along those differences K-12 system as a melting pot Builds a shared moral
View full slide show




Rationale for government provision Does the need for Social and Cultural Cohesion justify government provision? US population is very diverse The need to share common experience to avoid breaking apart along those differences K-12 system as a melting pot Builds a shared moral framework that holds society
View full slide show




Attribute Selection U U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 Muscle-pain Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Headache Yes Yes Yes No No No Temp. Normal High Very-high Normal High Very-high Flu No Yes Yes No No Yes Muscle-pain Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Temp. Normal High Very-high Normal High Very-high U U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 Flu No Yes Yes No No Yes Headache Yes Yes Yes No No No Temp. Normal High Very-high Normal High Very-high Flu No Yes Yes No No Yes
View full slide show




Other Support vs Biosketches NIH Form Project # Dates Person Months Source Annual DC Title Major Goals JIT Other Support YES YES YES YES YES YES YES RPPR Other Support YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Biosketch YES YES NO YES NO YES YES Pending Complet ed Inactive When submitte d NIH Form Roles Overlap Active JIT Other Support NO YES YES YES NO NO JIT RPPR Other Support NO YES YES NO NO YES PROGRE SS REPORT Biosketch YES NO YES NO YES NO PROPOS AL 21 Other Support Training 03/22/2019
View full slide show




Exempt Human Subjects Research Decision Trees Educational Exemption (#1) Survey, Interview or Observation of Public Behavior (#2) Benign Behavioral Intervention (#3) Yes Children Established education setting No Comprehensive IRB review Surveys, interviews, tests, or observations No Children Yes No Comprehensive IRB review Yes Educational tests or observation w/o interaction No Yes Comprehensive IRB review No PHI Yes FERPA or PHI No Self-determined Yes No Yes No IRB Determined Self-determined IRB Determined No Comprehensive IRB review Yes Yes Deception Disclosed IRB Determined or IRB Limited Review if identifiable, sensitive data Yes Only PHI No Comprehensive IRB review No Identifiable data Yes Sensitive Data Yes IRB Determined IRB Determined Self-determined IRB Determined No Recorded w/o identifiers No Self-determined Yes IRB Determined Government collected data Yes IRB Determined No Sensitive Data PHI Yes No Yes IRB Limited Review Yes Publicly available No No Yes IRB Determined No PHI PHI Yes Not Regulated No Has deception No Identifiable data No Yes Comprehensive IRB review Yes Adverse impacts on students or teachers No Yes No Normal education practices Secondary Use, No Consent or Broad Consent (#4, 7 & 8) Identifiable data No Benign behavioral interventions Yes Yes Comprehensive IRB review Last Updated: 09/27/17 IRB Determined IRB Limited Review Self-determined Identifiable research data or nonresearch data Yes No Comprehensive IRB review Has broad consent Yes IRB Limited Review
View full slide show




Bluetooth Bluetooth Feature Evolution Specifcatons 1.1 1.2 2.0 + EDR 2.1 + EDR 3.0 + HS 4.0 Voice Dialing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fast Transmission Speeds Yes Yes Yes Yes Lower Power Consumption Bluetooth Low Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Call Mute Last-Number Redial Yes
View full slide show




Measurement Tech/Apps Matrix Network Measurement Apps, Tech, Who Matrix 23-Sep-99 Tech\App pchar netperf/ttcp netlogger netflow virtue/pablo/etc gloperf/NWS LDAP SQL database UDP traffic gen Application Team Type admin admin application admin/app application application application application admin UC to Labs yes yes later later NU to ANL IM+ yes yes especially yes later yes especially later especially CAVERNsoft Accessbot yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes later later yes yes yes yes yes later yes especially Cactus yes yes yes yes later yes yes later yes Mambretti Jason, Andy Jason, Alan Shalf Chuck Sellers Chen Steve Tuecke JJ, Tom Coffin Seidel (FTP mainly) Ian Dan Sandin Linda Ian, Linda Techspert Linda, Alan Ian, Volker Ian, Ruth Mike, Randy Ruth Ian Ian Ian Alan University of Illinois at Chicago
View full slide show




Decision System & Reducts (Rough Sets) Reduct1 = {Muscle-pain,Temp.} U U Headache U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 Yes Yes Yes No No No Muscle pain Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Temp. Flu Normal High Very-high Normal High Very-high No Yes Yes No No Yes We are looking for rules describing Flu in terms of Headache, Muscle Pain, Temp. Muscle pain U 1,U4 Yes Yes U2 U3,U6 Yes No U5 Temp. Flu Normal High Very-high High No Yes Yes No Reduct2 = {Headache, Temp.} U Headache Temp. Flu U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 Yes Yes Yes No No No Norlmal High Very-high Normal High Very-high No Yes Yes No No Yes
View full slide show




An Example of Reducts & Core Reduct1 = {Muscle-pain,Temp.} U U Headache U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 Yes Yes Yes No No No Muscle pain Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Temp. Flu Normal High Very-high Normal High Very-high No Yes Yes No No Yes CORE = {Headache,Temp}    {MusclePain, Temp} = {Temp} Muscle pain U 1,U4 Yes Yes U2 U3,U6 Yes No U5 Temp. Flu Normal High Very-high High No Yes Yes No Reduct2 = {Headache, Temp.} U Headache Temp. Flu U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 Yes Yes Yes No No No Norlmal High Very-high Normal High Very-high No Yes Yes No No Yes
View full slide show




Preliminary experiments with sample crawlers Program Allowed Robots.t Resource xt (class) Check -ed? .pdf .doc Banned Resource   (noclass) .html .pdf .doc .html Import.io No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes 80Legs Yes No No Yes No No No Scrapy  No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Selenium No No No No No No No ScrapeBox No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes iRobotSoft No No No Yes No No Yes Anenome No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Selenium was the best, but it does not scale well. The others were not very respectful of robots.txt.
View full slide show




Review Options Matrix trained leader agenda established reviewers prepare in advance producer presents product “reader” presents product recorder takes notes checklists used to find errors errors categorized as found issues list created team must * sign-off on result IPR* no maybe maybe maybe no maybe no no no no WT yes yes yes yes no yes no no yes yes IN yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes RRR yes yes yes no no yes no no yes maybe IPR—informal peer review WT—Walkthrough IN—Inspection RRR—round robin review (no face to face meeting)
View full slide show