The Praxis of Grassroots Diplomacy For Social Entrepreneurship

Abstract

Social entrepreneurs design and implement innovative, sustainable, and scalable solutions to pressing social challenges across the world. While the success of their ventures is impacted by numerous factors, their long-term viability and endurance depends on the relationships built with diverse stakeholders. The praxis of grassroots diplomacy facilitates the development of harmonious and effective relationships that catalyze social change. This art and science of pro-active conflict avoidance and resolution helps navigate multifaceted social dynamics and develop successful entrepreneurial alliances and ecosystems. With the help of several examples and mini case-studies, this article articulates the meaning and importance of grassroots diplomacy. A conceptual framework based on six core competencies of proactive scenario planning, empathy, trust-based relationship building, equitable collaboration, conflict resolution, and ethical reflection is presented. Finally, a practical methodology that animates these core competences into a structured process that strengthens partnerships and ventures is presented. These concepts, competencies and methodologies are built upon the central tenets of systems thinking and self-determination that leads to systemic self-determined improvement of lives and livelihoods.

Bioinformational diplomacy: Global health emergencies, data sharing and sequential life

“…Multiple studies now point to the growing diplomatic significance of non-state actors, as well as their informal diplomatic practices that increasingly characterise the more open, networked and less state-centric multilateralism of the 21st century (Heine, 2008;Langenhove, 2016a;Slaughter, 2019). These include studies of para-diplomacy (Aldecoa and Keating, 2013;Kuznetsov, 2015), transprofessional diplomacy (Constantinou et al, 2016), everyday diplomacy (Dittmer, 2015;Marsden et al, 2016), science diplomacy (Kaltofen and Acuto, 2018;Langenhove, 2016b), global health diplomacy (Davies et al, 2015;Katz, 2009), private diplomacy (Scott-Smith, 2014), grassroots diplomacy (Hinton et al, 2014;Payne, 2009) and data diplomacy (Jacobson et al, 2018). Building upon this body of scholarship, the notion of bioinformational diplomacy similarly operates with such a broader understanding of diplomacy that encompasses both formal inter-governmental negotiations occurring in diplomatic fora (such as the World Health Organization or the Convention on Biodiversity), as well as many informal practices also widely utilised by non-state actors (like scientists and industry) to internationally exchange such data.…”

Five Guiding Principles to Enhance Community Participation in Humanitarian Engineering Projects.

“…Many papers (n = 21) advised that engineers need to consider issues related to ethics and social justice. For instance, engineers need to think about the ethical issues related to doing research with people in developing countries (Hinton et al, 2014). To make sure that they were adhering to proper ethical standards related to research, 2010) followed accepted guidelines and protocols for research with human subjects, including by securing appropriate approvals (e.g., via an institutional review board or similar body).…”

“…To make sure that they were adhering to proper ethical standards related to research, 2010) followed accepted guidelines and protocols for research with human subjects, including by securing appropriate approvals (e.g., via an institutional review board or similar body). This is particularly important because distrust between engineers and communities can be generated when ethical issues are not taken into account (Hinton et al, 2014).…”

“…With social justice as the aim, some papers suggested addressing the effect of root causes and structural conditions of problems in communities (Amadei et al, 2009;Leydens and Lucena, 2014;Nieusma and Riley, 2010;Parson, 1996), such as "economic, cultural, or other conditions that enable or constrain community aspirations" (Leydens & Lucena, 2014, p. 9). Others also recognised the importance of mitigating power differentials between engineers and community members (Hinton et al, 2014;Leydens and Lucena, 2014;Murphy et al, 2009;Nieusma and Riley, 2010), respecting human "Five Guiding Principles to Enhance Community ..." -Mazzurco & Jesiek rights (Byars et al, 2009;Bowen and Acciaioli, 2015), increasing opportunities, mitigating imposed risks and harms, and enhancing human capabilities (Leydens and Lucena, 2014).…”

“…However, ethical decision-making is not the only factor that contributes to trust. Maintaining equitable relationships that ensure an appropriate distribution of contributions of money, energy, and time amongst all people involved in a project is often associated with higher levels of trust (Aslam et al, 2014;Hinton et al, 2014;Mehta and Mehta, 2011).…”