Local Wisdom-Based Social Entrepreneurial Participative Training
Dayat Hidayat
Nonformal Education Department, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, University of Singaperbangsa Karawang
Jl. HS. Ronggowaluyo, East Telukjambe, Karawang 41361, Indonesia
Keywords: Participative Training, Social Entrepreneurial, Local Wisdom.
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to analyze the planning, implementation and evaluation of local wisdom-based
social entrepreneurial participative training which stems from the cultural values and local wisdom of society.
This study used literature analysis method of various sources and conducted in-depth analysis to find a
conclusion that can be justified scientifically. The results of the study concluded that the training plan of local
wisdom-based social entrepreneurial participative training was carried out through the following stages: the
recruitment of trainees; the identification of learning needs; learning resources and possible obstacles;
determination and formulation of training objectives; drafting initial and final evaluation tools; constituent
sequence training activities; and the implementation of the initial assessment for participants. During the
implementation phase, the organizers created the open, intimate, and targeted training situation. Interaction
training runs horizontally. Training approach was centered on training participants. Training methods and
techniques were used individually and groups. Assessment of training was conducted through the stages of
the assessment process of the final results, an assessment of the effects of the training that includes three
aspects which are interrelated, and evaluation of training programs to assess the entire training from beginning
to end.
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the strategies is used by establishment and
development of attitudes, behaviors, and
entrepreneurial culture is through training. Training is
the process of learning or giving experience to
someone to develop behavior (knowledge, skills,
attitude) in order to achieve something desired. Good
(1973) argues that training is also defined as a process
of assisting others in acquiring skills and knowledge.
In the context of entrepreneurship training,
Riyanto (2000:5-6) argues that entrepreneurship
training is a kind of education that teaches to be able
to create own business activities. Such training is
carried out by: 1) building faith, soul and spirit, 2)
building and developing the mental attitude and
entrepreneurial character, 3) developing thinking
power and ways of entrepreneurship, 4) promoting
and developing self-motivating, 5) understanding and
mastering techniques for dealing with risks,
competition and a process of cooperation, 6)
understanding and mastering the ability to share
ideas, 7) management or processing abilities, and 8)
possessing certain skills including mastery of certain
foreign languages for communication purposes.
Wahyudin's research (2012) related to
entrepreneurship development illustrates that
entrepreneurial behavior is shaped by three factors:
innate, environmental, and training. From that
factors, the training factor will give a better effect
than the other two factors. Through the training
undertaken entrepreneurial behavior can be formed in
particular related to psychological independence and
entrepreneurial mental attitude. The results show that
through the application of entrepreneurial training
model of ecocultural background can effectively
improve the empowerment of the rural poor.
Social entrepreneurship training is a solution to
solve social problems. The goal of social
entrepreneurship is the happening of social change
towards a better or positive and solve social problems
for the benefit of society. Social entrepreneurship is a
form of business that aims to make social change by
solving social problems using entrepreneurial
principles. Social entrepreneurship, simultaneous
pursuit of economic, social, and environmental goals
by companies in order to find the cause of problems
in society and environment (Haug, 2007).
Social entrepreneurship and its methods,
borrowed from the business world, are increasingly
138
Hidayat, D.
Local Wisdom-Based Social Entrepreneurial Participative Training.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 1, pages 138-145
ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

popular among morally conscious people who are
called to solve social problems and may earn income
in the process. Social entrepreneurship executes
innovative solutions to so-called social problems,
whether local, regional, national, or international.
Some of problems often occur in the
implementation of social entrepreneurship training is
the lack of participation of learners in planning,
implementation and assessment. In practice, the
acquisition of entrepreneurial knowledge and skills is
more oriented to the trainer which is characterized by:
1) the presence of the trainer is more important than
the learners, 2) the trainer has power over the process,
3) the learners tend to be passive (listening, and ask
for clarification), 4) method was used by lecturing,
and 5) the learners tend to be seated as training
objects.
In addition, the development of a social
entrepreneurship training program is less pay
attention to local wisdom as a set of plans and
arrangements on objectives, content and training
materials that are tailored to the diversity of potential,
characteristics, excellence, regional needs, values,
customs, culture, and environment.
Development of local wisdom-based social
entrepreneurial participative training should be
arranged in a systematic, logical, and planned
consisting of various components that mutually
support and influence each other. The components of
training, among others, objectives, materials,
methods, media, learning resources, and assessment
systems. Development of local wisdom-based social
entrepreneurial participative training contains local-
based potential materials. The implication of the
entrepreneurship training materials development
should be linked to the conditions, potential,
characteristics, excellence, regional needs, values,
culture, customs and environment (natural, social and
cultural) as outlined in the form of training materials
with time allocation.
The general purpose of social entrepreneurship
training based on local wisdom is to prepare learners
to have knowledge, attitudes and entrepreneurship
skills in accordance with environmental conditions,
so as to develop natural resources, as well as improve
the social and cultural quality of the region in
accordance with the regional development. The
specific purpose of entrepreneurship training based
on local wisdom is that learners more easily about the
environment and culture in their area and materials
that are applicative and integrated with real life can
utilize local learning resources for the benefit of
training, more familiar with the natural environment,
social environment, and culture in their respective
areas, can increase knowledge, skills, attitudes and
entrepreneurial values that support the regional
economic development.
The research results of Bakhtiar, A.M. and
Nugroho, A.S. (2016) concluded that the research
results of environment education curriculum
development based on local wisdom showed
satisfactory results. Based on input from experts and
assessments, the developed curriculum can be
distributed to elementary schools in the area UPTD
(the District Education Office) Kedamean, Gresik
Indonesia. There are five curriculum principles that
are raised as the main characteristics of local
wisdom. The five points include: 1) the local
farming systems; 2) the provision of green open
land; 3) water treatment systems; 4) the processed
food products which are based locally; 5) the
livelihoods of local patterned communities.
In terms of training for the community in
developing entrepreneurship, theoretically this
condition occurs because of limited humanity in
individual, where entrepreneurs need social processes
in learning of entrepreneurship (Davidson et al.,
2001). Binks and Vale (in Rae 2005) argue that there
are limitations of economic theory in understanding
the sociological and psychological aspects of human
beings in their entrepreneurial behavior.
Subsequently, a participatory training paradigm
has been developed that refers more to the
involvement of trainees in decision-making process,
implementation of activities, participate in the results
of activities and participate in evaluating them
(Uphoff, 1992). Participatory training is a process of
engaging trainees as individuals and social groups
and organizations, taking an active role in influencing
the planning, implementation and monitoring
processes of policies that directly affect their lives.
Participatory training is a shift in trainer's oriented
training paradigms, becoming more learner oriented.
The paradigm of participatory entrepreneurship
training based on local wisdom is characterized by: 1)
the full involvement of the trainees; 2) giving
freedom to critical thinking learners and cooperating;
3) using varied learning methods; 4) more internal
motivation of the learners; 5) the atmosphere of fun
training, 6) a more thorough integration of learning
into the entire life of the organization, and 7) not only
provide learners with the knowledge and skills, but
more importantly provide opportunities for self-
development.
Local wisdom-based social entrepreneurial
participative training is part of the structure and
content of the curriculum contained in the content
standards of community entrepreneurship program
Local Wisdom-Based Social Entrepreneurial Participative Training
139

curriculum. A community business group should
utilize local learning resources effectively and
efficiently to support the implementation of social
entrepreneurship training materials to solve social
problems within the community.
Social entrepreneurship training takes place
through a learning process aimed at improving the
entrepreneurial competencies of learners based on the
stages of planning, implementing, and assessing the
process and outcome of the training. Development of
training materials are adjusted to customs, values,
customs, culture.
Based on the above description of research on
local wisdom-based social entrepreneurial
participative training is done. This study aims to
analyze the participation of training learners in
planning, implementing and evaluating local
wisdom-based social entrepreneurial participative
training of the communities where people live.
2 METHOD
This study uses a descriptive qualitative research
method that investigates concepts through
theoretical analysis. Researchers identified, studied
and then cataloged data to gain an understanding of
the concept of training, social entrepreneurship, and
local wisdom knowledge that can be observed
directly or indirectly. The theoretical concept is the
main data. The researcher interprets the data and
facts to get a clear explanation of the concepts of
training, social entrepreneurship, and local wisdom
to collect conclusively. Qualitatively, data
processing and analysis were performed using steps:
reducing data, presenting data, summarizing data
and verifying data (Miles and Huberman, 1992).
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Training has become a separate program that is
implemented by various agencies or institutions
aimed at improving of various skills and techniques
in the implementation of the work required at the
present time. Training is a short-term education
process that uses systematic and organized
procedures for learners to learn knowledge and
technical skills in a limited goal.
Today, social entrepreneurship training has
become a distinct phenomenon in social
development. Social or community development
are all efforts that continually influence, guide the
process of growth and development of society
toward the goal which is aspired by the expected
speed by placing human as a central point. In the
implementation of social development is closely
related to social innovation.
Innovation plays a vital role in business
competition. While Schumpeter introduces a term of
'creative destruction' to point out the role of agents
in economic development (Borchert and Cardozo,
2010; Pettus, 2011).
The construct of innovation brings nexus among
numerous variables, such as entrepreneurial
orientation or innovation success. In order to draw a
distinction between innovation in entrepreneurial
orientation and innovation success, this paper
highlights that innovation success is the concrete
result from innovation process (Baker and Sinkula,
2009).
The concept of social innovation itself for
decades has grown and is largely attributed to social
entrepreneurship. The reason is because of the
various literature and research suggests that social
innovation is the process and outcome of the
activities undertaken in social entrepreneurship.
Social entrepreneurship is as an innovative solution
in solving social problems.
Gallie and Legros (2012) highlight the important
role of human capital in innovation when studying
French firms. The innovation success is influenced
by many factors. Parkman et al. (2012) argue that
entrepreneurship orientation is one of the important
factors affecting innovation success, especially in
creative industry.
The process of entrepreneurship in developing
countries tends to refer to 'creative imitation' due to
imitation process from other side of the world with
different levels of adhocracy (Naranjo-Valencia et
al., 2011).
Regarding to social entrepreneurship,
Hendrasmoro (2012) put forward his research results
which conclude that the “Ivory Community” has a
number of problems from the aspects of production
and marketing. Nevertheless, there are a number of
opportunities to obtain solutions related to product
marketing, raw material handling to the storage and
packaging of finished products, and the completeness
of the means of production processes. Regardless of
the problems it faces, “Ivory Community” continues
to play its role as a social entrepreneurship.
Social entrepreneurship has been a topic
of academic inquiry for nearly 20 years, relatively
little scholarly output yet has appeared in
mainstream management and entrepreneurship
journals (Short et al., 2009:161). Social
entrepreneurship is a beautiful and growing vehicle in
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
140

society to tackle social problems in innovative ways
(Maas, K. and Grieco, C., 2017).
Social entrepreneurship identifies opportunities to
encourage change in society in order to solve new
social problems, by providing new ideas and
providing new types of services and by seeking new
or more efficient integration of resources. Therefore,
social entrepreneurship is usually associated with
social innovation. In addition, social entrepreneurship
can be reviewed from three main elements:
motivation, organization, and society (Durieux and
Stebbins, 2010). Social entrepreneurship includes and
emphasizes creation value, innovation, agent/social
change, opportunity and resourcefulness.
Moss and Lumpkin in Wankel and Pate (2014:17)
describe social entrepreneurship: first, we view social
entrepreneurship as a process of creating value by
combining resources in new ways. Second, these
resources combinations are meant primarily to
explore and exploit opportunities to create social
value by stimulating social change or meeting social
needs. And third, when viewed as a process, social
entrepreneurship involves the offering of services and
products but can also refer to the creation of new
organizations.
Entrepreneurship can not be separated by
innovation. Therefore, it is only natural that social
entrepreneurship has a dimension of social
innovation. Entrepreneurs need to search
purposefully for the sources of innovation, the
changes and their symptoms that indicate the need for
successful innovation.
Richez and Petrella (2013) argue that social
entrepreneurship is a different type of
entrepreneurship that aims to create social value,
which is a large-scale benefit to society. Social
entrepreneurship identifies opportunities and social
potential for changes in society to solve social
problems through new ideas and provide new types
of services and by seeking new or more efficient
integration of resources. Therefore, social
entrepreneurship is usually associated with social
innovation based on local wisdom of the local
community.
Local wisdom is the habits, traditions, costums,
rules, and values as a result of cognitif efforts that
have the good and the wisdom that is adhered to
implemented and obeyed by certain communities.
The nature of local wisdom suggest that costums,
tradition, rules, and values apply only and will bring
good benefits to the communities in which they live
and interact.
In Asia local wisdom values highly, one of them
is Kongprasertamom’s research (2007). Research
findings indicated that in particular, the local
fishermen employed their local wisdom to collect
clams and shellfish. They were able to make their
own gear in such a way as not to destroy the natural
resources and to ensure the preservation of the
natural resources for a long time. Local wisdom was
also used in the formation of community
development projects such as an eco-tourism group
and a processed seafood group. It is anticipated that
these projects will lead to sustainable resources
management.
Research of Dahliani’s et all. (2015) related to
local wisdom illustrates that local wisdom means
harmonious relationship between man, nature and the
built environment in an area that is also influenced
by its culture. This research, result showed that
local wisdom on the built environment in
globalization era, changing with the development of
technology and communications. Changes occur in
the pattern of space and building elements, but the
meaning contained in the building as a form of local
wisdom is maintained. In the era of globalization, a
blend of cultures will occur. In this case, local
wisdom can keep up with technology in a way taking
into account the local character, the climate and
natural conditions in the built environment.
The results of research’s Sudarmin and Pujiastuti
(2013) found that the value of soft skills such
Karimunjawa community is working hard,
persevering, mutual cooperation, religious, friendly,
caring and nurturing environment. The results
showed that the conservation of moral message
posted on the bulletin board in the Karimunjawa
National Park is the conservation of sea turtles,
marine fish, marine life, and a variety of coral reef
Karimunjawa results also found that local knowledge
is still maintained in the plant community dewandaru,
Setigi, kalimosodho, soft skills and love of the nation,
caring environment, religous, friendly, work hard,
and democratic.
Further research results of Sapir et al. (2014)
concluded that the research findings were successful
in reconstructing the entrepreneurial model of creative
industry learning in new perspectives in which social
factors and entrepreneurial personality were identified
as having the similarities in shaping themselves into
successful entrepreneurs. In addition, environmental
change factors determine how they act in managing
business management both with managerial behavior
of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. Local
religious and cultural values are internalized through
spoken language and exemplary behavior of creative
industry business pioneers that strengthen the
economy of society.
Local Wisdom-Based Social Entrepreneurial Participative Training
141

Entrepreneurship training has evolved an
important study in the research and development
entrepreneurial paradigms related to the study of
entrepreneurial academic studies and practical
development for new entrepreneurs, but the research
is still rare and not much understood well (Deakins,
2000). Entrepreneurship itself is a learner, who
constanly explores the successfull desires of his life
journey (Franco and Haase, 2009).
Social entrepreneurship training aims to shape the
entrepreneurial personality. The personal
characteristics of the entrepreneur, according to
Deakins (1998) are entrepreneurs who demonstrate
future-oriented achievement, taking into account
risks, internal locus of high control, innovative,
tolerant of ambiguity and visionary. Risk-taking over
uncertainty is always attempted to be an opportunity
of certainty.
According to Hudson and Wulleman (2010), in
this paper seeks to improve the understanding of
social entrepreneurship models based on empirical
evidence from Mexico, where social entrepreneurship
is currently booming. It aims to supplement existing
typologies of social entrepreneurship models. To that
end, building on typology it begins by providing a
new framework classifying the three types of social
entrepreneurship. Findings suggest that these distinct
typologies are evolving in a dynamic manner
determined by the resources and ambitions of social
entrepreneurs. Starting either as social bricoleurs or
as social constructionists, social entrepreneurs aspire
to become social engineers. Moreover, social
constructionists usually present hybrid business
models.
The integrated model of local wisdom-based
social entrepreneurial training shows that there are
several factors that influence the action and success
of entrepreneu rship. These factors are the personality
of the entrepreneur, the social influence, the creative
ability, the availability of local support facilities, the
ability to control the supporting facilities and local
resources as well as the ability to access capital.
The act of starting a business is influenced by
personality, social relations, environmental
conditions, creative ability. Personality
characteristics, including: risk tolerance, tolerance of
uncertainty, vision, inspirational capacity, creativity,
strict internal control, firm and persistent, self-
control, confidence, energy/high spirits, proactive,
self-induced, flexible, learning ability, commitment
to others. Social relations, including: culture of
interdependence, pilot culture, cultural tradition,
culture of success or failure, social safety net.
Environmental conditions, including: availability of
local resources and facilities, market opportunities,
regulatory support. Creative capabilities, including:
the ability to control resources and local facilities,
access finance, build alliances.
Local wisdom-based social entrepreneurial
participative training of nonformal education
program is an entrepreneurship development process
that emphasizes the involvement of learners in
planning, implementation and evaluate the learning
process. Wisdom-based entrepreneurship training
planning is conducted through the recruitment stages
of trainees, identification of learning needs, learning
resources and possible barriers, determination and
formulation of training objectives, preparation of
preliminary evaluation tools and final evaluation,
sequencing of training activities, training for trainers,
and implementation of preliminary assessments for
trainees.
In connection with entrepreneurship training
based on local wisdom, the results of research also
have shown Himawan et al. (2014). The aim of this
study is to identify the types of local knowledge in the
form of local wisdom available in the management of
former mine lands. Local Wisdom studied is
Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) that can be the
basis for initiating a Local Service System (LSS).
Local knowledge examined in this study is obtained
from the expression of paradigm and patterns of
action manifested by communities living adjacent to
the former mine lands. The findings of this study can
be used to apply the concept of sustainable
development towards the green era and become
guidelines for people in the areas that have the
characteristics of former mine lands and identical or
nearly identical culture.
Thus it can be concluded that local wisdom is a
reflection of the community view and interact with
the surrounding environment, both the social
environment and physical environment.
Mungmachon (2012) mentions that local wisdom is a
basic knowledge gained from living in balance with
nature. This is related to the culture of society that is
accumulated and passed on. Thus, an important
characteristic of local wisdom is that it comes from
experience or truth derived from life.
Furthermore, in relation to the participative
paradigm in the entrepreneurship training process,
Gahee in Mangkunegara (2008:51) suggests the
principles of training planning as 1) the material must
be given systematically and by stages, 2) the stages
must be adjusted to the objectives 3) the trainer
should be able to motivate and disseminate responses
related to a series of training materials; 4) the
presence of reinforcement to generate a positive
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
142

response from the participants; and 5) using the
concept of shaping behavior.
The participatory model in developing
entrepreneurship based on local wisdom is a training
strategy that involves the participation of learners in
planning, implementing and evaluating training
programs. This is in line with the principle of
participatory training proposed by Sudjana (2004)
which suggests that the involvement of learners is
realized in three stages of program planning, program
implementation and program evaluation of training
activities.
Further Sudjana (2004) suggests that participatory
training is based on the following principles: 1) based
on learning needs based. Sources of information
about learning needs are learners. These needs can be
identified from the institutions or organizations that
assign tasks to the participants of the targeted
agencies of the institution or organization in which
the learners work or are tasked, 2) oriented towards
the learning objectives and objectives oriented.
Learning objectives are developed by the trainer with
the learners, taking into account the learners'
experience, the potential they have and the resources
available in their living environment and possible
barriers that arise in the training activities, 3) learners
centered. Learners are included and should play an
important role in planning, implementation, and
assessment, and 4) experiential learning.
Participatory training process is organized and
implemented by departing from the things learned in
the form of knowledge, values, and skills possessed
by the learners as well as from the learners'
experience, both from experience in daily work tasks
as well as real experience that is lifted from the task
or work of the learners of learning.
On the planning stage of the training, several
aspects of planning, such as the basis for the
preparation of the training program, the identification
and analysis of training needs, formulating training
objectives, designing training programs, and
developing a framework for training courses on social
entrepreneurship based on local wisdom.
In the implementation of the training takes place
the learning process to improve the competence of
participants based on the stages that have been
prepared in the planning, which consists of starting
the training process, approving the training plan and
conducting training. In participatory training, trainers
should be able to condition conducive learning
conditions and conditions for capacity building of
learners. Therefore, to facilitate the training process
required a certain approach, method or technique to
reduce the barriers that occur in its application.
In the implementation of the training process, the
role of the trainer is very important, because the
coaches are very instrumental in facilitating the
implementation of the training process. The role of
the coach is very important because it determines the
quality of the training program. Therefore, the
training provider should select a competent trainer in
the field, monitor the performance of the trainer,
ensuring that the trainer mastered the scope of the
training materials to be delivered.
The final stage of the social entrepreneurship
training process is assessment. Sudjana (2004) argues
that assessment can be defined as a systematic
activity for collecting, processing and presenting data
or information required as input for decision making.
Assessment as an activity to determine the
effectiveness of a training program. The main
function of the assessment is to provide correct data
and information on the implementation of a training,
so that the training organizers can take the appropriate
decision, whether the training will be forwarded,
postponed or terminated.
Assessment of social entrepreneurship training is
conducted through the process assessment stage, final
outcome assessment, and assessment of the impact of
training activities. These three stages of assessment
are interrelated. Lastly, an assessment of the training
program was conducted to assess all training
activities from start to finish as an input for the
development of further training that is based on local
cultural values and wisdom.
4 CONCLUSIONS
On the planning stage of local wisdom-based social
entrepreneurial participative training, implemented
through steps, recruitment of training participants,
identification of learning needs, learning resources,
and possible barriers, determination and formulation
of training objectives, preparation of early
evaluation tools and final evaluation, sequencing of
training activities, training for trainers, and
implementation of assessment for learners.
In the implementation stage of local wisdom-
based social entrepreneurial participative training, the
managers create an open, intimate and targeted
relationship training situation. Interaction training is
conducted through horizontal relationship. Training
activities are more emphasized on the liveliness and
participation of trainees. The training approach
centers on learners in the preparation of training
materials. The role of trainers helps learners
undertake entrepreneurship training activities.
Local Wisdom-Based Social Entrepreneurial Participative Training
143

Training methods and techniques used individualized
learning, with tutorial techniques, individual
guidance, individual learning, and apprenticeship.
Group learning methods, with discussion techniques,
simulations, group work, problem solving, and role
playing. Methods of mass learning, with social
contact techniques, social coercion, demonstrations,
and participation actions.
Assessment of local wisdom-based social
entrepreneurial participative training is conducted
through the final assessment process stage.
Assessment is conducted on the outcomes and
impacts of training activities covering three
interrelated aspects, and assessment of the training
program to assess all training activities from start to
finish. The results of the assessment of the training
program become inputs for further training
development. At the appraisal stage, the trainer
motivates the learners to assess the experience of
skills already possessed in the actual task or in his life.
REFERENCES
Baker, W. E., Sinkula, J. M. 2009. The Complementary
Effect of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurial
Orientation on Profitability in Small Business, Journal
of Small Business Management. 474: 443-464.
Bakhtiar, A.M., Nugroho, A.S. 2016. Curriculum
Development of Environmental Education Based on
Local Wisdom at Elementary School. International
Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research. 15 3: 20-28.
Borchert, P.S., Cardozo R.N. 2010. Creative Destruction
and Creative Combination. Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship. 152:64-75.
Dahliani, Soemarno, I., Setijanti, P. 2015. Local Wisdom In
Built Environment In Globalization Era. International
Journal of Education and Research. 36:157-166.
Davidsson, P., Low, M., Wright, M. 2001. Editor’s
Introduction: Low and MacMillan Ten Years On:
A chievements and F uture Directions for
Entrepreneurship Research, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice. 254: 5-15.
Deakins, D., Freel, M. 1998. Entrepreneurial Learning
and The G rowth P rocess in SMEs, The Learning
Organization. 53: 144-155.
Durieux, M.B., Stebbins, R.A. 2010. Social
Entrepreneurship for Dummies. Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Canada.
Franco, M., Haase, K. 2009. Entrepreneurship: An
Organizational Learning Approach. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development. 164: 628-641.
Gallié, E., Legros, D. 2012. Firms' Human Capital, RandD
and Innovation: A Study on French Firms”. Empirical
Economics. 432, 581-596.
Good, C.V. 1973. Dictionary of Education. McGraw Hill
Book Company, Inc. New York.
Haugh, H. 2007. New Strategies for a Sustainable Society:
The Growing Contribution of Social Entrepreneurship.
Business Ethics Quarterly. 174:743-749.
Hendrasmoro. 2012. Social Entrepreneurship Makanan
Ringan Berbahan Baku Hasil Bumi Lokal. Jurnal
Entrepreur dan Entrepreurship. 11: 41-47.
Himawan, W., Sjarkowie, F., Alfitri. 2014. Local Wisdom
from The Socio-Ecological Perspectives: Managing
Former Mine Lands in Achieving Green Era. Journal Of
Humanities And Social Science. 1912:52-57.
Hudson, M., Wulleman, M. 2016. Models of Social
Entrepreneurship: Empirical Evidence from Mexico.
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. 72:162-188.
Kongprasertamom, K. 2007. Local Wisdom,
Environmental Protection and Community
Development: The Clam Farmers in Tambon
Bangkhunsai, Phetchaburi Province, Thailand.
Manusya, Journal of Humanities. 101:1-10.
Maas, K., Grieco, C. 2017. Distinguishing Game Changers
from Boastful Charlatans: Which Social Enterprises
Measure Their Impact? Journal Social
Entrepreneurship. 81:110-128.
Mangkunegara. 2008. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia
Perusahaan. Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Milles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. 1992. Analisis Data
Kualitatif. Universitas Indonesia Press, Jakarta.
Mungmachon, R. 2012. Knowledge and Local Wisdom:
Community Treasure. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science. 213:174-181.
Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., Sanz-Valle,
R. 2011. Innovation or Imitation? The Role of
Organizational Culture. Management Decision. 491:
55-72.
Parkman, I. D., Holloway, S.S., Sebastiao, S.S. 2012.
Creative Industries: Aligning Entrepreneurial
Orientation and Innovation Capacity. Journal of
Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship,
141:95-114.
Pate, L., Wankel, C. 2014. Emerging Researh Direction in
Social Entrepreneurship. Springer Science+Business
Media, Springer.
Pettus, M. 2011. From ‘Creative Contruction’ through
‘Creative Destruction’. Competition Forum. 91:1-4.
Rae, D. 2005. Entrepreneurial Learning: A Narrative-
Based Conceptual Model. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development. 123: 323-335.
Richez, B.N., Petrella, F. 2013. Social Entrepreneurship.
Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. Springer Science+ Business Media,
Springer.
Riyanto, A. 2000. Kapita Selekta Kewirausahaan.
Yapemdo, Bandung.
Sapir, Prstikno, H., Wasiti, Hermawan, A. 2014. Model
Pembelajaran Kewirausahaan Berbasis Kearifan
Lokal Untuk Penguatan Ekonomi. Jurnal Pendidikan
dan Pembelajaran LP3 Universitas Negeri Malang.
211: 79-91.
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
144

Short, J.C., Moss, T.W., Lumpkin, G.T. 2009. Research in
Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future
Opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
31:
161-194.
Sudarmin, Pujiastuti, S.E. 2013.
Scientific Knowledge
Based Culture and Local
Wisdom in Karimunjawa for
Growing Soft Skills Conservation. International
Journal of Science and Research. 614:598-604.
Sudjana, D. 2004. Strategi Pembelajaran. Falah
Production, Bandung.
Uphoff, N. 1992. A Field Methodology for Participatory
Self-Evaluation of PPP Group and Inter-group
Association Performance. Human Resources
Instituation and Agrarian Reform Division, Food and
Agriculture Organization of United Nation University,
Ithaca. New York.
Wahyudin, U. 2012. Pelatihan Kewirausahaan Berbasis
Ekokultural untuk Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Miskin
Pedesaan, Mimbar, Jurnal Sosial dan Pembangunan
UNISBA. 171:55-64.
Local Wisdom-Based Social Entrepreneurial Participative Training
145