Determinants of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions - MyAssignmenthelp.c

Question: Discuss about the Determinants of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Answer: Introduction: There are different theories of learning that have been postulated, which influence the way people learn. One theory that has been posited is the constructivism, which states that learners construct knowledge through mental reorganization when interacting with the environment. Entrepreneurs play a pivotal role as drivers of the economy globally. In this course on entrepreneurial theories, I feel that I have used this approach in order to make sense of the different approaches that have been set forth. The Gibbs model of reflection is an important tool in reflecting on the learning journey. I use it as the primary tool in order to present my reflections during this course. During this course, I was surprised to discover that the concept of entrepreneurism has many varied theories that seek to explain it. It was presented as a distinct concept worthy of scholarly discourse and this was an eye opener to me. I had always assumed that an entrepreneur is someone with qualities that are arcane and which have no scientific explanation. The various theories dispelled this notion that I had always believed to be true. I was able to identify with the Risk Bearing theory, since I had always assumed entrepreneurs to be risk takers. The different theories that were discussed helped to broaden my understanding of economic activity within the parameters of being an entrepreneur. The different theories have changed the way I feel about the different theories that have been set. Entrepreneurs are one of the main factors that drive economic activity and are presented as concept that is distinct. Peter Druckers theory states that new values are generated according to his postulation (Nikolowski, 2016). I thought that was a positive outcome, since most entrepreneurs are portrayed as being amoral and without ethical values. I felt this was beneficial as it gave the human face to entrepreneurs apart from material gain. At the same time, I was anxious to learn more in terms of wanting to relate real entrepreneurs to each theory. I felt that this was not effectively done and this remains as a gap which I need do further studies. My evaluation in different group discussions is that most of the other students did not see the possibility of becoming entrepreneurs in the future. The discussions took on a purely theoretic approach with few or no references to real world situations. There was little effort made in linking the different theories to different enterprises or entrepreneurs. This gave me cause for concern as the topic did not have the depth of academic exchange necessary for future real life application. Most students felt that despite all the body of knowledge presented, entrepreneurs are made and not taught. Their take was that one is born with a special ability which cannot be taught within the classroom context. Stage four: Analysis. The different theories that have been set out are improvements on the early postulations: Jean-Baptise Say improved on the approach taken by Richard Cantillon (Brown Christopher, 2013). Each theorist propounded on one aspect that aims to build the overall body knowledge on entrepreneurism. This is effective in sealing the knowledge gaps and holistically makes the topic complete. Frank Knight focuses on taking risks while Max Weber narrows down to the immediate society as the main factor of driving entrepreneurism (Foss, Foss Klein, 2007). Mark Casson posits that economic conditions which are conducive are the main promoter of entrepreneurism (Acs Audretsch, 2010). Thus the different theories are not competing but complementary in nature and this is helpful in gaining competency in this course unit. Stage five: Conclusion. One thing that I feel was not given enough time for discussion is where entrepreneurs do not fit any theory that has been set forth. The approach that was taken was where the theory is set forth as the donkey pulling the cart. The theory comes first to justify the cart it is pulling. I believe that there could be situations where the cart (read the entrepreneur) can come first and they can justify a completely new theoretical approach (Alvarez, 2005).The changing dynamics that are impacted by technology were not also concretely given proper discourse (Steyaert Hjorth, 2006). I will have to look up academic literature that presents the impact of technology on new entrepreneurs and whether this changes the current theories that have been presented. Stage six: Action Plan. The experience gleaned from this course is that I am more prepared to start a business enterprise with knowledge that is relevant. I had never thought of starting on my own as an entrepreneur, but this course has changed my outlook. Knowing the different approaches that have been presented are helpful while the real examples we discussed is motivational and inspirational (Hockerts, 2017). Combining knowledge with motivation and inspiration is a recipe for success as an entrepreneur. It has helped reveal my strengths which are the moral values I espouse. It has also exposed my weaknesses which was taking risks. Overcoming the limitations and leveraging on my strengths will help me to become a successful entrepreneur once I graduate. Entrepreneurs play a pivotal role in the global economy. Learning approaches differ according to the different theories that have been postulated. Within the context of this unit, constructivism was the approach that I took in order to make sense of the topic on entrepreneurism. The Gibbs reflective cycle has been useful in reflecting on my learning journey in this unit. Starting with the description to the action plan, I have been able to articulate what I felt and the gaps that I identified. I was also able to analyze and evaluate my learning process and what I still need to study in order to have a deeper grasp of the topic. I feel I am better prepared to launch into a career as an entrepreneur and this knowledge is relevant and helpful. References A?cs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Handbook of entrepreneurship research. New York: Springer. Alvarez, S. (2005). Theories of entrepreneurship: Alternative assumptions and the study of entrepreneurial action. Boston: Now. Brown, C., Thornton, M. (2013). HOW ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY CREATED ECONOMICS. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 16(4), 401-419. Callara, L. R. (2008). Nursing education challenges in the 21st century. New York: Nova Science Pub. Foss, K., Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G. (2007). Original and Derived Judgment: An Entrepreneurial Theory of Economic Organization. Organization Studies (01708406), 28(12), 1893-1912. doi:10.1177/0170840606076179 Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory Practice, 41(1), 105-130. doi:10.1111/etap.12171 Nikolowski, K. (2016). SOCIETY OF KNOWLEDGE AND ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMY: SOME VIEWS OF DRUCKER. Annals of 'Constantin Brancusi' University Of Targu-Jiu. Economy Series, (5), 95-100. Steyaert, C., Hjorth, D. (2006). Entrepreneurship as social change: A third new movements in entrepreneurship book. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.