Keywords: social entrepreneurial learning, accelerators, entrepreneurial learning, splace, space, social entrepreneurship education, incubators In traditional, ‘for profit’ entrepreneurship; policy-makers are keen to... [ view full abstract ]
Keywords: social entrepreneurial learning, accelerators, entrepreneurial learning, splace, space, social entrepreneurship education, incubators
In traditional, ‘for profit’ entrepreneurship; policy-makers are keen to enhance the ecosystem in which new enterprises are developed. In this ecosystem, incubators are a common means of providing nascent enterprises with support. Recently a sub-category of incubators, the ‘seed accelerator’ has emerged (Miller & Bound, 2011). Accelerators are a form of incubation that provides entrepreneurs with an intense, but short period of education, mentoring and networking. Accelerators often last for eight to twelve weeks, are usually residential and recruit cohorts of entrepreneurs. Increasingly, programmes have been founded that target social entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, although Rivetti and Miglaccio (2014) point out that accelerators are a form of entrepreneurship education, scholars such as Hallen, Bingham and Cohen (2013) note that relatively little study has been made of entrepreneurs’ learning in accelerators. At the same time, Erdélyi (2010) argues that scholars of entrepreneurial learning have neglected the role of non-human objects in the development of entrepreneurs’ knowledge. Furthermore, Hjorth (2013) and Smith (2011) suggest that entrepreneurs' learning is dependent on the creation of effective learning 'spaces'. The purpose of this paper is therefore to explore the dimensions of 'space' in relation to the learning of social entrepreneurs in accelerators.
A series of Scandinavian accelerators was studied using a case study method. Each accelerator was eight weeks long and a different cohort of social entrepreneurs participated in each one, over a period of three years. The social entrepreneurs were interviewed during and after the programme. Secondary data such as CVs and applications to the programme were analysed and the social entrepreneurs were asked to fill in an online questionnaire one year after graduation. During each accelerator regular visits were made to the accelerator in order to engage in direct observation of the social entrepreneurs as they participated in the programme. Data was managed using Nvivo software and coded manually.
The experiences of the ‘Booster’ social entrepreneurs suggest that several aspects of ‘space’ influence learning. Firstly, social entrepreneurs described the temporal nature of space: how the accelerator provided them with time to reflect on the development of their enterprises. However, towards the end of the accelerator they also experienced time as increasingly constrictive – and hence, stressful. Social entrepreneurs also described two types of physical place. I term the official, hot-desking venue at which they worked during the day, “primary” place. Here social entrepreneurs were provided with opportunities for networking and interaction – factors that contributed to their development. However, little attention was paid to “secondary” place: the accommodation to which the social entrepreneurs moved after the workday to sleep and eat.
Interviews suggested that secondary places in accelerators influenced social entrepreneurs’ learning. In particular, secondary places appeared to reinforce differences between the social entrepreneurs: enhancing or restricting their interaction. Males and females shared different apartments and patterns of interaction forced upon the group in these places, were reflected in their behaviour when they moved to 'primary' places – such as the hot-desking area. Individuals tended to choose room-mates with a similar social background to themselves – and these patterns of interaction were reflected in how they interacted at ‘work’.
Learning theorists such as Jarvis (2006) underline the importance of interaction in the creation and resolution of experiences of ‘disjuncture’. By restricting the interaction of social entrepreneurs with individuals who appeared to be very different from them, ‘secondary places’ in accelerators appear to have a higher impact on learning, than scholars have hitherto understood. However, because opportunities for learning are developed through the interaction of social entrepreneurs with both human and non-human actors, this paper concludes that it is most appropriate to discuss social entrepreneurs' learning with reference to "splace".
In this paper a model of social entrepreneurs' learning in accelerators is developed that distinguishes between four distinct aspects of 'learning splace'. In view of the co-created nature of accelerator splace, the paper suggests that accelerator managers need to devote substantially more effort to the design and management of not only the interaction processes in accelerators and the ‘primary’ places in which nascent social entrepreneurs work – but also the ‘secondary’ places in which social entrepreneurs interact after leaving the workplace.
