Paper Analysis

1. Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Paper analysis: "The winding road of social entrepreneurship
definitions: a systematic literature review"
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-06-2015-0016
Andreia Pires
Diana Silva
Sthefan Gabriel Berwanger

2. 2
Objectives
● it proposes that by systematically examining definitions currently employed, a
discussion regarding disparity and complexity of the Social entrepreneurship (SE)
constructs might be advanced.

3. 3
Research questions
The paper explicitly mentions three research questions:
● RQ1: How has SE been defined and by whom;
● RQ2: In what contexts;
● RQ3: What key terms are employed to examine social entrepreneurship?

4. 4
Research methodology
The study adopted a Systematic Literature Review. The protocol
research:
● Databases: PsycINFO® and ABI/INFORM
● Keywords: “social entrep*” AND “definition”
● Exclusion criteria: No SE definition.

5. 5
Results and Discussion
Table AI summarizes the raw
data that served as the bases
from which data synthesis
emerged (Sample).

6. 6
Results and Discussion
Framework with which SE definitions can be scrutinized. Thus, the following three criteria are offered as a checklist to
use in deciding which definition to use – or develop:
● Comprehensiveness: Inclusion of – and balance among – four dimensions that influence the creation and
operations of entrepreneurial endeavours (environment, individual, process and organization).
● Distinctiveness: Mention of key terms that classify SE and distinguish it from other approaches of social
change.
● Embeddedness: Discussion of how a definition is woven into existing research and practice while making a new
contribution to the field. This includes connecting the definition to second-order constructs of motivation,
approach and outcomes.

7. 7
Conclusions
● The investigation of definitional context: e.g., geographic locations of researchers, publication year shows limited
discernable patterns in terms of previous research, suggesting difference in regional approaches to SE (e.g., Bacq
& Janssen, 2011) or comprehensiveness of definitions over time.
● Limited Keyword Commonality: Finally, limited key word commonality demonstrates challenges facing those
seeking a definitive definition of SE while also calling attention to possible mismatch between definitions and key
soft skills that make SE truly social (e.g., empathy, transparency, responsibility).
● The multidimensional conversation of SE in this study, enables leaders of different organizational types (e.g.,
nonprofit, for-profit, hybrid) to ensure their SE activities consider all contextual dimensions.

8. 8
Conclusions
● Organizational leaders may also use these findings to generate more discussion around what is missing from the
definitions (e.g., empathy, transparency) as applied to their activities.
● Reflective practitioners may find this research analysing definitional development of interest since government
sponsorship of SE research (e.g., National Science Foundation) and practice drives future government policies
and expenditures (Wolk, 2007; Wolk & Ebinger, 2010)

9. 9
Conclusions
● Keyword frequency and relation to geographic origin of author suggests a grouping into possible second order level
along the SE platforms of motivation, approach, and outcome, though the findings are not frequent enough to be
called robust.
● The keyword frequency and definitional dimensionality, alignment of possible consensus around certain aspects of
the definitions in the form of the keywords: innovation (21 mentions), social value (16 mentions), and process (most
highly mentioned dimension across all geographies) does not extend to a complete consensus around a definition
for the construct of SE.

10. 10
Contributions: Practical Contribution
● The primary beneficiaries of this systematic literature review are SE educators, as navigating a contested concept
without a clear definition, as acknowledged by Choi and Majumdar (2014), poses challenges in teaching aspiring
researchers and practitioners; this review aims to serve as a foundation for discourse on diverse perspectives in
defining the SE construct, while delineating essential components for a comprehensive definition.

11. 11
Limitations
The paper described the following limitations:
● The research is constrained by the choice of Gartner's (1985) model as the framework for organizing definitions,
selected based on a-priori criteria encompassing acknowledgement of SE stages and players, pre-growth era
publication, wide dissemination in academia, and prior utilization in SE literature analysis (e.g., Bacq & Janssen,
2011).
● In acknowledging potential limitations, the study highlights the bespoke quality assessment tool and proxy for
geography, with the authors employing established methodologies to ensure the instrument aligns with Systematic
Literature Review (SLR) goals of transparency and replicability.

12. Questions?