JCPSLP Vol 20 No 2 July 2018

conscious decision-making on the part of the rural health professionals. While the relationship of the participants’ social entrepreneurial activities to their profession and/or work varied, these activities were viewed by participants as being part of their world view. That is to say: participants sought to help their communities in ways they saw as either of particular interest to them personally or born of professional responsibility. Participants reported initiating social entrepreneurial activities when they saw a need for leadership on both informal and formal existing community projects. Participants also reported personal positive outcomes from being involved in a community project, though the nature of these reports varied. Interestingly, participants did not mention economic outcomes from their projects. This is not to say that there were not economic outcomes of note for the communities, but that they weren’t discussed by participants. Participants described their ability to facilitate outcomes in community projects as being related to the nature and extent of the professional and non-professional relationships they had built over time. Professionals within rural communities are well placed to build social capital in their community due to their “layered perspective”, a finding that is consistant with the broader idea that rural health professionals don’t just provide service to the community but are part of the community. A limitation of the study exists within the recruitment procedures. As participants responded to a flyer about participation in activities that generate social outcomes, the participants were therefore self-selected as individuals who had participated in community projects with social outcomes. Due to the self-selection of participants the findings do not give an indication of the rates at which health professionals contribute to their community’s social capital. The self-selection also limits discussion of any barriers that rural health professionals may face in attempting to engage in social entrepreneurship, and therefore restricts conversation with policy-makers to facilitating the current engagement of health professionals, rather than improving the number of health professionals currently involved in social entrepreneurial activities. In conclusion, while not all rural health providers are entrepreneurs, they can be. The “layered perspective” of rural health providers within their communities facilitates their successful involvement in entrepreneurial roles within community projects. The authors argue that this involvement supports rural communities to become more resilient, especially within a paradigm of health. Despite the fact that speech pathologists are not mentioned explicitly in the article, it seems reasonable that the role of social entrepreneur would apply equally to speech pathologists in a rural context as it would to other allied health professionals. Therefore, speech pathologists may be well placed to build social capital in rural communities around communication, swallowing, participation and other domains that are consistent with our professional remit and world-view.

Farmer, J., & Kilpatrick, S. (2009). Are rural health professionals also social entrepreneurs? Social Science & Medicine , 69 , 1651–1658, doi: 10.1016/j. socscimed.2009.09.003

Robert Wells

This article presents the findings of a study that investigated the notion that rural health professionals exist within their communities as social entrepreneurs. Several definitions of social entrepreneurs are discussed in the article. However, the term is used broadly to refer to individuals who use their knowledge and perspective-taking abilities to apply resources from their networks to different areas/fields, where they can be used effectively (Drucker, 1985 in Farmer & Kilpatrick, 2009), in this case, towards community projects which build social capital. The authors’ objectives in their study were: (a) to understand if rural health professionals could be seen as social entrepreneurs as a result of the activities they undertook while faciliating social projects in their communities, and (b) to determine if there was opportunity for policy-makers to foster this role within health professionals in rural communities. Open-ended interviews were conducted with nurses (n = 21), general practitioners (GPs; n = 7), primary health-care managers (n = 4), and allied health professionals (n = 6) across Tasmania (n = 15) and the Scottish Highlands (n = 23). The Scottish Highlands and Tasmania were selected for their demographic and geographic similarities; however, the authors acknowledge key differences with regards to policy and governance relating to health professionals in these areas. Thematic analysis revealed that the ability of participants to be involved in social entrepreneurial activities which built social capital was associated with their freedom to take action within the community. A variety of factors impacted participants’ capacity to take part in community projects in an effective manner. Policy and governance differences between Tasmania and Scotland led to some differences in the types of health professionals who were able to participate in community projects, and the ways in which they became involved. These factors are discussed within the article, and a model is included to visually represent how they impact on the participation of health professionals in social entrepreneurial activities. The authors present the argument that professionals exist with a “layered perspective” within their communities, and that this places them in good a position to not only be aware of, but also support community projects with social outcomes. This layered perspective arises from professionals having personal, community and professional experience and networks within their community. Health professionals, as distinct from professionals in other areas, may foster social capital within their communities that leads to positive health outcomes. This is thought to be as a result of health professionals’ world view, not through

99

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 2 2018

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au