Social entrepreneurship education enhancement through innovative training pedagogies across Europe

SEs and the ways they manage to sustain their hybrid nature and achieve both their economic and social goals have attracted an enormous amount of interest from policymakers, practitioners and researchers (Loukopoulos & Papadimitriou, 2022; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2020; Stam et al., 2014; Urban & Gaffurini, 2018). The accomplishment of a SE’s social and economic aims could be analysed into three distinctive levels: intra-organisational, extra-organisational and individual. Firstly, from an intra-organisational perspective, many scholars have pointed out that a developed organisational learning process within a SE constitutes a critical way to efficient fulfilling of both its economic and social objectives (e.g., Tandon & Nair, 2020; Urban & Gaffurini, 2018), evolving and finally achieving organisational scaling (Loukopoulos & Papadimitriou, 2022; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2020). Thus, there is a need for the development of specific organisational learning capabilities among a SE’s members, such as ‘elements relating to continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue, empowerment, strategic leadership, managerial commitment, openness and experimentation, knowledge transfer and integration, risk management and interaction with the environment’ (Urban & Gaffurini, 2018, pp. 120–121), as they have been found crucial for a SE to innovate, be sustainable and grow.

Secondly, from an extra-organisational viewpoint, SEs’ hybrid form makes them less recognisable and less familiar to outside observers, including potential funders, contractors and customers (Saebi et al., 2019). Indeed, a large number of scholars studying the social entrepreneurship field have claimed that SEs creating partnerships with other organisations and exchanging ideas, practices, methodologies, and tools between different stakeholders could help them achieve legitimacy among their stakeholders and long-term sustainability (Folmer et al., 2018; Loukopoulos & Papadimitriou, 2022; Stam et al., 2014). Therefore, a demand for a well-developed network between SEs and their stakeholders arises when finding the necessary resources for their survival, sustainability and organisational growth.

Finally, the appropriate entrepreneurial skills should be cultivated on an individual level before one collaborates with others and becomes a social entrepreneur. For example, according to Hockerts (2018), ‘social entrepreneurial empathy’, ‘moral obligation’, ‘perceived social support’ and ‘social entrepreneurial self-efficacy’ constitute some of the most fundamental skills with which a potential social entrepreneur should be equipped. The existing social entrepreneurship educational programmes in learning units such as universities and colleges could provide all these elements to prospective social entrepreneurs (Hockerts, 2018). However, many learning institutions have bolstered social entrepreneurship education by creating mostly academic offerings that emphasise business, social impact, and innovation issues rather than the cultivation of practical skills and competencies relevant to the day-to-day operations, constraints and challenges of SEs (Addae & Ellenwood, 2021). Hands-on experience and stimulation of creative solutions than traditional exclusively classroom-based learning techniques are also vital for thinkable social entrepreneurs (Kickul et al., 2021). Thus, the next section of the paper focuses on analysing the training challenges that social entrepreneurs face and proposes innovative solutions.

The complexity of social entrepreneurial activity striving for the balance between social and commercial goals and its frequently consequent identity confusion raises concerns about the suitable application of social learning theories in SEs (Tracey & Phillips, 2018). On the one hand, social entrepreneurs require more vital transversal soft skills, which can be fostered more effectively through practical training. On the other hand, social entrepreneurship educators rely on their networks and previous subjective experiences while struggling to develop syllabi, pedagogic materials, and teaching approaches toward theory or practical competencies (Addae & Ellenwood, 2021). Nevertheless, nowadays, the core training in SEs has shifted from the information process to the active participation and integration of learners that provides a sustainable and natural context for learning and active involvement in the real social world and the community (Addae & Ellenwood, 2021; Kickul et al., 2021). Under this scope, action learning, experiential learning, reflective thinking, and active engagement in real-world activities are identified to play pivotal roles in the pedagogies proposed in the field of social entrepreneurship education.

Action learning is the implementation of learning within groups and is conducted by reflecting on learners’ experiences (Hoes et al., 2008). It follows the same cyclic process as experiential learning, as proposed by Kolb (1984), where learning follows the stages of experience, reflection, conceptualisation, and new experience through experimentation. The difference between action and experiential learning is that the latter can be more passive (Simpson & Bourner, 2007). Action learning promotes the ‘learning by doing something different’ rather than just ‘learning by doing’ (Olsson et al., 2010) facilitated by experiential learning. According to Revans (1982), action learning includes creating a problem-solving strategy, its realisation and its relation to the learning process. In action learning, learners participate equally in their learning groups and are asked to solve problems where no right solution is given (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999). In this process, groups of equals are encouraged to develop questions and utilise critical thinking to solve problems. In this way, it encourages participants’ interactions and the development of mutual support, providing a safe environment for participants to be inspired, form ideas, frame problems, take action and reframe (Pedler, 2020).

