When we refer to the “field” of social entrepreneurship, we are essentially speaking about two closely related things: the ecosystem in which the practice takes place (previously described), and the community of individuals and organizations that expressly share an interest in advancing this practice. According to Wenger and his colleagues: Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or apassion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.
We would explicitly include organizations, as well as people, when being part of this community furthers their mission. Without an active community of practice and knowledge, the “field” of social entrepreneurship does not exist. The success of the field depends on the health and effectiveness of this community. Consequently, we will devote this first section of our report to actions that will help develop and grow a cohesive, credible, and vibrant community of practice and knowledge around social entrepreneurship.
Now is an opportune time to take strategic steps toward strengthening this community. The concept of “social entrepreneurship” is clearly gaining momentum. This is apparent from increased the attention in mainstream media, growth of new academic programs around the world, and prominent awards (including the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize) for acknowledged social entrepreneurs.
Our interviewees for this project recognized the momentum and saw it as presenting an excellent “window of opportunity” for building the field. Yet, most of them also identified tensions, frustrations, and challenges that could undermine efforts to move forward. If these are not handled correctly, the field could easily fragment, be marginalized, or simply become a passing fad. The excitement and energy that have been building around this concept could fade as quickly as they arose.
The reactions of practicing social entrepreneurs were particularly interesting. Because this is a new term, many said that they did not identify themselves as “social entrepreneurs” until they were officially recognized as such for some award or fellows program:
First there is the identity challenge–what makes an individual or an organization a social entrepreneur? Then there is the self identity challenge–do people really recognize themselves as social entrepreneurs? The question, of course, is what the identifiers are.
Probably many practicing social entrepreneurs do not identify with this term. It is conceivable that many who do now identify themselves this way are simply adopting the term to attract funding, as they see it as the “new thing.” From the perspective of many social entrepreneurs, the seemingly endless definitional disputes are “getting in the way” of doing the work, advancing practice, and increasing their effectiveness. For them, too much time is spent arguing over definitions and little is resolved. As one asked plaintively, “Why this obsession over definition?”
.
More reading: http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/CASE_Field-Building_Report_June08.pdf