Research Article
Social Entrepreneurship: A Bibliometric-Based Research Trend
Aliya Yesmin1*, Umar Haiyat Abdul Kohar2, FarihaAnjum Hira3, Alam Md Moshiul4
1*2Department of Business Administration, Azman Hashim International Business School,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM),Johor,Malaysia, 81310
3Azman Hashim International Business School, University Teknologi Malaysia,54100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 4Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 54100,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: 1*yaliya@graduate.utm.my
Article History: Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2021; Published online: 05 April 2021
Abstract:Social entrepreneurship is a relatively novel topic and popular area of research and practice. It is recognised as a
key instrument for addressing social issues and promoting sustainable development.The evolution of the social entrepreneurship concept has been discussed in the entrepreneurship domain last fifteen years.Therefore, a comprehensive inquiry of the overall body of knowledge relating tosocial entrepreneurship research in the entrepreneurship domain is vital for stimulating social entrepreneurship ecosystems. The research aims to support further study based on the current research trend through graphical visualization and bibliographic analysis. This study also maps the expansion of scientific and academic researchto explain the most recent stage in developing the phenomenon. It presents a general structure of the field and details of the main topics studied in this discipline. One thousand seven hundred sixty-three (1763) research papers published in the Scopus database from 1996 to 2019 were reviewed using bibliometric statistics covering 23 years. Thus, the study, therefore, serves to map trends in the development of the research in this field. The results showed some useful insights, such as the pattern of annual publications, top citation-based authors, organizations, nations, and publishers worldwide. This paper will also provide a primary reference source for the researcher to establish a theoretical framework in this area.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Social entrepreneurship, Scopus database, Bibliometric method, VOS-Viewer
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship research has a long history, dating back to the 19th century. Literature reviews that evaluate entrepreneurship's origin come from different disciplines like- entrepreneurship journals, professional associations, conference records, meeting records, and academic activities (Landström, 2020). The concept of social entrepreneurship originated from various concepts and theories of entrepreneurshipthat describe social welfare and commercial logic (Martin &Osberg, 2007). Therefore, it takes an in-depth understanding of the idea of entrepreneurship to decipher what social entrepreneurship includes. Similarly, social entrepreneurs use business principles to bring social change by establishing and managing a business venture suggested by Wilton (2016).Light (2011) said Social entrepreneurs are more than another breed of a business entrepreneur. Based on the understanding that social entrepreneurship aims to create social value through its unique principles.Based on the knowledge that, through its unique principles, social entrepreneurship seeks to generate social worth.
In recent years, the interest and impact of social entrepreneurship have increased significantly. According to Rey-Martí et al. (2016), social entrepreneurship's importance lies in its economic and social development effects. Adds value to society, offers solutions to social problems, and seeks to increase personal wealth. Moreover, social entrepreneurship generates social worth and creates jobs and wealth. The process of social entrepreneurship originates from a personal mission that desires to trigger a change or social transformation. Social entrepreneurs' mission is to make a profound contribution to society by pursuing material goals and objectives that mobilise resources to address social issues and meet basic income, health care, and status.
Banks and financial institutions are reluctant to lend financial support to SMEs in developing countries where resources are scarce. Governments play an even morestrict role in providing funding sources for SME development (Wonglimpiyarat, 2015). Lack of resources (British Council survey, 2015) is considered one of the significant barriers or hindrances to SMEs' responsible business practices. Therefore resource-poor entrepreneurs are looking for innovative business models to sustain themselves (Halme&Korpela, 2014). Entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship enables young people to be independent and to fulfill their spirit of humanity. They see social entrepreneurship as a respectable and noble career. Interestingly, they also saw social entrepreneurship as risky and likely to take on others' challenges or poverty (Ashrafi et al., 2020).
Many people have trouble making a living because of the changing world economy. People are no longer able to rely on the traditional job market as provided in the public or private sectors as the competition to be employed by companies or organizations is getting high. Therefore, more people have become self-employed, as
self-employment can be secure, safe, with the possibility of producing profits that arise the scope of social entrepreneurship (Bahrain et al., 2018). Entrepreneurship and innovative business start-ups have drawn researchers' attention more generally as a survival strategy for young start-up enterprises (Chipeta, 2019). In Southeast Asia, this business field was relatively new, which can be proven by the difference between entrepreneurial and social entrepreneurial activity. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2009) shows the prevalence and the comparison between the Stage Social Entrepreneurship Activity (SEA) and Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) by Country.SEA rates are much lower than TEA rates that almost all the country showed. According to GEM (2019), entrepreneurship and SE development, activities, and research in developing countries are neglected compared to developed countries. This question's practical relevance stems from the fact that the social economy employs 14.5 million people accounting for 6.5% of its total employment in developed countries (Martin &Osberg, 2007; Kedmenec, 2015).
The analysis of social entrepreneurship status is still scarce, though despite interest. The amount or quality of research conducted in this area has yet to be determined by scholars (Peredo& McLean, 2006). In the field of entrepreneurship, bibliometrics is rarely used.Only two reviews (Desa 2007, Granados et al. 2011) were based on bibliometrics until 2011. Both used rather small data sets, which have grown significantly in the last five years. This paper is closing a research gap by employing a large-scale data set for a bibliometric study and thereby generating economies of an overviewon social entrepreneurship as a scholarly field of interest. Social entrepreneurship's growth trends are largely accessible in a narrative form currently in the literature. Without any statistical examination of research patterns, the literature offers theoretical analysis (Abdullah et al., 2017), limiting social entrepreneurship research and justifying the present study's need.
According to Anjum, HiraFariha, et al. (2020), in terms of classification and the growth pattern of a particular research field, literature reviews are subjected to bias. The present study motivates writers to continue studying through a bibliometric analytical method to define the current literature gap and highlight other existing gaps. Therefore the purpose of the motivation to explore bibliometric research on social entrepreneurship is to discern quantitative differences among its substitutes to define a universal perspective on the state, scope, and impact of the research. The aim is to spread an analytical method that can complement and expand research programs through the academic community (Gaviria-Marin, Merigo&Popa, 2018). Therefore, this research illustrates the latest trends in the body of knowledge on social entrepreneurship. This paper closes a research gap by using a large-scale data set from 1996 to 2019 and thus generates an overview of 'social entrepreneurship' as a field of academic interest. In this paper, our objectives were to analyse leading institutions and authors with their affiliations, identify the domination of countries based on major applications, highlight common terminology and research topics, provide insight into potential collaboration and future directions on social entrepreneurship. This paper will help researchers, policy makers, and individuals understand the research trends in social entreprenurship to discover the potential and prospects for future research.
2. Methodology
Bibliometric analysis study is a mechanical approach based on academic literature database outputs to understand global research trends in a specific area. Bibliometric analysis paper distinguishes this type of approach from a review paper that was primarily intended to discuss the latest advances, challenges, and future directions of a certain subject. Alan Pritchard initiated the theory of bibliometric analysis in 1969. The development of bibliometric science research has stimulated and facilitated the advancement of information and communication technologies later on (Anjum, HiraFariha,et al.2020). A bibliometric research review is a systematic methodology focused on academic papers published in scientific databases to classify research patterns in a particular interest field(Abdullah, Waemustafa& Mat, 2017; Martínez-López, Francisco J., et al.2018). Several methodologies are used in a bibliometric analysis to visualize the qualitative and quantitative changes in a particular research field. (Gaviria-Marin,Merigo&Popa, 2018).Bibliometric analysis is a possible approach that draws up previous research, reflects the creation of studies, and promotes future studies' advancement through its gauges (Anjum, HiraFariha, et al.2020).
In addition, this systematic method lets researchers determine and criticise the current state of scientific study in a specific subject field. The bibliometric review aims to recognise the development and difficulties of a current phenomenon of interest by recognising scientific publications' characteristics (Martínez-López, Francisco J., et al.2018). In different disciplines, the above features have facilitated the use of bibliometric techniques. Indeed, from this viewpoint, various market and research management areas have been primarily studied, such as economics, econometrics, creativity (Martínez-López, Francisco, et al.2018),city logistics, waste management, sustainable transportation (Roig-Tierno, Gonzalez-Cruz &Llopis-Martinez, 2017),management, international entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, business incubator (Martínez-López, Francisco, et al.2018) corporate
social responsibility, knowledge management, education and medicine, international scientific cooperation(Martínez-López, Francisco, et al.2018; Roig-Tierno, Gonzalez-Cruz &Llopis-Martinez, 2017) family business (Casillas&Acedo, 2007) and business ethics (Calabretta, Durisin&Ogliengo, 2011). Furthermore, this approach has recently been accepted by some publishers to include an overview of their publications, such as, for example, to analyze the characteristics of scholarly publications, the Journal of Business Research, the European Journal of Marketing, the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, the International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems or Information Sciences all use this method (Gaviria-Marin, Merigo&Popa, 2018).
However, it is not the sole aim of bibliometric analysis to the investigation of particular research interests. This research uses the technique to explore the impact of a systematic method to recognize the interactions between the cause and effect publication trends in social entrepreneurship (Sassmannshausen& Volkmann, 2013). Based on the number of publications recorded on a specific database, bibliometric describes the interpretation of global patterns in a particular research field more clearly than expected. Therefore, a bibliometric approach distinguishes itself from a research paper in which the primary objective is to address current trends, issues, or recommendations for the future study of specific topics. Furthermore, a search in Scopus shows a small number of articles (Kumar &Kiran, 2019; Hota, Subramanian &Narayanamurthy, 2019; Rey-Martí et al., 2016) on social entrepreneurship using bibliometric analysis, which motivated using the method in this work. The previous articles have different goals, but they conclude that the field is in its infancy but evolving in general. They recognize the need for further research that would allow social entrepreneurship researchers to analyze research issues better and create a common ground that would integrate the basis of the theory of social entrepreneurship (Rey-Martí et al., 2016).
2.1 Data Sourcing Strategy
This research analyses the Scopus database-save data. Data mining was carried out between 17 and 18 October 2020. Researchers‟ area of interest is „Social entrepreneurship.‟ Therefore, the search query string was:TITLE-ABS-KEY ("SOCIAL* ENTREPRENEURSHIP*" AND (EXCLUDE (PUBYEAR, 2020)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar")) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English")).The oldest article was dated1996 and the latest articles are from 2019. Papers written in 2020 have notbeen included.Thus, this search resulted in a total of 1763 released documents between 1996 and 2019. Three hundred thirty-seven (337) articles were retained for unique Scopus article identification number, i.e. (EID) list. After review, 110 paperswere excludedbased on the evaluation of abstract, keywords, and full-text due to the terms mentioned such as editorial, highlights, Interview, systematic review. To ensure that these documents are omitted from the CSV file, a total of 227 EID papers were identified and incorporated into the Scopus search string, as shown in Figure 1 below.The researcher also presentsVOS-viewer tothe visualization of the intellectual structure in the field of social entrepreneurship.
Figure 1.Data collection flow diagram for search theme, Source: Own compilation
Central theme (SE)
1763 records found in the Title and Abstract while searched by "social" AND “entrepreneurship”, Year 1996-2020
Refining Search
337 records identified while limited to Language: English, Document Type: Article, and Excluding Year: 2020
Excluding review articles
227 records remained after removing review articles, identified by the Title, Abstract and full test
Result retained
2.2 Bibliometric Maps
The Centre developed VOS-viewer software for Science and Technology Studies by Leiden University as a bibliometric analysis tool to build a VOS-viewer chart in this study, with authors' keywords and nations.According to Kumar and Kiran (2019),Scopus database consists of 20,000 journals with systematic peer-review process across various domains of science, social sciences, medicine, technology arts, and humanities, comprised of eminent publishing houses such as Elsevier, Emerald,and links to a wide variety of citations and abstracts. We decided to restrict the study‟s source with Scopus. The Scopus database was used to retrieve bibliometric maps from quotes, author keywords, citation details and bibliographic data. Finally, 227 articles in CSV file format was transferred to version 1.6.14 of 'VOSviewer' software.
Items are also known as an object of concern. The items displayed on the Vosviewer map may consist of keywords or nations of the author. For connecting every pair of items, a link is used. These links indicate that two or more items have a relationship or connection. In order to demonstrate the strength of the linkage between the items, positive numeric values are used. The higher the value, the stronger its linkage is expected to be.With regard to the co-authorship analysis, the number of publications in which the article indicated by the link strength was jointly authored by two affiliated countries. The total link strength depicts the aggregate co-authorship links of other countries in a particular country. Similarly, the total publications with two simultaneously occurring keywords are shown in the analysis of co-occurrence by the link strength between two author keywords(Khudzari et al., 2018).
2.2.1 Analysis of Co-authorship and Contributing Countries
46 of 64 countries meet the thresholds, while the minimum number of co-authorships basedon the authors‟nation was 2. 46 countries with affiliation were therefore included in the co-authorship analysis shown in this study.Thirty-six items and 9 clusters were created, as shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2.VOS-viewer Bibliometric Map of Co-authorship
Table 1 presents the number of published studies in these countries, based on economy classifications according to income level, which is: (a) developed economies, (b) economies in transition, and (c) developing economies (United Nations, 2019). The US (93), followed by the UK (38), represents the developed countries.There were (16) studies conducted in countries with economies in transitionanddevelopingcountries, India with (18), South Africa (9)and Malaysia (9), and China (7) were ranked 1st, 2nd,and 3rd respectively. One possible explanation is that India and Malaysia publishuseful journals. The main observational point is the difference was not considered based onthe author‟s native country or if the author was a visiting scholar working at an academic institution in a foreign country. However, the US and UK occupy the top slot as they actively continue to fund innovative research initiatives. From another perspective, many developed countries face a high unemployment rate, which may lead to more studies investigating the factors that motivate and direct youth toward entrepreneurship.
Table 1.List of top 46 Nations
Serial No. Developed Nations Number of Papers Total Number of Papers
1 United States 93 326 2 UK 38 3 Australia 25 4 Canada 22 5 Germany 19 6 Spain 18 7 Italy 8 8 Brazil 7 9 Netherlands 7 10 Belgium 6 11 Czech Republic 6 12 Finland 6 13 Poland 6 14 Portugal 6 15 Romania 5 16 Denmark 5 17 France 5 18 Hong Kong 5 19 Colombia 4 20 New Zealand 4 21 Japan 4 22 South Korea 4 23 Sweden 4 24 Ireland 3 25 Israel 3 26 Taiwan 3 27 Croatia 2 28 Greece 2 29 Latvia 2 30 Lithuania 2 31 Switzerland 2
Serial No. Economies in transition No. of Papers Total No. of Papers
1 Russian Federation 13 16
2 Ukraine 3
Serial No. Developing Nations No. of Papers Total No. of Papers
1 India 18 65 2 Malaysia 9 3 South Africa 9 4 China 7 5 Iran 5 6 Indonesia 3 7 Slovenia 3 8 Turkey 3 9 Philippines 2 10 Kazakhstan 2 11 Pakistan 2 12 Bangladesh 2
2.2.2. Co-Occurrence Analysis of Author Keywords
Keywords for authors express what authors or journal editors consider to be important keys to the article content. Using VOSviewer, 956 author keywords found from 227 articles.When a keyword's minimum number of co-occurrences has been set to 5, only 24(3%) meet the threshold of the 956 keywords. In addition, the
minimum number of keyword co-occurrences was set at 4 and 3, 35 (4%) and 62 (6%) keywords, respectively, to meet the threshold. The overlay visualisation mode of author keywords in which the least number of occurrences is set to five is shown in Figure 3.A total of21 itemswere found distributed under 6 clusters.A cluster refers to the subtheme. Other than social entrepreneurship (192 times),the five most frequently used author keywords are; social enterprise (43 times), entrepreneurship (23 times), social innovation (21 times), sustainability (15 times), social capital (10 times).
Figure 3.VOSviewerbibliometric map of author keywords
According to Hu, Kai et al.( 2018), publication keyword analysis is a crucial way to analyse the information structure of research domains and explore patterns within emerging domains. Different literature reflects various subtopics of the field of entrepreneurship and provides further studies in this area.The author‟s keywords reveal that entrepreneurship, social enterprise,sustainability, and social innovationare a significant part of social entrepreneurship studies. Also, diverse literature represents specific social entrepreneurship definition subtopics and provides space for more work on this field.
3. Findings and Analysis
3.1. Mapping the growth of research interest
The number of social entrepreneurship scholarly papers published on Scopus from 1996 to 2019 per year is shown in Figure 4.The current meaning of the term social entrepreneurship was first published in a journal in 1964, according to Sopus(Rey-Marti et al. 2016). Since 2006, scholars have begun to examine social entrepreneurship's potential outside the financial sector. As a result, the concept of social entrepreneurship in data management has evolved from the field of economics to other fields. (Rey-Marti et al., 2016).Research papers (Case Studies, Qualitative and Quantitative) on the social entrepreneurship-specific Scopus database were launched in 2010. The number of published publications was negligible from 2006 to 2013. However, this subject has gradually increased in academic interest since the year 2014. The number swiftly increased from 2018 onwards, and in 2019 it increased up to 30%.
This ongoing interest reveals that social entrepreneurship is still relevant to society and that researchers can address many future gaps. The following are examples of such gaps: Marti &Mair (2006) seeks to identify the organizational forms that are most appropriate for social enterprises in developed and emerging countries and the way social entrepreneurs work for the sustainable development of a country or region. Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey (2011) propose future research on social entrepreneurship, raising research challenges such as exploring links between the population's institutional ideas and social objectives and building such initiatives a viable organizational and marketing plan.
Figure 4.From 1996 to 2019, research articles published on Scopus
Social entrepreneurship is still premature and in infancy (Waqar, A., Jamil, M., &Fadzil, 2020). This needs to be addressed and studied specifically in the entrepreneurship domain since technology is emerging in industry 4.0. The analysis showed that most of the articles implied a qualitative approach.Instead of conceptualizing the concept to explore sub-concepts and dimensions, it typically focused on social entrepreneurship literature and discourse driven by the definitional debate. Two major gaps have been highlighted by the results of this current study. Firstly, there was a lack of quantitative study, and secondly, there is still a lack of intention or ability to deal with this troubling concept.
The specific benefits of social entrepreneurship operations can be used by other conventional or profit-based principles. Qualitative studies are evolving to gather more insights and in-depth details, helping to explain the principles, meanings and processes of everyday life that require real human interaction. (Hossain, 2019).The researchers have apparently developed several social entrepreneurship intention models to utilize the unique objectives of social entrepreneurship. The phenomenon has primarily been identified as a lack of supports, inadequate educational training and programs, individual ability, insufficient skill and knowledge, absence of network among government, and lack of research and development.Social problems and challenges, inspiration, previous personal experiences and social networks motivate the younger generation to start ventures with insufficient resources (Ullah& Rahman, 2015). The social entrepreneurship goals must be accepted, understood, and valued by society (Zahra, Shaker A., et al., 2009). Therefore, any social enterprise's successful implementation and sustainability depend on demographics differences, entrepreneurial intent, tactics, and strategies (Short & Lumpkin, 2009).
Figure 5.Methodology (%) on empirical studies Source: Author‟s analysis
1 1 1 1 6 2 7 6 15 14 20 18 28 29 38 32 54 69 0 20 40 60 80 1996 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Documents per year
Documents per year
5% 36% 59%
Methodology (%) on empirical studies
A limited number of empirical studies are focused on a small sample size with a quantitative research methodology, primarily of an exploratory sort, and research (Sassmannshausen& Volkmann, 2013; Kumar and Kiran, 2019). Case studies may be precise and detailed, but they cannot often offer generalized findings. It would be expected that the findings concerning individual intent would be as generalised as possible. As shown in Figure 5, the mixed method (5%), quantitative (36%), and qualitative (59%), respectively, were the type of methodology used based on 337 papers, despite many papers and several well-structured systematizations.There is still a considerable shortage of quantitative research. Therefore, quantitative research in the entrepreneurship domain is necessary for social entrepreneurship ( Bacq, 2018, Chipeta, 2019) to address the outcome that is more focused on 3P‟s- profit, people and planet.
3.2 Preferred Journals and Publishers
This study showed that journals from the entrepreneurship field that publish papers on social entrepreneurship could be established to enable the researcher to understand each journal's motivation. The ten most prominent journal names that publish social entrepreneurship papers are presented in table 2. The analysis shows that the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship leads 20 publications in this field. Sustainability (Switzerland) has published 8 articles since 2016. Voluntas, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practiceand Entrepreneurship and Regional Developmentpublished 8, 6 and 5 documents, respectively,up to and including 2019.Of these tenjournals,interestingly, Sustainability (Switzerland) and Voluntas are not journals whose primary focus is in the area of entrepreneurship.
Table 2.The top 10 most productive journals published from 2010 to 2019
No Source title Number of
publications
CiteScore (2018)
1 Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 20 1.84
2 Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 3.01
3 Voluntas 8 1.62
4 Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 6 10.04
5 Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 5 3.62
6 Non-profit And Voluntary Sector Quarterly 5 2.39
7 Social Enterprise Journal 5 1.0
8 Entrepreneurial Business And Economics Review 4 1.05
9 International Journal Of Business And Globalisation 4 0.75
10 International Journal Of Entrepreneurial Behaviour And Research
4 3.23
3.3 Leading countries, Institutions, and international collaboration
Figure 6 illustrates the top 15 most productive institutions contributing to social entrepreneurship research activity worldwide.There were a total of 160 institutions identified as contributing to this field. In line with the number of publications, LeuphanaUniversitätLüneburg published the highest number of articles (7), University of Valencia (5), Indiana University, and University of Oxford(4) and the other 11 institutions each hasthree publications. Therefore, the procedure for measuring publication results differs from institution to institution. The number of publications may vary by institutions, and funding for institutions and spending can differ significantlybetween universities. As a result, several articles in the high impact journals affiliated with institutions have sufficient funding for incentives and human capital.In other words, institutions with higher publications in journals encourage academic practices by providing comparatively better financial resources, research assistance, rewording mechanism (information about „who, what, when, and why‟ something happened) than others.
Figure 6.Number of publications by the top 15 institutions
In Figure 7, the researcher can observe many published articles on social entrepreneurship wrote by scholars inAustralia (216), followed by Portugal with 43 articles, and Denmark with 37 articles.The publication activities of other countries in this field are as follows: Canada, Hong Kong bothwith (31), United States (30), Germany (27), Iran, and Lithuania both with (8) articles, respectively.The critical point of observation was that the disparity was not based on theauthor‟s native country or if the author was a visiting scholar working at an academic institution in a foreign country. However, Australia and Portugal occupy the top slot as they actively continue to fund innovative research initiatives.
Figure 7.Number of publications in the top ten nations
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg Indiana University Bloomington Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien University of Manchester Universitat Politècnica de València Copenhagen Business School Auckland University of Technology University of New South Wales UNSW …
Number of publications by top 15
intuitions
3.4 Leading Authors
In the social entrepreneurship region, 15 of the most influential writers are associated with ten countries. Affiliations are as follows; the United States and Portugal (3 authors each), Denmark (2 authors), Australia, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Hong Kong, Iran, and Lithuania (1 author, each country). Authors‟ first journal articles were published between the year 1998–2019. According to this study, Ratten Vanessa from Australia ranked number one, with 216 publications since 2011,with 24 h-index and 1994 citations. WhileChandraandBoluk (both) and Hockerts were the second and third leading authors, respectively, and they wereaffiliated with Hong Kong, Canada, and Denmark. Based on Scopus‟s information, this analysis listed the Top 15 Authorsfor the period of 23 years from 1996 to 2019, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3.List of top 15 authors
No Author Scopus Author ID Year of first Journal by author Total publication h-index Total citation Current affiliation Country 1 Ratten, Va nessa 16307588600 2011 216 24 1994 La Trobe University Australia 2 Chandra, Y. 26022873900 2009 31 11 529 Hong Kong Polytechni c University, Kowloon, Hong Kong 3 Boluk, Kar la Aileen 39961097800 2011 31 8 150 University of Waterloo Canada 4 Hockerts, Kai N. 6505979814 1998 29 13 2453 Copenhage n Business School, Copenhage n, Denmark 5 Janssen, Fr ank 26531407600 2006 28 8 743 Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium 6 Beckmann, Markus 34167457600 2008 27 12 506 Friedrich- Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany 7 CadimaRib eiro, J. 36080523900 2016 25 6 143 Universida de do Minho Portugal
8 Bacq, S. 36619390600 2011 24 13 554 Indiana University, Bloomingt on, United States 9 Bernardino , Susana 57191613885 2016 11 3 20 Centro de EstudosOr ganizacion ais e Sociais Portugal 10 Forouharfa r, Amir 57192813219 2016 8 2 7 University of Sistan and Baluchesta n Iran 11 Greblikaite , J. 56147096500 2012 8 4 3 Vytautas Magnus university, Kaunas Lithuani a 12 Agrawal, A. 57199398500 2019 8 2 29 Copenhage n Business School, Copenhage n Denmark 13 Freitas Santos, J. 56939291300 2016 7 2 8 InstitutoPo litécnico do Porto, Portugal 14 Clark, C. 55672782900 2012 4 2 15 Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrencev ille, United States 15 Brennan, L inda 56854821000 2012 2 2 14 Mercer University, United States
3.6 SE Research Subject Area
From the perspective of economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, entrepreneurship has been explored. Initially, entrepreneurship was studied only by economics scholars, seeking relationships with economic growth and dealing with entrepreneurship from a purely economic point of view. Psychology, sociology and anthropology subsequently developed contributions from a social perspective in the study of entrepreneurship (Rey-Martí et al., 2016).Figure 8 demonstrates diverse social entrepreneurship research subject areas (in percentage).In the area of Business, Management and Accounting (35%), the majority of social entrepreneurship research was conducted, followed by Social Science (29%) and Economics, Econometrics and
Finance (19%). This analysis confirmed Section 3.1's finding that the quantitative study is lacking and the acceptance from the technology, healthcare, and environmental support perspectives lacked in the field here.
Figure 8.Diverse SE research subject area, Source: Author‟s compilation
4. Conclusion
This research, based on papers (1763) published in Scopus, examined the growth of scientific and scholarly publications on social entrepreneurship. The study of the keyword co-occurrence of the author was performed using the VOS-viewer analytical method. In addition, this study showed an overview of research growth that shows how, since 1996, social entrepreneurship has propelled publishing patterns in social entrepreneurship research. It is projected that the rapid development of academic studies will increase.A few countries and institutions which are actively involved in research in this field have been identified by this study. In the various institutes active in this field, authors or institutions from other countries may extend their collaborative links with their colleagues.Researchers have also shown that the growth of publications has been rapid in the last five years. These results can help guide social entrepreneurship researchers in the field of entrepreneurship. Reviews may contain papers not found in Scopus and thus have little impact. The scientific community does not consider these articles as relevant because of the low impact factor. Nevertheless, they would complement the data used in the current study with more social entrepreneurship information. It could become a hot subject for future studies due to the features and potential of social entrepreneurship.
5. Limitation and Future Scope of the Study
It is crucial to note that the area of SE isstill in its early stage and broad. Hence, diverse research questions are still unanswered, such as,„Which factors lead to the emergence of social entrepreneurship area?‟By providing inferences on topics developed based on societal influences or the interests of individual scholars, bibliometric analysis can also be constrained.Future studies can focus on collaboration patterns and networks amongst academia and industry professionals to measure the impact of industry practices on SE research. In recent years, the field of SE, the field of sustainable entrepreneurship, has emerged and is rooted in the concept of sustainability universal in public debates and the scientific management discourse. Sustainable entrepreneurship is claimed to be the more comprehensive field incorporating SE since the idea of sustainability includes not only an ecological but also a social dimension next to an economic dimension. Future studies should analyze through the keyword analysis shows the close relatedness of both fields.The researcher restricted the papers only to the English language during the data scan. Research with important findings would certainly be submitted to English-language publications for optimal global exposure and publicity - the reasoning behind such a decision.
35% 29% 19% 6% 4%2%2%1% 1%1%
Diverse SE research subject area
Business, Management and Accounting Social Sciences Economics, Econometrics and Finance Environmental Science
Arts and Humanities Energy
Engineering Medicine
In addition, attention was given to only the first author of each paper (Hughes, Daniel, et al., 2019). Thus, it is possible to view English language bias and first author bias as weaknesses. It should be noted that the findings of bibliometric research are very vigorous and change regularly with the inclusion of new publications in academic databases (Khudzari, 2018). As a result, due to the analytical process's nature, prospective research is very much appreciated after a while. It will be useful for a more comprehensive study to conduct bibliometric analysis using multiple data sources. The search strategy is recommended to be redesigned for an in-depth insight into the research patterns of this area. The result can be different due to the existence of the database itself. Hence, using the multi-methodology, the data search strategy can be redefined for a more rigorous analysis. For sufficient, affordable and available resource facilities to guarantee social entrepreneurship activities, endless effort to search is required.
References
1. Abdullah, A., Waemustafa, W., & Mat Isa, H. (2017, July). Disclosure of Information in Company‟s Annual Reports: A Bibliometric Analysis. In Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 66).
2. Ashrafi, D. M., Sarker, M. A. R., Hashim, J. B., Haque, A., &Nayan, F. K. (2020). An exploration of the youths perception toward social entrepreneurship development: Evidence from Bangladesh. JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah BidangAkuntansi dan Manajemen, 17(1), 88-104.
3. Anjum, H. F., Rasid, S. Z. A., Khalid, H., Alam, M. M., Daud, S. M., Abas, H., & Yusof, M. F. (2020). Mapping Research Trends of Blockchain Technology in Healthcare. IEEE Access, 8, 174244-174254. 4. Bahrein, A. B. A., Zakaria, M. N., Ismail, M., Yaacob, M. R., Ghazali, M. S., &Sofian, M. F. (2018).
Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial Intention and Social Entrepreneurship Intention: A Conceptual Model. International Journal of Accounting, 3(8), 60-68.
5. Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (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.
6. Chipeta, E. M. (2019). Antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions among Generation Y university students in South Africa (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University (South Africa). Vanderbijlpark Campus).
7. Casillas, J., &Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review, 20(2), 141-162.
8. Calabretta, G., Durisin, B., &Ogliengo, M. (2011). Uncovering the intellectual structure of research in business ethics: a journey through the history, the classics, and the pillars of Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 499-524.
9. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization science, 22(5), 1203-1213.
10. Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigo, J. M., &Popa, S. (2018). Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge Management: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management.
11. Kedmenec, I., Rebernik, M., &Perić, J. (2015). The impact of individual characteristics on intentions to pursue social entrepreneurship. Ekonomskipregled, 66(2), 119-137.
12. Khudzari, J. M., Kurian, J., Tartakovsky, B., &Raghavan, G. V. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on microbial fuel cells using Scopus database. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 136, 51-60.
13. Landström, H. (2020). The Evolution of Entrepreneurship as a Scholarly Field. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 65-243.
14. Halme, M., &Korpela, M. (2014). Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in small and medium-sized enterprises: A resource perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(8), 547-566.
15. Hota, P. K., Subramanian, B., &Narayanamurthy, G. (2019). Mapping the intellectual structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-26.
16. Hu, K., Wu, H., Qi, K., Yu, J., Yang, S., Yu, T., & Liu, B. (2018). A domain keyword analysis approach extending Term Frequency-Keyword Active Index with Google Word2Vec model. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1031-1068.
17. Hossain, S. (2019). An exploratory study on the contextual factors influencing social entrepreneurial opportunity–an emerging economy‟s perspective.
18. Hughes, D., Hughes, A., Powell, A., & Al-Sarireh, B. (2019). Hepatocellular carcinoma‟s 100 most influential manuscripts: A bibliometric analysis. Int J HepatobiliaryPancreat Dis, 9, 100083Z04DH2019.
20. Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., &Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: a bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing.
21. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of world business, 41(1), 36-44.
22. N. Roig-Tierno, T. F. Gonzalez-Cruz, and J. Llopis-Martinez, “An overview of qualitative comparative analysis: A bibliometric analysis,” Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 15- 23, 2017. 23. Light, P. C. (2011). The search for social entrepreneurship. Strategic Direction.
24. Waqar, A., Jamil, M., &Fadzil, A. F. M. (2020). Comprehensive Review of Social Entrepreneurship: Developing the Conceptual Framework For Describing The Phenomenon Of Social New Venture Creation. Worldview, 30, 46.
25. Wilton, C. (2016). Identifying social entrepreneurial intent among students in South African Universities (Doctoral dissertation).
26. Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651-1655.
27. Ren, R., Hu, W., Dong, J., Sun, B., Chen, Y., & Chen, Z. (2020). A systematic literature review of green and sustainable logistics: bibliometric analysis, research trend and knowledge taxonomy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 261.
28. Sassmannshausen, S. P., & Volkmann, C. (2013). A bibliometric based review on social entrepreneurship and its establishment as a field of research (No. 2013-003). Schumpeter Discussion Papers.
29. Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 3(2), 161-194.
30. Ullah, M. H., & Rahman, M. A. (2015). Corporate social responsibility reporting practices in banking companies in Bangladesh. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting.
31. Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2015). Challenges of SMEs innovation and entrepreneurial financing. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development.
32. Yunus, M. (2001). Creating a world without poverty: social business and the future of capitalism. ЭлементыМикрострахованиеОбщиеПринципывыравниванияущерба, эквивалент. 33. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social
entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of business venturing, 24(5), 519-532.
34. https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2009-report-on-social-entrepreneurship 35. https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2019-2020-global-report
