Abstract

This paper discusses social pedagogy situated in the civil society context through models and conceptualisations and specifically with the lens of consciousness-raising praxis. Two styles are prominent: collective and reflexive, each with their own peculiarities. Further, this paper exhorts for a hybrid approach and model of social pedagogy, specifically when it comes to consciousness-raising praxis. Social milieus geared towards consciousness-raising praxis are structurally hybrids in several dimensions. Hybridity is their essential characteristic, and it fulfills an indispensable role. On the basis of a reconstruction of the essential components of pedagogy, a generic structure of social pedagogy is proposed which in turn is founded upon an enterprise ontology. It emphasizes the pedagogic nature of such ventures in the sense of real causation. Through various combinations between the components (among which are mission, target population, and markets), types of practice models can be distinguished. At an emergent functional level, these design configurations allow for a typological distinction between various types of strategy. The proposed design framework allows for a categorization of social entrerprises and thus for explaining organizational pluralism while being founded on real distinctions in the social world rather than merely conceptual abstraction.

Introduction

This paper assumes that the essence of pedagogy lies in the design of effective practice models of social milieus (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart 2007; Brouard & Larivet 2011). In reconstructing what is essential in social pedagogy, resorting to a design approach seems opportune. The idea is to develop a model that ties social milieus to structural and objective factors of social reality. Firstly, the collective and reflexive styles of pedagogy are discussed. Further, the paper details hybridity as a hallmark of social milieus focused on consciousness-raising praxis in the civil society context. A generic practice model of a social enterprise is subsequently proposed. Instead of developing a precise enterprise ontology, the less formalistic approach of design thinking is used, which leads to a typology of social enterprise. The approach taken derives from applied ontology. It is meant to arrive at a number of successful practice models for social enterprise that are able to support its mission of extending values germane to civil society and consciousness-raising praxis to the spheres of markets and of the state.

Collective and reflexive styles of pedagogy

Depending on the type of social- structural embeddedness of pedagogues, a radically different meaning and pattern of involvement can be discerned. Further pedagogue involvement should be qualified as a biographically embedded reality- in terms of two levels-structural-behavioural and motivational-attitudinal. These two analytical levels consequently refer to the structured and individual reflexivity in late modern life- emerging thereby as collective and reflexive styles of pedagogy (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003).

Collective pedagogy according to Eckstein (2001) is related to community and class homogeneity with a low residential turnover and with shared needs and wants. In other words she points at the importance of socio-cultural and locally anchored group embeddedness. These pedagogues share a strong feeling of belonging to a collective “we”. In this paradigm, pedagogy forms a natural and integral part of community life; it is an unquestioned aspect of the collectively prescribed code of conduct. The reflexive pedagogue model represents an individuated form of commitment in which the focus shifts to the pedagogue as an individual actor (Wuthnow, 1998).

Collective pedagogue efforts are rooted in communal orientation. The prime motivation is an obvious sense of duty and responsibility to a local community or more abstract collectivity. Very often this prototype is embedded in a religious tradition of benevolence and altruism, or inspired by a co-ordinating ideology or meaning system. Dedication to the common good is a highly esteemed asset to which deviating individual motivations are easily subordinated. In a reflexive pedagogy framework, the interaction between individualised biography and pedagogue experience are intensified. The self-reflexive biographical quest becomes the driving force for primarily self-centered pedagogue attitudes. The motivations of reflexive pedagogues chiefly arise from experiences of biographical discontinuity both caused by unintended life crisis and by actively chosen biographical re-orientations (Hustinx, 200I).

On the other hand, the pedagogy field is seen as a market of possibilities for self- realisation and the setting of personal goals. The explicit orientation of reflexive pedagogues however does not support the popular image of the individual pedagogue using solidarity as a smart way of pursuing self-interest (Evers, 1999). Several authors observe stronger support of self directed or instrumentalised motives among more “modernised” or younger category of citizens (Jakob, 1993). In this situation, a pluralisation of motives occurs in which other and self-directed impulses are not necessarily at odds but come to strengthen and enrich each other (Wuthnow, 1999). A solitary or altruistic individualism symbolises the seemingly contradictory motivational basis of the reflexive type of pedagogy.

In a collective frame strong group­ based identities and behavioural imperatives ensure a continuum and predictable life course. This socially uniform “normal” biography provides a solid ground for a long term, unconditional and regular pedagogue involvement. Collective pedagogues act from a strong and obvious sense of duty towards community or group of reference. The close association between service, group affiliation and identity affirmation further re-inforces the quasi lifelong efforts of collective pedagogues. The self-evident subordination to collective perceptions furthermore results m an all-embracing very intensive involvement that is relatively independent of the specific problems or beneficiaries. There is a general and deeply ingrained propensity to strive for the common good of the community or group to which one belongs, reaching beyond the singularity of particular pedagogue initiatives or organisations. As a result of the natural and total devotion, collective pedagogues are likely to represent the core members of voluntary organisations (Pearce, 1993).

In a reflexive modem social environment, the time structure of pedagogue involvement radically changes. The unpredictability and discontinuity of the individualised biography are reflected in the sense of irregular and incidental pedagogue commitments. In contrast to the enduring involvement of the collective pedagogue, reflexive pedagogy is phased in separate and limited sequences with a specific, highly individualised and biographical reference. It represents a dynamic involvement with frequent entries and withdrawals depending on individual biographical needs and conditions. Since longevity of service results from active considerations about the “goodness of fit” between pedagogue experiences and biographical circumstances, reflexive pedagogues demand a considerable amount of flexibility and mobility allowing them to continually shift between activities and organisations according to their own biographical whims. They prefer successive adhoc or project-based arrangements with pedagogue assignments that are clearly limited in time and space (Wuthnow, 1998). In this formula, the duration and intensity of involvement are fully adaptable to the preferences and possibilities of pedagogues. The crumbling time horizons of reflexive pedagogues thus results in rather ephemeral (Pearce, I 993) or loose (Wuthnow, 1998) involvements.

Collective pedagogy ideal typically thrives in. a structured membership based socially or ideologically divided organisational environment. Collective pedagogues are likely to operate through overlapping involvements within a dense rather insular local network of organisations associated with their community or group of reference. A strong leadership core organises group pedagogy and co-ordinates the involvement of individual group members (Eckstein, 200 I). Because of the static and closed nature of strong place based social networks in which collective pedagogues typically operate, social involvement acquires a very specific symbolic meaning. It is a way of re-affirming shared group identity and tight integration in a stable community. As a result the organisation is an important locus of socialisation and the strengthening of group ties, and a tight coupling between formal and group memberships and pedagogy exists. Being a member above all, collective pedagogues strongly identify with the values and goals of the organisation on the whole rather than purely for the work they undertake (Cameron, 1999). Service to the organisation is primarily understood as loyalty, that is, more an implicit sense of obligation to fellow members than a deep inner commitment to the cause (Wuthnow, 1998).

The reflexive pedagogue does not participate for the sake of belonging to group-bounded organisations, but is more pragmatically focused on services offered or activities undertaken. In response to these functionally oriented and increasingly individualised pedagogue dispositions, there has been a remarkable mushrooming of new institutional structures directed at tailoring pedagogue activities to private interests and preferences of the pedagogues instead of puning the organisational targets first (Anheier & Salamon, 1999). In these new pedagogue-centred initiatives, the organisational role shifts from being the central focus of pedagogue action to a kind of “enabling structure”, a mediator between a pedagogue and a specific project. This implies that reflexive pedagogues may become structurally detached from any one particular location or organisational attachments. Without strong organisational anachments­ reflexive pedagogues are a moving target (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003).

In a collective framework, group based politics stipulate the pedagogue’s choice of field of action and activity. The field in which one operates is determined by a self-evident affinity with shared ideologies, religious conditions and collective identities. This type of pedagogy is based on a universalisation of common culture and way of living. It is inspired by strong universal identities that include rich symbols and moral standards. Identification with these strong identities is based on inclusion and exclusion. Collective grounded pedagogy is parochial and contained in scope, confined to people and groups associated with the community as socially constructed (Eckstein, 2001). It typically reflects the idea of bonding, place­ based social capital (Putnam, 2000). In this context entry into a particular field of pedagogue action is not dependent on individual decisions but is typically initiated and supervised by others; charismatic community leaders, influential representatives of local organisations or churches (Eckstein, 2001).

Collective pedagogues carry out activities that are directed to the community at large. They consequently operate in a multipurpose set up and are likely to perform an extensive diffused set of activities. These kinds of activities performed moreover correspond to collectively defined identity and roles (Wuthnow, 1998). In a reflexive pedagogy context, processes of individualisation and globalisation create a paradoxical relation between social closeness and geographical distance that crystallises in a situation of local disintegration and global integration. Instead of being anchored in geographical proximity or standardised group cultures, feelings of belonging are increasingly self – selected on the basis of shared interests. These elective social configurations produce a more privatised and self-induced form of solidarity that is inspired by lifestyle and identity politics. There is a “universalisation of particularities”, a process in which pre-given collective identifications are replaced by daily feelings of solidarity that are based on individual perceptions of sameness or shared life experiences and problems.

These new models of inclusion however are of a very precarious nature and can rapidly change as a result of new striking similarities between life stories. These reflexive connotations through shares life experiences and everyday life concerns are an expression of a broader shift towards a “post-materialistic” value pattern which marks a shift from political cleavages based on social class conflict towards cleavages based in cultural issues and quality of life concerns. In addition to this increasing preference for new themes and fields of action, pedagogy has entered the era of globalisation (Anheier & Salamon, 1999).

The choice of activity is also affected by the pedagogue’s detachment from the collective frame of reference. Being a pedagogue increasingly becomes a specialised role with a narrow scope (Wuthnow, 1990, I 998). Instead of a co­ ordinating ideology or shared goal, personal preferences and needs dictate what kind of pedagogue activities are performed. The prevalence of self­ centred pedagogue attitudes consequently fmds its reflection in a “focused activism”. Moreover, pedagogue activities are chosen depending on their concrete and practical nature. Idealism is replaced by more tangible and pragmatic goals.

Phenomenology of consciousness-raising praxis and the need for a hybrid approach to social pedagogy

Consciousness-raising praxis in civil society is not a contingent and empirical fact; it is an analytical truth that follows from the composite term itself. This is now been recognized and has undoubtedly contributed to the need for growth of literature on economic empowerment models which can be promoted through social enterprise and specifically of a hybrid type.

Most traditional work has investigated hybrids by societal sector, with an emphasis on cross-overs between “private” and “public” enterprise under the assumption of a dichotomous model. One focus has been on the interplay of markets and hierarchies as coordination mechanisms, with networks being a hybrid third (Makadok & Coff 2009). Practice models discussed in the context of consciousness-raising praxis include public-private partnerships and the outsourcing of government functions (Préfontaine 2008; Bollecker & Nobre 2010) or corporate-NGO collaboration (Dahan et al. 2010). Many other studies have limited their discussions of social enterprisein the domain of consciousness-raising praxis to the field of non-profit management (Dees 1998; Ben-Ner 2001; Dart 2004; Landsberg 2004; Young 2007; Hoffman, Badiane & Haigh 2012). In a sense, even another dichotomy is bridged – that between the creation and redistribution of economic value, as social milieus increasingly move into production and, differently from many privately held businesses, at the same time are attentive to socially desirable distributive results (Santos 2009; Becchetti & Borzaga 2010).

Hybridization is thus a need as most of these businesses can be attributed to the civil economy, i.e. the market economy under the guidance of civil society (Bruni 2010; Bruni & Zamagni 2007). The fundamental characteristic of the civil economy is to understand the market as a cooperative rather than a competitive arena and milieus as communities pursuing social projects (including those of producing goods and services for private consumption at market prices) (Becchetti, Bruni & Zamagni 2010: 312f.). Hybrid social pedagogy for consciousness-raising praxis then has a dual goal – at the microeconomic level to pursue projects that address specific social needs, and at the macroeconomic level to advance the civil economy within the economy as a whole.

A hybrid model of social pedagogy in civil society geared towards consciousness-raising praxis

In hybrid models, pedagogy is the synthesizing agency that makes disparate elements coalesce. Construal of social pedagogy for consciousness-raising praxis from the viewpoint of philosophical idealism (whether in the form of constructivism, operationalism, or instrumentalism) must fail. Neither do social pedagogues provide symbolic value to their beneficiaries nor are the latters’ needs anything but real. Rather, social pedagogues working towards consciousness-raising praxis must be envisaged as being motivated by a particular vocation and as having certain character traits (i.e., virtues) that allow them to act on their vocation (Teehanke 2008; Sirico 2010; Bruni & Smerilli 2009; Bruni 2011). The hallmark of social pedagogues (which need not necessarily exist in managers of social milieus) is personal commitment to a cause.

Against the background of Aristotelian philosophy, a stronger model of pedagogy for consciousness-raising praxis can be developed that exhibits a better fit with social enterprise (Dembinski 2006). It is based on pedagogues being causal agents, where for Aristotle, contrary to the presently dominant view, a cause is not what transforms A into B, but the transformation (or process) itself. Pedagogy rather than instances of pedagogues is therefore the explanandum.

Causation in this sense must not be understood as A ⇒ B where A < B (in the sense of temporal antecedence). Rather, the cause of B lies in its nature (or form), or what today might be rendered as its explanatory factors; a cause makes something else what it is. There are four such causes: the form of the object (A is what it is to be B), the matter underlying the object (A is what B is made out of), the agency that brings about the change (A is what produces B), and the purpose served by the change (A is what B is for) (Physics II.3, 194b24 ff.). These are called, respectively, the formal, material, efficient, and final cause (Falcon 2006). Hybrid social pedagogy for consciousness-raising praxis is influenced by all these, together with subjective visions, in a particular functional form:

hybrid social pedagogy for consciousness-raising praxis = [ f (vision, motivation, perceived opportunities, institutions)] ⇒ purpose

This model can then be depicted graphically (Figure1, as an elaboration of Dembinski 2006: 349):

Figure 1: A model of hybrid social pedagogy for consciousness-raising praxis

Pedagogy in this view is not simply a function of coordinating resources or of re- cognizing opportunities and translating them into profitable ventures. It consists in optimizing a system composed of material and immaterial factors by using practical reason to direct the process towards a final purpose recognized to be good. Pedagogues are driven by visions and motivation and judge resources and opportunities as well as institutions and norms as to their mutual fit. These are real and causal relations on the basis of which new activities are planned that are directed at a final purpose, which in turn provides motivation. To make the model more complete, three relations on the “idealist” plane (represented by broken lines) are also accommodated: subjective visions can influence the choice and acceptance of the final purpose as well as guide motivation, and available resources and opportunities may stimulate the vision of pedagogues. New activities can create new resources and opportunities but also modify institutions and norms, which leads to feedback loops (represented by dotted lines) and makes pedagogy an interative process. The components affect pedagogues differently, viz. by the four Aristotelian modes of causation. Pedagogy in this sense is an intentional, purpose-driven activity that is based on acts of judging enhancing and detracting factors, and social pedagogy is characterized by a specific final purpose. So conceived it has a better chance of actually being the synthesizing agent that makes social enterprise possible, which because of its hybrid nature is characterized by an uneradicable complexity and requires significant energy to coalesce the necessary components (McKelvey 2004; Goldstein, Hazy & Silberstang 2009, 2010).

A hybrid social enterprise must be built as a robust, integrated network of nodes and connections with the knowledge of who the constituents of the business are and where they can find value individually and together as a whole (= ecosystem). If such an enterprise can also rely on collaboration in the workplace which translate into intensified stakeholder contacts, the model is that of a hive (= hivemind). Social milieus differ as to the strength and frequency their customers send information about changes on markets, for example about the need by potential beneficiaries of support (= dynamic signal). Lastly, social milieus must pick up these signals and process the information efficiently so that it leads to the required social action (= metafilter). These patterns are design elements that apply cumulatively by emphasizing, respectively, community, culture, collaboration, and content. These seem to be necessary ingredient of all social practice models.

In a yet more general sense, social enterprise for consciousness-raising praxis related planning may be understood as occurring at several levels: Tactics, Strategy, Practice model, Enterprise ontology (applied and regional) and Ontology (formal and general).

Strategy is founded on a practice model, and tactics is founded on strategy (Seddon et al. 2004; Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart 2010). A model of social enterprise for consciousness-raising praxis depends on an underlying enterprise ontology, which defines an enterprise as a system consisting of a composition, structure, environment, and production. The business of an enterprise is then understood as its function, as characterized by the products and services that are delivered to the environment. Being applied and regional (i.e., specific to milieus), this level relies on a general (and formally expressed) ontology that specifies the ingredients of reality and their relations. All levels are emergent with respect to the lower ones. Analysis of social pedagogy considers higher levels (although assumptions about lower levels must implicitly be made).

For consciousness-raising praxis oriented hybrid pedagogueial model, not only the transacting parties but also the objects of transactions (e.g., meals or medical services) are constitutive of social relations. The nature of a project determines whether or not to attribute it to social pedagogy. This relation is not abstract but concrete and expresses what a project does for a target group, e.g. providing housing through concessionary loans. Envisioning such a structure brings social pedagogy, despite its market-based characteristics, close to gift- giving as described by anthropologists (Descombes 1996; Hénaff 2010: 418f.) and to the “logic of gift” . Social relationality is “situated” or “embedded” in particular settings. This would imply that manufacturers of consumer goods should always target specific groups rather than produce for an “anonymous” mass market, and that social pedagogy projects must be developed by providing specific services for specific beneficiaries. Three components already allow for constellations that add up to complex practice models (Malki 2009).

Social milieus can be classified by their mission orientation, by the level of integration between non-profit social programs and for-profit business, and by their intended target markets (Alter 2006). Three stages can be distin guished in the process of integration between profit-oriented and non-profit businesses. They largely correspond to the philanthropic, transactional, and integrative collaboration described elsewhere (Austin 2000). At the external stage, the relationship is one-sided, as one between a charitable donor and a recipient; there are no elements of integrated strategies or management functions. At the integrated stage, the flow of benefits becomes bilateral as resources are exchanged and learning becomes mutual, and at the embedded stage, the principles characteristic of the two types of enterprise have merged at the levels of strategy and execution such that social programs are managed with the efficiency typical of private business, and for- profit projects are designed with responsibility and care for others.

Figure 2: Micro-typology of hybrid social milieus geared towards consciousness-raising praxis

If there are three types of mission-orientation, three types of integration between not-for- profit and for-profit activities, and five types of target markets, there would be 3×3×5 = 45 possible combinations. The options have been further consolidated into nine fundamental types of practice models for hybrid social milieus geared towards consciousness-raising praxis which are feasible and indeed widely implemented (Alter 2006) (Figure 3):

Figure 3: Types of practice models for hybrid social milieus geared towards consciousness-raising praxis

Examples of these models can readily be identified. There are co-operative movements for farmers, craftsmen, shopkeepers, and consumers, that in some countries have be-come formidable players on factor and consumer markets (Cooperative Model). They allow smaller suppliers to bundle their otherwise atomistic market power to compete with multi-national corporations and thus at least partially to overcome diseconomies of scale. Several institutional forms have been created ranging from limited partnerships to marketing co- operatives and consortia based on rules of both efficiency and equity (Grassl 1998). Micro- lending on the Grameen model has facilitated the emergence of a new class of business owners in less developed countries (Pedagogue Support Model). Ethical investment funds and fair trade organizations complement this trend (Organizational Support Model). Social milieus that facilitate the performance of target populations on markets, for example by providing training or loan guarantees, make up the Market Linkage Model. In the United States, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), which is a government- sponsored and publicly traded company with the purpose of expanding the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed securities, is an example (Koppell 2003). The worldwide Economy of Communion as a project of the Focolare Movement is a network of businesses that freely choose to share their profits ac-cording to three principles of equal importance – to grow their businesses, help people in need, and spread the culture of giving (Service Subsidization Model) (Gold 2010).

An argument can be made that, underlying the nine possible types, there is an even smaller number of basic configurations. If a practice model is understood as a system, an analogy to Gibbs’ phase rule in thermodynamics may be suggested: F = C – P + 2, where F = number of degrees of freedom for a system, C = number of independent components of the system at equilibrium, and P = number of phases (which in chemistry are solids, liquids, and gases). The generic practice model has three components (C = 3). The number of phases may be assumed as three (P = 3) in accordance with a triadic ontology, e.g. by being either a private, public, or communally owned and managed enterprise. Under these assumptions, a practice model for social enterprise would have F = 2, with degrees of freedom being the number of intensive variables which are independent of each other. F expresses in how many ways an enterprise can “do business.” Gibbs’ rule would predict two such ways – seeking profit or not. Although there may be degrees of mission-orientation, this basic distinction still holds (and is usually required under tax law and sometimes and corporate law). If more complex models are devised (e.g., C > 3), the number of possible variations will increase. Enhanced hybridity of business allows for a greater number of successful practice models though the promising options will still remain few.

Applying insights of organization design to social pedagogy then means discovering the triadic nature of organizations in the dimensions of strategy, structure, and process, which are the key determinants of performance. How organizations compete is defined by the triad of differentiation, economy, and interaction, how they grow by the options of buying, making, or partnering, and how they organize by decentralization, centralization, or collaboration (Keidel 2010: 66ff.).

Social pedagogy is then a process of decision-making at various levels of complexity within a clear hierarchy of cognitive levels (Ross 2009). This model also mirrors how hybridity in business comes about within networks of complex interactions that produce novel emergent properties through recombinations. Hybridity is no longer understood as a mixture of characteristics along a continuum between two opposite poles but consists of elements of diverse origin that are deeply integrated and yet preserve the identities of their constituents.

Concluding Remarks

Hybridity in social pedagogy can emerge through mixture at the level of structure or processes (organizational hybrids), or through strategy (strategic hybrids). However, for strategic hybridity to be stable, it must always presuppose some amount of organizational hybridity. Depending on the type of hybridization, milieus will reflect the natures of their original components to different degrees. Hybridization can be of the following types: transplantation, cross-fertilization and mutation. Transplantation, for example, would be the case of a private-sector for-profit business that operates under the radically different conditions of the public sector, and cross- fertilization would be a mutual learning between an NPO and a traditional for-profit corporation. Forms of hybridity can be several and a complete theory still awaits elaboration.

The critical distinction of social pedagogy in the civil society context geared towards consciousness-raising praxis lies in something real – the value proposition itself. Any promising practice model for social enterprise must, in the light of the previous analysis, fulfill these necessary (if not yet sufficient) conditions:

1. it must be driven by a social mission (i.e., abstain from distributing profit to shareholders);

2. it must generate for positive externalities (spillovers) for society;

3. it must recognize the centrality of the pedagogueial function;

4. it must achieve competitiveness on markets through effective planning and management.

The implications of this reorientation are important. No longer must social enterprise, as “intermediate bodies”, be attributed to some ill-defined “third sector” nor must they be identified with “non-profit” business. Creation of economic and of social value must not diverge, and the latter must not be understood to correct the results of the first (Grassl & Habisch 2011; Grassl 2012). Design tools can be used to map out feasible models within an ever more heterogeneous landscape of hybrid consciousness-raising praxis oriented business (Morris, Schindehutte & Allen 2005; Brown & Wyatt 2010; Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart 2011).

References

• Alter, S. K. (2006). Social Enterprise Models and Their Mission and Money Relationships. In A. Nicholls (ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205-232.
• Anheier,H.K.& Salamon, L.M. (1999) Volunteering in International Perspectives: Crossnational Comparisons, Contemporary Problems, 62,43-65.
• Austin, J.E. (2000). Strategic Collaboration Between Nonprofits and Business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 69-97.
• Becchetti, L. & Borzaga, C. (2010). Introduction. In L. Becchetti and C. Borzaga (eds.), The Economics of Social Responsibility. The World of Social Markets. Abingdon: Routledge, 1-14.
• Becchetti, L. Bruni, L. & Zamagni, S. (2011). Microeconomia: scelte, relazioni, economia civile. Bologna: il Mulino.
• Ben-Ner, A. (2002). The Shifting Boundaries of the Mixed Economy and the Future of the Nonprofit Sector. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73, 5-40.
• Bollecker, G. & Nobre, T. (2010). L’évolution des paradoxes organisationnels: le cas d’une organisation de service public évoluant vers le modèle marchand. 19e Conférence AIMS, Luxembourg.
• Brouard, F. & Larivet, S. (2011). Essay of Clarifications and Definitions of the Related Concepts of Social Enterprise, Social Entrepreneur and Social Entrepreneurship. In A. Fayolle & H. Matlay (eds.), Handbook of Research on Social Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 29-56.
• Brown, T. & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8, 31-35.
• Bruni, L. & Smerilli, A. (2009). The Value of Vocation. The Crucial Role of Intrinsically Motivated People in Values-based Organizations. Review of Social Economy, 67(3), 271-288.
• Bruni, L. & Zamagni, S. (2007) [2004]. Civil Economy: Efficiency, Equity, Public Happiness. Bern: Peter Lang.
• Bruni, L. (2010). L’ethos del mercato. Un’introduzione ai fondamenti antropologici e relazionali dell’economia. Milan: Mondadori.
• Bruni, L. (2011). La leggerezza del ferro. Un’introduzione alla teoria economica delle Organizzazioni a Movente Ideale. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.
• Cameron, H. (1999). Are Members Volunteers: An Exploration of the Concept of Membership Drawing upon Studies of the Local Church, Voluntary Action, l, 53-65.
• Casadesus-Masanell, R. & Ricart, J.E. (2007). Competing through Practice models. Working Paper 713, IESE Business School, Barcelona.
• Casadesus-Masanell, R. & Ricart, J.E. (2010). From Strategy to Practice models and onto Tactics. Long Range Planning, 43, 195-215.
• Casadesus-Masanell, R. & Ricart, J.E. (2011). How to Design a Winning Practice model. Harvard Business Review, 89(1), 2-9.
• Dart, R. (2004). The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leader- ship, 14(4), 411-424.
• Dees, J.G. (1998). Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 54-67.
• Dembinski, P.H. (2006). Towards a Multi-modal Causation Framework of Entrepreneurship. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 24(2), 339-358.
• Descombes, V. (1996). “Les essais sur le don.” In Les institutions du sens. Paris : Éditions de Minuit, 237-308.
• Eckstein, S. (2001). Community as Gift Giving: Collective Roots of Volunteerism, American Sociological Review, 66, 829-851.
• Gold, L.: (2010). New Financial Horizons. The Emergence of an Economy of Communion. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press.
• Goldstein, J., Hazy, J. K., & Silberstang, J. (eds.) (2009). Complexity Science and Social Entrepreneurship. Litchfield Park, AZ: ISCE.
• Goldstein, J., Hazy, J. K., & Silberstang, J. (2010). A Complexity Science Model of Social Entrepreneurship in Social Enterprise. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 101- 125.
• Grassl, W. (1998). Cooperative Marketing: Efficiency Conditions for Alliances. In T. Brunton and T. Lituchy (eds.), Canada/Caribbean Business: Opportunities and Challenges for Management. Port-of-Spain: University of the West Indies Press, 87-101.
• Grassl, W. (2012). Hybrid Forms of Business: The Logic of Gift in the Commercial World. Journal of Business Ethics 104.
• Hénaff, M. (2010) [2002]. The Price of Truth: Gift, Money, and Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Hoffman, A., Badiane, K., & Haigh, N. (2012). Hybrid Organizations as Agents of Positive Social Change: Bridging the For-profit & Non-profit Divide. In K. Golden-Biddle & J.E. Dutton (eds.), Using a Positive Lens to Explore Social Change and Organizations: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation. London: Routledge.
• Hustinx, L & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and Reflexive Styles of Volunteering: A Sociological Modernisation Perspective, Voluntas, 14 (2),
• Hustinx, L. (2001). Individualisation and New Styles of Youth Volunteering: An Empirical Exploration, Voluntary Action, 3, 57-76.
• Keidel, R.W. (2010). The Geometry of Strategy. New York: Routledge.
• Koppell, J.G.S. (2003). The Politics of Quasi-Government: Hybrid Organizations and the Dynamics of Bureaucratic Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Landsberg, B.E. (2004). The Nonprofit Paradox: For-Profit Practice models in the Third Sector. International Journal for Not-for-Profit Law, 6(2).
• Makadok, R. & Coff, R. (2009). Both Market and Hierarchy: An Incentive-System Theory of Hybrid Governance Forms. Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 297-319.
• Malki, S. (2009). Social Entrepreneurship and Complexity Models. In Goldstein, Hazy & Silberstang (eds.), 71-81.
• McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a Complexity Science of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 313-341.
• Morris, M., Schindehutte, M. & Allen, J. (2005). The Entrepreneur’s Practice model: Toward a Unified Perspective. Journal of Business Research 58, 726– 735.
• Pearce, J.L. (1993). Volunteerism: 1’he Organisational Behaviour of Unpaid Workers. London: Routledge.
• Préfontaine, L. (2008). Les PPP, des projets risqués? In M. Boisclair & L. Dallaire (eds.), Les défis du partenariat dans les administrations publiques. Un regard systémique. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 201-218.
• Ross, S.N. (2009). Toward Systemic Societal Entrepreneurship: Opportunities, Theories, and Methods. In Goldstein, Hazy & Silberstang (eds.), 135-155.
• Santos, F.M. (2009). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Working Paper 2009/23/EFE/ISIC, INSEAD Business School, Fontainebleau.
• Seddon, P.B., Lewis, G.P., Freeman, P. & Shanks, G. (2004). The Case for Viewing Practice models as Abstractions of Strategy. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 13, 427-442.
• Sirico, R.A. (2010). The Entrepreneurial Vocation. In Gasparski, W.W., Ryan, L.V. & Kwiatkowski, S. (eds.) (2010), Entrepreneurship: Values and Responsibility. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 153-175.
• Teehanke, B.L. (2008). Humanistic Entrepreneurship: An Approach to Virtue-based Enterprise. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 8(1), 89-110.
• Wuthnow, R. (1999). Mobilising Civic Engagement: The Changing Impact of Religious Involvement, In T.Skocpol and M.P. Fiorina (Eds.) Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Washington: Brookings University Press.
• Young, D.R. (2007). A Unified Theory of Social Enterprise. Working Paper 07-01, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta.