Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions

Abstract

Work on social entrepreneurship constitutes a field of study that intersects a number of domains, including entrepreneurial studies, social innovation, and nonprofit management. Scholars are beginning to contribute to the development of this new discipline through efforts that attempt to trace the emergence of social entrepreneurship as well as by comparing it to other organizational activities such as conventional entrepreneurship. However, as a nascent field, social entrepreneurship scholars are in the midst of a number of debates involving definitional and conceptual clarity, boundaries of the field, and a struggle to arrive at a set of relevant and meaningful research questions. This paper examines the promise of social entrepreneurship as a domain of inquiry and suggests a number of research areas and research questions for future study.

Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach

“…Social entrepreneurship research focuses on understanding how social entrepreneurs think and behave (Dacin et al, 2011;Grimes et al, 2013) and how institutional complexity shapes the way the process of social entrepreneurship unfolds (Estrin et al, 2013;Fel"cio et al, 2013;Pache & Chowdhury, 2012). This study seeks to examine which combinations of local institutional forces play the largest role in social entrepreneursÕ opportunity confidence.…”

“…Recent research on social entrepreneurship stresses the need to advance the knowledge on the institutional complexity that influences how social entrepreneurs think and behave (Dacin et al, 2011;Fel"cio et al, 2013). Similarly, scholars call for new studies that use large number of cases and more complex research techniques capable of examining which institutions play the most relevant role in the development of social enterprises (Estrin et al, 2013;Short et al, 2009).…”

An Identity-Based Approach to Social Enterprise

“…Social enterprise has gained widespread acclaim as a tool for addressing problems such as poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation (Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011;Mair & Marti, 2006;Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009). While a single definition has yet to emerge, most agree that social enterprise entails the integration of social welfare and commercial aims in an organization's core (Battilana & Lee, 2014;Miller, Grimes, McMullen, & Vogus, 2012).…”

Creative Leadership: A Multi-Context Conceptualization

“…There has been extensive work on paradoxical and hybrid frames showing that the ability to embrace multiple orientations at the same time is a core feature of effectively managing creativity and innovation (e.g., Garud, Gehman & Kumaraswamy, 2011;Kark, Praisler & Tubi, in press); and that a dynamic equilibrium model can explain the ways in which seemingly contradictory elements can coexist within organizations over time Smith & Lewis, 2011). These works highlight the need for leadership that can effectively attend to competing expectations and manage tensions and complex organizational structures (e.g., Dacin, Dacin & Tracey, 2011;Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011;. The tripartite framework that we suggest in the article can be useful for re-thinking the documented paradoxes of creative leadership.…”