Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Methodological Issues in Social Entrepreneurship Knowledge and Practice pp 15–38Cite as

Qualitative Research in Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is multi-disciplinary area of scholarly enquiry. Being a new area of research, this is yet to emerge fully. Scholars have been studying cases in search of concepts to explain social entrepreneurship. Attempts have also been made to theorise the phenomenon and to develop theories thereof. Hence, it is obvious that research on social entrepreneurship in the last decades has been mostly qualitative and case study based and the scholars have been mostly focusing on developing concepts to explain functions and processes while reporting the impact. Case studies have also been used to explain similarities and differences between social and commercial entrepreneurship. Qualitative research provides strength to unfold the concepts and allows enormous possibilities to open up new dimensions. In this chapter, critique on case study method of qualitative research provided us the way to present different phenomenon to theorise which eventually would provide sound basis to construct theory on social entrepreneurship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Though the number of people living in extreme poverty (UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda defines that people with income below $1.9 as extreme poor) among India’s over 1.3 billion population has declined dramatically, they continue to face income inequalities and encounter issues in accessing the basic services. Nearly 70% of India’s population lives in rural areas with limited access to basic sanitation, healthcare and electricity. Statistics relating to access to education and livelihoods are also not very encouraging. While 65% of India’s population is of working age, only 5.5 million new jobs are created annually against the requirement of 12+ million jobs.

  2. 2.

    Social Value Economy. A Survey of the Social Enterprise Landscape in India. British Council Report. https://www.britishcouncil.in/sites/default/files/british_council_se_landscape_in_india_-_report.pdf. Accessed on 20 July, 2019.

  3. 3.

    On the path to sustainability and scale. A study of India’s social enterprise landscape. April 2012. http://intellecap.com/wp-content/themes/intellecap/pdf/intellecap_landscape_report_web.pdf. Accessed on 20 July, 2019.

References

  • Carlile, P., & Christensen, C. (2004). The cycles of theory building in management research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2013). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, G., & Anderson, B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: Building on two schools of practice and thought. Research on social entrepreneurship: Understanding and contributing to an emerging field.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2014). Social co-operatives: When social enterprises meet the co-operative tradition. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 2(2), 11–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Mapping social enterprise models: Some evidence from the “ICSEM” project. Social Enterprise Journal, 13(4), 318–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 17–39). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Review, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Nursing Research, 17(4), 364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadad, S. (2017). Main research areas and methods in social entrepreneurship. De Gruyter Open, 11(1), 893–903 (Online on August 26, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1515/picbe-2017-0095).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A., John, B., Krista, K., & Haigh, N. (2012). Hybrid organizations as agents of positive social change: Bridging the for-profit & non-profit divide. In K. Golden-Biddle & J. Dutton (Eds.), Using a positive lens to explore social change and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 131–153). New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, R. (2003). Case study methodology. International Conference “Methodologies in Housing Research” organised by the Royal Institute of Technology in cooperation with the International Association of People-Environment Studies, Stockholm, September 22–24, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprises in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 17, 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynham, S. (2009). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsick, V. J. (1990). Altering the paradigm for theory building and research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2006). Playing the field: A new approach to the meaning of social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008). Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(2), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1999). Global civil society: Dimensions of the non-profit sector. The John Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S., & Sahay, A. (2018). Social enterprises in the Indian context: Conceptualizing through qualitative lens. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management, 43(1), 59–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake. (2003). Case studies. Strategies of qualitative inquiry. pp. 134–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert, C., & Dey, P. (2010). Nine verbs to keep the social entrepreneurship research agenda ‘dangerous’. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 231–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert, C., & Hjorth, D. (2006). Introduction: What is social in social entrepreneurship?. Entrepreneurship as social change: A third new movements in entrepreneurship. Book pp. 1–18. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, P., Bhat, A. K., & Tikoria, J. (2017). An empirical analysis of the factors affecting social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. S. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam and Stake. Qualitative Report, 20(2). Teaching and learning article 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2002). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management and Labour Studies, Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, VN Purav Marg, Deonar, Mumbai, India

    Satyajit Majumdar & Usha Ganesh

Authors
  1. Satyajit Majumdar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Usha Ganesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satyajit Majumdar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management and Labour Studies, Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

    Satyajit Majumdar

  2. School of Management and Labour Studies, Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

    Edakkandi Meethal Reji

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Majumdar, S., Ganesh, U. (2020). Qualitative Research in Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique. In: Majumdar, S., Reji, E. (eds) Methodological Issues in Social Entrepreneurship Knowledge and Practice. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9769-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation