Fair and equitable digital literacy and technology education: addressing the education gap through social entrepreneurship

Although many governments recognize the importance of digital literacy and technology education, implementation within existing educational systems lags behind in many countries (OECD, 2023). This gap reflects a mismatch between policy ambitions to prepare pupils for a digital society and the actual capacity of schools to deliver coherent, high-quality instruction. Digital literacy refers to the ability to use digital tools and devices to locate information, communicate and solve problems. It encompasses practical ICT skills, basic computational thinking, information literacy and digital citizenship (Greene and Crompton, 2025). Instruction in digital literacy aims to equip pupils to navigate digital systems responsibly, with attention to ethical concerns such as data privacy, misinformation and algorithmic bias. Technology education is focused on the study of technology itself, including its concepts, processes and impact on our daily lives. Teaching technology education encompasses the teaching of design, engineering and problem-solving skills (Pappa et al., 2024; Eliasson et al., 2023). Students learn core technological concepts (e.g. energy conversion, circuitry, materials), practice technological processes (e.g. designing, prototyping, testing, iterating), and the impact of technology on daily life (e.g. how renewable energy solutions can reduce carbon emissions).

Both digital literacy and technology education are distinct from education technology (EdTech), which refers to the integration of digital tools and devices into the classroom. EdTech extends beyond hardware and software to include the design of learning experiences, the analysis of learners' interactions with technology and the evaluation of technology's impact on learning outcomes (Kerssens and van Dijck, 2021; Selwyn, 2020). In short, digital literacy is a skill set, technology education is a subject, and EdTech is a tool. Although digital literacy, technology education and EdTech are mutually reinforcing, they have developed unevenly due to fragmented implementation capacity. EdTech is heavily supported by capital investment (Williamson and Komljenovic, 2023) and has attracted big tech companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google to the education market (Kerssens and van Dijck, 2021). Digital literacy and technology education are pedagogical in nature, and their implementation needs to be brought about by policy makers.

In Dutch primary schools, the integration of EdTech began in earnest around 2019 and accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic (Kerssens and van Dijck, 2021). Schools rapidly adopted EdTech hardware (e.g. Chromebooks) and software (e.g. Google Suite for Education) to support remote and hybrid learning (Remie and Sedee, 2020). This led to rapid market-driven growth in the EdTech market for primary education. The rapid adoption of EdTech has raised concerns about the growing influence of commercial providers, the use of standardized digital “packages,” and the potential erosion of public values such as pedagogical autonomy and digital privacy (Kerssens and van Dijck, 2021; Remie and Sedee, 2020; Bouma and van der Klift, 2019). Some critics argue that outsourcing and decentralization have opened the door to a rapidly expanding, largely unregulated market (Meester, 2020; Selwyn, 2016). At the same time, digitalization through EdTech offers clear benefits, including enhanced teacher effectiveness, virtual professional development, interschool collaboration and stronger connections among education stakeholders (OECD, 2023).

Unlike EdTech, digital literacy and technology education have not yet been integrated systematically into the Dutch curriculum. In 2022, the Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO), commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), began developing core learning objectives for digital literacy in primary and lower secondary education (Grgurina and Tolboom, 2025). Schools were expected to begin working with these functional objectives at the end of 2025, with legal implementation planned for the 2026–2027 school year (SLO, 2024). According to the Dutch Inspectorate of Education, although most school directors and around three-quarters of teachers view digital literacy as important, nearly half of schools have not translated this vision into policy or concrete activities (Onderwijsinspectie, 2025). As a result, provision remains fragmented and often depends on local capacity, external partners or private suppliers. While ICT and EdTech are used more intensively in Dutch education compared to other countries, many Dutch students still struggle to assess the reliability of digital information (De Vries et al., 2024), and Dutch secondary students perform below the international average in computational thinking (ICILS, 2024).

The Dutch education system operates through coordinated decentralization, balancing national direction with institutional autonomy (Ladd and Fiske, 2011). The OCW merely sets the legal, financial and policy framework, including digitalization guidelines and alignment with EU regulations. As many schools struggle with teacher shortages, high burnout rates and an overall decline in pupils' academic performance, digital literacy and technology education are easily regarded as optional because they are not mandatory. This has led to uneven implementation and access to these domains, which, in turn, has led to unequal outcomes. Previous research reveals that more structural exclusionary experiences in technology spaces reduce belonging and confidence among underserved groups (Hughes, 2024) and contribute to the disproportionate disengagement of girls, particularly girls of color (Edwards and King, 2023; King and Pringle, 2019).

To address the gap in education services, new approaches to digital literacy and technology education are needed to better respond to rapid technological change, persistent inequalities and emerging educational needs. Social enterprises that are stepping into the institutional void, driven by a social mission, may be particularly well-tailored to develop innovative approaches to education. Investigating the entrepreneurial logics that shape how social enterprises plan, adapt and create innovative technology education and digital literacy programs may contribute to shaping more sustainable education approaches. This research compares two small social enterprises, a social business and a non-profit, operating in the Dutch digital literacy and technology education sector. Founded by the same entrepreneur and sharing a mission to expand access to education, the study examines how their organizational structures, strategies and engagement with partners and communities differ. Drawing on a three-year case study that includes document analysis, interviews and observations, the research explores how these two organizational models navigate challenges and create opportunities within the same market.

1. What distinct and overlapping entrepreneurial logics can be identified in both forms of social enterprise?

2. How do the identified entrepreneurial logics relate to the aims, design, stakeholder engagement, management and evaluation of the organizations' activities?

3. What insights regarding the use of different entrepreneurial logics are useful to policy makers who aim to implement digital literacy and technology education in a fair and equitable manner?

Government support of social entrepreneurship has been linked to the integration of new technologies into school systems (Bozhikin et al., 2019), the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities in education (Tam et al., 2021), and the improvement of learning practices through collaboration with non-profit foundations (Abdou et al., 2024; Allen et al., 2019; Sundaramurthy et al., 2016). Some researchers have argued that government support contributes to overall greater social enterprise activity (Stephan et al., 2015; Bacq and Janssen, 2011; Shockley and Frank, 2011) while others argue the inability of institutions, both governmental and private sector, to address the needs of an underserved community drives social entrepreneurship (McMullen and Bergman, 2017; Dacin et al., 2010; Mair and Martí, 2009). Mair and Martí (2009) define institutional voids as “originating from the interplay between the existing power structure, legacy institutions, and recently introduced institutional practices” (p. 421).

The presence of social enterprises as regulators in the education market and the growing public concern about the dominance of big tech demonstrate that there are multiple forces driving social enterprise activity. The combination of government support and institutional voids brings about opportunities for social enterprises, but without active governance, private enterprises take the lead. Further research is required to understand how social enterprises not only mitigate the influence of the market but also innovate new approaches to teaching that create social value and stakeholder participation.

Mair and Martí (2009) argue institutional voids force social entrepreneurs to act in new and innovative ways, as opposed to employing the traditional business planning approach often referred to as causation. Causation is the logic of rational analysis and is common in traditional business models where entrepreneurs seek investors with a linear growth, multi-year business plan (Chandler et al., 2011; Sarasvathy, 2001). Some of the core features of causation include having predefined objectives, forecasting, minimizing risk through information gathering, detailed planning and resource mobilization. Causation follows a goal-oriented approach in which entrepreneurs identify a desired outcome and systematically assemble the resources required to achieve it (Servantie and Hlady Rispal, 2018; Fischer, 2012; Dew et al., 2009; Sarasvathy, 2001).

Mair and Martí (2009) apply the logic of bricolage, or the “art of making do,” to illustrate how some entrepreneurs address institutional voids in resource-constrained environments. Subsequent theorists have employed bricolage to more broadly explain how entrepreneurs navigate uncertainty, mobilize networks and negotiate institutional constraints (Di Domenico et al., 2010; Zahra et al., 2009; Baker and Nelson, 2005). Bricolage shares multiple organizational characteristics with the entrepreneurial logic of effectuation (Servantie and Hlady Rispal, 2018; Westhead and Wright, 2013; Fischer, 2012). Sarasvathy's (2001) formulation of effectuation rests on five core principles: (1) beginning with available means and focusing on feasible actions; (2) prioritizing affordable loss; (3) forming alliances with committed stakeholders; (4) leveraging environmental contingencies; and (5) emphasizing control over prediction as a basis for shaping an uncertain future.

According to Hanson (2020), effectuation in education involves a teaching philosophy that has been informed by

Hanson argues that these characteristics mirror aspects of social entrepreneurship, as they involve bringing people together and mobilizing resources in new ways that greatly enhance society's ability to tackle challenges. Effectuation is generally regarded as the logic employed by experienced entrepreneurs (Dew et al., 2009; Sarasvathy et al., 2008). By navigating risk and inviting stakeholders with a shared vision to participate in the educational project, Martin et al. (2018) posit that effectuators don't adhere to the same set of rules as other educators. Effectuation, as organizational logic, helps mitigate uncertainty and ambiguity through experimentation and flexibility.

