Social entrepreneurship: critique and the radical enactment of the social (original) (raw)
Related papers
Purpose – This paper pinpoints the importance of critical research that gets to problematise social entrepreneurship’s self-evidences, myths, and political truth-effects, thus creating space for novel and more radical enactments. Design/methodology/approach – A typology mapping four types of critical research gets developed. Each critique’s merits and limitations are illustrated through existing research. Also, the contours of a fifth form of critique get delineated which aims at radicalising social entrepreneurship through interventionist research. Findings – The typology being presented entails myth-busting (problematisation through empirical facts), critique of power-effects (problematisation through denormalising discourses, ideologies, symbols), normative critique (problematisation through moral reflection), and critique of transgression (problematisation through practitioners’ counter-conducts). Research limitations/implications – The paper makes it clear that the critique of social entrepreneurship must not be judged according to what it says but to whether it creates the conditions for novel articulations and enactments of social entrepreneurship.
The quandaries of social entrepreneurship studies – a discursive review of the discipline
Review of Social Economy
The aim of this paper is to investigate the ways in which social entrepreneurship knowledge is both propelled and hindered by the socioeconomic circumstances. We examine the existing body of research and identify different conceptualizations and main schools of thought. We then demonstrate how the process of constructing academic representation is shaped by the prevalent public discourses. Our analysis leads to the differentiation between social entrepreneurship as mitigation and social entrepreneurship as transformation. We conclude that a better alignment of the two approaches-broadening research focus from outcome to process-would reveal their complementarity and contribute to the conceptual advancement of the discipline. We propose expanding the existing approaches with the politics of social entrepreneurship studies and stress the importance of increased reflexivity on the plight of the new discipline.
Introduction: What is Social in Social Entrepreneurship?
Entrepreneurship as Social Change
This book investigates the social of social entrepreneurship: what is meant by connecting entrepreneurship with the social? How does the social make social entrepreneurship different from entrepreneurship, if at all? Is social entrepreneurship a new field within entrepreneurship research that needs its own theories and concepts? Or is it just an epitheton ornans and is it better to question any distinction between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship? Or, yet again, does the social appellation create new chances to probe into the sociality of entrepreneurship and into a (new) entrepreneuriality of society? The title of this third Movements in Entrepreneurship book-Entrepreneurship as Social Change-suggests a probing answer in the form of claiming a double sociality for entrepreneurship. Firstly, the title indicates that entrepreneurship is connected to social change and societal transformation. This is an observation, belief and concept that has become popular in the recent rise in interest in social entrepreneurship, which we take up to inspect critically, yet affirmatively: how is social change understood, imagined and practiced? By connecting entrepreneurship with social change, we believe the platform or the 'space' of entrepreneurship becomes disclosed as part of society (Steyaert and Katz, 2004; Hjorth and Steyaert, 2003) and we can grasp the chance to look into the multidiscursive construction of entrepreneurship beyond any economic or progress-instrumentalist reductionism. However, some contend that the emergence of social entrepreneurship brings along rather a return to economic and economizing discourse and an intensification of managerial logic. This book examines this claim more closely, asks whether this is an inevitable evolution and inquires what alternative turns or twists can be formulated and tried out: this book asks what people to come, what society to come is unimagined in this dominant approach to 'social entrepreneurship', and brings such examples to our readers. Secondly, the title puts forward a concept of entrepreneurship that says that entrepreneurship is a process based on the course of social change. By conceiving entrepreneurship as social change, we believe a possibility is created to inquire into the social nature of entrepreneurship and to switch the
Social entrepreneurship is one of many economic activities that are included in the Social and Solidarity Economy, an alternative economic model which is rooted in solidarity, mutual cooperation and environmental sustainability. While efforts to theorize the solidarity economy and systemic change are ongoing, the relation between systemic change and social entrepreneurship remains under-theorized. We draw upon neo-Weberian and post-Marxism to theorize how social entrepreneurship can more effectively realize its transformative potential in advancing the values of the solidarity economy. We focus upon the notion of economic subjectivity and the processes by which it becomes centered upon the values of solidarity and cooperation. Applying our theoretical arguments to practical activities, we argue social entrepreneurship, through discourse and practice, can better realize its transformational potential and facilitate an alternative economic subjectivity through efforts to defetishize commodities, promote consensus-based governance, and build networks with other economic activities in the solidarity economy.
Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept
Journal of World Business, 2006
This paper undertakes an analytical, critical and synthetic examination of "social entrepreneurship" in its common use, considering both the "social" and the "entrepreneurship" elements in the concept. On both points there is a range of use, with significant differences marked out by such things as the prominence of social goals and what are thought of as the salient features of entrepreneurship.
Theorising the emerging field of social entrepreneurship
IJSEI, 2011
Social entrepreneurship, as an emerging academic field, although one still in the very early stage of its development, has been nourished by many of the key concepts developed within the commercial entrepreneurship literature, but this is beginning to change as the social entrepreneurship landscape has become a more fundamental part of the collection of entrepreneurship practices. This paper is concerned with how best to develop a new research paradigm, and considers ways in which this research approach is different from, but complementary to, commercial entrepreneurship research agenda in theory, as well as practice.
Rethinking the Boundaries and Definition of Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Literature Review
Business management and strategy, 2024
With a passion for leaving no one behind, social entrepreneurs are driven to find solutions for societal problems that have not yet been addressed by traditional methods. Although potential benefits offered by social entrepreneurship are undeniable, the exact boundaries and definition of this emerging concept remain somewhat nebulous. Without an explicit understanding of what social entrepreneurship entails, it becomes susceptible to different interpretations and undermines its significance in economic and social development. Consequently, this paper aims to rigorously define social entrepreneurship through an extensive review of the literature. To this end, the library method has been used to search electronic academic databases and Internet sources alike. The results of our research revealed that social entrepreneurship can be defined as an entrepreneurial process that employs business techniques to bring innovative yet sustainable solutions for persistent social problemsultimately leading to improved quality of life and empowering disadvantaged communities. This paper makes a significant contribution to covering the knowledge gap by distinguishing social entrepreneurship from various similar entities and activities.
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A CONCEPT PROBLEMATIC.
Social entrepreneurship has recently seen greater attention from the public sector, as well as from researchers. However, the absence of a unifying paradigm in the area has led to a proliferation of definitions. In addition, several approaches to the phenomenon, and different schools of thought have emerged in different parts of the world. At first, because of the different conceptions of capitalism and the role of government, there seems to be a difference between the American and the European conceptions of social entrepreneurship. We will try in this communication to clarify the concepts of \"social entrepreneurship\", \"social entrepreneur\" and \"social organization\" and to consider whether there is a transatlantic divide in how they are designed and defined. After justifying the need of a definition, we will present different points according to geographical areas. We propose an explanation for key concepts surrounding social entrepreneurship and finally discuss the implications for future research.
Social Entrepreneurship and Broader Theories: Shedding New Light on the ‘Bigger Picture’
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2013
This article documents the results of a research workshop bringing together six perspectives on social entrepreneurship. The idea was to challenge existing concepts of the economy, the firm, and entrepreneurship in order to shed new light on social entrepreneurship and on our existing theoretical frameworks. The first two contributions use a macro-perspective and discuss the notion of adaptive societies and the tragedies of disharmonization, respectively. Taking a management perspective, the next two focus on the limits of conventional assumptions in management theory, particularly human capital theory and resource-based view. The final two contributions follow an entrepreneurship perspective highlighting the usefulness of mobilization theory and the business model lens to social entrepreneurship. Despite this diversity, all contributions share that they challenge narrow definitions of the unit of analysis in social entrepreneurship; they illustrate the aspect of social embeddedness, and they argue for an open-but-disciplined diversity of theories in social entrepreneurship research.