Description
Week 7: Qualitative Research Designs
Sculptors have been known to say that whatever they created was always there in the stone, marble, or clay that they began with. The sculptor might say his or her work was to help the final form emerge from the stone.
Qualitative research can also be emerging in nature—there are many tools and techniques available to shape this approach to research, some dependent on circumstances, but like a sculpture, the varied tools and techniques needed to reveal the best approach for realizing the finished product require thoughtful consideration.
This week, you will continue to expand your understanding of a research framework in the context of qualitative research by analyzing and evaluating research questions in qualitative studies. You will also continue to analyze the interrelated elements of a research study making the connection among theory, problem, purpose and, now, qualitative research questions and design.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Evaluate qualitative research questions in research studies published in peer-reviewed journals
- Identify qualitative approaches in research studies published in peer-reviewed journals and explain how the researchers implemented the approach
- Explain use of qualitative designs in research studies published in peer-reviewed journals
- Analyze alignment among theory, problem, purpose, research questions, and design in qualitative research studies published in peer-reviewed journal articles
- Apply APA Style to writing
Photo Credit: Thorsten Henn/Cultura/Getty Images
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Babbie, E. (2017). Basics of social research (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
- Chapter 10, “Qualitative Field Research”
Document: Journal Articles (Word Document)
Document: Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist (PDF)
Discussion: Evaluating Research
Questions and Qualitative Research Designs
Just as in quantitative research, when researchers set out to design a qualitative research study, they are guided by its purpose, and their research questions align with their selected approach and the data that will be collected.
As you learned in previous weeks, alignment means that a research study possesses clear and logical connections among all of its various components. In addition to considering alignment, qualitative researchers must also consider the ethical implications of their design choice, including, for example, what their choice means for participant recruitment, procedures, and privacy.
For this Discussion, you will evaluate qualitative research questions in assigned journal articles in your discipline and consider the alignment of theory, problem, purpose, research questions, and design. You will also identify the type of qualitative research design or approach the authors used and explain how it was implemented. Narrative, ethnographic, grounded theory, case study, and phenomenology are examples of types of research designs or approaches used in qualitative research.
With these thoughts in mind, refer to the Journal Articles document for your assigned articles for this Discussion. If your last name starts with A through I, use Article A. If your last name starts with J through R, use Article B. If your last name starts with S through Z, use Article C.
By Day 4
Post a critique of the research study in which you:
This is the article’s name
Ebrashi, R. E. (2013). Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(2), 188–209. doi:10.1108/SRJ-07-2011-0013
- Evaluate the research questions (The Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist can be used as a guide to facilitate your evaluation; it is not meant to be used in a Yes/No response format in writing your Discussion post.)
- Identify the type of qualitative research approach used and explain how the researchers implemented the design
- Analyze alignment among the theoretical or conceptual framework, problem, purpose, research questions, and design
Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.
Research Theory, Design, and Methods
Walden University
Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist
Use the following criteria to evaluate an author’s research questions and/or
hypotheses.
Look for indications of the following:
•
Is the research question(s) a logical extension of the purpose of the
study?
•
Does the research question(s) reflect the best question to address the
problem?
•
Does the research question(s) align with the design of the study?
•
Does the research question(s) align with the method identified for
collecting data?
If the study is qualitative, does the research question(s) do as follows?
•
Relate the central question to the qualitative approach
•
Begin with What or How (not Why)
•
Focus on a single phenomenon
•
Use exploratory verbs
•
Use nondirectional language
•
Use an open-ended format
•
Specify the participants and research site
If the study is quantitative:
•
Do the descriptive questions seek to describe responses to major
variables?
•
Do the inferential questions seek to compare groups or relate variables?
•
Do the inferential questions follow from a theory?
•
Are the variables positioned consistently from independent/predictor to
dependent/outcome in the inferential questions?
•
Is a null and/or alternative hypothesis provided as a predictive statement?
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc.
Page 1 of 2
Research Theory, Design, and Methods
Walden University
•
Is the hypothesis consistent with its respective research question?
•
Does the question(s) and/or hypothesis specify the participants and
research site?
If the study is mixed methods, do the research questions and/or hypotheses do
the following?
•
Include the characteristics of a good qualitative research question (as
listed above)
•
Include the characteristics of a good quantitative research and/or
hypothesis (as listed above)
•
Indicate how the researcher will mix or integrate the two approaches of the
study
•
Specify the participants and research site
•
Convey the overall intent of the study that calls for a mixed methods
approach
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
Week 7 article
Social entrepreneurship theory and
sustainable social impact
Raghda El Ebrashi
Social Responsibility Journal
ISSN: 1747-1117
Publication date: 31 May 2013
PDF (275 KB)
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Social entrepreneurship and social impact
• Research design
• The theory of social entrepreneurship behavior: introducing new organization
typologies
• A conceptual framework for social entrepreneurship
• Conclusion
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this research is to introduce a theory for social
entrepreneurship based on integrating the entrepreneurship literature with a
global empirical research carried out on social entrepreneurs using grounded
theory. Theoretical contributions and insights from the social entrepreneurship
literature are integrated into the research.
Design/methodology/approach
This research is an exploratory inductive qualitative research based on the
grounded theory methodology developed by Glaser and Strauss, and
procedures developed by Strauss and Corbin with a constructivist stance.
Findings
The behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship studies the contextual
factors that lead to social venture creation, the underlying organization
dynamics and structures, and how these typologies measure social impact,
mobilize resources, and bring about sustainable social change.
Research limitations/implications
The result of the research is a behavioral theory for social entrepreneurship,
which introduces new organizational typologies that create, measure, and
sustain social change. Studying the underlying motivations and conditions
upon which social enterprises evolve will help in extending the research on
management of social outcomes and impacts. As the focus of the different
typologies of social enterprises is to produce measurable social impact,
researching these types of social organizations will advance research in social
sciences.
Practical implications
Studying the phenomena of social entrepreneurship and explaining the social
enterprises’ unique behaviors, characteristics, and typologies will advance
research for creating sustainable public wealth rather than just focusing on
private wealth and business performance. While Schumpeter’s
entrepreneurship theory led the literature on economic growth, social
entrepreneurship theory might be a factor for social development through
economically sustainable and viable models.
Social implications
This research will help in studying the role of social entrepreneurs in creating
new social institutions and structures, promoting social movements, and
mobilizing resources to create sustainable social impact.
Originality/value
This research is an attempt to contribute to the social entrepreneurship
literature by providing new insights about social entrepreneurship behavior.
The result of the research is a behavioral theory for social entrepreneurship,
which introduces new organizational typologies that create, measure, and
sustain social change.
Keywords
•
Social entrepreneurship
•
Social enterprise
•
Social impact
•
Social change
•
•
Grounded theory
Organization typologies
•
Entrepreneurialism
Citation
Raghda El Ebrashi (2013) “Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable
social impact”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 188-209
Download as .RIS
DOI
: https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2011-0013
Publisher
:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2013, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Introduction
Social entrepreneurship was introduced in the 1970s to address the issue of
social problems sustainably. The term “social entrepreneur” was first
mentioned in 1972 by Joseph Banks in his seminal work named The
Sociology of Social Movements, where he used the term to describe the need
to use managerial skills to address social problems as well as to address
business challenges. Social entrepreneurship practices emerged in the 1980s
with the establishment of Ashoka, which is the first organization to support
social entrepreneurs in the world (Ashoka, 2009). In addition, the term “social
innovation” was described in the work of Drucker (1990), who wrote about the
need for using management practices in non‐profit organizations to increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of producing social good.
Studying the phenomena of social entrepreneurship and explaining the social
enterprises’ unique behaviors, characteristics, and typologies will advance
research for creating sustainable public wealth rather than just focusing on
private wealth and business performance. While Schumpeter’s (1943,
2004) entrepreneurship theory led the literature on economic growth, social
entrepreneurship theory might be a factor for social development through
economically sustainable and viable models (El Ebrashi, 2010). Social
entrepreneurs focus on the creation of social impact and social change
(Nicholls, 2006; Mair and Noboa, 2006) and social transformation (Alvord et al.,
2004). Having said this, introducing and explaining new organization
typologies focusing on social change and transformation will contribute to our
understanding of how social organizations evolve, how conditions in the world
affect these organizations, and how these organizations sustain social fabric
(Courpasson et al., 2008).
The purpose of this research is to introduce a theory for social
entrepreneurship based on integrating the entrepreneurship literature with an
empirical research carried out using grounded theory. The social
entrepreneurship theory introduces new organizational typologies for social
entrepreneurial organizations, and it also studies the conditions, contexts, and
motivations that bring about those typologies. Social entrepreneurship is
embedded in the social sector or the citizen sector, which focuses on the
creation of sustainable social change (Bornstein, 1998). Studying how
organizations evolve is crucial to the study of organizations (Davis et al., 2005),
and introducing new typologies for social enterprises focusing on social
change will ultimately contribute to the study of how these organizations
create sustainable social impact.
The paper starts with introducing the literature on social entrepreneurship and
social impact; highlighting the unique outcomes and impacts of social
entrepreneurship. The section that follows explains the research design of the
empirical research carried out using grounded theory. Afterwards, the
behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship is thoroughly explained, and an
example from the grounded research is presented to illustrate the theory. A
conceptual framework follows, and then the conclusion is presented with
aspects for future research.
Social entrepreneurship and social impact
Social entrepreneurship evolved as part of the entrepreneurship literature.
Most of the entrepreneurship literature focused on the creation of new
ventures to produce profits. However, forming new ventures (Schumpeter,
1934; Moore, 1986; Bygrave, 1997) and their outcomes (Weick, 1979) were not
identified stricto sensu for profit making (El Ebrashi, 2010). Entrepreneurship is
about discovering a fit between certain needs and resources (Kirzner,
1973; 1979), establishing (Gartner, 1985; Schumpeter, 1934) an innovative
venture (Schumpeter, 1934), working on the venture’s growth, pursuing more
opportunities to continuously innovate in the venture (Moore, 1986; Bygrave,
1997) and producing sensible outcomes (Weick, 1979). This leaves a room for
redefining entrepreneurship, or in other words, to produce new organization
typologies with different outcomes.
The outcomes of social entrepreneurship are different from traditional
entrepreneurship, and measurement of those outcomes is also different.
According to Nicholls (2006), social entrepreneurs tackle market failures, which
resembles the function of entrepreneurs as well (Kirzner, 1973). However, for
social entrepreneurs, market failures are not only related to price disequilibria
or the inability of some people to access certain products or services. Social
entrepreneurs target market failures related to externalities and public goods,
and distributional equity (Holcombe, 1997; Mankiw, 2008).
What differentiates social entrepreneurship from any other form of
entrepreneurship is that the former focuses on achieving a social mission,
which is clear in the context and outcomes of the social component. While
both business and social entrepreneurship are socially valuable (Drucker,
2001), social value in social entrepreneurship is the explicit and central driving
force (Austin, 2006). Mair and Noboa (2006) said that the tangible outcomes
produced from the social entrepreneurial behavior should “yield and sustain
social benefits”. The sensible outcomes produced by social enterprises are
social impact and social change (Young, 2006; Martin and Osberg, 2007; Austin,
2006), which sustain social benefits. Social impact is:
The process of assessing or estimating, in advance, the social
consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions or project
development […] Social impacts include all social and cultural consequences
to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in
which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their
needs, and generally cope as members of society. Cultural impacts involve
changes to the norms, values, and beliefs of individuals that guide and
rationalize their cognition of themselves and their society (Burdge and Vanclay,
1996, p. 59).
For business entrepreneurs, there are well‐established methods for
measuring the value they make, which are based on looking at price/earnings
ratios and alike. Whatever different sorts of value businesses create, the
financial profit – the traditional bottom line is accepted as the most important
measure of value (Young, 2006). On the other hand, social entrepreneurs’
creation of social value rests on measuring the benefits acquired by people
whose urgent needs are not being met by any means (Young, 2006), which is
measuring social impact. One of the ways that social entrepreneurs use to
assess their social impact is the logic model, which explains the relationships
among inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impact (Zappala and Lyons,
2009).
Inputs are resources dedicated to a certain program, whether these resources
are human or financial resources. Outputs and results are the direct products
of the program activities including for example number of classes provided for
beneficiaries, number of beneficiaries participating in the program, number of
service hours, and alike. The outcomes are the benefits for participants in the
program activities, and usually they are short‐term benefits as an immediate
result of the program. For example, outcomes may include changes in
beneficiaries’ performance, increase in beneficiaries’ knowledge, the ability of
beneficiaries to pass exams … etc. Impact is the sustainable long‐term
change that happens in beneficiaries’ lives as well as the community at large;
for example, changing stereotypes or creating new vocations (Buckmaster,
1999; Haugh, 2006; European Commission, 2006).
Although Fowler (2000) sees social entrepreneurship as purely not for profit
and about creating a “surplus” to maintain organizational
sustainability, Robinson (2006) definition of social entrepreneurship includes
social enterprises, social venture capital, and social purpose organizations.
These can include for‐profit organizations creating financial, social, and
environmental returns, as the social/environmental impact is as important as
the financial return (Mair, 2006; Austin, 2006). Robinson (2006) defines social
entrepreneurship as “a process that includes: the identification of a specific
social problem and a specific solution (or set of solutions) to address it; the
evaluation of the social impact, the business model and the sustainability of
the venture; and the creation of a social mission‐oriented for‐profit or a
business‐oriented nonprofit entity that pursues the double (or triple) bottom
line” (Robinson, 2006, p. 95).