While effectuation as a theory offers new insight into how digital literacy and technology education are taught, it is not without its critics. McKelvie et al. (2020) and Arend et al. (2015) highlight the measurement difficulties and question the theoretical soundness of the theory. Others emphasize effectuation's lack of attention to social context (Kitching and Rouse, 2020; Romme and Reymen, 2018) and that, as a relatively new theory, it has been subject to little criticism thus far (Grégoire and Cherchem, 2020). The popularity of effectuation has risen sharply in recent years, leading to a certain degree of siloed scholarship, in which authors reference the theory only in the context of their respective fields (Grégoire and Cherchem, 2020; Salajegheh et al., 2024). This has contributed to gaps in the overall knowledge of the theory, and some authors have highlighted the need for a wider adaptation of effectuation outside of entrepreneurship and business studies in order to confirm its validity (Klenner et al., 2021; Mansoori and Lackéus, 2020).

The question remains: what entrepreneurial logics in education are useful for contesting market-based causal logic approaches. Teasdale (2010) introduced a typology of social enterprises that is useful for comparing organizational forms and missions. He theorizes that social enterprises with a social mission can provide a space for excluded groups to develop close bonds with those in similar situations, while those with an economic mission are better suited to creating employment. This was evident in research by Abdou et al. (2024), which examined how a non-profit enterprise with a social mission provides supplemental education services to low-income and migrant youth. The research was conducted in Amsterdam Zuidoost (South-East), where on average, study advice outflows to pre-applied science university track (HAVO) and the university track (VWO) between 2019–2020 were significantly lower than the average for the city of Amsterdam, the province of North Holland and the Netherlands (Figure 1).

These data provided the basis for a comparison of pupils who had participated in one of the non-profit's programs during the 2019/2020 school year. The research demonstrated that participating pupils had, on average, higher study advice than their peers, but the participants valued the program for providing a safe space where pupils could practice their Dutch skills and meet children from different schools with similar backgrounds. The findings demonstrate that social enterprises provide values that may not be visible through the use of causal methods.

The insights of Abdou et al. (2024) demonstrate that fair and equitable supplemental education requires careful consideration of the context of the pupils, their learning needs and their surroundings. This entails building programs that move beyond traditional curricula and evaluation methods. The quality of a supplemental education program is often defined by a combination of content and purpose and tied to its mission and funding (Lester et al., 2020; Gardner et al., 2012). The aims or goals of the program may include expanding pupils' experiences, extending their learning and providing caring support in the community (Beckett et al., 2001). For example, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CLCC) were designed to promote 21st-century skills, including critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and digital literacy, in a systematic way (US DoE, 2020).

From the content perspective, the quality of the program can be specified in terms of hands-on engagement or learning experiences (e.g. Allen et al., 2019; Harris et al., 2016), social and emotional growth and maturity (e.g., Johnson, 2007; Murchison et al., 2019) and academic outcomes or achievement (e.g. Baran et al., 2016; Bolshakova, 2017; Cutucache et al., 2018). The quality, thus defined by clear aims, goals and missions, helps to understand the rationale behind the program's design, its degree of stakeholder involvement, leadership and managerial practices and methods of evaluation.

The framework of Abdou et al. (2024), depicted in Table 1, combines the characteristics associated with high-quality supplemental education in the work of Allen et al. (2019), Deutsch (2017), Hirsch et al. (2011) and Durlak et al. (2009) with the three emerging entrepreneurial logics, as operationalized in the conceptual model of Servantie and Hlady Rispal (2018): causation, bricolage and effectuation. The model presents a useful typology of describing the distinctions between entrepreneurial logics and how they emerge as organizational practices within the context of social enterprises that are active in the domains of education, youth development and employment. In the current research, the framework of Abdou et al. (2024) has been adapted in order to compare the entrepreneurial logic(s) in the two social enterprises and their respective approaches to teaching digital literacy and technology education. This includes their aims, goals and mission, program design, learning environments, stakeholder engagement, leadership/management practices and methods of evaluation.

The education gap in Amsterdam Zuidoost (Figure 1) is not unique and reflective of a larger societal challenge that pertains specifically to digital literacy and technology education. Recent literature reveals that traditional approaches to digital literacy learning and STEM-related activities are shaped by gendered and racialized expectations. For example, digital learning content is often abstract and disconnected from diverse lived experiences (Sheth, 2019), and the competitive, speed-focused approaches to assessing technical skills tend to align less with girls' stronger preference for collaborative learning (King and Pringle, 2019). Girls' – and Black girls in particular – abilities and contributions are often undervalued in technology classroom contexts (Edwards and King, 2023; Mohorn-Minta and Mensah, 2025). Black girls may withdraw participation when stereotypes about technical ability are activated, and White boys dominate interaction (Li et al., 2025).

Some technology educators call for culturally responsive approaches to strengthen inclusive technology education by integrating students' reflections on technology systems and power (Li et al., 2025; Scott et al., 2015). These approaches emphasize skills related to cultural competence and socio-political awareness, enabling students to understand how inequality is reproduced and how they are positioned within it (Edwards and King, 2023; Scott et al., 2015). Culturally responsive computing helps learners explore their identities, critique power structures, use technology for social change and value existing knowledge while scaffolding for differing levels of experience (Li et al., 2025; Scott et al., 2015). Effective inclusive technology activities with youth are often fun, collaborative and grounded in meaningful goals rather than abstract technical tasks, ultimately strengthening innovation (Dishon and Kafai, 2020; King and Pringle, 2019).

The first enterprise, a social business founded in 2014, was created by the entrepreneur and a pedagogical expert to address the absence of digital literacy and technology education in Dutch primary schools. Its business plan outlined specific outcomes over a ten-year period, culminating in the development of a scalable technology education program for primary schools, mostly focused on children ages 8–12. During its first five years, the social business's mission, aims and goals evolved and shifted toward a transformative mission: expanding access to technology education among underserved communities. This shift, partially driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, prompted the entrepreneur to establish a second enterprise, a non-profit with an explicit aim to reach high school-aged girls and pupils from migrant or low-income households.

For the purpose of this study, the framework of Abdou et al. (2024) and Teasdale's typology are combined to provide a theoretical model, depicted in Figure 2. Teasdale's typology separates the forms of social enterprise into four quadrants along a horizontal axis of economic and social mission and a vertical axis of individual and communal decision-making. As both forms of social enterprise in the current case demonstrate individual decision-making, the typology has been halved to exclude communal decision-making while external stakeholder and government involvement have been added to the model (see also Table 1).

Case study is a research strategy which combines data collection methods such as quantitative data, archives, interviews, questionnaires and observations in order to understand the dynamics present (Creswell and Miller, 2000). A case study methodology is appropriate because it allows for an in-depth exploration of social enterprises within their real-life contexts (Yazan, 2015). This study adopts Merriam's qualitative case study methodology (1998), which defines case study as an in-depth exploration of a bounded system within its real-life context. Merriam advocates for the use of multiple sources, including semi-structured interviews, observation, organizational documents, reports and field notes and allows these organizational characteristics to be documented in detail and compared across the two cases. The various perspectives in the methodology and the accompanying sources are listed in Table 2. The data are used to analyze context, entrepreneurial logics, organizational form and stakeholder relationships within each case using the theoretical model in Figure 2.

The researchers investigated the practices that led to the growth of both the social business and the non-profit enterprise through secondary data, including pre-existing online interviews, the original business plan for the social business, the websites of the two organizations, the entrepreneur's social media feed, internal reports produced by the non-profit enterprise, newsletters and transcriptions of recorded events where the entrepreneur was invited to speak. The secondary data were coded using the entrepreneurial logics and organizational characteristics in Table 1.

Based on this preliminary analysis, the researchers conducted a formal interview with the entrepreneur that lasted one hour and was recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams software. On behalf of the researchers, the entrepreneur invited through email all parents of all pupils who had participated in the social business's programs to participate in an interview about their child's participation. The entrepreneur similarly approached former adult-aged pupils from the early years of the program for an interview. Approval for half of the interviewees was provided through the ERB of the university of the first author, and the other half through the university of the second author. Twelve people agreed to be interviewed, of which 10 were completed (see Table 3), and the interviews lasted between 0.5 and 1.5 hours. Prior to the start of the interviews, the interviewees provided informed consent to record and transcribe the interviews using Microsoft Teams. The interviewees ranged from parents whose children had participated fairly recently to 10 years ago. Some pupils had participated in multiple programs; others had joined only once. All former pupils had joined at the early stages of the social business's activities and were above the age of 18 years. The interview transcripts were coded with ATLAS.ti.25. The researchers first coded independently before creating themes and reassessed these at various coding stages to ensure reflexivity. The codes addressed the technology interest of the child (before, during and after participating in the program), family context (parental stimulation and support, interest and role models) and the perceived value of the program (process, content and accessibility).

The researchers observed two of the non-profit enterprises' activities. The first involved the execution of a one-day workshop for approximately 25 secondary school pupils from a technical high school in Amsterdam Zuidoost at the public library in Amsterdam. The researchers took notes but did not engage directly with the pupils. The second activity was a symposium on the future of education, at which the entrepreneur was a guest speaker. The researchers took notes and spoke informally with other technology education professionals in attendance, such as technology educators from various institutions and those who worked at non-profits. These conversations provided background data about the environment in which the entrepreneur operates.

Before founding the social business, the entrepreneur had built an international career in North America, collaborating with entrepreneurs, technology developers, designers and artists. Through these experiences, she developed business expertise, a strong professional network and an appreciation of the growing importance of technology for future careers. When her son showed an early interest in technology, she sought opportunities to nurture it but found few suitable programs. This gap inspired the idea for the social business. From the outset, the enterprise pursued a broad social mission: introducing innovative approaches to extracurricular technology and computer science education. Originally conceived as a ten-year initiative to help primary schools integrate technology and computer science into teaching, the business achieved this goal in 2025, when it was commissioned to embed technology education into the formal curriculum of a primary school in Amsterdam Zuidoost for the 2025–2026 school year.

The non-profit's mission emphasizes mindset development, broadening the narrative around technology to include diverse voices and ensuring equitable access to digital literacy, technology and computer science education. When reflecting on how her identity, knowledge and networks informed her mission, the entrepreneur explained,

The entrepreneur began by interviewing technology professionals from underrepresented communities and sharing these interviews on social media. The visibility generated by this initiative attracted sponsors and enabled the non-profit to develop activities to further its mission. The non-profit accomplishes this by operating in neighborhoods with fewer educational resources and high proportions of low-income and migrant households. Over five years, the non-profit has expanded to deliver culturally relevant curricula and broaden access to tech role models through in-school digital skills lessons, professional development workshops, internships and company visits.

Both organizations cultivate learning environments that center on experimentation, iterative problem-solving and productive failure. The entrepreneur intentionally contrasts this approach with traditional schooling by minimizing formal assessments and emphasizing the learning process over the end product. Pupils work collaboratively and present their prototypes, explaining their reasoning and how they navigated challenges.

The programs of the social business are structured, age-appropriate and have coherent curricula. Lessons typically begin with discussions about emerging technologies without the use of digital devices, encouraging pupils to engage critically and analytically. The lessons focus on the logic behind technology, using contexts that children can relate to. Activities, such as designing “robot” pathways using paper-based commands, introduce programming logic through low-tech, tactile materials (e.g. cardboard, yarn, paper). Pupils ultimately apply these skills through collaborative design challenges that mirror real-world innovation processes and conclude with peer presentations. This consistent lesson structure allows even very young children to get acquainted with how technology works, learn critical thinking skills, ethics of technology and systems and design thinking. The entrepreneur emphasizes in interviews the importance of creativity and fun in the teaching approach,

In contrast, the non-profit enterprise offers adaptive, opportunity-driven programming linked to professional networks. The classes combine technical skill development (i.e. robotics, coding, machine learning, “vibe coding”), communication skills, brainstorming, pitching, teamwork and career development opportunities. Programming is intentionally scaffolded to address disparities in prior technological exposure and tailored to pupils from groups underrepresented in the tech industry.

In both organizations, instruction is offered in both Dutch and English, broadening accessibility to pupils from migrant households. The entrepreneur explains this choice as follows,

Within the first two years, it became clear that the social business's programs were attracting mostly boys from affluent backgrounds, which influenced the learning environment. Together with her team, the entrepreneur started to incorporate more gender neutral themes, drawing from traditional board games and art. When describing the teachers, the entrepreneur states,

The non-profit enterprise is designed explicitly to address inequities in exposure through differentiated instruction, making use of role models and intentional scaffolding. Thus, the learning environment embraced culturally responsive education from the start, where the social business gradually moved toward developing culturally responsive learning material through a process of experimentation.

The social business launched its first program through the support of tertiary stakeholders including educators and technology professionals drawn from the entrepreneur's network. The entrepreneur explained

Parents of primary school children were identified as the target customers in the business plan. Then she moved on to schools as they were “desperate” for technology-related education programs.

In the interview, she mentions,

The Amsterdam Public Library became an early partner, which lent credibility to the programs. Over time, partnerships with publicly-funded institutions have helped the social business scale while keeping operational costs low. These institutions contribute facilities, broadband access, marketing and recruitment support. Reflecting on the role of parents as external stakeholders, the entrepreneur noted that it is for parents “who take an active interest in making sure their kids are set up to be successful.” The entrepreneur further explains,

This is why the social business, when possible, has pursued opportunities in low-resource contexts.

A report from the non-profit details its approach to program design, which relies on stakeholder input. The non-profit uses its donor network to create collaboration opportunities for schools facing difficulty engaging tech companies. The geographic reach is limited since programs occur in school or library settings. Donors are directly involved through scholarships, funding programs and in-company visits. The non-profit also fosters partnerships among stakeholders by organizing site visits and helping to build networks that support pupils' long-term educational and career trajectories. Most recently, it has provided digital hygiene and skills classes for pupils aged 8–12 at two primary schools in Amsterdam Zuidoost and partnered with a technical high school in the district to deliver career-building workshops, including pitching technology solutions during in-company visits.

The entrepreneur is an active public speaker on the subject of technology education, frequently addressing both the opportunities and risks that technology poses for young people.

The social business demonstrates adaptive and equity-oriented leadership by identifying systemic gaps and restructuring programs in response. For example, when she observed low participation among girls in the early years of the social business, she adjusted lesson themes and marketing materials and introduced additional coaching and scaffolding (i.e. cheat sheets) to support girls' engagement with technical building tools. The entrepreneur also offers substantial discounts for Stadspashouders (city pass holders) on limited incomes.

The non-profit enterprise increases financial access to digital literacy and technology education by building partnerships with public institutions and donors to provide scholarships, fee waivers and discounts. At a symposium on the future of education, the entrepreneur discussed weaknesses in the technology education pipeline, highlighting the low participation in technical higher education among minority pupils and actions the Dutch government could take to address them. This included early implementation of digital literacy and technology education in all primary schools to increase the outflow of technical personnel to the labor market.

Both organizations follow an iterative cycle of designing, testing, evaluating and revising lessons to improve engagement and learning outcomes.

In our interview, the entrepreneur stated,

After this initial start, evaluation practices in the social business continued to emphasize qualitative feedback, observable artifacts (i.e. prototypes) and attitudinal change rather than formal skill mastery. The primary focus was on formative evaluation (i.e. how pupils think, collaborate and solve problems). Continuous feedback from pupils, parents and partner institutions informed the refinement of lessons and curricula.

The non-profit also has a more formal evaluation process of its activities through a board of directors who hold signatory power. This creates multiple evaluation moments per year in which the entrepreneur shares a financial spreadsheet with a summary of the non-profit's activities and feedback from institutional partners.

For participating parents and pupils, engagement with the programs executed by the social business was understood as part of a broader, ongoing learning trajectory that had often begun at home through watching educational YouTube channels, using STEM-related toys and games, or reading books about science and technology. Participation reinforced this trajectory and frequently led to additional actions, such as repeating the program or seeking out further extracurricular or online learning resources.

A pre-pilot survey report indicated that teacher liaisons viewed the non-profit enterprise as playing an important role in exposing students to the tech industry and inspiring interest in future-proof careers that could provide stable, well-paying employment. The teachers also acknowledged that their knowledge of and experience with technology companies were limited. The report also assessed the students' existing exposure to technology-related coursework. These assessments helped clarify existing gaps and shaped the program's content and objectives.

Hardly any interviewees directly addressed the content of the program, such as working with LEGO Mindstorms, learning to program or developing digital literacy skills. Instead, interviewees mentioned the applied learning processes, including the creative, playful, collaborative approach and the process skills acquired, such as understanding the importance of failure, breaking the design process into smaller steps and time management. Together, these aspects resulted in pupils experiencing that technology is something that is approachable, not scary or abstract. A mother mentioned this also in the context of the content being attractive for girls,

Several interviewees noted that participants developed a sense of agency in relation to technology, understanding it as something they could actively shape. Interviewees also praised the programs for encouraging “real-world thinking” about AI, creativity and the human role in shaping technological systems.

Researchers observed the non-profit's activities centered more explicitly around digital skills and discussions of inequality in technology. In the observed career development workshop, pupils (aged 14–15) were first tasked with beta-testing the library's AI search assistant by attempting to make it break its preset rules (i.e. prohibitions on the use of curse words). The second session featured a talk by a well-known novelist whose work critically engages with the Netherlands' colonial past. Pupils were also asked to brainstorm digital services that could increase the library's accessibility for visitors who are hearing-impaired or blind, as well as its appeal to younger audiences. After an hour, each group was able to pitch their ideas to a panel of library administrators. The winning group proposed a virtual reality experience that would recreate scenes and settings from historical novels, enabling visitors to experience the books more immersively.

Interviewees spoke positively about the social business's teaching approach as creating a fun, psychologically safe environment, characterized by frequent mentions of a lack of competition and a focus on collaboration. Parents also emphasized the learning environment's role in building confidence, self-efficacy and communication skills as opposed to narrowly focusing on programming. Former pupils valued its ability to foster creativity, autonomy and collaborative problem-solving in a non-competitive context. Social factors, such as a sense of belonging, emotional support from instructors, and tailored scaffolding were repeatedly cited as key success factors. One mother described how her son learned to manage frustration and view mistakes as part of the learning process:

Scaffolding ranged from allowing pupils to begin as observers in group activities to giving them extended time to engage with instructional materials. The environment was considered supportive for shy or introverted children who were seeking a community of peers with similar interests. One parent described observing her son take on a mentoring role for the first time:

Secondary data suggest that youth benefit from learning environments that combine access to role models who reflect their own backgrounds with opportunities to work on real-world technology projects from industry partners. In the entrepreneur's pre-pilot study, a teacher emphasized that this combination helps students envision themselves pursuing careers in technology.

The non-profit enterprise relies heavily on donors to provide scholarships, fund programs in underserved areas and support career development opportunities such as in-company visits. In our observation of the non-profit's activities, external stakeholders can also include other non-profit organizations that provide similar services. For example, a coding college that offers programming and coding courses partnered with the non-profit to provide five scholarships to women from low-income backgrounds, racial and ethnic minorities from low-income households and refugees.

Both parents and pupils reflected positively on the integration of more inclusive themes in the social business's programs. The use of the library's facilities enhanced accessibility for some families by providing a space for parents to work or supervise siblings while waiting. One parent highlighted the entrepreneur's flexibility in offering free participation when fees posed a barrier for her son.

During our observation of the non-profit's activities, a teacher from the local technical high school in Amsterdam Zuidoost reported challenges in finding tech companies willing to collaborate on assignments with her pupils. Here, the non-profit enterprise created additional value for the school by facilitating collaborations with companies in its donor network.

Parents reported that the social business's program helped maintain or rekindle their children's interest in technology, largely through interactive and enjoyable experiences that extended beyond school. Participation also facilitated social contact with peers who shared similar interests. Several parents mentioned that their children had chosen, or planned to choose, technical tracks in secondary school, and three former participants reported enrollment in higher education programs involving science or technology (e.g. bioengineering, 3D modeling, game development). While none attributed these pathways solely to participation in the social business's programs, there was general agreement that the experience had played a modest but meaningful role in “fueling” or reinforcing their interest.

The non-profit relies on pre-assessments to shape its programs. Overall, evaluation of the content of the programs reflects its adaptive and project-based nature.

In Table 4, we use the characteristics described in Table 1 to compare the two organizational forms of social enterprise in the case study and their use of distinct and overlapping entrepreneurial logics.

In Table 5, we describe the different types and degree of stakeholder involvement observed in the two social enterprise forms using the model in Figure 2. From this analysis, we draw conclusions about the entrepreneurial logic observed in each form of social enterprise and stakeholder involvement.

The social business demonstrated causal logic in its start-up phase by identifying gaps in the curriculum and using existing learning objectives to structure the programs. Over time, its mission expanded from curriculum innovation to increasing access for underserved communities, reflecting a shift from opportunity discovery to a more transformational social aim of opportunity creation. The non-profit enterprise, in contrast, walked the other way; starting with the aim of improving access to technology role models for underrepresented groups and over time, as the organization gained traction on social media, developed activities around the theme of making the tech industry more inclusive.

The social business's programs appeal strongly to pupils who have had some technology exposure at home, whereas the non-profit's activities are designed specifically for pupils who lack exposure. The social business relies primarily on consumer-side stakeholder engagement, while the non-profit relies on donor-side and community-based stakeholder engagement in marginalized communities. The learning environment in the social business emphasizes prototyping and productive failure, while in the non-profit, the learning environment emphasizes digital skills and equity. The leadership and managerial practices in the social business adapt internally to increase accessibility, whereas in the non-profit, they adapt externally to widen access. The evaluation practices in the social business focus on formative evaluation, whereas the non-profit uses evaluation primarily for needs assessment.

Rather than treating the absence of digital literacy and technology education and inequality in education as parallel concerns, the entrepreneur sees them as structurally linked. This approach is supported by her belief that limited institutional capacity in schools creates uneven access, despite the prevalence of digital tools in the classroom. Both enterprises, to varying degrees, respond to this dual problem by combining digital literacy and technology education with stakeholder involvement, institutional partnerships and adaptive, low-resource experimentation. These are characteristics frequently associated with the logic of effectuation.

Previous research on effectuation in education has highlighted how the effectual approach helps both pupils and teachers develop a sense of self-efficacy, the ability to experiment and bear risks (de Wild and Hakvoort, 2020; Hanson, 2020; Martin et al., 2018). The current research reveals the importance of effectuation in increasing stakeholder involvement and providing broader access. The government indirectly supports the activities of both enterprises through the provision of subsidies to schools and libraries, but their involvement is surprisingly minor. We observe that the government indirectly drives the demand for digital literacy and technology education through policy making but is a passive player in implementation and regulation. In the absence of formal government standards for primary-level technology education, the role of institutional partners extends to regulators, as they are choosing which enterprises to partner with. The research reveals that both enterprises operate in what can be understood as an institutional void where private enterprises, state regulation, standardized curricula and teacher preparation lag behind technological and societal change, as depicted in Figure 3.

The two enterprises are working in collaboration with public institutions and private sector donors to enhance the accessibility of the programs, but there are challenges that remain. The research suggests that the social business is most successful in addressing the curriculum gaps through the support of the parents. This was shown to have an impact on girls in particular. The non-profit is more focused on creating access to educational resources in low-income and migrant communities, such as Amsterdam Zuidoost, with the support of donors and partner institutions.

One of the dominant themes in the current research was early exposure leading to further online study. For digital literacy and technology education to take root, pupils need to have early access to role models, building toys, digital devices and Internet access outside of school. Parents facing socio-economic challenges may not have the time or resources to support learning outside the classroom. For this reason, the government needs to make the case for broader implementation in and out of school time clearer. Without external support and structure, the impact of the current social enterprise interventions may be limited.

