Abstract
The last chapter introduces a methodological tool for analysing social entrepreneurship in a sports policy context, built on a number of steps in relation to the five theses. This tool has become useful in the research process and is valuable for communicating the analysis. A comparison of the seven case studies is conducted in which both similarities and differences are identified and analysed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, J. C. (2013). Struggling over the mode of incorporation: Backlash against multiculturalism in Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(4), 531–556.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Bacq, S., Hartog, C., & Hoogendoorn, B. (2013). A quantitative comparison of social and commercial entrepreneurship: Toward a more nuanced understanding of social entrepreneurship organizations in context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2012.758653.
Englund, T. (2000). Deliberativa samtal som värdegrund—historiska perspektiv och aktuella förutsättningar [Deliberative conversations as fundamental values—Historical perspectives and current conditions]. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Heidegren, C. (2009). Erkännande [Recognition.] 1. uppl. Malmö: Liber.
Honneth, A. (2014). Freedom’s right: The social foundations of democratic life. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jeanes, E. (2016). Are we ethical? Approaches to ethics in management and organisation research. Organization, 24(2), 174–197.
Myrdal, G. (1968). Objektivitetsproblemet i samhällsforskningen [The objectivity problem in social research]. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.
Schluchter, W. (1985). The rise of western rationalism. Max Weber’s developmental history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Seippel, Ø. (2015). På vilka sätt kan föreningsidrott ha demokratiska effekter? [In what ways can organized sports have democratic effects?]. In Föreningen, jaget och laget: 7 perspektiv på idrottens demokratiska effekter [The association, the self and the team: 7 perspectives on the democratic effects of sport] (pp. 15–24). Stockholm: Centrum för idrottsforskning.
Yitshaki, R., Lerner, M., & Sharir, M. (2008). What social ventures are? Toward a theoretical framework and empirical examination of successful social ventures. In G. E. Shockley, P. M. Frank, & R. R. Stough (Eds.), Non-market entrepreneurship: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 217–241). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bjärsholm, D., Gerrevall, P., Linnér, S., Norberg, J.R., Peterson, T., Schenker, K. (2018). A Methodological Tool for Researching Sport and Social Entrepreneurship. In: Peterson, T., Schenker, K. (eds) Sport and Social Entrepreneurship in Sweden. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72496-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72496-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72495-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72496-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)