Action and experiential learning approaches fit well in social entrepreneurship education since they can facilitate the co-creation of shared communities of practice and contribute to the increment of self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intentions (Hockerts, 2018). They constitute potent forms of learning since they involve the direct experience of the phenomenon being studied or problem-solving rather than simply reading or thinking about it. Previous research has shown that experiential learning learners can better understand SEs’ diverse stakeholder environment, market needs, logic, mobilisation of resources, and measurement of performance. Additionally, learners are reinforced to develop skills related to reflection, self-awareness, communication, empathy and ideas generation, which are also crucial in the social entrepreneurship field (Chang et al., 2014). Furthermore, pedagogies that combine formal and experiential learning methods can be used to bring three logics associated with social entrepreneurial actions such as social welfare, commercial and public-sector logic (Pache & Chowdhury, 2012). Even though being limited, research in the social entrepreneurship field has also shown that action learning is not only an appropriate method to cultivate the ability of the potential learners to respond to the problem-centred needs of the potential entrepreneurs but also provides additional value to the learners because it can create a safe place where they can work on real-life issues, and develop mutual support and empathy (Smith & Smith, 2017).

Based on the above, the following gaps in the relevant literature are worth mentioning. Firstly, from an intra and extra-organisational angle, there is still a gap in the social entrepreneurship field to what extent SEs realise their social and economic mission (Stevens et al., 2015). Secondly, in the realm of the individual aspect, well-developed social entrepreneurial skills, before becoming a social entrepreneur, constitute the cornerstone of a SE’s survival and scaling social impact (Hockerts, 2018; Loukopoulos & Papadimitriou, 2022). Finally, training programmes and innovative learning resources, having as their primary purpose the enhancement of the required entrepreneurial skills for achieving SEs’ sustainability, are still undeveloped for both existing and new social entrepreneurs (Kickul et al., 2021). Thus, the following section of the paper presents the SocialB project, whose primary aim is to fulfil the above gaps.

SocialB (Social Business Educational Ecosystem for Sustainability and Growth) is an innovative, multidisciplinary Erasmus+ Knowledge Alliance project with collaboration between eight partners from the SE-focussed Business Development, VET and Higher Education sectors of four countries – Ireland, Greece, Italy and Slovenia. This project ran from January 2020 until December 2022. The project partners bring direct and varied academic and practitioner skills, expertise, and knowledge relevance to the project’s scope. The project team collaborates on all elements of the project design, delivery and dissemination, facilitating the exchange and co-creation of practice-oriented learning to enhance the social entrepreneurial skills of students and social entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial skills and teaching approaches of HEIs/VET staff. In doing so, SocialB strengthens the innovation potential and skillsets of HEIs/VET and SE sectors and extends the fabric of vital social economy ecosystems.

Social entrepreneurship is acknowledged as ‘a key driver of economic and social development in Europe’, according to the European Commission (2015, p.3). However, SEs’ policy and legislative support levels vary within the four participating EU countries. For example, Italy, with a burgeoning social economy sector, provides a legislative framework for SEs. Similarly, Ireland, although lacking until now a legislative framework specifically for SEs, has a strong tradition and practice of SE, particularly in rural areas (Government of Ireland, 2019).

Extending previous EU-supported projects (SESeu, SETTLE, SESBA), SocialB aligns with the European Economic and Social Committee recommendations on SEs, encouraging the ‘launch [of] capacity-building programmes to support and facilitate social innovation’ (European Commission, 2014, p.2). It responds to the Commission’s Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship (GECES, 2016) request to include SE-related topics in curricula, from primary education to university. It also realises the EU Commission’s recommendation to ‘foster entrepreneurial skills through new and creative ways of teaching and learning’, in tandem with a focus on ‘real-world experience, through problem-based learning and enterprise links’ (European Commission, 2021). In particular, it fosters a conducive ecosystem by improving the training and learning environment and strengthening links between HEIs/VET and SEs’ sectors in the four participating countries.

Additionally, the project aims to design, develop and pilot an accessible suite of educational resources to support individual and organisational learning and network development in SEs. The resulting Learning Units aim to stimulate significant changes in HEIs’ curricula and VET programmes by integrating a learner-centred approach oriented to real, problem-based learning and skills acquisition in social entrepreneurship. Among the above, the project objectives are:

The TNA methodology was used on different stakeholders related to the social entrepreneurship field from four European countries (Italy, Greece, Slovenia and Ireland), following the recommendations for training content development by Gupta et al. (2007). More specifically, this method was chosen for the following three reasons: to identify common training and learning gaps in the current social entrepreneurs’ skills repository, to fulfil these needs, and finally, to extrapolate and compile a clear picture of the current challenges in the SE sector relating to management, growth and sustainability issues.

This research relied on a three-phase multiple data collection based on the TNA model proposed by Gupta et al. (2007). Firstly, comprehensive desk research was carried out on existing HEIs/VET programmes/courses for training and education on SEs focused on the four countries (55 of total 98 surveyed courses/programmes), with selected input from other EU countries (20 countries, usually two courses/programmes per country). Data was primarily compiled from existing web pages systematically. Based on the first phase results analysis, a group of training courses was chosen for in-depth analysis.

Secondly, a qualitative approach was adopted using semi-structured interviews (online calls) with providers to verify the gathered data and extend the data with additional information. Fifty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with lecturers, professors, directors and managers from universities and VET organisations. This led to a more in-depth exploration of issues related to the content, training approaches and difficulties usually faced by SEs.

Lastly, for validation reasons and to provide a much more robust picture of the social entrepreneurs’ training challenges and skills gaps, a quantitative method was followed based on the above two-phase survey results, extending further Corvo et al.’s (2022) work and achieving triangulation (Heath, 2015). Between mid-May and mid-July 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, an online questionnaire (a minimum of 15 per country) was administered through MS Forms to the SEs, SEs’ advisors, and SEs’ partners in all partner countries to obtain insights about education and training providers across the EU. In particular, the questionnaire was sent to the following stakeholders associated with the social entrepreneurship field and grouped into three cohorts:

Likert and ranking scales were used accordingly to assess the perceptions of the sampled stakeholders regarding the challenges that SEs in the four SocialB’s partner countries face on issues related to management, sustainability, growth and training, as illustrated in Table 1.

After collecting the questionnaires’ data, the SocialB project partners provided an English translation and uploaded them all to a master file. A lengthy exercise was also undertaken to standardise the data capture format across all responses. A few completed surveys had one or more blank responses, which necessitated further contact with the respondents for clarity. A detailed analysis of each questionnaire’s answers was undertaken, and analysis reports were compiled for each cohort. The survey enabled comparison and analysis of like-for-like data and identification issues relevant to specific countries. The final number of received responses was 134, including 94 from SEs, 20 from SEs’ advisors, and 20 from SEs’ partners. Table 2 presents the relevant sample per country.

In summary, the TNA was composed of three phases, each with its specific goal, as displayed in Table 3. This paper focuses on the third phase of the TNA as the results of the other two have already been exhaustively presented in Corvo et al.’s (2022) work.

There was consensus between the three cohorts’ responses (i.e., 85% of SEs, 60% of SEs’ advisors, 60% of SEs’ partners in all four countries) on only 1 of the 13 thematic areas regarding the most challenging task in SEs’ management function: ‘Insufficient paid staff resources & funding to recruit required staff’. Apart from this theme, it is difficult to identify a common set of priority challenges since there was a mismatch, to varying degrees, between the perceptions of each of the three cohorts. SEs, SEs’ advisors and SEs’ partners of all four countries agreed that ‘Quality management procedures’, ‘Speed of decision-making’ and ‘Over-reliance on volunteers’ did not currently constitute challenges within the sector. Table 10 summarises, with priority from 1 to 10, the most critical challenges for SEs’ management function according to each cohort’s opinion.

SEs’ sustainability

All three cohorts agreed that the most appropriate definition of SEs’ sustainability was when they can be financially viable and serve their social objectives (i.e. 90% of SEs, 75% of SEs’ advisors and 75% of SEs’ partners in all four countries agreed with the statement). Retaining ongoing support from the community for their mission was an additional important factor for SEs regarding their sustainability. In particular, this was a critical determinant for Irish (50% of SEs, 37.5% of SEs’ advisors and 37.5% of SEs’ partners) and Italian SEs (25% of SEs, 37.5% of SEs’ advisors and 50% SEs’ partners), likely due to the high number of community-based and community-led SEs.

Concerning SEs’ challenges for their sustainability, almost 30% of SEs claimed ‘Over-reliance on statutory funding programmes’ as their most significant one, closely followed by ‘Over-high costs of running their organisations’ (i.e. 22%). More specifically, ‘Over-reliance on statutory funding and grants’ was identified as the biggest challenge to the sustainability of their organisations by 40% of Italian and 40% of Irish SEs, although less pronounced amongst Slovenian (21%) and Greek SEs (17%). ‘Lack of personnel with the right skills’ was identified as the most significant barrier to sustainability by 35% of Slovenian SEs, but only 8% by Italian ones. In particular, Spear et al. (2009) claimed that the areas of expertise that were perceived to be most commonly lacking are entrepreneurial ones: financial, business and strategic skills, which are likely to be particularly important in SEs. The high costs of running their organisations were considered the most significant challenge by almost 40% of Greek SEs, 20% of Italian SEs, and 10% of Irish and Slovenian SEs. Approximately 20% of Irish and Italian SEs believed they did not have enough expertise on how to become sustainable. At the same time, any Slovenian SE highlighted this as its primary challenge, while only one Greek did. Insufficient demand for goods/services did not appear to be a significant challenge amongst any respondent SEs; two SEs set this challenge in Greece, Slovenia and Italy, and one SE in Ireland. Figure 1 depicts a graph with the percentage of the SEs’ responses.

Figure 1:

Although many SEs aligned with the five key sustainability challenges offered, they also provided several other comments listed in Appendix A as they were delivered.

SEs’ training preferences and challenges

The preferred learning approaches across all three cohorts were ‘Work-based learning’, ‘Blended Learning’ and ‘Seminars from successful SEs’. While SEs’ advisors advocated that ‘One-to-one mentoring’ was a practical learning approach, it was ranked 6th of 8 by the SEs’ cohort. All three cohorts asserted that online training was the least practical learning approach, whether conducted in a class or in an individual’s own time. Figure 2 depicts a graph with the percentage of the three cohorts’ responses.

Figure 2:

‘Unavailability of funding to pay for further training’ and ‘Lack of available time’ were the two factors that appeared to be the most critical barriers for SEs, from all three cohorts, regarding their participation opportunities in training. ‘Lack of accessible/available training courses on relevant subjects’ was reflected in the SEs’ cohort’s response in <15%. ‘Lack of staff capacity’ and ‘Lack of basic skills, training & knowledge in relevant subjects’ did not appear to be a barrier to training participation, nor did the ‘Lack of learning culture’ seem significant amongst those surveyed. Figure 3 depicts a graph with the percentage of the responses.

Figure 3:

In summary, given the above analysis of the three SEs’ stakeholders’ responses regarding the difficulties in management, sustainability, growth and training issues that SEs face and the scarcity of a blended learning material combining theory and practice suitable for SEs (Addae & Ellenwood, 2021; Worsham, 2012), the following section focuses on addressing these challenges by developing an innovative training platform friendly for SEs.

The above analysis of the current European SEs’ management, sustainability, growth and training challenges identifies that training options must adopt specific blended methodologies and appropriate techniques that harmonise well with the pedagogies in social entrepreneurship. To respond to the learning needs of each of the three target cohorts and facilitate action and experiential learning, the training content delivered by SocialB was designed with the following pedagogical approaches illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4:

More specifically in SocialB:

Even though online and blended learning is becoming a more common educational tool, international collaboration in course design and development in tandem with the exchange of good sectoral practice/s is not standard yet. However, these tools are believed to be highly beneficial for the progression of knowledge within this field (EUA, 2018; Henderikx & Jansen, 2018). Therefore, the SocialB project approach of co-creating and co-delivering innovative learning materials between HEIs/VET, SEs and SEs’ business support agencies enables not only the exchange of knowledge and experience between these sectors, but also provides tests of the project outputs in four countries with differing but complementary policies and practical experiences in SEs’ sectoral development.

Moreover, the overall training methodology approach of SocialB introduces innovative training techniques and recommendations for their application to the SEs’ education context under specific criteria. In particular, it presents practical and creative training/learning techniques based on various methodologies employed in traditional entrepreneurship training, counselling practice, social sciences, humanitarian studies and ICT, grounded in practice and activity-based pedagogies. These innovative training practices can support providers and trainers in providing adequate training to SEs and students. They can also assist potential and existing social entrepreneurs to improve their work practice skills and to fully exploit the economic, social and cultural potential and possibilities afforded by the SE model.

The SocialB’s learning content is divided into six Modules, each composed of four Learning Units, as displayed in Table 14. They are designed in such a way as to address identified skills gaps and training needs in key areas critical for the SE sector development, sustainability and expansion. In particular, these 24 Learning Units enhance essential skills and competencies of existing and future practitioners currently involved with SEs through effective pedagogies for action and experiential learning targeted at social entrepreneurs.