Second, teachers and school directors in low-resource environments who are already overburdened may not sense the urgency of incorporating digital literacy and technology education into the curriculum until the government mandates it. This requires stronger government involvement and consistent support to ensure scalable, equitable access. However, this should not undermine the entrepreneurial flexibility that contributes to the development of innovative and community-based programming. Our research demonstrates that an effectuation approach may help to increase access through partnerships, build resilience through prototyping and foster a proactive mindset that enables self-learning.

We believe experimentation and innovation should be balanced with meeting predefined targets. This suggests a hybrid policy model in which governmental actors combine causation, through mandatory learning objectives, systematic teacher training and targeted funding for schools in resource-constrained environments, with the logic of effectuation, through support for community-driven initiatives capable of addressing context-specific barriers and experimentation in program design.

Policy initiatives should focus on providing support for existing programs that can demonstrate added value through either an innovative pedagogical approach or the reduction of educational inequality. An adapted assessment framework is needed to assess supplemental education programs in relation to the added social value that they bring. While causation-driven enterprises can be assessed on scalability and standardized outcomes, effectuation-driven initiatives should be evaluated on reach, adaptability and responsiveness to local needs. The current research takes the first step in refining an assessment tool that could be applicable to the wider education market. In addition, we recommend:

1. The establishment of mandatory curriculum integration, teacher training and equity-based funding and procurement criteria.

2. Support for hybrid funding models to help social enterprises engage in more market-oriented activities and private enterprises engage in more community-based and design-oriented (effectuation-driven) activities.

3. The implementation of evaluation frameworks that include added social value.

4. Enable experimentation through small-scale innovation grants and pilot programs that allow iterative development, local adaptation and stakeholder involvement (e.g. local robotics teams or clubs).

5. Support for programs that foster connections between real-world problem solving, skill development, career pathways and the provision of relatable tech role models.

This study compares two social enterprises founded by the same entrepreneur to understand how organizational characteristics, entrepreneurial logic and stakeholder involvement impact the delivery of digital literacy and technology education. Although addressing linked problems, namely gaps in the national curriculum and unequal educational access, the social business and non-profit enterprise operate with distinct logics, aims, stakeholder relationships and pedagogical approaches. Both organizations adopt effectual logics, using partnerships, experimentation, iterative design and available resources to respond to institutional voids. Over time, the social business expanded from curriculum innovation to a broader social mission that improved access for underserved groups. The non-profit, grounded in the entrepreneur's lived experience of underrepresentation, began with abstract goals and developed more concrete objectives over time through external stakeholder participation.

In terms of stakeholder involvement, the social business relies on customer relationships and tends to attract pupils with some prior tech exposure, whereas the non-profit relies on donors and community partnerships to reach learners vulnerable to unequal opportunities. Their organizational practices also diverge, with the social business emphasizing formative learning processes and the non-profit focusing on needs assessment. Both enterprises work in Amsterdam Zuidoost, where widening educational disparities underscore the need for accessible digital learning opportunities. The entrepreneur seeks to counter these trends through an educational philosophy grounded in the belief that access to digital tools and experiential learning are integral to building self-efficacy and resourcefulness, enabling pupils to learn and create independently. This indicates a new direction for wider implementation of digital literacy and technology education. As the barriers to implementation in Amsterdam Zuidoost have not been thoroughly explored in this research, further research should include more quantitative interviews with pupils and parents in districts that lack access in order to ensure a better understanding of local contexts.

The generalizability of the research is limited by the unique governance structure of the Dutch educational system, which contributes to the environment in which the two social enterprises operate. In addition, the research was conducted during a specific transitional period where digital literacy learning objectives have not yet been fully implemented or mandated. Findings may therefore not transfer easily to countries with more centralized education systems, or where curriculum implementation is mandated and monitored.

Second, the researchers were not able to replicate the same research methods for both enterprises. This was due in part to the different nature of the activities of the social enterprises. Second, the sample of stakeholders is small and did not capture the views of school directors, administrators and donors. The parents-as-customers were the most accessible group, but they tilted in favor of parents who support digital literacy and technology education and hence biased. Further research should include institutional partners like donors, pupils from the target demographic and parents of non-participating pupils to better understand the demand for these services. In order to more accurately assess the capacity of the two organizations to address social exclusion, pre- and post-assessments of the pupils should be conducted over the course of several programs and years.

Despite these limitations, our recommendation, corroborated by global research, is that digital literacy and technology education should start early and be inclusive. For this to happen effectively, innovative educational strategies are necessary. Future research should incorporate impact-driven, interdisciplinary perspectives that reflect on the development of innovative approaches and broadening access to underrepresented communities. These themes should be tailored to local contexts and incorporate community members and other external stakeholders.