Eyal (2008) was perhaps the first scholar to study the practice of educational social en- trepreneurship. Eyal examined value generation, in terms of how parents, teachers and school leaders used value networks to help establish a new independent school. Eyal explored whether this entrepreneurial community used ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ strate- gies of building social capital to help start the school. From 20 in-depth interviews, Eyal found that bonding strategies were used to take advantage of existing opportunities in the community, while bridging strategies were used to explore new opportunities for educa- tional entrepreneurship. For example, the principal’s acquaintance with municipal offi- cials helped overcome bureaucratic barriers when starting the school. Community mem- bers supplied the raw materials, products, and labour needed to renovate the school build- ing. Eyal concluded that bonding and bridging social capital strategies complemented each other while the school was starting and suggested that those with the strongest networks and access to resources had the capacity to ‘go-it-alone’. The study offered some insights into how educators, families and communities might display socially entrepreneurial be- haviour when starting alternative forms of schooling.
Taking a different tack, Loogma, Tafel-Viia, and Ümarik (2013) investigated how the change processes of implementing educational reforms in Estonia, after the fall of the So- viet Union, could be understood through social innovation. Loogma and others believed previous research has not understood educational change processes well, and that change processes had often failed to improve teaching and learning within schools, because they are initiated and implemented among different actors within education systems, perhaps in a non-linear way (citing Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009;
McLaughlin,2008). Loogma and others argued social innovation can provide a new per-
spective on understanding processes of educational change, whether such processes are sus- tainable, and the implications of the change process for social relations; and thus whether innovations can generate value.
Loogma and others argued that change could be understood with two contrasting ap- proaches: ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ social innovation. Bottom-up innovation occurs
in response to a threat or crisis, due to certain social needs not being recognised or satis- fied, or the emergence of a new idea. Its goal is to change power relations, to legitimate new social needs, perhaps through legislation. By contrast, top-down innovation occurs when reforms and/or radical changes from the external environment require structural ad- justment. Its purpose is to introduce sustainable, systemic reform, which is normalised by changes in practices and values (Loogma et al.,2013, pp. 289–91). These approaches reflect the dynamics of social innovation, in which change can be driven by emergent grassroots causes or needs, formal institutions, or trigger events, or are co-developed in some way, through a combination of these factors or forces.
Loogma and others examined two case studies of curriculum reform, which reflected bottom-up and top-down innovation: (1) the transition to independent curricula between the late 1980s and early 1990s, during Estonia’s shift from Communist to democratic rule; and (2) the introduction of national examinations in the late 1990s, which tightened ac- countability and decreased school autonomy. In the first case, as teachers introduced new, independent curricula, these reforms represented bottom-up social innovation. Radical change grew from below and involved multiple actors, and ended with the institutionali- sation of a new national curriculum.
The second case represented incremental curricular reform in general education, whose purpose was to bring the Estonian education system into line with international trends in Western countries. These reforms were intended to give school leaders more freedom over school governance and curricula, and families and children more information, by publish- ing exam results (cf. Sahlberg,2010). However, these accountability reforms led to school competition and inequality of access for families of different backgrounds. Many teach- ers did not accept the reforms, either. These teachers believed the reforms decreased their freedom from external scrutiny, and were contrary to their professional values. Loogma and others believed the former set of reforms was a successful case of social innovation, because change was accepted, co-developed and adopted, whereas the latter set was not, since change was not consistent with many educators’ values, and so was resisted.
As an analytic approach, Loogma and others believed social innovations, which meet social needs in new ways, could help researchers to understand how these education reform processes may or may not have generated value. Comparing the two different approaches to education reform shows that while both changed the rules and norms of the education system, the top-down case did not change the culture of the teaching profession (Loogma
et al.,2013, pp. 297–99). Further, Loogma and others believed educational innovations would be hard to sustain if regulative and normative values do not align.
While some evaluation literature might prompt researchers to think about the perfor- mance of an intervention at each stage of its introduction, that is, initiation, implementa- tion and institutionalisation (Fullan,2001), Loogma and other’s research shows the kind of innovation processes used may affect whether, and to what extent, any change resulting from an educational initiative will generate value. The insights from their research, as well as Eyal’s, is helpful for thinking about if, and how, the innovations that educational SEVs use may generate value for, and through, those associated with them.