Content area
Full Text
Competing definitions and limited empirical research are impediments to the emerging field of social entrepreneurship. Our study provides a systematic review of the literature and empirical materials used. A standardized search of academic databases and citation analyses revealed trends in the literature. Content analysis was applied to a total of 567 unique articles from 1987 to 2008 revealing patterns in the research. A total of 274 unique case studies or examples were cited in 123 articles, and we analysed their characteristics. Generally, we found very little empirical data on the topic, confirming the need for more rigorous empirical research.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper provides a content analysis of the literature on social entrepreneurship, with particular emphasis on case studies. Using standardized search terms in several bibliographic databases (EBSCO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar), we trace the trends in the literatures on: "entrepreneur" OR "entrepreneurship"; "social entrepreneur" OR "social entrepreneurship"; "social movement"; and "social marketing." We plotted the results by year for the period from 1987 to 2007. Our citation analysis demonstrates that despite growth in the literature on "social entrepreneurship" in recent years, it remains dwarfed by the research on "entrepreneurship" and "entrepreneurs," as well as on "social movements".
Our content analysis of 567 unique articles concerning "social entrepreneur" OR "social entrepreneurship" revealed interesting patterns. It confirmed that there are no consistency in definitions and objects of focus and that there is little rigorous comparative analysis. Some research encompasses social innovation and advocacy efforts. Other articles use a more narrow definition insisting on inclusion of income generation goals. We also found different levels of analysis, including studies of individuals (micro), studies of organizations and processes (meso), and broader studies of the economic, political and societal context (macro). Finally, the majority of the journal articles did not conduct empirical research and instead simply focused on theory. A mere 22% (123) made reference to specific examples of social entrepreneurship, primarily drawing on secondary accounts to illustrate arguments. While 274 unique case studies were cited in 123 articles, most appear only once and often with limited detail.
We suggest that strengthening the precision of definitions, exploring measures of success, increasing the rigor of empirical research, and drawing on related disciplines would strengthen the field of social entrepreneurship...