Another name for social entrepreneurship is “social enterprise”, where social
entrepreneurs consider strategic moves to subsidize their services through
exploiting profitable opportunities in the core activities of their non‐profit
venture (Nicholls, 2006; Dees, 1998), or via for profit ventures (Cleveland and
Anderson, 2001), or through cross partnerships with commercial companies
(Nicholls, 2006). However, using “social enterprise” as synonymous for social
entrepreneurship may not be accurate because there are social ventures that
are highly entrepreneurial without generating independent profit streams. This
entrepreneurial factor comes from continuous innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) in
providing public goods (Nicholls, 2006).
The earned income[1] concept might not be a defining characteristic of social
entrepreneurship, but it is crucial for social entrepreneurs to sustain their
ventures (Anderson and Dees, 2006; Boschee and McClurg, 2003). Once the social
entrepreneur operates at full cost recovery or beyond (i.e. generating profits),
he/she has entered the business world and thus is called “social business
entrepreneur” (Yunus, 2006, p. 40). According to the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (2006), in social businesses, profits might be dispersed to
shareholders; however, most of the profits are recycled back into the business
to maximize social impact and not to maximize profit. Conforming to Yunus
(2006), social businesses have primary social objectives, and “[…] because of
their structure and constitution, they are able to serve a triple bottom line
achieving profitability, societal impact and environmental sustainability
simultaneously” (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2006, p. 4).
Research design
The research attempts to provide a behavioral theory for social
entrepreneurship, which contributes to our understanding of why and how
social enterprises are formed, the typologies evolving from different
organizational contexts, and how the different typologies create and measure
sustainable social impact. Grounded theory is recommended to draw theories
about social entrepreneurship in specific (Robinson, 2006; Nicholls, 2006), and
entrepreneurial cognitive and behavioral research in general (Neergaard and
Ulhøi, 2007; Bygrave, 2007). Grounded theory gives in‐depth analysis of the
phenomena as well as discovers new dimensions for social entrepreneurship
(Bygrave, 2007). Thus, this research is an exploratory inductive qualitative
research based on the grounded theory methodology developed by Glaser and
Strauss (1967), and procedures developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998)with
a constructivist stance.
Due to the richness of the entrepreneurship literature and the existence of
cognitive and behavioral theories that are not found in the social
entrepreneurship literature, findings from the grounded theory research on
social entrepreneurship were integrated into the existing entrepreneurship
theories on cognition and behavior, to build on existing theories (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990; Whetten, 1989). This research depended on Bygrave
(1997)entrepreneurship behavior theory, and Schumpeter (1934) theory of
entrepreneurial innovation. The main cognitive theory used for theory building
was Ajzen (1991) theory of planned behavior.
Sampling
Sampling in qualitative research tremendously affects the quality of the
research; however, many qualitative researchers neglected this issue
(Neergaard and Ulhøi, 2007; Coyne, 1997). For this reason, this research
considered rigorous theoretical and purposive sampling techniques that are
suitable for grounded theory research (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Coyne,
1997; Glaser, 1978; Neergaard and Ulhøi, 2007). Glaser (1978) defines theoretical
sampling as “the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the
analyst jointly collects codes, and analyses his data and decides which data to
collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it
emerges” (Glaser, 1978, p. 36). When individual codes are saturated,
elaborated upon, and fully integrated into the emerging theory, the researcher
can stop collection of data. According to Glaser (1978), theoretical sampling
also includes purposive sampling, which is described by Patton (1990) “the
logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information‐rich cases
for study in depth. Information‐rich cases are those from which one can learn
a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the
research” (Patton, 1990, p. 169; cited in Coyne, 1997, p. 624). Accordingly,
grounded theory research always starts with purposive sampling to maximize
the possibility of obtaining data and thus leads to knowing where to go
afterwards and then proceeds with theoretical sampling (Glaser, 1978).
The empirical research was carried out in five different countries (Egypt,
Germany, Malaysia, USA, and Jordan), where 30 social entrepreneurs and
two experts were interviewed. These social entrepreneurs came from 13
different countries supported by five different supporting organizations[2]. The
research consumed two years and started in 2007. This paper highlights one
of the social entrepreneurs interviewed from Egypt. Refer to Table I for the
research map including the social entrepreneurs interviewed and observed,
supporting organization, countries, and dates of the research.
To insure data triangulation (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Eisenhardt, 1989; Coyne,
1997), all of the 30 social entrepreneurs were interviewed and indirectly
observed, while some of them (eight social entrepreneurs) were directly
observed. This research included both direct and indirect observations. Direct
observations include attending their meetings with their staff, beneficiaries, as
well as business meetings. Indirect observations included reviewing histories
and profiles of social entrepreneurs on the Internet, reading their
organizations’ booklets and profiles, watching documentaries about their work,
and most importantly reviewing the objectives and mission statements of all
social entrepreneurs. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), observing
subjects will help in identifying behaviors, and thus will help in identifying
concepts and categories. Social entrepreneurs who were only interviewed
were met outside their countries (when they were attending conferences or
business meetings) due to time and financial constraints. The interviews were
kept semi‐structured to allow for data emergence.
The first group of social entrepreneurs was selected from Ashoka and the
Schwab Foundation for two reasons (i.e. purposive sampling). The first reason
was these two foundations are regularly cited in the social entrepreneurship
literature, and thus they can help in generating data for developing the next
sample (i.e. purposive sampling followed by theoretical sampling). The second
reason is that the two foundations differ in their definition of social
entrepreneurs and support system for social entrepreneurs. Ashoka supports
social entrepreneurs who demonstrated success on the local level, and thus
have a prototype to be replicated on the national level, while the Schwab
Foundation supports social entrepreneurs who have already scaled up their
enterprises and moved to the national or international level.
Accordingly, by studying social entrepreneurs in different stages and with
diverse definitions (according to their supporting organizations), it can be
deduced if it is needed to diverge the research sample or focus on a certain
supporting organization for social entrepreneurs. This first group of social
entrepreneurs included three social entrepreneurs from Ashoka, three from
the Schwab Foundation, and one expert; all of them in Germany due to
convenience. E‐mails were sent to all of the social entrepreneurs listed on
Ashoka and the Schwab Foundation database in Germany, and interviewed
all who conveyed interest in participating in the research.
After coding the research of the first group of social entrepreneurs, it was
deduced there was a need to change the research plan and research social
entrepreneurs from different supporting organizations, organizational stages,
as well as culture (i.e. theoretical sampling). The literature on social
entrepreneurship was scanned throughout the empirical research and found
four other supporting organizations for social entrepreneurship namely
YouthActionNet, Synergos, Young Social Entrepreneurship Forum, and the
Skoll Foundation. A plan was created to interview a number of social
entrepreneurs from all the supporting organizations, but due to time
constraints, the Skoll Foundation was not included. However, the research is
near‐census. The social entrepreneurs interviewed were selected also based
on willingness to participate from the above‐mentioned organizations;
however, the researcher made sure to include social entrepreneurs from
various countries.
The research process
According to Straus and Corbin (1990), grounded theory research begins with
defining research questions and introducing early constructs. According
to Suddaby (2006) and Strauss and Corbin (1990), reviewing the literature prior to
carrying out the grounded theory research is essential to create theoretical
sensitivity, define the research focus and questions, and helps in early
sampling. Researchers then prepare for their field research, where collection
of data and its analysis are concurrent to allow for the data collection plan to
be changed and hence a better theory discovered.
The research starts with reviewing the entrepreneurship literature as the
starting point of realizing the entrepreneurship foundations. Then, social
entrepreneurship literature is reviewed along with scanning social
entrepreneurs in various countries so as to define the research context and
focus. After comparing the entrepreneurship literature with the initial scanning
of the social entrepreneurship literature and practices, the research gap is
developed and research questions are produced. The empirical research then
starts including interviews with social entrepreneurs from different
organizations. Some social entrepreneurs were both observed and
interviewed. The data is afterwards analyzed through grounded theory
procedures, and the findings are analyzed with the entrepreneurship literature
so as to come up with social entrepreneurship theories, and eventually
answer the research questions. Refer to Figure 1 for the research process.
Strauss and Corbin (1990) identify writing memos as essential; they are not
simply about writing ideas, but they are involved in the formulation and
revision of theory during the research process. In addition, hypotheses about
relationships among categories should be developed and verified as much as
possible during the research process (this is named axial coding). Hypotheses
about relationships among categories are developed and taken back into the
field for revising them. Accordingly, hypotheses are constantly revised during
the research process until they hold true across the study. Lastly, broader
structural conditions must be analyzed (conditional matrix), where economic
conditions, social movements, cultural values, and so on might affect the
research process, in addition to those conditions mentioned for every
category.
Coding procedures
As mentioned in Figure 1, this research goes through various steps in coding
(Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The first step starts with the open coding, which is
the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and
categorizing data. This is followed by axial coding, which is a set of
procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open
coding, by making connections between categories. The third step is the
selective coding, which is the process of selecting the core category,
systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships,
and filling in categories that need further refinement and development.
Process then follows axial coding, which links the action or interactional
consequences. The last step before producing the findings is the conditional
matrix, which is an analytic aid (a diagram) useful for considering the wide
range of conditions and consequences related to the phenomenon under
study. The matrix enables the analyst to both distinguish and link levels of
conditions and consequences. Theory is built from the analysis of the
phenomena that are given conceptual labels. Only by comparing incidents
and naming phenomena with the same term can a theorist accumulate the
basic units of theory. Afterwards, categories must be developed and related.
Categories are made up of concepts that are grouped to a higher abstract
level. Categories are generated through the same analytical process of
comparison, where they form the corner stones of the theory. Once the
category is identified, the researcher would want to know some of the
characteristics (i.e. conditions) of the category, and thus categories are
defined and given explanatory power. Refer to the appendix for a part of the
open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and process for the case
presented in this paper.
According to Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1994), moving back and forth between
literature, empirical research, open coding, and axial coding is essential to
discover new categories, increase theoretical sensitivity, and also to enhance
theoretical sampling. Accordingly, the research involved going back and forth
between data and the literature till the data saturation is reached (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990, 1994). Interviewing the 30 social entrepreneurs was not planned,
and it depended on data saturation. As a result, the time plan for the research
was not pre‐determined. The whole research consumed three years. The first
six months was for reviewing the literature on entrepreneurship and social
entrepreneurship and writing some of the literature and identifying the theory
candidates and the research gap. Afterwards, the empirical research started
directly and consumed two years, which also included the preliminary coding
of the research and its analysis, and writing the literature. The two years were
divided into five phases; a phase for every country to carry out the interviews.
When data saturation took place, the last six months were used for the final
analysis of the empirical research and theory building.
The theory of social entrepreneurship behavior:
introducing new organization typologies
Figure 2 shows the resulting behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship. As
per Ajzen (1991), there are three constructs affecting the formation of
intentions: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control.
Every construct in the behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship is affected
by various factors (antecedents) that are:
1. 1.
Personal and psychological factors:
•
•
Tolerance of ambiguity (Furnham and Ribchesten, 1995).
•
•
Managerial ability (Moore, 1986).
•
•
Commitment (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Vision (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Leadership (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Creativity (Moore, 1986).
•
•
Risk taking (Carland et al., 1984).
•
•
Need for achievement (McClelland, 1961).
•
•
Need for independence (Collins and Moore, 1970).
•
•
Locus of control (Rotter, 1966).
•
•
Perceived self‐efficacy (Bandura, 1982).
•
•
Alertness to opportunities (Kirzner, 1979).
•
•
Empathy and role of affective attitudes (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004; Isen,
2002; Baron, 2008).
1. 1.
Sociological factors:
•
•
Networks (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Teams (Timmons, 1978).
•
•
Role models (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Parents’ support (Bird, 1989).
1. 1.
Demographic factors:
•
•
Parents’ occupation and education (Collins and Moore, 1970).
•
•
Education (Collins and Moore, 1970; Bird, 1989).
•
•
Work experience (Collins and Moore, 1970; Bird, 1989).
•
•
Religion and ethnic background (Misra and Kumar, 2000; Brouwer, 2002).
•
•
Family background (Misra and Kumar, 2000; Brouwer, 2002).
•
•
Entrepreneurial father/family (Nair and Pandey, 2006).
•
•
Sex (Misra and Kumar, 2000).
•
•
Place of birth and nationality (Misra and Kumar, 2000).
•
•
Income level (Misra and Kumar, 2000).
1. 1.
Environment:
•
•
Sources of opportunities (Schumpeter, 1934; Kirzner, 1973; Drucker,
1985; Eckhardt and Shane, 2003).
•
•
Role models (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Competition (Vesper, 1980).
•
•
Resources (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Government policy (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Customers (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Suppliers (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Investors (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Bankers (Bygrave, 1997).
1. 1.
Expected values (Krueger et al., 2000):
•
•
Wealth.
•
•
Autonomy.
•
•
Stress.
•
•
Community benefits.
1. 1.
Situational variables (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004):
•
•
Lay off from work.
•
•
Dissatisfaction with work over time.
