This article extends social entrepreneurship (SE) research by drawing upon a critical realist perspective to analyse dynamic structure/agency relations in SE opportunity emergence, illustrated by empirical evidence. Our findings demonstrate an agential aspect (opportunity actualisation following a path-dependent seeding-growing-shaping process) and a structural aspect (institutional, cognitive and embedded structures necessary for SE opportunity emergence) related to SE opportunities. These structures provide three boundary conditions for SE agency: institutional discrimination, an SE belief system and social feasibility. Within this article, we develop a novel theoretical framework to analyse SE opportunities plus, an applicable tool to advance related empirical research.
Al-AmoudiI.WillmottH. (2011). Where Constructionism and critical realism converge: Interrogating the domain of epistemological Relativism. Organization Studies, 32(1), 27–46.doi:10.1177/0170840610394293
2.
AlvarezS. A.BarneyJ. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 11–26.doi:10.1002/sej.4
3.
AlvarezS. A.BarneyJ. B. (2014). Entrepreneurial opportunities and poverty alleviation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 38, 159–184.
4.
AlvarezS. A.BarneyJ. B.YoungS. L. (2010). Debates in entrepreneurship: Opportunity formation and implications for the field of entrepreneurship. InAcsZ. J.AudretschD. B. (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp.23–45). New York, NY: Springer.
5.
ArcherM. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
ArendR. J. (2013). A heart-mind-opportunity nexus: Distinguishing social entrepreneurship for entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 313–315.doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0251
7.
AustinJ.StevensonH.Wei-SkillernJ. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x
8.
BacqS.JanssenF. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373–403.doi:10.1080/08985626.2011.577242
9.
BakerT.GedajlovicE.LubatkinM. (2005). A framework for comparing entrepreneurship processes across nations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(5), 492–504.doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400153
10.
BakerT.WelterF. (2018). Contextual entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary perspective. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(4), 357–426.doi:10.1561/0300000078
11.
BattilanaJ.DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.doi:10.5465/amj.2010.57318391
12.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0431
13.
BhaskarR. (1978). A realist theory of science. Brighton: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
14.
BhaskarR. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: Harvester.
15.
BhaskarR. (1998). General introduction. InArcherM.BhaskarR.CollierA., et al. (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge, ix-xxiv.
16.
BhaskarR.LawsonT. (1998). Introduction: Basic texts and developments. InArcherM.BhaskarR.CollierA., et al. (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp.3–15). London: Routledge.
17.
BhattB.QureshiI.RiazS. (2017). Social entrepreneurship in Non-munificent institutional environments and implications for institutional work: Insights from China. Journal of Business Ethics.
18.
BlundelR. (2007). Critical realism: A suitable vehicle for entrepreneurship research?InNeergaardH.UlhøiJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp.49–74). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
19.
BothelloJ.NasonR. S.SchnyderG. (2019). Institutional voids and organization studies: Towards an epistemological rupture. Organization Studies, 88, 017084061881903.doi:10.1177/0170840618819037
20.
ChoiN.MajumdarS. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.05.001
21.
CornerP. D.HoM. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635–659.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00382.x
22.
DanermarkB.EkströmM.JakobsenLet al. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.
23.
DavidssonP. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.002
24.
DavidssonP. (2017). Entrepreneurial opportunities as propensities: Do Ramoglou & Tsang move the field forward?Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 82–85.doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2016.02.002
25.
de BruinA.ShawE.LewisK. V. (2017). The collaborative dynamic in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(7-8), 575–585.doi:10.1080/08985626.2017.1328902
26.
DefournyJ.NyssensM. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.doi:10.1080/19420670903442053
27.
DewN. (2009). Serendipity in entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 30(7), 735–753.doi:10.1177/0170840609104815
28.
DimovD. (2007). Beyond the single-person, single‐insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 713–731.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00196.x
29.
DimovD. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–81.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00423.x
30.
DingK. (2007). Social enterprise: Practice in China. Social enterprise overview: A UK and China perspective (pp.50–82). Beijing: British Council.
31.
DohertyB.HaughH.LyonF. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.doi:10.1111/ijmr.12028
32.
DomenicoM. D.HaughH.TraceyP. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x
33.
EastonG. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004
34.
EckhardtJ. T.ShaneS. (2010). An update to the individual-opportunity nexus. Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp.47–76). New York: Springer.
35.
EckhardtJ. T.ShaneS. A. (2013). Response to the commentaries: The individual-opportunity (io) nexus integrates objective and subjective aspects of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 160–163.doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0192
36.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
37.
EngelkeH.MaukschS.DarkowI. -L.von der GrachtH. Aet al. (2015). Opportunities for social enterprise in Germany — evidence from an expert survey. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 635–646.doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.004
38.
EstrinS.MickiewiczT.StephanU. (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 479–504.doi:10.1111/etap.12019
39.
FossN. J.KleinP. G. (2017). Entrepreneurial discovery or creation? in search of the middle ground. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 733–736.doi:10.5465/amr.2016.0046
40.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.
41.
GrimesM. G.McMullenJ. S.VogusT. J.MillerT. Let al. (2013). Studying the origins of social entrepreneurship: Compassion and the role of embedded agency. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 460–463.doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0429
42.
GucluA.DeesJ. G.AndersonB. B. (2002). The process of social entrepreneurship: creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit. Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship. Durham: Duke University.
43.
HaughH. (2007). Community-Led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 161–182.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00168.x
44.
HockertsK. (2015). Determinants of social Entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105–130.doi:10.1111/etap.12171
45.
HuX. (2018). Methodological implications of critical realism for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Critical Realism, 17(2), 118–139.doi:10.1080/14767430.2018.1454705
46.
KempsterS.ParryK. W. (2011). Grounded theory and leadership research: A critical realist perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 106–120.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.010
47.
KirznerI. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60–85.
48.
LecaB.NaccacheP. (2006). A critical realist approach to institutional entrepreneurship. Organization, 13(5), 627–651.doi:10.1177/1350508406067007
49.
LumpkinG. T.BacqS.PidduckR. J. (2018). Where change happens: Community-level phenomena in social entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 24–50.doi:10.1111/jsbm.12379
50.
MairJ.MartíI. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
51.
MairJ.MartiI. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006
52.
MairJ.MartíI.VentrescaM. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819–850.doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0627
53.
MairJ.NoboaE. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. InMairJ.RobinsonJ.HockertsK. (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp.121–135). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
54.
MartinL.WilsonN. (2016). Opportunity, discovery and creativity: A critical realist perspective. International Small Business Journal, 34, 261–275.
55.
MartinR. L.OsbergS. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5, 27–39.
56.
MingersJ.MutchA.WillcocksL. (2013). Critical realism in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 795–802.doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:3.3
57.
MitzinneckB. C.BesharovM. L. (2018). Managing value tensions in collective social entrepreneurship: The role of temporal, structural, and collaborative compromise. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(2).doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4048-2
58.
MoleK. F.MoleM. (2010). Entrepreneurship as the structuration of individual and opportunity: A response using a critical realist perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 230–237.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.06.002
59.
MonllorJ. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: A study on the source and discovery of social opportunities. InHockertsK.MairJ.RobinsonJ. (Eds.), Values and opportunities in social entrepreneurship (pp.99–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
60.
MuñozP.KiblerE. (2016). Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1314–1318.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.098
61.
MurphyP. J.CoombesS. M. (2008). A model of social Entrepreneurial discovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 325–336.doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9921-y
62.
O'MahoneyJ.VincentS. (2014). Critical realism as an empirical project: A beginner's guide. InEdwardsP. K.O'MahoneyJ.VincentS. (Eds.), Studying organizations using critical realism: A practical guide (pp.1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63.
PacheA. -C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0405
64.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods,. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
65.
PerriniF.VurroC. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: Innovation and social change across theory and practice. InMairJ.RobinsonJ.HockertsK. (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp.57–85). Basingstoke: Basingstoke.doi:10.1080/08985626.2010.488402
66.
PerriniF.VurroC.CostanzoL. A. (2010). A process-based view of social entrepreneurship: From opportunity identification to scaling-up social change in the case of San Patrignano. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6), 515–534.doi:10.1080/08985626.2010.488402
67.
PrattenS. B. (2007). Explanation. InHartwigM. (Ed.), Dictionary of critical realism (pp.193–196). London: Routledge.
68.
RamoglouS. (2013). On the misuse of realism in the study of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 463–465.doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0371
69.
RamoglouS.TsangE. (2016). A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensites. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434.doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0281
70.
RobinsonJ. (2006). Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: how social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities. InMairJ.RobinsonJ.HockertsK. (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp.95–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
71.
SantosF. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4
72.
SarasvathyS. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4378020
73.
SarasvathyS. D. (2008). Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
74.
SarasvathyS. D.DewN.VelamuriS. R. et al. (2010). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. InAcsZ. J.AudretschD. B. (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research. New York: Springer.
75.
SassmannshausenS. P.VolkmannC. (2016). The Scientometrics of social entrepreneurship and its establishment as an academic field. Journal of Small Business Management.
76.
SassmannshausenS. P.VolkmannC. (2018). The Scientometrics of social entrepreneurship and its establishment as an academic field. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(2), 251–273.doi:10.1111/jsbm.12254
77.
SayerA. (1992). Method in social science: a realist approach. London: Routledge.
78.
ShaneS. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602
79.
ShaneS.VenkataramanS. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
80.
ShantzA. S.KistruckG.ZietsmaC. (2018). The opportunity not taken: The occupational identity of entrepreneurs in contexts of poverty. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 416–437.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.02.003
81.
ShortJ. C.KetchenD. J.ShookC. Let al. (2010). The concept of" opportunity" in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36.
82.
StephanU.UhlanerL. M.StrideC. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308–331.doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.38
83.
SuJ.ZhaiQ.LandströmH. (2015). Entrepreneurship research in China: Internationalization or contextualization?Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(1-2), 50–79.doi:10.1080/08985626.2014.999718
84.
TanJ. (2005). Venturing in turbulent water: A historical perspective of economic reform and entrepreneurial transformation. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 689–704.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.09.002
85.
TanJ. (2007). Phase transitions and emergence of entrepreneurship: The transformation of Chinese SOEs over time. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 77–96.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.002
86.
VolkoffO.StrongD. M.ElmesM. B. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 832–848.doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0288
87.
WynnD.WilliamsC. K.. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 787–810.doi:10.2307/41703481
88.
YuX. (2011). Social enterprise in China: Driving forces, development patterns and legal framework. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 9–32.doi:10.1108/17508611111130130
89.
ZachariadisM.ScottS.BarrettM. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 855–879.doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.09
90.
ZahraS. A.RawhouserH. N.BhaweN.NeubaumD. O.HaytonJ. Cet al. (2008). Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(2), 117–131.doi:10.1002/sej.43
91.
ZhaoM. (2012). The social enterprise emerges in China. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring, 30–35.
92.
ZhouW. (2011). Regional deregulation and entrepreneurial growth in China's transition economy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(9-10), 853–876.doi:10.1080/08985626.2011.577816
