Technology Innovation Management: Social Entrepreneurship - Definition and Boundaries (Annotated Bibliography Sample)

Name
Tutor
Subject
Date
Annotated Bibliography
Abu-Saifan, Samer. “Social entrepreneurship: definition and boundaries.” Technology Innovation Management Review 2.2 (2012).
This peer-reviewed journal article addresses the definition of social entrepreneurship by delineating four factors that deemed to be indispensable in a sound and distinct definition of this concept. One of the four factors includes the acting within planned and well-executed earned-income strategies of financially independent organizations. The second factor is operating within entrepreneurially oriented firms that adopt strong cultures of openness and innovation. The third and fourth factors include being mission-driven and acting entrepreneurially through combined features that distinguish them from other types of entrepreneurs respectively. The author then describes the characteristics of entrepreneurship, which include dedication, innovation, risk-bearing, value creation, and opportunity awareness, among others.
Furthermore, the author outlines those of social entrepreneurship that include being persistent visionary, and opportunity alert, and taking initiatives, among others. Finally, the article discusses the boundaries that differentiate social entrepreneurship from other non-entrepreneurial initiatives that are mission-driven. The two boundaries are defined based on whether a social entrepreneurship initiative is nonprofit or for-profit. The article has sufficient comprehensibility and demonstrates the author’s authentic understanding of the subject matter. Its strengths include clearly defined arguments, simple vocabulary, conciseness, and proper use of analytical techniques. Its only weakness is non-adherence to the conventions of source documentation and citation.
Agafonow, Alejandro. “Toward A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. On Maximizing Versus Satisficing Value Capture.” Journal of Business Ethics 125.4 (2014): 709-713.
This journal article suggests an improved and positive social entrepreneurship theory base on value capture maximization as opposed to value capture satisficing. It extends the work of Filipe Santos by sustaining that refocusing the social entrepreneurship theory away from the system and to the organizational level can create a better understanding of practical value capture strategies that can serve a social goal. The authors provide an overview of Santos’ theory to establish a foundation for their improved social entrepreneurship theory. Then, they analyze the theory in the contexts of institutional means and organizational entities. Finally, they present a discussion of a holistic value conception, before explaining how to refocus the social entrepreneurship theory on an organizational level. This article is well written and distinctly detailed, with sufficient comprehensibility, clarity of ideas, and documentation of information. Its strengths include logical content organization, adequate theoretical foundation, and simple vocabulary. Its only weakness is that the author analyzes one theory but fails to suggest further research that would analyze all other existing social entrepreneurship theories.
Braunerhjelm, Pontus, and Ulrika Stuart Hamilton. “Social entrepreneurship–a survey of current research.” Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum Working Papers. No. 2012: 9. 2012.
The article is a description of an empirical study conducted to gauge the contemporary state of empirical investigations on social entrepreneurship, thereby underlining potential areas requiring sounder theory building and testing in the future. The authors reviewed substantial literature in the attempt to delineate explicit definitions and classifications of social entrepreneurship. The discussed various concepts pertinent to social entrepreneurship. Then, they defined the contexts and theories relevant to the structure of the survey method that they employed in the study.
Further, the authors presented their empirical findings covering the areas of distinct approaches, skills, backgrounds, discourse, demographics, motives, and other factors as they relate to social entrepreneurship. They concluded that social entrepreneurship is attributed to limited studies that adopt quantitative methods, a lack of thorough testing of hypothesis, little research design variety, and ambiguous definitions. Critically, the article represents the authors’ investigative abilities as it contains their analytical descriptions backed evidence from substantial peer-reviewed sources. In essence, it meets the qualities of analytical research papers in terms of source documentation, corollary judgment, and argument construction and articulation. Clarity, comprehensiveness, and professionalism in the style of writing are its strengths.
Cukier, Wendy, et al. “Social entrepreneurship: a content analysis.” Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability 7.1 (2011): 99-119.
This journal article is a literature analysis of content relating to social entrepreneurship, particularly derived from case studies. The authors provided a comprehensive definition of the social entrepreneurship terminology, along with a description of emerging issues surround this concept. Then, they discuss the social entrepreneurship categorization by comparing social enterprise and social innovation. Further, the article addresses how social entrepreneurship can get categorized on the basis of organizational form. Under this category, social entrepreneurship gets further subcategorized based on the levels of analysis, where macro-level, micro-level, and mesolevel are the subclasses.
The study used textual analysis methods that involved examining general patterns in social entrepreneurship discourse, identifying empirical studies, and exploring the discourse exhaustively. They discovered that the social entrepreneurship concept is challenging in terms of impact assessment and definition. From an analytical perspective, the article is well written, systematically structured, and logically organized. The article’s strengths include the use of graphs and diagrams for narrative substantiation, the sufficiency in idea articulation, and the adequate use of citations.
Kostetska, Irina, and Ivanna Berezyak. “Social Entrepreneurship as an Innovative Solution Mechanism of Social Problems of Society.” Management Theory & Studies for Rural Business & Infrastructure Development 36.2/3 (2014): 569-577.
In this journal article, the authors provide an abstract and methodological foundation of the feasibility and necessity of utilizing social entrepreneurship in generating socially oriented economic progress in Ukraine. They also outline some practical recommendations for developing and implementing the economic-development-oriented social entrepreneurship. The authors used theoretical methods centered on scientific knowledge as the basis for their study, which helped them determine that social entrepreneurship has broader possibilities of solving social problems. The findings of their study were that social innovation, which is a form of social entrepreneurship, has found its place and niche in the innovation, new information, and novelty economy in Ukraine, with incessant gaining of momentum. Social entrepreneurship in the form of social innovation can set goals of social rehabilitati...