•
•
Others.
1. 1.
Organizational characteristics:
•
•
Starting capital (Vesper, 1980).
•
•
Management practices (Vesper, 1980).
•
•
Structure and culture (Moore, 1986).
•
•
Team (Timmons, 1978).
•
•
Response to the environment (Miller, 1983).
•
•
Organization configuration and modes (Mintzberg, 1973).
These antecedents were clear in the grounded empirical research. The theory
is derived from empirical research, and it applies to all cases explored in the
empirical research.
Social entrepreneurs develop intentions to form social ventures due to certain
attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control. While intentions
are the best predictors for behavior (Krueger et al., 2000), the theory of social
entrepreneurship behavior claims that intentions are developed first followed
by a triggering event, which leads to the opportunity discovery. The triggering
event is constructed from the grounded research and added to Ajzen
(1991) theory of planned behavior. The triggering event is not the same as
situational factors. Situational factors are set of events that might affect the
attitudes of the social entrepreneur toward performing a certain behavior, and
mostly those factors are personal situational factors. Situational factors are,
“events or circumstances that, at a particular point in time, influence the
relationship between an attitude and behavior” (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004, p.
254). Although attitudes should be consistent with behavior, situational
influences might affect attitudes and thus behavior. However, the triggering
event is a multi‐dimensional event that is triggered by certain knowledge of
the status quo (Gaglio, 2004); community catalysis (the community catalyst is a
c
Walden University
Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist
Use the following criteria to evaluate an author’s research questions and/or
hypotheses.
Look for indications of the following:
•
Is the research question(s) a logical extension of the purpose of the
study?
•
Does the research question(s) reflect the best question to address the
problem?
•
Does the research question(s) align with the design of the study?
•
Does the research question(s) align with the method identified for
collecting data?
If the study is qualitative, does the research question(s) do as follows?
•
Relate the central question to the qualitative approach
•
Begin with What or How (not Why)
•
Focus on a single phenomenon
•
Use exploratory verbs
•
Use nondirectional language
•
Use an open-ended format
•
Specify the participants and research site
If the study is quantitative:
•
Do the descriptive questions seek to describe responses to major
variables?
•
Do the inferential questions seek to compare groups or relate variables?
•
Do the inferential questions follow from a theory?
•
Are the variables positioned consistently from independent/predictor to
dependent/outcome in the inferential questions?
•
Is a null and/or alternative hypothesis provided as a predictive statement?
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc.
Page 1 of 2
Research Theory, Design, and Methods
Walden University
•
Is the hypothesis consistent with its respective research question?
•
Does the question(s) and/or hypothesis specify the participants and
research site?
If the study is mixed methods, do the research questions and/or hypotheses do
the following?
•
Include the characteristics of a good qualitative research question (as
listed above)
•
Include the characteristics of a good quantitative research and/or
hypothesis (as listed above)
•
Indicate how the researcher will mix or integrate the two approaches of the
study
•
Specify the participants and research site
•
Convey the overall intent of the study that calls for a mixed methods
approach
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
Week 7 article
Social entrepreneurship theory and
sustainable social impact
Raghda El Ebrashi
Social Responsibility Journal
ISSN: 1747-1117
Publication date: 31 May 2013
PDF (275 KB)
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Social entrepreneurship and social impact
• Research design
• The theory of social entrepreneurship behavior: introducing new organization
typologies
• A conceptual framework for social entrepreneurship
• Conclusion
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this research is to introduce a theory for social
entrepreneurship based on integrating the entrepreneurship literature with a
global empirical research carried out on social entrepreneurs using grounded
theory. Theoretical contributions and insights from the social entrepreneurship
literature are integrated into the research.
Design/methodology/approach
This research is an exploratory inductive qualitative research based on the
grounded theory methodology developed by Glaser and Strauss, and
procedures developed by Strauss and Corbin with a constructivist stance.
Findings
The behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship studies the contextual
factors that lead to social venture creation, the underlying organization
dynamics and structures, and how these typologies measure social impact,
mobilize resources, and bring about sustainable social change.
Research limitations/implications
The result of the research is a behavioral theory for social entrepreneurship,
which introduces new organizational typologies that create, measure, and
sustain social change. Studying the underlying motivations and conditions
upon which social enterprises evolve will help in extending the research on
management of social outcomes and impacts. As the focus of the different
typologies of social enterprises is to produce measurable social impact,
researching these types of social organizations will advance research in social
sciences.
Practical implications
Studying the phenomena of social entrepreneurship and explaining the social
enterprises’ unique behaviors, characteristics, and typologies will advance
research for creating sustainable public wealth rather than just focusing on
private wealth and business performance. While Schumpeter’s
entrepreneurship theory led the literature on economic growth, social
entrepreneurship theory might be a factor for social development through
economically sustainable and viable models.
Social implications
This research will help in studying the role of social entrepreneurs in creating
new social institutions and structures, promoting social movements, and
mobilizing resources to create sustainable social impact.
Originality/value
This research is an attempt to contribute to the social entrepreneurship
literature by providing new insights about social entrepreneurship behavior.
The result of the research is a behavioral theory for social entrepreneurship,
which introduces new organizational typologies that create, measure, and
sustain social change.
Keywords
•
Social entrepreneurship
•
Social enterprise
•
Social impact
•
Social change
•
•
Grounded theory
Organization typologies
•
Entrepreneurialism
Citation
Raghda El Ebrashi (2013) “Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable
social impact”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 188-209
Download as .RIS
DOI
: https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2011-0013
Publisher
:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2013, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Introduction
Social entrepreneurship was introduced in the 1970s to address the issue of
social problems sustainably. The term “social entrepreneur” was first
mentioned in 1972 by Joseph Banks in his seminal work named The
Sociology of Social Movements, where he used the term to describe the need
to use managerial skills to address social problems as well as to address
business challenges. Social entrepreneurship practices emerged in the 1980s
with the establishment of Ashoka, which is the first organization to support
social entrepreneurs in the world (Ashoka, 2009). In addition, the term “social
innovation” was described in the work of Drucker (1990), who wrote about the
need for using management practices in non‐profit organizations to increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of producing social good.
Studying the phenomena of social entrepreneurship and explaining the social
enterprises’ unique behaviors, characteristics, and typologies will advance
research for creating sustainable public wealth rather than just focusing on
private wealth and business performance. While Schumpeter’s (1943,
2004) entrepreneurship theory led the literature on economic growth, social
entrepreneurship theory might be a factor for social development through
economically sustainable and viable models (El Ebrashi, 2010). Social
entrepreneurs focus on the creation of social impact and social change
(Nicholls, 2006; Mair and Noboa, 2006) and social transformation (Alvord et al.,
2004). Having said this, introducing and explaining new organization
typologies focusing on social change and transformation will contribute to our
understanding of how social organizations evolve, how conditions in the world
affect these organizations, and how these organizations sustain social fabric
(Courpasson et al., 2008).
The purpose of this research is to introduce a theory for social
entrepreneurship based on integrating the entrepreneurship literature with an
empirical research carried out using grounded theory. The social
entrepreneurship theory introduces new organizational typologies for social
entrepreneurial organizations, and it also studies the conditions, contexts, and
motivations that bring about those typologies. Social entrepreneurship is
embedded in the social sector or the citizen sector, which focuses on the
creation of sustainable social change (Bornstein, 1998). Studying how
organizations evolve is crucial to the study of organizations (Davis et al., 2005),
and introducing new typologies for social enterprises focusing on social
change will ultimately contribute to the study of how these organizations
create sustainable social impact.
The paper starts with introducing the literature on social entrepreneurship and
social impact; highlighting the unique outcomes and impacts of social
entrepreneurship. The section that follows explains the research design of the
empirical research carried out using grounded theory. Afterwards, the
behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship is thoroughly explained, and an
example from the grounded research is presented to illustrate the theory. A
conceptual framework follows, and then the conclusion is presented with
aspects for future research.
Social entrepreneurship and social impact
Social entrepreneurship evolved as part of the entrepreneurship literature.
Most of the entrepreneurship literature focused on the creation of new
ventures to produce profits. However, forming new ventures (Schumpeter,
1934; Moore, 1986; Bygrave, 1997) and their outcomes (Weick, 1979) were not
identified stricto sensu for profit making (El Ebrashi, 2010). Entrepreneurship is
about discovering a fit between certain needs and resources (Kirzner,
1973; 1979), establishing (Gartner, 1985; Schumpeter, 1934) an innovative
venture (Schumpeter, 1934), working on the venture’s growth, pursuing more
opportunities to continuously innovate in the venture (Moore, 1986; Bygrave,
1997) and producing sensible outcomes (Weick, 1979). This leaves a room for
redefining entrepreneurship, or in other words, to produce new organization
typologies with different outcomes.
The outcomes of social entrepreneurship are different from traditional
entrepreneurship, and measurement of those outcomes is also different.
According to Nicholls (2006), social entrepreneurs tackle market failures, which
resembles the function of entrepreneurs as well (Kirzner, 1973). However, for
social entrepreneurs, market failures are not only related to price disequilibria
or the inability of some people to access certain products or services. Social
entrepreneurs target market failures related to externalities and public goods,
and distributional equity (Holcombe, 1997; Mankiw, 2008).
What differentiates social entrepreneurship from any other form of
entrepreneurship is that the former focuses on achieving a social mission,
which is clear in the context and outcomes of the social component. While
both business and social entrepreneurship are socially valuable (Drucker,
2001), social value in social entrepreneurship is the explicit and central driving
force (Austin, 2006). Mair and Noboa (2006) said that the tangible outcomes
produced from the social entrepreneurial behavior should “yield and sustain
social benefits”. The sensible outcomes produced by social enterprises are
social impact and social change (Young, 2006; Martin and Osberg, 2007; Austin,
2006), which sustain social benefits. Social impact is:
The process of assessing or estimating, in advance, the social
consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions or project
development […] Social impacts include all social and cultural consequences
to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in
which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their
needs, and generally cope as members of society. Cultural impacts involve
changes to the norms, values, and beliefs of individuals that guide and
rationalize their cognition of themselves and their society (Burdge and Vanclay,
1996, p. 59).
For business entrepreneurs, there are well‐established methods for
measuring the value they make, which are based on looking at price/earnings
ratios and alike. Whatever different sorts of value businesses create, the
financial profit – the traditional bottom line is accepted as the most important
measure of value (Young, 2006). On the other hand, social entrepreneurs’
creation of social value rests on measuring the benefits acquired by people
whose urgent needs are not being met by any means (Young, 2006), which is
measuring social impact. One of the ways that social entrepreneurs use to
assess their social impact is the logic model, which explains the relationships
among inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impact (Zappala and Lyons,
2009).
Inputs are resources dedicated to a certain program, whether these resources
are human or financial resources. Outputs and results are the direct products
of the program activities including for example number of classes provided for
beneficiaries, number of beneficiaries participating in the program, number of
service hours, and alike. The outcomes are the benefits for participants in the
program activities, and usually they are short‐term benefits as an immediate
result of the program. For example, outcomes may include changes in
beneficiaries’ performance, increase in beneficiaries’ knowledge, the ability of
beneficiaries to pass exams … etc. Impact is the sustainable long‐term
change that happens in beneficiaries’ lives as well as the community at large;
for example, changing stereotypes or creating new vocations (Buckmaster,
1999; Haugh, 2006; European Commission, 2006).
Although Fowler (2000) sees social entrepreneurship as purely not for profit
and about creating a “surplus” to maintain organizational
sustainability, Robinson (2006) definition of social entrepreneurship includes
social enterprises, social venture capital, and social purpose organizations.
These can include for‐profit organizations creating financial, social, and
environmental returns, as the social/environmental impact is as important as
the financial return (Mair, 2006; Austin, 2006). Robinson (2006) defines social
entrepreneurship as “a process that includes: the identification of a specific
social problem and a specific solution (or set of solutions) to address it; the
evaluation of the social impact, the business model and the sustainability of
the venture; and the creation of a social mission‐oriented for‐profit or a
business‐oriented nonprofit entity that pursues the double (or triple) bottom
line” (Robinson, 2006, p. 95).
Another name for social entrepreneurship is “social enterprise”, where social
entrepreneurs consider strategic moves to subsidize their services through
exploiting profitable opportunities in the core activities of their non‐profit
venture (Nicholls, 2006; Dees, 1998), or via for profit ventures (Cleveland and
Anderson, 2001), or through cross partnerships with commercial companies
(Nicholls, 2006). However, using “social enterprise” as synonymous for social
entrepreneurship may not be accurate because there are social ventures that
are highly entrepreneurial without generating independent profit streams. This
entrepreneurial factor comes from continuous innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) in
providing public goods (Nicholls, 2006).
The earned income[1] concept might not be a defining characteristic of social
entrepreneurship, but it is crucial for social entrepreneurs to sustain their
ventures (Anderson and Dees, 2006; Boschee and McClurg, 2003). Once the social
entrepreneur operates at full cost recovery or beyond (i.e. generating profits),
he/she has entered the business world and thus is called “social business
entrepreneur” (Yunus, 2006, p. 40). According to the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (2006), in social businesses, profits might be dispersed to
shareholders; however, most of the profits are recycled back into the business
to maximize social impact and not to maximize profit. Conforming to Yunus
(2006), social businesses have primary social objectives, and “[…] because of
their structure and constitution, they are able to serve a triple bottom line
achieving profitability, societal impact and environmental sustainability
simultaneously” (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2006, p. 4).
Research design
The research attempts to provide a behavioral theory for social
entrepreneurship, which contributes to our understanding of why and how
social enterprises are formed, the typologies evolving from different
organizational contexts, and how the different typologies create and measure
sustainable social impact. Grounded theory is recommended to draw theories
about social entrepreneurship in specific (Robinson, 2006; Nicholls, 2006), and
entrepreneurial cognitive and behavioral research in general (Neergaard and
Ulhøi, 2007; Bygrave, 2007). Grounded theory gives in‐depth analysis of the
phenomena as well as discovers new dimensions for social entrepreneurship
(Bygrave, 2007). Thus, this research is an exploratory inductive qualitative
research based on the grounded theory methodology developed by Glaser and
Strauss (1967), and procedures developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998)with
a constructivist stance.
Due to the richness of the entrepreneurship literature and the existence of
cognitive and behavioral theories that are not found in the social
entrepreneurship literature, findings from the grounded theory research on
social entrepreneurship were integrated into the existing entrepreneurship
theories on cognition and behavior, to build on existing theories (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990; Whetten, 1989). This research depended on Bygrave
(1997)entrepreneurship behavior theory, and Schumpeter (1934) theory of
entrepreneurial innovation. The main cognitive theory used for theory building
was Ajzen (1991) theory of planned behavior.
Sampling
Sampling in qualitative research tremendously affects the quality of the
research; however, many qualitative researchers neglected this issue
(Neergaard and Ulhøi, 2007; Coyne, 1997). For this reason, this research
considered rigorous theoretical and purposive sampling techniques that are
suitable for grounded theory research (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Coyne,
1997; Glaser, 1978; Neergaard and Ulhøi, 2007). Glaser (1978) defines theoretical
sampling as “the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the
analyst jointly collects codes, and analyses his data and decides which data to
collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it
emerges” (Glaser, 1978, p. 36). When individual codes are saturated,
elaborated upon, and fully integrated into the emerging theory, the researcher
can stop collection of data. According to Glaser (1978), theoretical sampling
also includes purposive sampling, which is described by Patton (1990) “the
logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information‐rich cases
for study in depth. Information‐rich cases are those from which one can learn
a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the
research” (Patton, 1990, p. 169; cited in Coyne, 1997, p. 624). Accordingly,
grounded theory research always starts with purposive sampling to maximize
the possibility of obtaining data and thus leads to knowing where to go
afterwards and then proceeds with theoretical sampling (Glaser, 1978).
The empirical research was carried out in five different countries (Egypt,
Germany, Malaysia, USA, and Jordan), where 30 social entrepreneurs and
two experts were interviewed. These social entrepreneurs came from 13
different countries supported by five different supporting organizations[2]. The
research consumed two years and started in 2007. This paper highlights one
of the social entrepreneurs interviewed from Egypt. Refer to Table I for the
research map including the social entrepreneurs interviewed and observed,
supporting organization, countries, and dates of the research.
To insure data triangulation (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Eisenhardt, 1989; Coyne,
1997), all of the 30 social entrepreneurs were interviewed and indirectly
observed, while some of them (eight social entrepreneurs) were directly
observed. This research included both direct and indirect observations. Direct
observations include attending their meetings with their staff, beneficiaries, as
well as business meetings. Indirect observations included reviewing histories
and profiles of social entrepreneurs on the Internet, reading their
organizations’ booklets and profiles, watching documentaries about their work,
and most importantly reviewing the objectives and mission statements of all
social entrepreneurs. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), observing
subjects will help in identifying behaviors, and thus will help in identifying
concepts and categories. Social entrepreneurs who were only interviewed
were met outside their countries (when they were attending conferences or
business meetings) due to time and financial constraints. The interviews were
kept semi‐structured to allow for data emergence.
The first group of social entrepreneurs was selected from Ashoka and the
Schwab Foundation for two reasons (i.e. purposive sampling). The first reason
was these two foundations are regularly cited in the social entrepreneurship
literature, and thus they can help in generating data for developing the next
sample (i.e. purposive sampling followed by theoretical sampling). The second
reason is that the two foundations differ in their definition of social
entrepreneurs and support system for social entrepreneurs. Ashoka supports
social entrepreneurs who demonstrated success on the local level, and thus
have a prototype to be replicated on the national level, while the Schwab
Foundation supports social entrepreneurs who have already scaled up their
enterprises and moved to the national or international level.
Accordingly, by studying social entrepreneurs in different stages and with
diverse definitions (according to their supporting organizations), it can be
deduced if it is needed to diverge the research sample or focus on a certain
supporting organization for social entrepreneurs. This first group of social
entrepreneurs included three social entrepreneurs from Ashoka, three from
the Schwab Foundation, and one expert; all of them in Germany due to
convenience. E‐mails were sent to all of the social entrepreneurs listed on
Ashoka and the Schwab Foundation database in Germany, and interviewed
all who conveyed interest in participating in the research.
After coding the research of the first group of social entrepreneurs, it was
deduced there was a need to change the research plan and research social
entrepreneurs from different supporting organizations, organizational stages,
as well as culture (i.e. theoretical sampling). The literature on social
entrepreneurship was scanned throughout the empirical research and found
four other supporting organizations for social entrepreneurship namely
YouthActionNet, Synergos, Young Social Entrepreneurship Forum, and the
Skoll Foundation. A plan was created to interview a number of social
entrepreneurs from all the supporting organizations, but due to time
constraints, the Skoll Foundation was not included. However, the research is
near‐census. The social entrepreneurs interviewed were selected also based
on willingness to participate from the above‐mentioned organizations;
however, the researcher made sure to include social entrepreneurs from
various countries.
The research process
According to Straus and Corbin (1990), grounded theory research begins with
defining research questions and introducing early constructs. According
to Suddaby (2006) and Strauss and Corbin (1990), reviewing the literature prior to
carrying out the grounded theory research is essential to create theoretical
sensitivity, define the research focus and questions, and helps in early
sampling. Researchers then prepare for their field research, where collection
of data and its analysis are concurrent to allow for the data collection plan to
be changed and hence a better theory discovered.
The research starts with reviewing the entrepreneurship literature as the
starting point of realizing the entrepreneurship foundations. Then, social
entrepreneurship literature is reviewed along with scanning social
entrepreneurs in various countries so as to define the research context and
focus. After comparing the entrepreneurship literature with the initial scanning
of the social entrepreneurship literature and practices, the research gap is
developed and research questions are produced. The empirical research then
starts including interviews with social entrepreneurs from different
organizations. Some social entrepreneurs were both observed and
interviewed. The data is afterwards analyzed through grounded theory
procedures, and the findings are analyzed with the entrepreneurship literature
so as to come up with social entrepreneurship theories, and eventually
answer the research questions. Refer to Figure 1 for the research process.
Strauss and Corbin (1990) identify writing memos as essential; they are not
simply about writing ideas, but they are involved in the formulation and
revision of theory during the research process. In addition, hypotheses about
relationships among categories should be developed and verified as much as
possible during the research process (this is named axial coding). Hypotheses
about relationships among categories are developed and taken back into the
field for revising them. Accordingly, hypotheses are constantly revised during
the research process until they hold true across the study. Lastly, broader
structural conditions must be analyzed (conditional matrix), where economic
conditions, social movements, cultural values, and so on might affect the
research process, in addition to those conditions mentioned for every
category.
Coding procedures
As mentioned in Figure 1, this research goes through various steps in coding
(Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The first step starts with the open coding, which is
the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and
categorizing data. This is followed by axial coding, which is a set of
procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open
coding, by making connections between categories. The third step is the
selective coding, which is the process of selecting the core category,
systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships,
and filling in categories that need further refinement and development.
Process then follows axial coding, which links the action or interactional
consequences. The last step before producing the findings is the conditional
matrix, which is an analytic aid (a diagram) useful for considering the wide
range of conditions and consequences related to the phenomenon under
study. The matrix enables the analyst to both distinguish and link levels of
conditions and consequences. Theory is built from the analysis of the
phenomena that are given conceptual labels. Only by comparing incidents
and naming phenomena with the same term can a theorist accumulate the
basic units of theory. Afterwards, categories must be developed and related.
Categories are made up of concepts that are grouped to a higher abstract
level. Categories are generated through the same analytical process of
comparison, where they form the corner stones of the theory. Once the
category is identified, the researcher would want to know some of the
characteristics (i.e. conditions) of the category, and thus categories are
defined and given explanatory power. Refer to the appendix for a part of the
open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and process for the case
presented in this paper.
According to Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1994), moving back and forth between
literature, empirical research, open coding, and axial coding is essential to
discover new categories, increase theoretical sensitivity, and also to enhance
theoretical sampling. Accordingly, the research involved going back and forth
between data and the literature till the data saturation is reached (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990, 1994). Interviewing the 30 social entrepreneurs was not planned,
and it depended on data saturation. As a result, the time plan for the research
was not pre‐determined. The whole research consumed three years. The first
six months was for reviewing the literature on entrepreneurship and social
entrepreneurship and writing some of the literature and identifying the theory
candidates and the research gap. Afterwards, the empirical research started
directly and consumed two years, which also included the preliminary coding
of the research and its analysis, and writing the literature. The two years were
divided into five phases; a phase for every country to carry out the interviews.
When data saturation took place, the last six months were used for the final
analysis of the empirical research and theory building.
The theory of social entrepreneurship behavior:
introducing new organization typologies
Figure 2 shows the resulting behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship. As
per Ajzen (1991), there are three constructs affecting the formation of
intentions: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control.
Every construct in the behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship is affected
by various factors (antecedents) that are:
1. 1.
Personal and psychological factors:
•
•
Tolerance of ambiguity (Furnham and Ribchesten, 1995).
•
•
Managerial ability (Moore, 1986).
•
•
Commitment (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Vision (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Leadership (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Creativity (Moore, 1986).
•
•
Risk taking (Carland et al., 1984).
•
•
Need for achievement (McClelland, 1961).
•
•
Need for independence (Collins and Moore, 1970).
•
•
Locus of control (Rotter, 1966).
•
•
Perceived self‐efficacy (Bandura, 1982).
•
•
Alertness to opportunities (Kirzner, 1979).
•
•
Empathy and role of affective attitudes (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004; Isen,
2002; Baron, 2008).
1. 1.
Sociological factors:
•
•
Networks (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Teams (Timmons, 1978).
•
•
Role models (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Parents’ support (Bird, 1989).
1. 1.
Demographic factors:
•
•
Parents’ occupation and education (Collins and Moore, 1970).
•
•
Education (Collins and Moore, 1970; Bird, 1989).
•
•
Work experience (Collins and Moore, 1970; Bird, 1989).
•
•
Religion and ethnic background (Misra and Kumar, 2000; Brouwer, 2002).
•
•
Family background (Misra and Kumar, 2000; Brouwer, 2002).
•
•
Entrepreneurial father/family (Nair and Pandey, 2006).
•
•
Sex (Misra and Kumar, 2000).
•
•
Place of birth and nationality (Misra and Kumar, 2000).
•
•
Income level (Misra and Kumar, 2000).
1. 1.
Environment:
•
•
Sources of opportunities (Schumpeter, 1934; Kirzner, 1973; Drucker,
1985; Eckhardt and Shane, 2003).
•
•
Role models (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Competition (Vesper, 1980).
•
•
Resources (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Government policy (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Customers (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Suppliers (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Investors (Bygrave, 1997).
•
•
Bankers (Bygrave, 1997).
1. 1.
Expected values (Krueger et al., 2000):
•
•
Wealth.
•
•
Autonomy.
•
•
Stress.
•
•
Community benefits.
1. 1.
Situational variables (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004):
•
•
Lay off from work.
•
•
Dissatisfaction with work over time.
•
•
Others.
1. 1.
Organizational characteristics:
•
•
Starting capital (Vesper, 1980).
•
•
Management practices (Vesper, 1980).
•
•
Structure and culture (Moore, 1986).
•
•
Team (Timmons, 1978).
•
•
Response to the environment (Miller, 1983).
•
•
Organization configuration and modes (Mintzberg, 1973).
These antecedents were clear in the grounded empirical research. The theory
is derived from empirical research, and it applies to all cases explored in the
empirical research.
Social entrepreneurs develop intentions to form social ventures due to certain
attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control. While intentions
are the best predictors for behavior (Krueger et al., 2000), the theory of social
entrepreneurship behavior claims that intentions are developed first followed
by a triggering event, which leads to the opportunity discovery. The triggering
event is constructed from the grounded research and added to Ajzen
(1991) theory of planned behavior. The triggering event is not the same as
situational factors. Situational factors are set of events that might affect the
attitudes of the social entrepreneur toward performing a certain behavior, and
mostly those factors are personal situational factors. Situational factors are,
“events or circumstances that, at a particular point in time, influence the
relationship between an attitude and behavior” (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004, p.
254). Although attitudes should be consistent with behavior, situational
influences might affect attitudes and thus behavior. However, the triggering
event is a multi‐dimensional event that is triggered by certain knowledge of
the status quo (Gaglio, 2004); community catalysis (the community catalyst is a
c
Categories: