ARTICLES

 

Cultivating social entrepreneurial capacities in students through film: implications for social entrepreneurship education

 

 

Zayd Waghid^I; Henry Oliver^II

^ICape Peninsula University of Technology. waghidz@cput.ac.za
^IICape Peninsula University of Technology. oliverh@cput.ac.za

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

In South Africa, the economic, social, and political institutions designed to provide for the basic needs and fundamental rights of all citizens in society are failing to address the escalating socioeconomic problems for large segments of the population. Studies suggest that the provision of entrepreneurship education strengthens the entrepreneurial capacity of students to launch new ventures, which has economic implications in society (Mars, Slaughter, & Rhoades, 2008). Although much progress has been made, the authors argue that social entrepreneurship (SE) is not adequately taught in South African schools, and that this could be partially addressed by introducing SE education into the curriculum for preservice educators. In this regard, teaching and learning activities should be directed towards enhancing preservice teachers' sense of SE theory, and practical knowledge to inculcate an awareness of how SE can help deal with social injustices. Using a distinct case study that explicates teaching and learning through the use of film and online discussion groups, the authors show how spaces can be created to facilitate deliberative pedagogical engagement. The authors conclude that SE education offers valuable opportunities for dialogical (deliberative) pedagogical engagement, and should be considered as a constitutive element of higher education.

Keywords: social entrepreneurship, e-learning, film, teaching, higher education.

---

 

 

Introduction

Historically disadvantaged communities in Cape Town, and especially most young people from such communities, have been plagued by many socioeconomic issues that include unequal access to education, cultural discrimination, and increasing levels of unemployment. Moreover, for large segments of the population, the economic, social, and political institutions in South Africa that are designed to address the basic needs and fundamental rights of all citizens in society are failing to address these problems (Triegaardt, 2006). Consequently, the authors of this article postulate that the majority of the population remains marginalised and trapped in a system that, despite guaranteeing the right to equal education and healthcare provision, does not deliver on these constitutional promises, thereby often exacerbating chronic poverty. This situation continues to undermine growth in these poorer communities both socially and economically, which further inhibits entrepreneurship (Bradley & Roberts, 2004; Dockel & Lighthelm, 2005).

The NDP, the state's National Development Plan (Republic of South Africa, 2011), reiterates from a macroeconomic perspective the importance of entrepreneurship in the economy in addressing concerns such as inflation, unemployment, stagnant economic growth, and a volatile currency. Yet South Africa still exhibits one of the world's lowest youth entrepreneurship participation rates, with a participation rate of only 12.8% (Singer, Amorós, & Arreola, 2014). Amartya Sen (1999, p. 38-40) argued that basic human needs are basic human rights (which he referred to as instrumental freedoms) that enable economic and social development by fostering the capabilities of individuals. If individuals require access to basic needs such as food, medical resources, and housing, as Miller (2003, p. 247) maintained, it is tantamount to claiming these are their fundamental rights because they are capable of promoting the individuals' socioeconomic well-being. In South Africa, the adverse effects of unequal socioeconomic conditions further marginalise individuals (Sen, 1999). Hence, if citizens' basic liberties are infringed, entrepreneurship driven by social change could be used to contest these inequities.

Social entrepreneurship (SE), a category of entrepreneurship, is a relatively new concept in South Africa (Littlewood & Holt, 2015). This concept and its concomitant activities aim to address social injustices, which the authors contend, can be partly achieved through cultivating SE amongst preservice educators in a university context. Furthermore, the authors hold that SE education has the potential to enhance economic and social development in historically disadvantaged communities in South Africa. In this regard, the authors through their teaching of entrepreneurship education to preservice educators at a university in Cape Town endeavour to contribute to societal development- in particular, political awareness and intellectual awareness.

Education plays an important role in society by creating social value and providing opportunities for social change. Furthermore, studies suggest that the provision of entrepreneurship education strengthened the entrepreneurial capacity of students to launch new economic and social ventures in the market place (Mars et al., 2008; Timmons & Spinelli, 2004). Therefore, education plays a significant role in entrepreneurial activity, and if aspirant educators were equipped with the knowledge and skills to serve as social entrepreneurial mentors, they would be better positioned to contribute to cultivating SE in schools. Also, if educators were able to inculcate a sense of social responsibility through entrepreneurial activities, this would contribute positively towards the development of students' ability to function as socially responsive members of society.

This article has two aims: first, to explore 3rd-year, preservice educators' knowledge of social entrepreneurship, and second, to demonstrate how teaching and learning through the use of film and online discussion groups can augment social entrepreneurship education amongst preservice educators.

 

Social Entrepreneurship Education

As has been alluded to, social entrepreneurship as a category of entrepreneurship is an emerging concept in South African higher education and is an important area of research and academic inquiry (Littlewood & Holt, 2015, p. 3). Entrepreneurship is considered the process of conceptualising, organising, and launching innovative business opportunities in complex business environments (Rwigema & Venter, as cited in Nicolaides, 2011, p. 1043), while social entrepreneurship as an innovative process adopts these entrepreneurial principles to engender and sustain social benefits through the establishment of new social ventures (Mair & Noboa, 2003, p. 5). Inasmuch as social entrepreneurship is considered a concept that encompasses the activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit social opportunities in order to enhance social wealth and add social value to society (Zhara, Gedajilovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009, p. 522), the discourse of entrepreneurship is more directed to the attainment of economic sustainability.

Social entrepreneurship also differs from the broader concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which aims to assist businesses in fulfilling economic and social responsibilities (Hockerts, 2007, p. 4). As such, social entrepreneurship is an activity that invests in collaborative relations and partnerships with nonprofit organisations and the public sector with the aim of creating favourable and sustainable conditions, benefiting both communities and businesses (Tracey, Phillips, & Haugh, 2005, p. 332). CSR is considered to be more of a collective support structure to social entrepreneurship, while social entrepreneurship is more of an individual model through the development of innovative and socially supporting initiatives driven by individual social entrepreneurs or nonprofit organisations (Dees & Anderson, 2006). Put more succinctly, what distinguishes these two practices is that while CSR has both social and economic objectives in place to benefit businesses' competitive advantages (Crisan & Borza, 2007, p. 111), social entrepreneurship is driven solely by passionate and ambitious social entrepreneurs with the intention of achieving social justice in society.

Moreover, social entrepreneurship education is critical for society because it contributes to job creation and helps, considerably, to reduce poverty (Mars et al., 2008; Timmons & Spinelli, 2004). Given that higher education institutions are regarded as the custodians of knowledge in society, by implication they have an important role to play in enhancing social entrepreneurship education. Social entrepreneurship education strategically focuses on bringing about social change (Nicholls, 2006, p. 23). The latter claim is outlined by the Republic of South Africa (RSA)'s 1997, Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of the Higher Education System, as the challenge to "redress past inequalities and to transform the higher education system to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national needs, and to respond to new realities and opportunities" (as cited in RSA, 2001, p. 9). Education White Paper 3 also clarified the role of higher education institutions in the knowledge economy in the "mobilisation of of human talent . . . through lifelong learning to contribute to the social, economic, cultural and intellectual life of a rapidly changing society" (as cited in RSA, 2001, p. 9). In addition, their role includes the enhancement of high-level skills training through the provision of human resources to strengthen South African enterprises, services, and infrastructure. The latter requires not only the "development of professionals and knowledge workers with globally equivalent skills," but also individuals who are "socially responsible and conscious of their role in contributing to the national development effort and social transformation" (as cited in RSA, 2001, p. 9).

The National Development Plan (NDP) of 2011 reaffirmed the role of higher education institutions in cultivating democratic citizenship by preparing graduates with the skills for employment in the public and private spheres of society (RSA, 2011, p. 317). The NDP also aimed to explore new local and global applications for existing knowledge by equipping citizens for a changing economy and society (RSA, 2011, p. 317). Furthermore, the NDP envisaged providing graduates with opportunities for social mobility, which could further strengthen equity, social justice, and democracy. Given the failure of the state's previous economic policies-such as the Growth Employment and Redistribution Strategy (GEAR) and Reconstruction and Development Plan (RDP)-in redressing the injustices of the past, the state adopted the NDP as a new economic policy and solution for addressing these historical problems by again reiterating the importance of entrepreneurship in society (Adelzadeh, 1996; Bond, 2002). In both the National Development Plan and Education White Paper 3, the state asserted the role of universities in enhancing social transformation. Of importance to this article, both the aforementioned policy documents drew attention to cultivating entrepreneurship in South Africa through higher education (Nicolaides, 2011, p. 1046). In spite of its importance, a study by Lekhanya (2015) found that very little has been done, from a management perspective, to promote social entrepreneurship at South African universities. Furthermore, research on social entrepreneurship in relation to preservice educators is not evident-which makes this article apposite at this time.

Social entrepreneurship has a strong resonance with distributive justice as outlined in the Education White Paper 3; it is also an aspect of social justice that is concerned with the fair distribution of social benefits among the members of various associations (Miller, 2003). For society to be socially just, it must comply with the principles of need, economic reward, and equality, while institutional structures should ensure that an adequate share of social resources are set aside for individuals on the basis of need (Miller 2003, p. 247). In other words, every individual in society is obliged to contribute to the others' needs; each individual receives a reward equivalent to his or her contribution-and relationships amongst individuals and groups in the interest of justice remain equal.

As social entrepreneurship is concerned with attending directly to basic human needs that remain unsatisfied by current economic or social institutions, it clearly has a strong resonance with the principles of social justice. The allocation of valued goods such as education, medical care, childcare, personal security, housing, transportation, and leisure opportunities depends on the workings of the major social institutions. The state's policies and practices contribute to enhancing social justice because it has an influence on the share going to each person by enacting laws, setting taxes, organising the provision of health care, education, and so forth (Miller, 2003). However, the state itself would be largely impotent if not for the collaboration of other major institutions such as universities, colleges, and schools. Cultivating social justice invariably involves multiple role players in society-of which university educators and students cannot be excluded.

The authors argue that universities, colleges, and schools, which can be considered as structures of change in the knowledge economy, would not be able to function efficaciously in the absence of collaborative human agents of change. Emirbayer and Mische (1998, p. 970) defined human agency as "the temporally formulated engagement by actors of different structural environments which, through the reciprocity of habit, imagination and judgment, both transforms and reconstructs those structures in an interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations." This formulation resonates with Bourdieu's (1977) earlier concept of habitus, where he argued that a formative influence of the past is a determinant of the individual's cognitive and intentional structures of empirical action. Here Bourdieu (1977) meant that the human agent changes over time and this change depends on the human agent's actions in relation to an application of his or her imaginative judgements in enacting societal change. This form of cultural capital is what Bourdieu (1986, p. 243) termed an embodied state, that is, a long-lasting disposition of an individual's body and mind. Such a form of embodied cultural capital, which comprises of one's beliefs, values, and habits, serves to identify and attach individuals together as a constituent of society (Bourdieu, 1986).

In line with the notion that human agency can affect imaginative judgements in various social contexts, the authors envisage a scenario wherein the desire for social entrepreneurial educators in schools to enact change could be attributed to their encounter, as human agents, with the school environment.

Put differently, by using their imaginative judgements, more specifically their justifiable reasons for actions coupled with an imaginative reflection of how institutions might unfold, the authors of this article, in their recognition of the poor socioeconomic circumstances encompassing the vast majority of schools, propose the following: social entrepreneurship in places of learning only materialises once social entrepreneurially minded educators as human agents mobilise themselves in an effort to provide an entrepreneurial answer to a social need. The latter human action depends on whether social entrepreneurial educators are able to identify a need as an opportunity once they have engaged with a social context. Lushka (2008) maintained that opportunities may only be created when social entrepreneurs set out to induce changes to the environment in light of their initiation into social entrepreneurship education. However, drawing on Bourdieu's (1977) concept of habitus, the social entrepreneur as an individual is also changed by the context of her or his encounters with others in the field-in the sense that they bring their reasons, judgements, and imaginations to such deliberative engagements.

What is important in relation to the human agent is the idea of an encounter. Jane Roland Martin's theory of education as an encounter holds that education only occurs if there is an encounter between an individual and a culture in which one or more of the individual's capacities and one or more items of a culture's stock become yoked (or attached) together (Roland Martin, 2013, p. 17). This means that when capacities and stock meet and become attached to each other, education occurs. People bring to encounters, their cultural understandings and capacities (for learning) and in turn, together shape the particular encounter (Waghid, 2016, p. 2). In this regard, cultural understandings, as espoused by Waghid (2016), have some affinity to people's expanded political awareness and intellectual growth and alertness.

When the aim of an educational encounter is to achieve social entrepreneurial capacities amongst preservice educators in the field of education, the capacities and cultural stock such as societal ideas, habits, and values-which resonate with Bourdieu's (1986) understanding of embodied cultural capital-of individuals are usually geared towards the attainment of social justice in society (Waghid, 2016, p. 2). The social entrepreneurial educator as an agent of change brings to the encounter her or his cultural stock and capacities for learning, which shape both the encounter itself and the social entrepreneurial educator's perception while engaging in the school or class context. Put differently, the authors assert that through Roland Martin's (2013) theory of education as an encounter and Bourdieu's (1977) concept of habitus, preservice educators could be better equipped to learn about and resolve social needs in society. On the basis of deliberative engagements with one another and others within a particular social context, preservice educators can come up with imaginative judgements about how societal challenges can be overcome.

 

Using Film as a Form of Media Literacy

Students initially acquire a wide range of literacies from early childhood and, depending on their gender, social class, and race, are more or less likely to be prepared for the rigorous tasks and practices of school-based literacy (Walton, Marsden, & Vukovic, 2001). In South Africa, this claim resonates with the experiences of many of the disadvantaged students at universities and, in the context of this study, 3rd-year students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds whose limited experience of academic literacy presents them with significant pedagogical impediments (Walton et al., 2001). Addressing academic illiteracy in higher education is challenging, particularly when students are expected to understand, interpret, and critically analyse the concept of social entrepreneurship. According to Kellner and Share (2007, p. 6), film can enhance meaningful discussions between educators and students by eliciting student views, producing a variety of interpretations of media texts, and teaching basic principles of criticism and hermeneutics. The authors recognise that viewing a film does not necessarily mean that students are always capable of critically analysing the rich and deeper meanings behind the film; rather, it is the film's capacity to create an awareness of its message that is important here. That is, through film, students become imaginatively situated in contexts perhaps unfamiliar to them and to which they are summoned to respond.

Through the engaging encounters the preservice educators experience through film, the possibility exists that they can be geared positively towards cultivating deliberative pedagogical (educational) encounters. In turn, such encounters could engender enhanced social entrepreneurial capacities on the basis that social entrepreneurship is invariably linked to the notion of an educational encounter. This claim echoes Pérez-Tornero's (2004) view that media literacy-which encompasses television, film, radio, music, printed media, and the Internet-is used to create a critical awareness of the distinct discourses that emanate from a film in relation to the context that students find themselves in. In other words, deliberative engagement amongst students challenges them to be willing to listen to one another, disagree, and extend alternative points of view, that is, be critical. Furthermore, these learning activities are characterised by active engagement, inquiry, problem solving, and collaboration with others, namely, critical thinking skills-with the higher education educator playing more of a facilitative, co-explorer role that encourages students to reflect critically and formulate their own ideas, opinions, and conclusions (Weegar & Pacis, 2012).

According to Banning (as cited in Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011, p. 26), critical thinking involves appraising, differentiating, scrutinising, and reflecting on the information used to make judgments and informed decisions. Moreover, critical thinking is linked to the practice of an educational (pedagogical) engagement whereby participants not only question one another's assumptions but also open themselves up to alternative possibilities that might arise. At the core of critical thinking, is the idea of offering reasons in justification for one's point of view. Social entrepreneurship education involves taking into consideration reasons that persuade one, in deliberation with others, to enact societal change.

Attuned with the notion of deliberative educational and societal change, Snyder and Snyder (2008, p. 91) contended that subjective tools such as case-based learning and essay questions require students to apply their knowledge to new situations, and are better indicators of bringing about understanding than objective forms of learning that ignore societal change. Keller and Share (2007, p. 4) posited that media and information communication technology can be used as tools for empowering people and, in affording students the opportunity to use these forms of media literacy, to tell their stories and express their concerns. The authors of this article envisage cultivating social entrepreneurship education through creating deliberative pedagogical spaces for preservice educators by means of film; therefore, they employ Blackboard, an e-learning resource, as a supportive platform to the film, Who Cares? (Mourão, 2013).

According to Moodley (2013, p. 2), educators in South Africa fail to engage with students through critical questioning and reasoning in interactive lessons. Drawing on the research by Williams and Jacobs (2004), the authors' investigation into pedagogical encounters amongst preservice educators contends that the discursive nature of knowledge construction is developed most effectively through the use of interactive online student blogging in combination with an analysis of a film. The authors suggest that the use of film, supported by asking probing questions on the e-learning platform Blackboard, can provide students with critical analysis and creative problem solving techniques that could, in turn, transform them into knowledge co-constructors-not merely knowledge consumers. Bearing in mind that the authors' investigation in cultivating social entrepreneurial capacities within students involves educating the students with capacities such as critical thinking and deliberation, their emphasis on producing students who co-construct knowledge is justified.

By fostering critical awareness in the classroom through the use of film, students would hopefully be prepared as social entrepreneurial educators in the school context, and could develop a more nuanced understanding of the discourse of social entrepreneurship. When students are exposed to educational initiatives to enhance their capacity to transform themselves into socially active beings and democratic change agents, they can be said to be prepared for praxis. This is so on the basis that praxis involves critical action together with plausible action that is perpetually aimed at transforming society. The authors' aim of using film in cultivating social entrepreneurial capacities amongst aspirant educators is in line with the idea of cultivating praxis because the latter is linked to the goal of social entrepreneurship, which involves addressing social injustices. With this article, the authors envisage to contribute to the field of research into social entrepreneurship because the article aims to engender more plausible understanding and action in relation to cultivating the social entrepreneurial capabilities of preservice educators in higher education.

 

Methodology

This article documents an investigation into a pedagogical initiative aimed at enhancing students' conceptual and practical knowledge of social entrepreneurship. Set in an interpretive paradigm, this investigation followed a qualitative approach for the purpose of acquiring a deep, rich array of data that enabled a full and thorough understanding and description of the participating students' knowledge and experiences. As a methodology, interpretivist inquiry, through the use of online focus group interviews and an interpretation of students' comments on blogs, aims to clarify meaning and understanding about students' responses to the notion of social entrepreneurship and its application in an educational context. The research was not intended to generate results that are generalisable to the broader educator populace, but rather to discover and describe the experiential reality of the case participants within its broader context. Doing this offers support for the theoretical proposition that using film in combination with blogs creates effective learning spaces for the cultivation of social entrepreneurship capabilities in students in higher education.

The sample population of this study was formed by a cohort of 3rd-year Bachelor of Education, Further Education and Training (FET) students (N = 48) who had selected entrepreneurship education as one of their areas of specialisation. Sample selection was made on the basis of recruiting participants who, by their own subject selection, indicated their preference for contributing to the development of entrepreneurial activities in the broader South African society. Thus, purposive and deliberate sampling amongst 3rd-year students yielded the sample frame for this study. The sample population who indicated their willingness to participate in the project were (N = 43) students who constituted a total number of eight focus groups. Methodologically, primary data was therefore collected using asynchronous interactive online focus groups, with each group comprising between five and seven students, hosted on the university's e-learning platform system, Blackboard. There were 25 online groups available on Blackboard for students to select from, and from which they randomly selected group numbers of their choice. Hence, the authors found that some students enrolled, for example, in Group 1 while others opted to select Group 5 or 11. In instances where students did not answer all the discussion questions on Blackboard, these groups were excluded from the analyses. Furthermore, Blackboard was used as a means of developing educator-student and student-student relationships, where visual messages have been useful, bridging the gap between face-to-face and mediated communication by providing visual information and cues to augment text (Sims, O'Leary, Cook, & Butland, 2002, p. 3). Hence, the e-learning platform system was used in this investigation, because of its potential to enhance the students' voice in a deliberative and equitable manner.

The film, Who Cares? (Mourão, 2013)-a documentary on social entrepreneurship-carries an empowering message for all members in society, with a vision of achieving social justice. In other words, the film is concerned with accentuating people's ability and determination in solving the most

pressing concerns plaguing their society. Using animated visual images, the film depicts the most pressing socioeconomic issues in global society. These visual representations of issues such as poverty, unemployment, famine, and a lack of health care among others, aims to appeal to an individual's altruistic nature in finding the most innovative solutions in solving these concerns. The director, Mara Mourão, intuitively used 18 ambitious and pragmatic social entrepreneurs from seven distinct countries-Brazil, Canada, Germany, Peru, Switzerland, Tanzania, and the USA-to share their experiences in reaching this global vision. In line with the notion of achieving an equitable and equal society, the film uses the rhetoric of achieving societal reform by highlighting the roles of willing and capable democratic change agents. Through raising a critical awareness of the social injustices permeating society, the film aims to cultivate an imagined context that invokes within its audience the knowledge, values, and attitudes required to be social entrepreneurs.

The students were required to complete an online activity on Who Cares? in order to interpret their interactive blogging comments. The film was presented to the students to enhance their critical awareness of the practices of social entrepreneurship and social injustice in society, to elicit a response and, hopefully, to awaken their potential for learning in a deliberative way-that is, learning together. By implication, through the application of film, the authors envisaged that preservice educators' capacities for deliberative learning would be enhanced. In turn, their students' learning about social entrepreneurship education will, hopefully, encourage them to act positively towards the achievement of societal change and justice. Care was taken to ensure that data was collected exclusively from participants who signed and submitted informed consent forms. The participants were informed in class that their participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. Also, ethical clearance was acquired from the faculty's ethics research committee, adhering to the ethical considerations of the study. The written student blogging activities were analysed and categories developed. Online focus group interviews were used to understand the practical activity of social entrepreneurship from the students' perspectives, and to ascertain how and why they reached their opinions. Students' names on the screen shots (Images 1-10) analysed were subsequently replaced with abbreviations to ensure anonymity. As Blackboard is a closed learning platform system, only entrepreneurship education students with usernames and passwords were granted access to the online blogs. The data was subsequently captured, processed, and analysed, and is described in the sections that follow. The following discussion questions were used to guide the students' blogging interaction:

1. Is social entrepreneurship a familiar term amongst higher education students?

2. What is your understanding of social entrepreneurship having viewed the film Who Cares?

3. How has the film made you aware of the socioeconomic issues affecting South African society?

 

Data Analysis and Interpretation

During the analysis of this study's data, the authors used inductive reasoning, which enabled them to clarify meaning and understanding about students' responses to the notion of social entrepreneurship and its application in an educational context. Through inductive reasoning, the authors were able to discover and describe the experiential reality of the case participants within its broader context. To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of findings, that is, whether the interpretation of the data is a true reflection of the participants' reality, the findings were distributed and discussed with the study participants. In this section, the authors present their interpretation of the key insightful comments that emanated from the online encounters between the students using the Blackboard e-learning platform. Further to this, the section also includes images of the relevant online discussions from which the key insightful comments emanated. Screen shots were constructed from the online discussions on Blackboard and subsequently analysed on a computer graphics application.

An interpretive analysis of the online engagements between the students as shown in Image 1 (Focus Group 10) concludes that social entrepreneurship was considered an unfamiliar or unknown term amongst the study sample, as clearly stated by Student DLK: "I thought it was the same as an entrepreneur" and Student TJH: "I've never made mention of the term until it was made known in class in our 3rd-year level of our course." This misunderstanding of social entrepreneurship seems to emanate from a lack of conceptual clarity of social entrepreneurship at school level. From this it can be inferred that the exclusion of social entrepreneurship from the Department of Basic Education (DBE)'s curriculum and assessment policy statements for economic and management sciences (EMS) Grades 7-9 and business studies Grades 10-12 (DBE, 2011a, 2011b) had the result that social entrepreneurship's social value and what it could bring to educational encounters were not adequately taught and examined by the educators teaching those subjects.

Moreover, the misconception of social entrepreneurship in relation to CSR is emphasised by Student TJH. From this misconception, it can be inferred by the authors that some students may be subjected to a school curriculum that promotes content above critical engagement or scrutinising the curriculum, and in which educators may be expected to teach only according to curriculum requirements. In this way, students depicted educators as compliant agents and transmitters of knowledge, as stated by student MCTJ: "Educators are not allowed to spread their knowledge" and student TJH: "[Future teachers, it is speculated, are] restricted in such a way that we are blinded to textbook rehearsing [of the] curriculum." As a result of the South African high school curriculum not emphasising social entrepreneurship, it remains an unknown practical activity amongst students in higher education considering that they were taught the "walk-around of an entrepreneur. What the entrepreneur was, their roles, their qualities, their importance" at school (Student AHT). The implication of the latter assertion is that the school curriculum should integrate social entrepreneurship education because it accentuates the importance of achieving social justice.

In Image 2 (Focus Group 6), many of the students reaffirmed what was mentioned by their peers-of which images from Focus Group 10 is an example-that social entrepreneurship was an unfamiliar term in higher education which resonates with their depiction of the school-based curriculum for EMS and business studies. The economic value of entrepreneurship was underscored, as succinctly put by Student ERG, "We did not deal with the term 'social entrepreneurship' but we dealt with entrepreneurship" and Student IED, "[Learners] know that an entrepreneur is someone [who] starts [her or his] own business." However, Dees and Anderson (2006) argued that "social entrepreneurs are individuals who reform or revolutionize the patterns of producing social value, shifting resources into areas of higher yield for society" (p. 44). Thus, if students are not properly sensitised and taught about the distinctive traits of social entrepreneurs and the societal benefits that could be derived from further development on the front of social entrepreneurship activities, then social entrepreneurship could remain an unfamiliar, misinterpreted, and underutilised practical activity for the South African society.

However, not all students agreed with the notion that social entrepreneurship was an unfamiliar term in higher education, as Student ABEK maintained: "I think some of the [students] are familiar with the term because some [students] have dealt with the term 'social responsibility' whereby a business gives back to the community." ABEK's confusion of social entrepreneurship and CSR may be indicative of an emphasis placed on CSR in the EMS and business studies CAPS documents and reaffirms the earlier notion that students should be properly sensitised and taught about the distinctive traits of social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship.

From students' responses in Focus Groups 10 and 5 (shown in Images 3 and 4, respectively), it can be inferred that their largely erroneous outlook on social entrepreneurship can be ascribed to what they were taught at school, with little exposure to the discourse surrounding social entrepreneurship. In the sample focus groups (5, 6, and 10) analysed, three students indicated that they understood some aspect of social entrepreneurship. However, their understanding of the term social entrepreneurship was rather confused with CSR. For instance, student HM in Image 4 related social entrepreneurship to "seeing an opportunity and to be creative to do great things with that opportunity," although the literature describes social entrepreneurship merely as adding some form of social value to society (Mair & Noboa, 2003; Nicholls, 2006; Timmons & Spinelli, 2004). Student GS, also in Image 4, remarked: "The reason why [social entrepreneurship is emphasised] is because there was always a market day or some other business plan as an assignment, [where] you must be innovative (new ideas) in the means to profit yourself and your community (school)," and Student AHT's example (in Image 3) of social entrepreneurship is in relation to a "bread day" that was introduced by the learners at the school. These students (HM, GS, and AHT in Images 3 and 4) who showed some degree of understanding of social entrepreneurship appear to have been involved in entrepreneurial activities at school. From these students' responses, it is clear that some elements of social entrepreneurship might have been taught at some schools. However, their assertions seem to be remiss of the social justice aspect of social entrepreneurship education.

The authors particularly questioned the students about their understanding of social entrepreneurship in relation to the film, with varying understandings emerging. The film seemed to clarify some misconceptions of entrepreneurship, as Students XL and AB (Image 5) reminded us: "[Social entrepreneurship] operates differently from entrepreneurship as it works within the social context" and "It brings the mind-set or principles of entrepreneurship to the social sector." Social entrepreneurship was also categorised as more of an individual solution, as the following students responded: "Social entrepreneurship is an individual solution to society's most pressing social problems" (Student FN), "It is someone (individual) who has the ability by equipping other individuals to enhance their needs" (Student AB), and "Identifying a problem in [your] community and apply [your] business experience to come up with ideas that solve the identified problem (Student SN)." These claims resonate with what Dees (as cited in Crisan & Borza, 2007, p. 107) posited of social entrepreneurship.

From the above, it seems many students associated social entrepreneurship with an individual's agency in genuinely attempting to add social value to society, compared to the concept of CSR adopted by businesses as a means of attaining both corporate and social goals and enhancing their competitive advantage (Crisan & Borza; 2007; Davis, 2005; Pettigrew, 2009). In the sample focus groups analysed (1, 4, and 10) in Images 5, 6, and 7, all 14 students correctly suggested that social entrepreneurship has a transformative agenda in attempting to address the many socioeconomic issues plaguing poor and marginalised individuals by empowering them to attain their instrumental freedoms, as suggested by Sen (1999).

According to Images 5 and 6, after viewing the film a number of students described a social entrepreneur as having some moral agenda in wanting to solve the most pressing concerns in society, and to improve the standard of living of the marginalised poor. Students FN, AB, XL, and ZPG wrote in Image 5: "[Social entrepreneurs] present user friendly understandable and ethical ideas that engage widespread support in order to maximize the number of citizens that will stand up seize their idea and implement it" (Student FN); "[Social entrepreneurs] help others by bringing [financial] resources and [employment] opportunities to those who need them the most" (Student XL); "[Social entrepreneurs are concerned with] the pursuit of social and environmental mission" (Student AB); and "[Social entrepreneurs] pursue poverty alleviation goals with business methods and the courage to innovate and overcome traditional traditional practices" (Student ZPG). Student BGH (Image 6) commented: "It's basically people who are trying to assist other to improve their standards of living, getting better jobs/employed without having them to pay for that and I think it also focus in the world's economy not to collapse," and Student SOG was succinct: "[Social entrepreneurs are concerned with] contributing to poverty alleviation and job creation" (Image 6).

Both images attest to viewing the film creating an awareness of the altruistic nature of a social entrepreneur. In Image 6, Student PS wrote: "[Social entrepreneurs] help society in a way that will benefit every citizen without anyone [social entrepreneurs] having to benefit [financially]"; Student NSEM remarked: "[Social entrepreneurs] create a better life for others, even if it means they have to sacrifice their personal belongings [finances]"; and Student TM concurred: "[Social entrepreneurs] give to those who have nothing and not expecting something [financial] in return." In Image 5, student PFM noted, "[social entrepreneurs are concerned with] being sensitive to others and having open hands without really gaining [financially] for yourself."

Furthermore, the social entrepreneur's role as a transformative change agent was also touched on: according to Student PFM, "[social entrepreneurship] is all about making a change in the society or wherever [you] find yourself," and to Student PS, "Social entrepreneurs are change agents [where] they seek to revamp a bad situation to a good beneficial situation for all [society]." The pronoun you, as used by Student PFM, could indicate that after an encounter with a particular environment social entrepreneurs both change and are changed by it, as Bourdieu (1977) contended.

In reference to Image 7 (Focus Group 10), which captures what the authors consider an astute, insightful account of Student TJH's understanding of social entrepreneurship after having viewed the film; the authors identify many concerns linked to what the student interpreted as the ineptitude of many governments to address socioeconomic issues in society. These include targeting pockets of communities to support to win votes, and making empty promises to either cling to power or oppose political opposition. In other words, noneffective governments often use rhetoric not action to "resolve" injustices and maintain the status quo as a means of strengthening their political position at the expense of societal justice. In Student TJH's view, social entrepreneurship is a response to this governmental ineptitude. This involves social entrepreneurs advocating an altruistic position through which they can effect change by developing social and economic spheres in society. Student DLK (also Image 7), in an equally insightful account of her understanding of the film, linked the human virtue of caring to society, the global economy, and the environment. In her view, societal problems can only be resolved through knowledge co-construction. She acknowledged that her view only developed after having been exposed to the film because "It change[d] my perception on the needs of the society and at least try something to change the situation." In both students, it appears that the film cultivated a critical social awareness and fostered their social entrepreneurial consciousness. Through this critical social entrepreneurial awareness, they realised that as an individual, one would need to disrupt the status quo to enact change. Thus, the authors infer that through the use of the film, the students were sensitised to become more reflective about their encounters with society and amongst themselves. What seems to emanate from the authors' interpretation of some of the students' comments is that they have internalised an opposition to dominance and privilege in society.

To foster a critical awareness amongst school learners of the most pressing socioeconomic problems, it is important to ensure that teachers themselves are sufficiently aware of these issues. In this regard, the film highlighted problems relating to social and economic inequalities and inequities, particularly how the lack of equality and access enhance social injustices. With the aim of probing their awareness of, and ability to relate to, the sorts of problems highlighted in the film, the authors posed the following discussion question: "How has the film made you aware of the socioeconomic issues affecting South African society?"

In reference to the authors' analyses of Images 8, 9, and 10 (from Focus Groups 1, 4, and 11, respectively) it can be deduced that the majority of these students shared the view that most of the socioeconomic problems highlighted in the film are relevant to the South African society. There was also agreement that urgent action is needed to address a number of issues that recurred throughout the discussions, including high levels of poverty, the generally poor quality of education, an economically imbalanced society, unequal access to healthcare, an [unsustainable] increase in population, environmental pollution, and a lack of empathy amongst people (Students NM, ZPQ, FN, AB, PFM, PS, NSEM, TM, SOG). In a number of instances, the students showed a sense of social responsibility towards the poor and the environment and to the fact that, as individuals, we ought to be grateful for what we have in life as opposed, continuously, to seeking further gain in material wealth. Hence, the authors assert that the film cultivated a sense of altruism amongst some of the students.

More significant, is the fact that the stimulating nature of the discussions gave rise to a number of insightful observations. Many students stated their realisation that it is unrealistic to place all one's trust in the government's ability to solve socioeconomic problems; as Student FN emphasised: "Widespread poverty and inequality [persist] . . . in spite of the significant improvement of access to education." While some, such as Student XL, described this realisation as "frightening," others such as Student AB, hinted at a more optimistic point of view by acknowledging that "There's still a lot that is needed to be done in this country." Student CJ offered an even more optimistic view by noting that "The film actually highlighted the socioeconomic issues in other countries and made me realise that ours are not as bad" and that "it is not impossible to 'fix' an issue if everyone is involved in the fixing process." Hence, for some students the film diluted the feeling of hopelessness and highlighted the fact that there are potential solutions, which if implemented, could alleviate South Africa's socioeconomic problems. This view was supported by students such as Student RF who wrote, "The film made [me aware] that there are solutions in every one of us," and Student PFM who stated, "I also learned that common citizens like myself can (and indeed should) take an initiative and [should] not wait for government to do everything."

A number of students also noted that socioeconomic problems require global actions and that these problems should not be viewed within the isolation of a country's borders. Student BGH reminded her peers that South Africa is not "feeding or assisting people that are from this country only . . . because there are [impoverished] people who cross borders." This view was shared by students NSEM and TM who added that even within the borders of a country, actions should not be limited to a single geographic area. Another significant observation was the notion that there is a dire need to inculcate soft skills amongst individual members of a society. In this regard, Student PFN observed that the skills required by citizens are "to be selfless (care and think for someone else), kind-hearted and responsible." The student warned that, "[these skills] are not at all emphasized in [the South African school] curriculum and society at large." She averred, "These 'soft' skills will help build a respectful and unified South Africa." From these observations of the student discussions relating to the third question, it was again clear that the film cultivated a critical social awareness and, in particular, social entrepreneurial mindsets. Furthermore, the students clearly demonstrated their ability to relate the examples of socioeconomic problems highlighted in the film to those faced by the South African society.

 

Discussion and Implications

From the authors' interpretation of the data, it is clear that prior to viewing the film Who Cares?, there was a lack of clarity of the concept social entrepreneurship amongst the preservice educators in this study. This lack of understanding of social entrepreneurship is linked to it not being included in the CAPS for EMS (Grades 7-9) and CAPS for Business Studies (Grades 10-12), and not adequately examined or taught by educators in schools-which further creates a misinterpretation between social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, and CSR. Furthermore, from the authors' analyses of the data, the authors confirm augmented social entrepreneurship amongst the participants in the study after students viewed the film and engaged in online discussion groups.

The authors now offer their insights on the implications of this research on practices in higher education. First, through the use of the film as a form of media literacy, 3rd-year preservice educators and the authors as higher education educators constructed meanings that point to different understandings of the discourse of social entrepreneurship. The authors' inference is that through an exposure to a film that highlights three underlying themes (sustainable development, economic development, and equity) that can be linked to social injustices (Miller, 2003), students' alertness to respond to societal inequalities will be deepened. These meanings were constructed in language and in visual communication as ways of presenting human experiences of social entrepreneurship. Moreover, the film Who Cares? offered students and the higher education educators opportunities for deriving a number of possible understandings of social entrepreneurship.

Second, in relation to Roland Martin's (2013) theory of education as an encounter, the authors contend that the data analysed (in particular in relation to Image 10) shows that students in the study consider the attainment of social justice important to their outlook on education. The points students made about the abject and poor living conditions, and especially unemployment of some people in South Africa, is a vindication of these students' political awareness of the presence of unsustainable development, economic underdevelopment, and inequity. The film appears to have enhanced students' political awareness and curiosity to address social injustice where they encounter it. Thus, the authors contend that educational encounters have been enriched by students' political and intellectual awareness of societal injustices which, following Roland Martin (2013, p. 19) is significant in harnessing credible educational encounters. Therefore, because the political and intellectual orientations of students and educators were invoked through their responses, the authors suggest that social entrepreneurship education should always be considered an apposite discourse for deepening the political awareness of encounters amongst students and educators. Moreover, if social entrepreneurial capacities are cultivated through an analysis of thought-provoking films that highlight social injustices, the possibility exists that higher education contexts can be shifted towards more politically and intellectually relevant pedagogical spaces.

Third, the film afforded the students the opportunity to self-reflect critically on, and respond to, matters pertaining to the social injustices permeating society. The authors argue that social entrepreneurship education can make students aware of and attend to the social inequalities, exclusion, and oppression that deny social justice in society. In other words, through an education underpinned by social entrepreneurship, students are sensitised to leverage societal change. In a way, the students internalised an opposition to privilege, oppression, exclusion, and inequity by becoming disruptive agents of change, as Bourdieu (1977) asserted. Put differently, students can become self-reflective and act upon their deepened insights about societal injustices. Rancière (1999, p. 33) equated disruption with exercising one's equality, and maintained that equality is not received from others but is achieved when those deprived of it engage in deliberations in their own capacity. "Receiving" equality would still mean that others must give it, which diminishes their agency as equal citizens. In agreement with Rancière (1999, p. 30), the authors acknowledge that equality through disruption is a way of attaining social justice, and that is what students of social entrepreneurship are privileged to encounter and enact. In other words, becoming acutely aware of societal injustices and developing the earnestness to bring about change-that is, to act is a condition of social justice which the authors contend-are possible forms of human actions that can emanate from being educated through social entrepreneurship.

Social entrepreneurship can impact social and economic development positively. The authors propose that the teaching of entrepreneurship needs to include social entrepreneurship as a component of the curriculum. In this way, pedagogical opportunities can be created for both students and educators, and can disrupt the curriculum both at university and school more substantively. This means that teaching social entrepreneurship can cultivate in students and educators capabilities to look at social injustices in society from a social entrepreneurial perspective with the aim of transforming inequities, inequalities, and exclusions. In this way, social entrepreneurship would impact social and educational change directly.

 

Conclusion

The authors affirm the need to strengthen social entrepreneurship education amongst preservice educators. The findings from the article show that a lack of conceptual understanding of social entrepreneurship amongst preservice educators at a university of technology was accentuated by its exclusion from the school curriculum. This calls for further research into scrutinising the secondary school curriculum for EMS and business studies. From the authors' interpretation of the preservice educators' perceptions, social entrepreneurship remains an untaught and rather unknown concept amongst in-service educators in secondary schools, which further exacerbates a misinterpretation of social entrepreneurship with entrepreneurship and CSR amongst secondary school learners. The authors confirm in this article that students' viewing of the film Who Cares?-a film on social entrepreneurship, which highlights three underlying themes, namely, sustainable development, economic development, and equity and which can be linked to Miller's (2003) principles of social justice-supplemented with deliberative engagements amongst the participants in asynchronous online discussions groups, enhanced the students' conceptual understanding of social entrepreneurship and deepened their alertness to respond to social inequalities. The authors have shown in the article, using images of the online discussions on Blackboard, that teaching and learning through film can augment social entrepreneurship education amongst preservice educators. Such a form of education would initiate students (preservice educators) into a discourse on disruption, whereby they can think about and act to redress social injustices in educational contexts. In this regard, social entrepreneurship education can cultivate a critical awareness amongst students in disrupting the social inequalities, exclusion, and oppression that deny the attainment of social justice, as Bourdieu (1977) asserted. Teaching and learning in relation to film supports critical learning and, through engaging with socioentrepreneurial encounters as Martin (2013) maintained, students and educators would be stimulated to act more positively towards disrupting social injustices. The authors propose that the teaching of entrepreneurship needs to include social entrepreneurship as a component of a curriculum that would influence social and educational change.

 

References

Adelzadeh, A. (1996). From the RDP to GEAR: The gradual embracing of neo liberalism in economic policy. Transformation, 31, 66-95.         [ Links ]

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(2), 25-42.         [ Links ]

Bond, P. (2002). Unsustainable South Africa: Environment, development and social protest. London, UK: Merlin Press.         [ Links ]

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of theory and practice. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.         [ Links ]

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, USA: Greenwood Press.         [ Links ]

Bradley, D. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2004). Self-employment and job satisfaction: Investigating the role of self-efficacy, depression and seniority. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(1), 37-58.         [ Links ]

Crisan, C., & Borza, A. (2012). Social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibilities. International Business Research, 5(2), 106-113.         [ Links ]

Davis, I. (2005). What is the business of business? McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 104-113.         [ Links ]

Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B., (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: Building on two schools of practice and thought. Research on Social Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 39-66.         [ Links ]

Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011a). Curriculum and assessment policy statement, Grades 7-9: Economic and management sciences. Pretoria, South Africa: DBE.         [ Links ]

Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011b). Curriculum and assessment policy statement, Grades 10-12: Business studies. Pretoria, South Africa: DBE.         [ Links ]

Dockel, J. A., & Lighthelm, A. A. (2005). Factors responsible for the growth of small businesses. South African Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 8(1), 54-62.         [ Links ]

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.         [ Links ]

Hockerts, N. K. (2007). Managerial perceptions of the business case for corporate social responsibility. Retrieved from http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/7117/wp%20cbscsr%202007-3.pdf?sequence=1

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy is not an option. Learning Inquiry, 1, 59-69.         [ Links ]

Lekahnya, L. M. (2015). The role of universities in promoting social entrepreneurship in South Africa. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 4(3), 67-71.         [ Links ]

Littlewood, D. C., & Holt, D. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the influence of environment. Business and Society. Advance online publication. http://doi:10.1177/0007650315613293

Lushka, P. (2008). Niche construction: The process of opportunity creation in the environment. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 268-83.         [ Links ]

Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social enterprise are formed. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=462283

Mars, M. M., Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2008). The state-sponsored student entrepreneur. Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 638-670.         [ Links ]

Miller, D. (2003). Principles of social justice. London, UK: Harvard University Press.         [ Links ]

Moodley, V. (2013). In-service teacher education: Asking questions for higher order thinking in visual literacy. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1-18.         [ Links ]

Mourão, M. (2013). Who cares? Brazil: Mamo films.

Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Nicolaides, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship: The role of higher education in South Africa. Educational Research, 2(4), 1043-1050.         [ Links ]

Pérez-Tornero, J. M. (2004). Promoting digital literacy. Barcelona, Spain: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.         [ Links ]

Pettigrew, A. W. (2009). Corporate responsibility in strategy. In N. Craig Smith & G. Lenssen (Eds.), Mainstreaming corporate responsibility (pp. 12-20). West Sussex, UK: Wiley & Sons.         [ Links ]

Rancière, J. (1999). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. London, UK: Minnesota University Press.         [ Links ]

Republic of South Africa. (2001). National plan for higher education in South Africa. Pretoria, south Africa: Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov.za/commissions/FeesHET/docs/2001-NationalPlanForHigherEducation.pdf

Republic of South Africa. (2011). National Development Plan: Vision for 2030. Pretoria, South Africa: Presidency.         [ Links ]

Roland Martin, J. (2013). Education reconfigured: Culture, encounter, and change. London, UK: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Sims, E., O' Leary, R., Cook, J., & Butland, G. (2002). Visual literacy: What is it and do we need it to use learning technologies effectively? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/EllenSims/publication/221093771Visual literacyWhatis it and do we need it to use learning technologies effectively/links/5674116008ae0ad265ba665d/Visual-literacy-What-is-it-an

Singer, S., Amorós, E. J., & Arreola, D. M. (2014). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2014 Global Report. Retrieved from http://www.spiritslovenia.si/resources/files/doc/publikacije/GEMGlobal Report 2014.pdf

Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 90-99.         [ Links ]

Timmons, J. A., & Spinelli, S. (2004). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Boston, USA: McGraw Hill Irwin.         [ Links ]

Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Haugh, H. (2005). Beyond philanthropy: Community enterprise as a basis for corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(4), 327-344.         [ Links ]

Triegaardt, J. D. (2006). Reflections on poverty and inequality in South Africa: Policy considerations in an emerging democracy. Retrieved from http://www.dbsa.org/EN/About-Us/Publications/Documents/Poverty%20and%20inequality%20in%20Sout h%20Africa%20Policy% 20considerations%20in%20an%20emerging%20democracy.pdf

Waghid, Z. (2016). A pedagogical approach to socially just relations in a Grade 11 Economics class. South African Journal of Education, 36(2), 1-18.         [ Links ]

Walton, M., Marsden, G., & Vukovic, V. (2001). 'Visual literacy' as challenge to the internationalisation of interfaces: A study of South African student web users. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.8.7460&rep=rep 1&type=pdf

Weegar, M. A., & Pacis, D. (2012). A comparison of two theories of learning: Behaviorism and constructivism as applied to face-to-face and online learning. Retrieved from http://www.g-casa.com/conferences/manila/papers/Weegar.pdf

Williams, J., & Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Education Technology, 20(20), 232-247.         [ Links ]

Zhara, S., Gedajilovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519-32.         [ Links ]