Tracing the Intellectual Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Advances, Current Trends, and Future Directions

Abstract

In this study, we employed a combination of bibliometric analysis and a structured review approach to examine the social entrepreneurship (SE) research. Our bibliometric analysis involved 2517 articles containing 155,846 references and we analyzed the data in three time periods: 1990-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2020 to detect longitudinal trends. This analysis helped us to identify the intellectual foundation of each period and the evolution of the intellectual structure of SE research. We specifically identified 13, 9, and 11 clusters that constituted the philosophical foundations of SE research for the periods 1990-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2020 respectively. A longitudinal comparison of three periods helped us to trace the evolution of the intellectual structure of SE research. Further, the structured review, involving 106 recent influential articles, enabled us to identify 10 recent dominant themes of SE research. Building on our bibliometric and structured review approach, we developed an organizing framework for guiding future SE research across six dimensions: ethics, individual, community, collaborative, organizational, and contextual.

Entrepreneurship in non-Schumpeterian (or alternative) ways: Effectuation and Bricolage to overcome crises

“…The potentials of effectuation and bricolage are included in the quartet, already described in detail in this essay. It also counts the fact that the two types of entrepreneurship, as mentioned above, emphasize the improvement of people's lives (Jones, Ratten e Hayduk, 2020;Hota, 2021) and provide rapid recovery (Dacin, Dacin e Tracey, 2011;Jones, Ratten e Hayduk, 2020;Storr, Haeffele-Balch e Grube, 2016).…”

“…A wide literature shows values and other underpinnings of prosocial behavior being combined with (and occurring in) social entrepreneurship, whose main characteristic is the focus on creating social value (Hota, 2021). Thus, this form of entrepreneurship focuses more on social problems than on profitability and growth (Mair e Martí, 2006;Moss et al, 2011).…”

“…They are types to be prioritized in studies of entrepreneurship responses to resource limitations and crises because they are abundant sources of anti-crisis action and overcoming for difficulties. With their emphasis on improving people's lives (Jones, Ratten e Hayduk, 2020;Hota, 2021), they promote resilience and quick recovery from difficulties (Dacin, Dacin e Tracey, 2011;Jones, Ratten e Hayduk, 2020;Storr, Haeffele-Balch e Grube, 2016).…”

The (R)evolution of the Social Entrepreneurship Concept: A Critical Historical Review

“…Their list of "core documents" would seem to suggest that the three schools of thought identified by Defourny and Nyssens (2010) may now be of limited use in classifying the social entrepreneurship literature, since almost all highly cited articles fall under the broad category of "social innovation" (Bacq & Janssen, 2011). In his most recent review, Hota (2021) analyzes the structure of the field by different time periods. This highlights the potential to incorporate a temporal dimension to the spatial-cultural aspects identified in previous reviews, alerting us to the possibility that we can not only identify the existence of different schools of thought/exclusive framings, but also trace how these have been constructed over time.…”

More Prosocial, More Ephemeral? The Role of Work-Related Wellbeing and Gender in Incubating Social Entrepreneurs’ Exit Intention

“…While most entrepreneurial studies focus on successful entrepreneurs, quite a few shed light on unsuccessful ones who quit their businesses [ 1 , 2 ], especially social entrepreneurs who endure more difficulties in sustaining their businesses [ 3 , 4 ]. Despite the fact that anyone who starts a business will, in the course of time, exit his or her firm [ 1 , 5 , 6 ], little is known about the psychological antecedents of such a personal decision of exit [ 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 ] and, more importantly, the emotional processes that might be undermining the business operation, eventually leading to the exit decision [ 8 , 10 ].…”