SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AVENUES FOR THE FIELD DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RESEARCH PARADIGM INTERSECTION DISCUSSION

The aim of this paper is to identify and provide key antecedents that can serve arguments for employing integrative approach in the choice of research paradigm in Burrell and Morgan’s paradigm typology, for describing, exploring and explaining social entrepreneurship phenomenon. The author suggests that the proposed research paradigms are not mutually exclusive. The fact that social entrepreneurship as a field of research is at its preliminary stage, serves as an argument and gives freedom in the discussion of the choice of employing a research paradigm. The author does so through identifying commonalities and converging points that allow for employment different research paradigms in social entrepreneurship as a subfield of entrepreneurship research. In the first part of the paper  the reader is introduced into the concept of social entrepreneurship and introduce the development of this field. Subsequently, societal dimension of the social entrepreneurship is highlighted, with emphasis placed on the importance of intangible elements of the process, cauldron of social interactions involved, contextuality and processual nature of this phenomenon. This is followed by the overview the key research paradigms and discussion on a research potential of all four approaches in pushing the boundaries of this area - subfield further.

Full text (pdf)

1. Alvesson M.,  Deetz D., Critical management research, Sage, London 2000.
2. Anderson A.R., Dodd S.D., Jack S.L., Network practices and entrepreneurial growth, “Scandinavian Journal of Management” 26/2, (2010), p.121-133.
3. Burrell G., Morgan G., Sociological paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann, London 1979.
4. Ciepielewska-Kowalik A., Pieliński B., Starnawska M., Szymańska A., Social enterprise in Poland: institutional and historical context, “ICSEM Working Papers” 11, (2015) The International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project: Liege.
5. Defourny J., Nyssens M., The EMES approach of social enterprise in a comparative perspective, “Working Paper” nr 12/03, (2013), EMES European Research Network.
6. Diochon M., Durepos G., Anderson A.R., Understanding Opportunity in Social Entrepreneurship as Paradigm Interplay [in:] Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 13, eds. G.T. Lumpkin, J. A. Katz, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Published Online 2011, p.73-110.
7. Doherty B., Haugh H., Lyon F., Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a review and research agenda, “International Journal of Management Reviews” 16, (2014), p. 417-436.
8. Gioia D.A., Pitre E., Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building, “Academy of Management Review” 15/4, (1990), p. 584-602.
9. Grant P., Perren L., Small business and entrepreneurial research: meta-theories, paradigms and prejudices, “International Small Business Journal” 20/2, (2002), p. 185-211.
10. Howorth C., Tempest S., Coupland C., Rethinking entrepreneurship methodology and definitions of the entrepreneur, “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development” 12/1, (2005), p. 24-40.
11. Kaufman H., Time, Chance, and Organizations, Chatham House, Chatham, NJ 1985.
12. Lee M., Battilana J.,  Wang T., Building and infrastructure for empirical research on social enterprise: challenges and opportunities,  [in:] Social Entrepreneurship and Research Methods, ed. J.Short,  Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Published Online 2014, p. 241-264.
13. Lehner O.M., Kansikas J., Social Entrepreneurship Research across Disciplines: Paradigmatic and Methodological Considerations, 3rd EMES Research Conference, Social Innovation through Social Entrepreneurship in Civil Society 4-7 July 2011, Roskilde University, Denmark.
14. Nicholls A., The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre-Paradigmatic Field, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice” 34/4, (2010), p. 611-633.
15. Nicolopoulou K., Social Entrepreneurship between Cross-Currents: Toward a Framework for Theoretical Restructuring of the Field, “Journal of Small Business Management” 52/4, (2014), p. 678-702.
16. O’Connor E.S.,  Location and relocation, visions and revisions: opportunities for social entrepreneurship, [in:] Entrepreneurship as Social Change, eds. C. Steyaert, D.Hjorth, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA USA 2006, p.79-96.
17. Pacut A., Rozwój przedsiębiorczości społecznej – istota i kierunki analizy,  „Ekonomia Społeczna” 1, (2015), p. 7-20.
18. Piecuch T., Charakterystyka przedsiębiorców społecznych – przegląd literatury, „Ekonomia Społeczna” 2, (2014), p. 58-68.
19. Pirson M.A., Lawrence P.R., Humanism in Business: Towards a Paradigm Shift?, “Journal of Business Ethics” 93(4), (2010), p. 553-565.
20. Pfeffer J., Why the Assholes are Winning: Money Trumps All, “Journal of Management Studies” 53(4), (2016), p. 663-669.
21. Poselski projekt ustawy o przedsiębiorstwie społecznym i wspieraniu podmiotów ekonomii społecznej. 2015. http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/Druki7ka.nsf/0/B349885CF7ED5077C1257E690042C6D9/%24File/3521-ustawa.docx.
22. Schultz M., Hatch M.J., Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies, “Academy of Management Review” 21/2, (1996), p.529-557.
23. Starnawska M., Social entrepreneurship research – challenges, explanations and suggestions for the field development, “Problemy Zarządzania” 3/61, (2016), p.13-31.
24. Swedberg R., Social entrepreneurship: the view of the young Schumpeter [in:] Entrepreneurship as Social Change, eds. C. Steyaert, D. Hjorth, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA USA 2006, p.21-34.
25. Szarucki M., Evolution of managerial problems from the perspective of management science,  “Business: Theory and Practice” 16/4, (2015), p. 362–372.