Search results

The aim of this paper is to determine the criteria for a solid impact evaluation in social entrepreneurship. The solid impact evaluation method is needed for building the bridge between two separate discourses of social entrepreneurship: the discourses of protectionists of social entrepreneurship, who believe without empirical proof that social enterprises are effective and the opponents or doubters in social entrepreneurship, who need empirical proof of the effectiveness of social enterprises.

The criteria for a solid impact evaluation discourse of social entrepreneurship are determined and its impact evaluation is analysed based on literature.

A solid social impact evaluation method should be able to analyse: the social impact of the organisation and not only the financial allocation and outcome; differences in the impact of two organisations which are operating in the same field; and the selection of target group and analysis of all the impacts of the activities.

The list of criteria for a solid impact evaluation might not be complete as it is based on literature review only. As there is a considerable gap between the discourse of protectionists and opponents of social entrepreneurship, additional analyses are required to analyse the discourse of practitioners of social entrepreneurship.

The current study could be used for practitioners as well as for politicians while preparation for the negotiations with the representatives with other sectors as it brings out some of the common topics that are misunderstood by different parties.

This paper takes the first step toward a construction of a solid impact evaluation model. Evaluating the social impact of social enterprises with a solid model could bring closer the discourses of social enterprises used by protectionists and opponents of social entrepreneurship.

Social entrepreneurship education (SEE) is gaining increasing attention globally. This paper aims to focus on how SEE may be better understood and reconfigured from a Bourdieusian capital perspective with an emphasis on the process of mobilising and transforming social entrepreneurs’ cultural, social, economic and symbolic resources.

Drawing on qualitative research with a sample of social entrepreneurship educators and mentors, the authors generate insights into the significance of challenging assumptions and establishing values and principles and hence that of developing a range of capitals (using the Bourdieusian notion of capital) for SEE.

The findings highlight the significance of developing a range of capitals and their transformative power for SEE. In this way, learners can develop dispositions for certain forms of capitals over others and transform them to each other in becoming reflexive social agents.

The authors respond to the calls for critical thinking in entrepreneurship education and contribute to the field by developing a reflexive approach to SEE. The authors also make recommendations to educators, who are tasked with implementing such an approach in pursuit of raising the next generations of social entrepreneurs.

From its earliest incarnations, entrepreneurship has been linked to innovation, and often innovations with a societal or social impact. Although classical economists discussed the role entrepreneurs play in handling risk in an economy (Hébert & Link, 2009), perhaps the greater risks have been the social impacts which entrepreneurship brought to societies (Drucker, 1985). The power of mercantile economies like the Phoenician or two thousand years later the British came as much from the new ideas and processes they introduced to the societies of trading partners as from the goods traded.

Purpose: This literature review aims to answer the calls for further exploration of scaling challenges and opportunities for social entrepreneurs (SEs). We address the scaling issue of social entrepreneurship through the theoretical lens of sustainable business models. Methodology: This paper investigates, on a multilevel approach, 340 journal articles published in one of the 20 peer-reviewed journals in management, entrepreneurship, CSR, organizational behavior, and nonprofit. It also considers influential articles due to their relatively high citation count (i.e., more than 150 times) outside of those selected journals. This paper furthermore analyses in-depth 32 scaling articles. Findings: This study positions the topics of social entrepreneurship over the last decades, together with the six types of scaling strategies: scaling up, scaling down, scaling across, scaling deep, scaling out, and diversification. It also discusses 15 challenges related to the scaling efforts by SEs. It furthermore elaborates on potential leads for research and practice regarding scaling social impact. Social Implications: There are many pathways for SEs to increase their impact on society, even though it remains quite challenging to achieve for most. Understanding what possibilities or limitations apply to individual SEs is but a first step in developing the full potential of social entrepreneurship. Originality: This paper approaches scaling from three complementary levels of analysis, i.e., individual, organizational, and institutional. Thus we provide more clarity and a nuanced perspective on past and future research regarding scaling challenges and opportunities.

Recent interest in social entrepreneurship among young people has led to a heightened interest in new research. Few studies, however, have yet to investigate motivators of involvement, particularly from countries that are new to social entrepreneurship. The current study set out to better understand this phenomenon among young social entrepreneurs in Malaysia. In-depth one-to-one interviews with 12 young entrepreneurs were carried out to collect the data. Four themes and ten sub-themes emerged from the interviews, including early life experience (childhood experience and family experience), inspiration from clients and colleagues (interactions with the target group and exposure to social entrepreneurs), work-related experience (volunteer experience and job-related experience), and personal meaning (contribute back to society, desire for more meaning in life, and personal passions). The implications for policy-makers and interested parties are outlined in regard to enhancing participation and interest among youth for social entrepreneurship.

In this chapter, we review and examine the differences and similarities between social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship. We explore the concepts, key questions, empirical methodologies, and disciplinary roots that differentiate and relate these emergent interest areas. The result of this comparative analysis inevitably raises the question of whether these new literature streams are inclusive or separate from the traditional domain of entrepreneurship research. We find that these three areas share many similarities, yet are distinguishable from one another and from more traditional, commercial forms of entrepreneurship. However, we determine that although these three areas of entrepreneurial scholarship raise unique questions and highlight different types of phenomena, they are not their own fields of study, but rather promising contexts for studying key questions of the entrepreneurship field.

Within the growing study of transnational entrepreneurial practice, existing conceptualisation of diaspora entrepreneurship has often lacked engagement with the particularities of the diaspora condition. This paper seeks to advance theoretical understanding and empirical study of diaspora entrepreneurship through identifying the processes that generate diaspora entrepreneurship across economic, social and political spheres.

To analyse the relationship between the development of venture activity and diaspora (re)production, in depth, qualitative biographical analysis was undertaken with UK-based diaspora entrepreneurs embedded within the particular contexts of the Sri Lankan Tamil and Kurdish diasporas. Skilled and active diaspora entrepreneurs were purposively selected from these extreme case contexts to explore their entrepreneurial agency within and across the business, social and political realms.

Results identified key dimensions shaping the development of diaspora entrepreneurship. These comprised the role of diaspora context in shaping opportunity frameworks and the mobilisation of available resources, and how venture activity served to sustain collective diaspora identity and address diaspora interests. These findings are used to produce an analytical model of the generation of diaspora entrepreneurship to serve as a basis for discussing how heterogeneous and hybrid entrepreneurial strategies emerge from and shape the evolving diaspora context.

By placing the reproduction of social collectivity centre-stage, this paper identifies the particularities of diaspora entrepreneurship as a form of transnational entrepreneurship. This recognizes the significance of a contextualised understanding of entrepreneurial diversity within wider processes of diaspora development, which has important implications for policy and practice development in homeland and settlement areas.

The purpose of this study is to assess the current prevalence of empirical research in the field of social entrepreneurship. Further, we identify secondary datasets and explain their relative strengths and weaknesses for use by social entrepreneurship scholars.

The authors conducted a search of academic articles in the EBSCO and ProQuest databases mentioning social entrepreneurship, social venture(s), social enterprise(s), or social entrepreneur(s) in the title, abstract, or keywords published from 2009 to 2013. Papers were coded and analyzed based upon the nature of their methods.

We find that while qualitative studies are still the norm, quantitative methods are increasing, thanks to the creation of large-scale datasets and the use of analysis techniques new to the field. Three such large-scale datasets – the PSED II, GEM, and nonprofit tax collections – are discussed in depth. We find several strengths and weaknesses for each dataset, yet each provides social entrepreneurship scholars with fruitful opportunities.

Through a deeper understanding of empirical research and sources of social entrepreneurship data, scholars may be more attracted to social entrepreneurship, better equipped to conduct high-quality research and publish in high-quality outlets. Moreover, by moving beyond case studies and small-sample research to engaging larger pools of subjects and producing more generalizable findings, social entrepreneurship scholars will have the ability to impact a much broader scope of practitioners.

This study used qualitative discourse analysis to explore how researchers use the concept of ingenuity to understand the everyday work of social entrepreneurs. Data were drawn from a sample of 69 research articles published across 41 academic journals between 1998 and 2018. The findings showed ingenuity to be an underdeveloped concept in the social entrepreneurship literature and revealed a paucity of research on the everyday work performed by social entrepreneurs. A framework for studying the work of social entrepreneurs at the “scale of the everyday” through the lens of ingenuity is proposed, and recommendations for future research are provided.