Statistics
| Number of Journals | 22 |
| Number of Issues | 501 |
| Number of Articles | 5,252 |
| Article View | 9,906,545 |
| PDF Download | 6,602,423 |
Meta-Synthesis of Social Entrepreneurship Development Models | ||
| پژوهش های جامعه شناسی معاصر | ||
| Volume 12, Issue 23, March 2024, Pages 403-433 PDF (1.28 M) | ||
| Document Type: Research Article | ||
| DOI: 10.22084/csr.2024.26094.2091 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Seyedeh Mona Fazelipour1; Hossein Moltafet* 2; Abdolreza Navah3; Ali Asghar Saadabadi4 | ||
| 1PhD student in Social Science, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran | ||
| 4Assistant Professor, Department of Science and Technology Policy Department, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Abstract Today, entrepreneurship goes beyond the realm of business and is also meaningful in the social, political, cultural, moral, and other fields. Social entrepreneurship involves creating economic and social value in an innovative way. The aim of this study is to investigate and explore social entrepreneurship models using meta synthesis method. Thus, after referring to the sites “Google Scholar” and “Scopus” in the period 2000 to 2022, among the many scientific articles, 35 suitable articles were identified. The validity of the proposed concepts, the hybrid outputs, and the concepts generated by the Delphi panel technique have been categorized and validated by a group of elites. In order to analyze the concepts, dimensions and influential components, the content analysis method has been used. Findings indicate the development of social entrepreneurship dimensions in the form of five general categories: “multilevel innovation”, “social value creation”, “ecology and design of social business model”, “definition of the role of social entrepreneur” and “employment and income generation”. Keywords: Social Entrepreneurship, Business, Innovation, Creating Social Value. 1. Introduction Social entrepreneurship is an emerging field in entrepreneurship literature. Although recently the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship has received increasing attention in research and practice, but so far no common definition of it has been provided that is agreed upon by researchers. In a general definition, Rasmussen considers entrepreneurship to be inherently complex. This process includes all activities, functions and actions related to the perception of opportunities and the creation of subsequent organizations. This complexity is due to the uncertainty that results from how to choose the best method to develop a business concept, obtain the necessary resources and make effective decisions (Rasmussen, 2011: 448). In another definition, social entrepreneurship is a fluid and controversial concept that includes meanings that are interpreted differently according to the cultural, geographical and historical context. It seems that the understanding of social entrepreneurship is realized in its comparison with economic entrepreneurship. For this purpose, the general principles of social entrepreneurship will be examined first, and then the differences between the two will be determined by examining the principles of economic entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship offers solutions to a range of social problems (Nicholls 2006) and is acknowledged to be an effective mechanism for generating economic, social and environmental value (Acs et al. 2013; Austin et al. 2006; Murphy and Coombes 2009). Social entrepreneurship has also been associated with wider social change processes (Acs et al. 2013; Alvord et al.2004; Mair et al. 2012a, b; Mair and Martí 2009; Steyaert and Hjorth 2006. Social entrepreneurs also act as agents of social change. They act towards social development through new approaches, and create solutions to improve the status quo by exploiting opportunities that are overlooked by others. Just as an entrepreneur can create a new industry, a social entrepreneur can also find a new solution for social problems and implement it in the best way (Omarani et al., 2019: 12-13). The aim of the study is to explain the models of social entrepreneurship, using an interpretation paradigm that can be the basis for understanding, interpretation and a common agreement of this phenomenon. The main question of the research is what are the prominent, central and common concepts in social entrepreneurship development models? Answering this question, because it is an attempt for the conceptualization of social entrepreneurship, in addition to strengthening the knowledge bases in scientific and research literature through a structured review of existing models and extracting qualitative codes, definitions and concepts with the same methodology and assimilation And their combination provides new and more comprehensive interpretations and concepts. 2. Materials and Methods The research method is analytical-descriptive and based on interpretive paradigm. The data were collected using the qualitative research method. Meta synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses the findings of other qualitative researches in the field of a subject as data and includes them in the study based on the research question (Sandelowski, 2008: 105). In this method, the researcher identifies the research question and then seeks to find, select, evaluate, summarize and combine qualitative evidence to explore the research questions. In order to combine existing qualitative studies and create more meanings, this process uses an interpretive process along with precise qualitative methods (Ervin et al., 2011: 186). This study uses the meta synthesis process of Erwin et al (2011). in six steps as follows: Step 1: Formulate a Clear Research Problem and Question Step 2: Conduct a Comprehensive Search of the Literature Step 3: Conduct Careful Appraisal of Research Studies for Possible Inclusion Step 4: Select and Conduct Meta synthesis Techniques to Integrate and Analyze Qualitative Research Findings Step 5: Present Synthesis of Findings Across Studies Step 6: Reflect on the Process 3. Data In the third step of meta-synthesis, it should be determined which of the qualitative researches have the conditions to enter the research. Clarity of entry criteria and their appropriateness are very important and should not be underestimated; Because these criteria determine the inclusion or non-inclusion of studies that are selected to implement a meta-combination and directly affect its quality and scope (Jaafari and Amiri, 2018: 80). Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the articles obtained from the search match the research question or not. Thus, the selected studies have been reviewed several times. In this step, the articles were examined based on various factors, including the degree of relevance to the topic and the purpose of the research. And the cases that had less relevance were excluded from the meta combination process. After selecting and conduct meta synthesis techniques to integrate، and analyze qualitative studies, the findings of across studies were presented. Additionally; The recognition of concepts, their classification was formed in the appropriate classification format, in a way that has the best description for the concepts. Also, after discovering the relationship between categories and concepts, the main categories emerged in 5 groups. 4. Discussion In this study, it was found that social entrepreneurship can be divided into five general categories: “Multi-level innovation”, “Social value creation”, “Ecology and design of social business model”, “Defining the role of social entrepreneur” and “Employment and Income generation” categorized. Multilevel innovation is a category that explains innovation at micro, medium and macro levels. The second category of research is social value creation. Social value means the costs and benefits that society determines for the exchange of goods and services and the interaction between both sides of the exchange. In defining the main mission of the social entrepreneur, they emphasize “the focus on creating social value by providing solutions for social problems”. Apparently, those social issues that require an entrepreneurial response are merely a means to fulfill the primary mission of social entrepreneurship, which is social value creation. Ecology and design of social business model are the main prerequisites of social entrepreneurial activity. The meaning of ecology is to know the social, economic, political and cultural dimensions of the environment of social entrepreneurship activity. The definition of the role of social entrepreneur, employment and income generation are some of the categories that have emerged in connection with the development of the ecosystem of social entrepreneurship. 5. Conclusion Today, entrepreneurship has gone beyond the field of business and has gained meaning in social, political, cultural, ethical, etc. fields as well. Social entrepreneurship is the result of the interaction of people, roles, infrastructures, organizations and factors that create an environment to raise the level of entrepreneurial activity. In other words, this ecosystem in its initial framework, which entered the economic sociology topics mainly through the works of Schumpeter, refers to creative destruction and value creation through innovation. While social entrepreneurship implies the combination of creating economic value and social value in an innovative format. Despite the novelty of the concept of social entrepreneurship, innovators who have resorted to entrepreneurial capacities to solve social problems have existed for a long time; Innovators who have paid attention to the issue of poverty, education, health, art and the like and in this way have been able to bring about the transformation of the lives of thousands of people in parts of the world. The current research has sought to discover prominent, central and common concepts regarding the concept of social entrepreneurship development by adopting an interpretive paradigm. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Social Entrepreneurship; Business; Innovation; Creating Social Value | ||
| References | ||
|
- عابدجعفری، عابد؛ و امیری، مجتبی، (1398). «فرا ترکیب، روشی برای سنتز مطالعات کیفی». روش شناسی علوم انسانی، 25(99): 73-87. doi: 10.30471/mssh.2019.1629. - عمرانی، زهرا؛ حقیقی، مهدی؛ و مظلومی، نادر، (1389). «اولویتبندی عوامل مؤثر بر کارآفرینی اجتماعی در ایران از دیدگاه فعالان اجتماعی». پایاننامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، دانشکدۀ حسابداری و مدیریت. - گیدنز، آنتونی، (1384). مسائل محوری در تئوری اجتماعی: کنش، ساختار و تناقض در تحلیل اجتماعی. ترجمۀ محمد رضایی، تهران: نشر سعاد. - محمدپور، احمد، (1397). ضد روش: زمینههای فلسفی و رویههای علمی در روش شناسی کیفی. ویراست دوم، قم: لوگوس. - مقیمی، سید محمد، (1383). کارآفرینی در نهادهای جامعه مدنی. تهران: مؤسسه انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. - Alonso, A. D.; Kok, S. & O’Brien, S., (2019). “;Profit Is Not a Dirty Word’: Social, Entrepreneurship and Community Development”. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship: 1-23. e: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1579753 - Austin, J.; Stevenson, H. & Wei–Skillern, J., (2006). “Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?”. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 30(1): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x - Boore, J. & Porter, S., (2011). “Education for entrepreneurship in nursing”. Nurse Education Today: 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815005095. - Bourdieu, P., (1985). The form of capital in the hand book of theory & research for sociology of Ed. j. G. Richard son, New York: green wood: 24- 258. - Daud, N. S.; Ishak, S. I. D.; Abdullah, S.; Azmi, A. A.; Ishak, A. S. & Ahmad, Z., (2018). “The Discussion of Social Entrepreneurship: Review of the Literature”. In: MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 150: 05095). EDP Sciences. - Erwin, E. J.; Brotherson, M. J. & Summers, J. A., (2011). “Understanding Qualitative Meta synthesis: Issues and Opportunities in Early Childhood Intervention Research”. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(3): 186- 200. - García, M. D.; Meneses, M. J.; Sandoval, K, V., (2022). “Theoretical Review of Entrepreneur and Social Entrepreneurship Concepts”. Journal of Administrative Science, 3 (6): 19-26. - Giddens, A., (2004). Central issues in social theory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Translated by: Mohammad Rezaei, Tehran: Saadat Publishing House (In Persian). - Guclu, A.; Dees, J. G. & Anderson, B. B., (2002). “The process of social entrepreneurship: Creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit”. Center for the advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, 1: 1-15. - Haugh, H. M. & Talwar, A., (2014). “Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change”. The Mediating Role of Empowerment, Springer, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2449-4.PP1-16. - Abedi Jafari, A. & Amiri, M., (2018). “Meta-synthesis, a method for synthesizing qualitative studies”. Humanities Methodology, 25 (99): 73-87. doi: 10.30471/mssh.2019.1629 (In Persian) . - Mair, J. & Marti, I., (2006). “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight”. Journal of world business, 41(1): 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002. - Mair, J. & Noboa, E., (2003). “Social entrepreneurship: how intentions to create a social enterprise get formed”. Barcelona: IESE Business School Working Paper, 521: 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.462283. - Massetti, B. L., (2008). “The social entrepreneurship matrix as a “tipping point” for economic change”. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 10(3): 1-8. - Moghimi, S. M., (2013). Entrepreneurship in civil society institutions, (third edition). Tehran: University of Tehran Publishing Institute (In Persian) . - Mohammadpour, A., (2017). Anti-Methodology: Philosophical Backgrounds and Scientific Procedures in Qualitative Methodology. Second Edition, Qom: Logos (In Persian) . - Omrani, Z.; Real, M. & Oppression, N., (2009). “Prioritization of factors affecting social entrepreneurship in Iran from the perspective of social activists”. Master's thesis, Allameh Tabatabai University. (In Persian) - Peredo, A. M. & McLean, M., (2006). “Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept”. Journal of world business, 41(1): 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007. - Ran, B. & Weller, S., (2021). “An Exit Strategy for the Definitional Elusiveness: A Three-Dimensional Framework for Social Entrepreneurship”. Sustainability: 1-15, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020563. - Rasmussen, E., (2011). “Understanding academic entrepreneurship: Exploring the emergence of university spin-off ventures using process theories”. International Small Business Journal, 29(5): 448-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610385395. - Sandelowski, M., (2008). “Reading, writing and systematic review”. Journal of advanced nursing, 64(1): 104-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04813.x - Teasdale, S.; Bellazzecca, E.; de Bruin, A. & Roy, M. J., (2023). “The (R) evolution of the social entrepreneurship concept: a critical historical review”. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(1: suppl): 212S-240S. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221130691 - Volkmann, C. K.; Tokarski, K. O. & Ernst, K., (2012). “Background, characteristics and context of social entrepreneurship”. Social entrepreneurship and social business: An introduction and discussion with case studies: 3-30. - Weerawardena, J. & Mort, G. S., (2006). “Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model”. Journal of world business, 41(1): 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.001 | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 758 PDF Download: 595 |
||