So…Where Have You Been? In this assignment, I would like you to help me compile a composite profile of Thinking Geographically students’ geographic experience. Attached are three blank maps: one of Virginia’s localities; one of the United States; and one of the world (with enlarged insets for Europe and the Middle East). On each, shade in all of the localities, states, and countries you have traveled through or visited. You must have been on the ground in each locality, state, or country; airport layovers or airport hotel stays and travel through by train do not count!. Use whatever kind of marker you like (I prefer the medium highlighters with sharp and wide surfaces, but marking pens that won’t bleed through, colored pencils, and even crayons will do), as long as it’s easily seen on the maps. Virginia map – (1) color-in the localities you have been in and/or through. You may need to consult a Virginia highway map to figure out which Commonwealth localities you’ve experienced. For example, if you’ve been from Fairfax County to Longwood via US 15, from north to south, you’ve been through Fairfax, Prince William, Fauquier, Culpeper, Madison, Orange, Louisa, Fluvanna, Buckingham, and Prince Edward Counties. From the City of Richmond to Virginia Beach via I-64, I-664, and I-264/Virginia Beach Expressway, you would have been in Richmond City, Henrico, New Kent, James City, and York Counties, and Newport News, Hampton, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach Cities. All of the places you’ve been in Virginia should be contiguous (strung together) unless you flew/parachuted in, came in by boat, or snuck in through a neighboring state. If you’ve been to all but a handful of localities, you may mark those you have not been to, as long as you make a note of that on the map. (2) count up and record the number of localities you have been to/through, divide that number by 133, multiply by 100, and record the percentage of localities you’ve been to in the space provided (all told, you’ve probably been to more of Virginia than you realize – that’s part of the point of this!); (3) write in what you consider your home locality (probably where you graduated high school) in the space provided and indicate it with a darker color or black on the map (if you’re from out-of-state, just leave it blank); (4) check the appropriate box for urban/suburban/small town/rural (be aware that just because your locality has the work “city” in its title doesn’t necessarily mean it’s urban – which means built-up); and (5) use a line pattern to indicate the locality you most want to begin your teaching career in. US map – (1) color the states you’ve been to/through (remember: airports and train travel don’t count), darken/blacken in your home state; (2) write in your birthplace state (for most of you, that probably will be Virginia) in the space provided and blacken/darken it in on the map; (3) tally and record the number of states you’ve been to/through (including the District of Columbia and your home state), divide by 51, multiply by 100, and that’s the percentage of states you’ve been to and enter that number in the space provided; (4) with a horizontal line pattern for your father and a vertical line pattern for your mother, mark your parents’ birth states on the map (if it’s the same state, you’ll have a crisscrossed pattern) World map – (1) color the countries you’ve been to other than the U.S. (even if you’ve only been to a coastal resort, you’ve been to that country, but again, airport layovers don’t count); (2) tally and record the number of countries other than the U.S. that you’ve been to, divide by 205, multiply by 100, and that’s the percentage of countries other than the US that you’ve visited. Enter that number in the space provided. I’ve provided inset maps for Europe and the Middle East that show more detail if you’ve been to a small country that’s difficult to see. If you’ve been to an island country too small to be seen, list those on the map. You do not need to mark the U.S. on this map. I will tally up the total results and produce maps showing the percentage of students across all three sections who have been to/through particular Virginia localities, U.S. states, and other countries. This will give us an idea of how well-traveled you all are. Value: up to 15 points (12 necessary items, one point each + 3 possible neatness points) Due date: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 DO NOT INCLUDE THIS COVER SHEET WHEN YOU HAND THE MAPS IN! 1
View full slide show




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




REFLECTIVE JOURNALING TOOLS Reflective J ournalingTools LEARNING: • How is practice different from theory? Did this exercise help you to understand your theory and the application of theory better? How? Why? • Did you learn anything that helped you to better understand a theory, the use of a test that you were taught in lectures/labs? • What did you learn that were not taught in lectures (e.g. communication with patients), and how did you cope or learn more about this to improve your performance? Or how can this be incorporated into lectures? • Did this exercise help you to remember or recall later other aspects of previous experiences that you have forgotten? • Did this exercise help you identify areas that need to be changed, improved etc. in yourself/peers/staff/clinical training etc. Why and how? • What actions did you take you take and what are the results (what did you learn)? SELF ASSESSMENT: • Did you identify areas/issues that you were unclear of, or disagreed with your supervisors/peers, or different from what you have learned in your past lectures? Justify the actions taken. Did this help you in your learning? How? • Have you been open to share with others and to listen what others have to say? • Have you paid attention to both your strong and weak points? Can you identify them? What are you going to do about them? • How did faculty supervision/RW help you in your clinical experiences in relation to your professional growth? (eg. did it encourage you to be more independent, to become more confident in professional activities and behaviors etc) • What have you noted about yourself, your learning altitude, your relationship with peers/supervisors etc. that has changed from doing this exercise? COMMUNICATION: • What have you learned from interacting with others (peers/supervisors/staff etc)? • Did your peers gain anything from YOUR involvement in this exercise and vice versa? • Did this exercise encourage and facilitate communication? • Did you clarify with your supervisors/peers about problematic issues identified? Why (not)? What are the results? • How could you/your peers/staff help you overcome negative emotions arising from your work? Did your show empathy for your peers? PROFESSIONALISM: • Did you learn that different situations call for different strategies in management? • What are the good and bad practices that you have identified? How would you suggest to handle the bad/poor practices identified (if any)? • Did you learn to accept and use constructive criticism? • Did you accept responsibility for your own actions? • Did you try to maintain high standard of performance? • Did you display a generally positive altitude and demonstrate self-confidence? • Did you demonstrate knowledge of the legal boundaries and ethics of contact lens practice? EMOTION & PERSONAL GROWTH: • Did you reflect on your feelings when dealing with the case/peers/supervisor (eg. frustration, embarrassment, fear) for this exercise? If not, why not? If yes, who should be responsible — you, your patient or your supervisor? Why? • Did you find reflection (as required for this exercise) helpful, challenging, and enjoyable, change the way you learn? How? Why (not)? • How and what did you do to handle negative emotions arising from doing this subject? How could these feelings be minimized? • Did you try to find out if your feelings were different from your peers? Why? What did you do to help your peers? • Did you reflect on your learning altitude? How was it? Is there room for improvement? How? Why (not)? • What did you learn about your relationship with your peers/supervisors? What did you learn about working with others? Ideas for Reflective Journaling Writing Contributor(s): Dr. Michael Ying and Dr. Pauline Cho
View full slide show