Are social and commercial opportunities mentally represented differently
in the mind of potential entrepreneurs?
Master Thesis by
Jonathan Hamming
S3021262
University of Groningen
Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Faculty of Economics and Business
20 January, 2019
Supervisor: Dr. Silvia Dos Santos Fernandes Costa
Co-assessor: Dr. Olga Belousova
2
3
Abstract
Despite a significantly increased interest in social entrepreneurship, little is known about the first stage and main trigger of the entrepreneurial process: the recognition of social business opportunities. We analyze whether the context of business opportunities (commercial vs social) has an effect upon the way potential entrepreneurs mentally represent and recognize an opportunity. We use a mixed method, experimental design among 110 students and recently graduated students. Our findings suggest that there are significant differences in the way participants recognize the prototypical dimensions of social and commercial business opportunities. We found that in a social opportunity setting, individuals identify significantly more prototypical dimensions related to addressing a social
problem, social value creation, and community impact, than in a commercial scenario. However, against
our expectations, prototypical dimensions regarding solves customers’ problems and generates
cash-flow are not equally considered in both settings, while for superior product and changing industry the
opposite is true. We also apply an exploratory approach that goes beyond testing the existing prototypical dimensions. We found contradicting results with our primary findings and, besides, new prototypical dimensions emerged from the data (i.e., awareness creation and customer cooperation). Based on these results, we conclude that exploring the existence of a social business opportunity prototype is interesting and may require more than just an adaption from the prototypical model of Baron and Ensley (2006).
4
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ... 5
2 Literature Review ... 6
2.1 Commercial and social entrepreneurship ... 6
2.2 Entrepreneurial opportunities ... 8 2.3 Opportunity recognition ... 8 2.3.1 Opportunity viability ... 9 2.3.2 Opportunity distinctiveness ... 11 3 Methodology... 13 3.1 Procedure ... 13 3.2 Participants ... 14 3.3 Data analysis ... 15 3.4 Measurements ... 16 3.5 Quality Criteria ... 18 4 Results ... 18 4.1 Manipulation check ... 18 4.2 Descriptive statistics ... 19 4.3 Hypothesis testing ... 21 4.4 MANCOVA analysis ... 23 4.5 Content analysis ... 23 5 Discussion ... 26 5.1 Practical implications ... 28
5.2 Limitations and directions for future research ... 29
6 Conclusion ... 30
7 References ... 31
Appendices ... 40
Appendix 1 Business opportunities in a different context ... 41
Appendix 2 Principal component analysis ... 42
Appendix 3 MANCOVA analysis ... 43
Appendix 4 Shapiro-Wilk analysis ... 45
Appendix 5 Atlas codes resulting from content analysis ... 46
5
1 Introduction
Over the past decade, interest in social entrepreneurship has increased significantly (Rey-Martí et al., 2016; Choi & Majumdar, 2014; Mueller et al., 2015). For instance, new scientific journals appeared on social entrepreneurship (Choi & Majumdar, 2014) and education programs for potential social entrepreneurs have been introduced by universities such as the ‘Sustainable Entrepreneurship’ master by the University of Groningen (RUG, 2018). However, social entrepreneurship is still a relatively new phenomenon in the world (Lepoutre et al., 2011; Choi & Majumdar, 2014).
Social entrepreneurship has its origins in the non-for-profit sector (Harris et al., 2009; Sud et al., 2009; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006) as reaction to decreasing government participation in the society and economy (Nicholls, 2006; Sharir & Lerner, 2006). Despite the absence of a widely accepted definition for social entrepreneurship (Zahra et al, 2008; Neck et al., 2009; Short et al., 2009; Rey-Martí et al., 2016), there is a broad agreement among scholars that social entrepreneurs are driven by social value creation (Austin et al., 2012; Dacin et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2012; Peredo & McLean, 2006; Santos, 2012), which can be seen as the desire to make a meaningful contribution to society. Social entrepreneurs contribute to society by addressing social issues such as climate change and poverty. Moreover, they contribute to international sustainable development goals, which may encourage established corporations to increase their social responsibility as well (Seelos & Mair, 2005). Thus, social entrepreneurs have an indispensable role in society based on their current role and, even more important, its future potential to mitigate challenging problems (Mueller et al., 2015).
If society desires an increased number of social entrepreneurs, it is important to understand the main trigger of the entrepreneurial process. According to Baron and Shane (2008), the entrepreneurial process starts with the recognition of a business opportunity. In this process of opportunity recognition, cognitive structures play a crucial role for entrepreneurs (Baron, 2006). More specifically, entrepreneurs recognize opportunities by using their prototype of business opportunities. Prototypes are mental representations of an object’s common features (Lakoff, 1987). Baron and Ensley (2006) developed a prototypical model which includes five dimensions that represent the prototype of a commercial business opportunity. However, it is unknown whether this prototypical model also applies for the recognition of business opportunities in a social context. Thus, it might be that social business opportunities are recognized differently compared to their commercial counterparts. Finding an answer to this question would give a better understanding of the first stage of the (social) entrepreneurial process.
6
commercial context. Lehner and Kansikas (2012) and Corner and Ho (2010) are one of the few scholars who actually compared opportunity recognition between commercial and social contexts. Both studies concluded that opportunity recognition is different in a social context.However, they were not able to explain why these differences in recognition occurred since their research was not based on cognitive science. Moreover, they used an inductive approach and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to generalize their findings. Thus, it is assumed that opportunity recognition differs between commercial and social contexts; however, knowledge in this area remains superficial. Without this knowledge, it is currently unexplained how the mental, cognitive representation of social business opportunities look like.
The current study addresses this literature gap by conducting a mixed method, experimental research based on a cognitive model for business opportunity recognition. An experimental research design is chosen because it offers the ability of examining the effects of variables that are hard to isolate and observe in natural settings (Shadish et al., 2002). In addition, experimentation is under-utilized in the field of entrepreneurship (Crook et al., 2010; Davidsson, 2016). The following research question will be addressed: “does the context (commercial vs social) of business opportunities influence the way
potential entrepreneurs recognize business opportunity characteristics?” As result, this research will
contribute to the literature on social entrepreneurship and, more specific, on entrepreneurial cognition. In addition, new insights might be gained by conducting a deductive, experimental research, which is unique in this field of research. Finally, this research might also provide new insights in the practical domain of entrepreneurship. For example, potential entrepreneurs can be trained to better recognize social business opportunities.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Commercial and social entrepreneurship
7
When looking at the literature on social entrepreneurship, it appears that scholars find it hard to agree upon a widely accepted definition as well (e.g., Zahra et al, 2008; Neck et al., 2009). Some researchers prefer a broad perspective by referring to social entrepreneurship as solving social problems by innovative activities in either the for-profit sector, the non-profit sector, or across sectors (Dees, 1998; Martin & Osberg, 2007; Neck et al., 2009). Others apply a more narrow approach by viewing social entrepreneurship as applying business expertise and market-based skills solely in the non-profit sector (Thompson, 2002). The current study will adopt the broader conceptualization of social entrepreneurship because social entrepreneurship is still an evolving field and a narrow definition could exclude initiatives that may be considered as social entrepreneurship.
When comparing both types of entrepreneurship, scholars have found several similarities and distinctions on both individual and organizational level. Looking at the individual level, both types of entrepreneurs have in common that they are willing to bear risk (Peredo & McLean, 2006; Zahra et al., 2009), are able to detect opportunities (Peredo & McLean, 2006; Tracey & Phillips, 2007), have the drive to innovate (Austin et al. 2006; Mair & Martí, 2004), and have proactive behaviour (Sullivan Mort et al., 2003; Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort, 2006). By contrast, the motivation behind initiatives of social entrepreneurs is different compared to commercial entrepreneurs because it is based on social missions rather than maximizing profits or shareholder wealth (Nicholls, 2006; Shaw & Carter, 2007). Furthermore, social entrepreneurs discover and exploit a different category of opportunities compared to their commercial counterparts (Mair & Noboa, 2006). For instance, social-market failures are usually considered as problematic by commercial entrepreneurs, while social entrepreneurs see them as an opportunity (Austin et al., 2006). Thus, even though both types of entrepreneurs share some similarities, one might argue that social entrepreneurs act differently than commercial entrepreneurs.
8
2.2 Entrepreneurial opportunitiesSince entrepreneurs act upon opportunities, knowledge about the entrepreneur alone is not sufficient to explain the entrepreneurial phenomenon (Davidsson, 2015; Mason & Harvey, 2013). The missing part is the entrepreneurial opportunity itself, which is one of the most popular topics in entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Hansen et al., 2011; Davidsson, 2015). However, there is an ongoing debate about the fundamental source of opportunity (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). On the one hand, a stream of research argues that opportunities are caused by market disequilibria and can be discovered by entrepreneurs who are alert to opportunities (e.g., Kirzner, 1973, Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). On the other hand, an opposed stream of research indicates that entrepreneurs create opportunities by themselves with certain initiatives (e.g., Gartner 1985; Sarasvathy, 2001). Due to these opposed streams of research, Davidsson (2015) argues that “opportunity” may not be an appropriate construct and other constructs are needed to capture the phenomenon. He proposes three constructs that better explains opportunities: external enablers (external circumstances such as technological breakthroughs), new venture ideas (process of imagining new ventures by imaginary combinations of product, services, and markets), and opportunity confidence (subjective evaluation of an individual towards the attractiveness of a stimulus). These constructs are in line with the individual-opportunity nexus of Shane and Venkataraman (2000), which looks beyond the individual level as well. Thus, the present study will approach business opportunities as a concept that involves both individual and environmental level. However, the main question remains unanswered: how are business opportunities recognized?
2.3 Opportunity recognition
Opportunity recognition is at the heart of entrepreneurship because it is the first stage and main trigger of the entrepreneurial process (Baron & Shane, 2008). A promising study of Baron (2006) found that cognitive structures are crucial to opportunity recognition. He argued that opportunities are recognized by entrepreneurs by using their cognitive frameworks that “connects the dots” between unrelated events in the environment such as changes in technology, demographics, markets or government policies. More specifically, prototypical categorization is the cognitive process that is used by the entrepreneur to categorize the founded pattern in order to recognize opportunities.
9
the prototype of business opportunity. These five dimensions refer to either the prototypical viability (solves customers’ problems, generate positive cash-flow, and manageable risk) or prototypical distinctiveness (superiority of product or service, and potential to change the industry) of business opportunities (Santos et al., 2015).
Based on these dimensions, Baron and Ensley found that the prototypes of experienced entrepreneurs are better defined, richer in content, and more focused on dimensions related to actually starting and running a new business than the prototypes of novice entrepreneurs. However, Grégoire and Shepard (2012) pointed out that the level of cognitive demand can differ among business opportunities because they are more or less easy to recognize. In other words, superior prototypes are not always required in order to recognize certain business opportunities. A study by Costa et al. (2016) used the three prototypical viability dimensions of Baron and Ensley for analysing the recognition of independent entrepreneurial opportunities and business reformulation opportunities. They found that potential entrepreneurs recognized prototypical characteristics of both business opportunities significantly different. The participants were more risk-averse in the case of the business reformulation opportunity, whereas participants were more focused on customers when confronted by the entrepreneurial opportunity. However, the identification of prototypical characteristics related to profit did not appear to be different. Costa and colleagues (2016) concluded that the context of business opportunities can influence the way how people recognize business opportunities. Thus, the model of Baron and Ensley has the potential to be applied in different contexts. Therefore, the current study will build on their model and try to extend it to a social context. By doing so, the research question, whether the context of business opportunities influence the way potential entrepreneurs recognize business opportunity characteristics, can be answered.
2.3.1 Opportunity viability
The viability of a business opportunity refers to its sustainability over a long period of time (Ardichvili et al., 2003). According to Baron and Ensley (2006), the prototypical viability of commercial business opportunities is related to three dimensions: solves customers’ problems, generates cash-flow, and manageable risk.
10
Hypothesis 1a: The prototypical viability of social and commercial opportunities is not
significantly different in terms of solving customers' problems.
The second dimension generates cash-flow is also assumed to be recognized in both commercial and social contexts. Commercial entrepreneurs are known for seeking profitable business opportunities (Baron, 2006). Social entrepreneurs have earned income activities which very much apply the general principles of commercial entrepreneurship (Dees, 1998). In order to stay economically sustainable, social entrepreneurs address a social problem simultaneously with generating (Neck et al., 2009). Therefore, it is expected that, independently from the context, the ability to generate profit is one of the key aspects of business opportunities.
Hypothesis 1b: The prototypical viability of social and commercial opportunities is not
significantly different in terms of generating cash-flow.
The third dimension manageable risk is presumed to be recognized in both commercial and social contexts as well. Commercial entrepreneurship is a process that involves risk management (Bamber et al., 2002). Although social entrepreneurship is mainly related to positive consequences, it may also involve risks and less desirable effects (Mair & Marti, 2006). For instance, there is a chance that ventures of social entrepreneurs might not create social wealth. Consequently, Weerawardena and Mort (2006) have featured risk management as one of three core behavioral dimensions in their empirically derived framework of social entrepreneurship. Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following:
Hypothesis 1c: The prototypical viability of social and commercial opportunities is not
significantly different in terms of manageable risk.
Next to the three prototypical viability dimensions of the prototypical model presented by Baron and Ensley, this study supposes that a complementary prototypical viability dimension ability to address
a social problem might be applicable in a social context. Scholars argue that the key difference between
11
Hypothesis 1d: The prototypical viability of social and commercial opportunities is
significantly different in terms of addressing a social problem, being that this sub-dimension of viability is higher in social opportunities.
2.3.2 Opportunity distinctiveness
The distinctiveness of a business opportunity refers to the characteristics that make it distinct from other opportunities (Santos et al., 2015). Baron and Ensley (2006) argue that the prototypical distinctiveness of commercial business opportunities is related to two dimensions: superior product and
potential to change the industry.
The recognition of the fifth dimension superior product is expected to be influenced by the business opportunity context. The superiority of a product is crucial for commercial entrepreneurs because they must overcome competing market forces and survive over a long period of time (Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1935). Only when the product is superior compared to the offerings of competitors, profit or shareholder value can be maximized. However, social entrepreneurs are mainly focused on social value creation rather than economic value creation (Austin et al., 2006; Mair & Marti, 2006; Zahra et al., 2009). Social value is the creation of benefits or reduction of costs for society – through efforts to address societal needs and problems – in ways that go beyond the private gains and general benefits of market activity (Phills et al., 2008, p. 39). Therefore, this study assumes that participants are less likely to recognize the dimension superior product when being faced by a social business opportunity. Instead, it is expected that participants will recognize another dimension ability to create social value in the social opportunity context, which might be significantly more relevant than the dimension superior
product of Baron and Ensley (2006). Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following:
Hypothesis 2a: The prototypical distinctiveness of a commercial opportunity is significantly
more associated to its characteristics of representing a superior product than in the case of social opportunities.
Hypothesis 2b: The prototypical distinctiveness of a social opportunity is significantly more
associated to its characteristics of creating social value than in the case of commercial opportunities.
12
Distinctiveness Viability C o mm er ci al c o n te x t S o ci al c o n te x t C o mm er ci al c o n te x t S o ci al c o n te x tcommunities and, therefore, making a difference (Galera & Borzaga, 2009; Renko, 2012). This is in line with a study of Boluk and Mottiar (2014), who suggest that motivations of social entrepreneurs are related to a fundamental desire to make a contribution to their community. Therefore, participants are less likely to recognize the dimension potential to change the industry when confronted by a social business opportunity. Instead, this study assumes that participants will recognize the dimension ability
to impact the community in the social opportunity context, which might be significantly more relevant
than the dimension potential to change the industry of Baron and Ensley (2006). Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following:
Hypothesis 2c: The prototypical distinctiveness of a commercial opportunity is significantly
more associated to its characteristics of changing the industry than in the case of social opportunities.
Hypothesis 2d: The prototypical distinctiveness of a social opportunity is significantly more
associated to its characteristics of impacting the community than in the case of commercial opportunities. H1a H1b H1c H1d H2a H2c H2b H2d
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
13
3 Methodology
The current study used a mixed method approach in an experimental design. The main reason for a mixed method approach is the fact that the business opportunity prototype model, presented by Baron and Ensley (2006), has already been applied in the field of commercial entrepreneurship. This paper builds on the model of Baron and Ensley (2006) by applying it to a social context. A quantitative research method is useful for testing the business prototype model of Baron and Ensley (2006), whereas a qualitative research method is beneficial since it gives an in-depth understanding of how this model can be extended to another context, such as social oriented opportunities. In other words, a mixed method approach allows a study to validate, challenge and extend existing findings (Turner & Turner, 2009). We collected data by conducting an experiment in which participants were confronted with an opportunity recognition experience. More specifically, the opportunity recognition experience was based on two different conditions which either described a social or commercial business opportunity. Scenarios are seen to be the right method because they offer the opportunity to use and control the information that will be analyzed by respondents (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). Moreover, scenarios are already used in entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Grégoire et al., 2010).
3.1 Procedure
An online questionnaire was used to collect data in the current study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions (social versus commercial) and had to read a story. Participants were asked to imagine that they were the person in the scenario. Immediately after reading, participants were asked to write down in their own words what the business opportunity was that they read in the scenario. Additionally, participants needed to indicate what type of venture was described in the story. Thereafter, participants had to answer questions that measured their recognition based on the prototypical viability and distinctiveness of the business opportunity. In the following section, more information about participants and measurements is provided. The experimental design is visualized in figure 2.
Context manipulation Dependent variables
R
Figure 2: Experimental design.
14
3.2 ParticipantsThis study analyzed the answers of students and recently graduated students with different study backgrounds. Students were used as participants in this study because they can be considered as potential entrepreneurs since human capital and higher education are often predictors of entrepreneurial activities (Costa et al., 2016; Unger et al., 2011; Frese & Gielnik, 2014). In other words, students have the potential to become an entrepreneur even though they may not have the intention at this moment. Another reason is the fact that student samples increase internal validity because students lack occupational biases and real-world experiences that would otherwise confound treatment effects (Hsu et al., 2017, p. 385).
From the total of 136 participants, we were able to analyze the answers of 110 participants due to two reasons. First, 15 participants failed to identify the presented business opportunity because they were not able to describe the opportunity extensively or formulate a content related answer. Second, 7 participants did not fall inside the target group because their working experience was too high or they were far above the average age. A high working experience is likely to result in a confounding effect with the dependent and independent variable (Hsu et al., 2015). Finally, 4 participants did not answer the manipulation question where they needed to indicate what type of venture was described in the story.
15
Table 1. Descriptive information (N = 110).Social Condition Commercial condition
N % N %
Male 41 37,3 42 38,2
Female 13 11,8 14 12,7
Economics & Business 21 19,1 19 17,3
Engineering 12 10,9 3 2,7
Exact & Informatics 2 1,8 1 0,9
Language & Communication 2 1,8 4 3,6
Behavior & Society 1 0,9 2 1,8
Earth & Environment 1 0,9 2 1,8
Health 1 0,9 7 6,4
Law & Governance 1 0,9 0 0
Art & Culture 1 0,9 1 0,9
Interdisciplinary 1 0,9 1 0,9
Education & Training 1 0,9 1 0,9
Missing 9 8,2 15 13,6
3.3 Data analysis
To analyze the data collected in this study, two different programs have been used, namely: SPSS and Atlas.ti. SPSS was used for analyzing the quantitative data, whereas Atlas was employed for assessing the qualitative data.
16
was used to determine differences in opportunity recognition within the social sample group for prototypical distinctiveness.
Atlas.ti was used for performing a content analysis. This analysis allows for examining participants’ written responses by analyzing the expressions used by participants when writing down the business opportunity that they could recognize in the scenario. In order to conduct this analysis, two types of codes were created: before the analysis (based on literature) and after the analysis (based on responses) (Lemke et al., 2011). The codes based on literature referred to expressions similar to the ones used by Baron and Ensley (2006) to describe the five dimensions of the business opportunity prototype. The new codes were not exactly the same as the codes based on literature, but their content was either related to the same prototypical dimensions or to a complete new dimension. Thus, the codes were useful for observing how participants analyzed the business opportunity. It should be noted that the answers of participants were left out of the analysis when they were not able to describe the opportunity extensively or formulate a content related answer. In Appendix 5, an overview can be found of all codes and family codes acquired during analysis. Examples of the participants’ quotations for each code can be found in Appendix 6.
3.4 Measurements
Opportunity context. In order to confront participants with different opportunity recognition experiences, we provided them two scenarios based on real life companies (i.e., Dopper and PET Power). Both companies were renamed to “The Plastic Company” (TPC) in order to avoid any recognition. The main idea was that TPC produced plastic drinking bottles to personal and corporate use. However, scenario A proposed the business opportunity in a commercial context, whereas scenario B presented the business opportunity in a social context (see Appendix 1). In other words, the context of both stories was manipulated. A preliminary check has been conducted in order to check whether the scenario manipulation was effective for both conditions, which will be discussed in the result section.
Business opportunity prototypical viability and distinctiveness. In line with prior research on business opportunity recognition, we asked participants to what extent they recognized several characteristics of the identified business opportunity, which was measured by using a 23-item scale from Baron and Ensley’s (2006) study. In order to adopt the validated scale, a reliability analysis was conducted on the items of the measurements. For each item in the questionnaire, participants were asked “to what extend do the following items characterize the business idea that you just read about?” on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much). First of all, the prototypical dimension solves
customers’ problems was measured along 5 items. Examples of the items used are ‘customers want it’
17
cash quickly’ (α = .82). Third, the manageable risk dimension will be measured along 4 items. The scale contains, for example, the following items: ‘customers accept it’ and ‘involves technology changes’ (α
= .23). However, due to its poor reliability, this subscale was excluded from further analysis. Fourth,
the prototypical dimension superiority of product or service will be measured along 5 items. Examples of the items used are ‘improve functioning’ and ‘greater futures’ (α = .82). Finally, the potential to
change the industry dimension will be measured along 4 items. Items measuring the construct are, for
example, ‘dominate’ and ‘number one seller’ (α = .79).
As measures of prototypical social business recognition were not available at the time of writing, this study adapted and complemented Baron and Ensley’s (2006) 23-item scale with 13 new items capturing participants’ recognition of social-related dimensions of business opportunities. Since these items have not been validated in prior research, we conducted a PCA prior to the reliability test. The results (see Appendix 2) show that only two items were loading into an unintended variable. This can be explained by the fact that some dimensions are less inclusive and well-defined than others (Santos et al., 2017). In other words, the boundaries across prototypical dimensions can be fuzzy and, therefore, participants are not always able to distinguish certain characteristics from the business opportunity. Since the reliability, as measured by the Chronbach alpha, was satisfactory for the variables, we proceeded with the analysis using a reliability test. First, the prototypical dimension addressing a social
problem was measured along 4 items. The scale contains, for example, the following items: ‘improves
societal life’ and ‘meets a social or environmental need’ (α = .91). Second, the prototypical dimension
social value creation was measured along 5 items. Examples of the items used are ‘is socially and
environmentally better than similar ideas’ and ‘improves society and environment when compared to similar ideas’ (α = .94). Finally, the prototypical dimension community impact was measured along 4 items measuring the construct are, for example, ‘will impact communities and society’ and ‘will be number 1 in social and environmental impact’ (α = .86).
Control variables. This study controlled for the potential influence of various variables on business opportunity prototypical dimensions. Because opportunity recognition might be influenced by education, age and gender (Ucbasaran et al., 2003), we controlled for participants’ educational background (see table 1), participants’ age (in years), and participants’ gender (0 = male and 1 =
female). Finally, we controlled for the possible influence of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Scholars
18
3.5 Quality CriteriaThis study followed the quality criteria described by Van Aken et al. (2012). These criteria are controllability, reliability, and validity. The first criteria ‘controllability’, a prerequisite for the evaluation of validity and reliability (Aken et al., 2012), was covered by disclosing the manner in which data was collected, the selection method for participants, and data analysis. A detailed description is provided in the previous paragraphs, which makes the study controllable. The second criteria ‘reliability’ was ensured by controlling for researcher, instrument, and respondent bias. Researcher bias was controlled by being transparent about the choice for an appropriate research design. Besides, participants were randomly assigned to scenarios which helped to avoid any researcher bias as well (Green et al., 2006). To control for instrument bias, a mixed method approach was applied. Quantitative and qualitative research methods were used to correct and complement each other. Respondent bias was controlled for through the engagement of students from diverse studies. The final criteria ‘validity’ refers to construct, internal, and external validity. Construct validity was covered by using an established measuring method, which has been tested and validated before. As result, the construct of the business opportunity prototype was well-defined, and the test measured what it purports to measure. The internal validity was increased by justifying and completing conclusions. Besides, findings were compared with suggested links in the discussed literature. External validity was improved by showing why the results of this paper can be expected in other situations.
4 Results
4.1 Manipulation check
19
After completing data collection, another manipulation check was conducted for the whole study sample. Similarly to the preliminary check, the means were compared across both conditions and the significance of the manipulation method was checked. The results, shown in table 2, reveal that participants in the social condition rated the story on average as more social (M = 5.89, SD = 1.79), while the ones in the commercial condition characterized it as more commercial (M = 3.46, SD = 1.00,
t(110) = 8.73, p < .01). Thus, these results show that the scenario manipulation was still effective.
Table 2. Scenario manipulation (N = 110).
Mean S.D. T-value
Social condition (N = 54) 5.89 1.79 T (110) = 8.73; p < .01
Commercial condition (N = 56) 3.46 1.00
4.2 Descriptive statistics
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations coefficients of the study variables. First of all, social viability and social distinctiveness were negatively correlated with opportunity context (r = -.43; r = -.56). More specifically, the social prototypical dimensions were strongly correlated with the social opportunity contextbecause the social opportunity context was coded as 0. Second, all the prototypical dimensions were positively correlated with social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (r = .30 – .35). No correlation was found between social entrepreneurial self-self-efficacy and opportunity condition. Finally, all prototypical dimensions (r = .25 - .79) were positively correlated with each other. This is not surprising since all prototypical dimensions are part of the same supradimensional construct.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations (N = 110) Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Gender 0.25 0.43 - 2 Age 24.10 2.54 -.11 - 3 Educational field 6.16 2.49 -.15 -.01 - 4 Work experience 3.24 2.25 .13 .01 -.06 - 5 Opportunity condition 0.51 0.50 .01 .00 -.18 -.10 -
6 Social entr. self-efficacy 4.78 0.87 -.03 .09 -.09 -.03 -.13 -
7 Social viability 3.18 0.60 .12 -.08 -.03 .07 -.43** .35** -
8 Social distinctiveness 3.03 0.98 .12 -.07 .09 .13 -.56** .30** .70** -
9 Commercial viability 3.06 0.58 .10 -.03 -.07 .06 -.01 .33** .79** .25** -
10 Commercial distinctiveness 2.80 0.69 .14 -.13 -.04 .07 -.01 .35** .62** .57** .58** -
4.3 Hypothesis testing
In order to analyze the influence of the opportunity context on the prototypical dimensions of the business opportunity, we first investigate the effect of the opportunity context on the opportunity prototypical characteristics identified, thus testing the hypotheses. As mentioned before, the hypotheses were subdivided by prototypical viability and distinctiveness of the business opportunity. Additionally, we deepen understanding of the effect of the opportunity context by determining differences in opportunity recognition within the social sample group. It should be noted that the dimension manageable risk was excluded from the analysis due to its poor reliability (α = .23). Therefore, it was not possible to test hypothesis 1c.
Focusing on the prototypical viability dimensions (shown in table 4), the results show that the recognition of solves customers’ problems by participants in the social condition (M = 3.49, SD = 0.66) was significantly different than the recognition of solves customers’ problems by participants in the commercial condition (M = 3.08, SD = 0.77). More specifically, participants in the social condition showed a higher recognition in terms of solves customers’ problems. Therefore, there was no evidence found to support hypothesis 1a. Second, the recognition of generates cash-flow by participants in the social condition (M = 2.64, SD = 0.74) was significantly different than the recognition of generates
cash-flow by participants in the commercial condition (M = 3.04, SD = 0.76). In particular, participants
in the commercial condition scored a higher recognition in terms of generates cash-flow. For that reason, there was no evidence found to support hypothesis 1b. Finally, the recognition of addressing a social
problem by participants in the social condition (M = 4.18, SD = 0.62) was significantly different than
the recognition of addressing a social problem by participants in the commercial condition (M = 2.66,
SD = 1.01). To be more specific, participants in the social condition had a higher recognition in terms
of addressing a social problem. Hence, there was evidence found to support hypothesis 1d.
Table 4. Summary of independent t-test for viability hypothesis (N = 110).
Looking at the prototypical distinctiveness dimensions (shown in table 5), the recognition of
superior product by participants in the social condition (M = 3.15, SD = 0.80) was not significantly
different than the recognition of superior product by participants in the commercial condition (M =
2.89, SD = 0.79). Therefore, there was no evidence found to support hypothesis 2a. Second, the
Dimensions Social condition Commercial condition Independent samples t-test
H1a Solves customers’ problems 3.49 (0.66) 3.08 (0.77) T (100) = 3.03; p < .01
H1b Generates cash-flow 2.64 (0.74) 3.04 (0.76) T (100) = -2.75; p < .01
22
recognition of social value creation by participants in the social condition (M = 3.68, SD = 0.82) was significantly different than the recognition of social value creation by participants in the commercial condition (M = 2.58, SD = 1.02). In other words, participants in the social condition showed a higher recognition in terms of social value creation. Consequently, there was evidence found to support hypothesis 2b. Third, the recognition of changing industry by participants in the social condition (M =
2.47, SD = 0.73) was not significantly different than the recognition of changing industry by participants
in the commercial condition (M = 2.71, SD = 0.89). Hence, there was no evidence found to support hypothesis 2c. Finally, the recognition of community impact by participants in the social condition (M
= 3.50, SD = 0.73) was significantly different than the recognition of community impact by participants
in the commercial condition (M = 2.41, SD = 0.91). In particular, participants in the social condition had a higher recognition in terms of community impact. For that reason, there was evidence found to support hypothesis 2d.
Table 5. Summary of independent t-test for distinctiveness hypothesis (N = 110).
Dimensions Social condition Commercial condition Independent samples t-test
H2a Superior product 3.15 (0.80) 2.89 (0.79) T (110) = 1.74; p > .05
H2b Social value creation 3.68 (0.82) 2.58 (1.02) T (110) = 6.23; p < .01
H2c Changing industry 2.47 (0.73) 2.71 (0.89) T (110) = -1.53; p > .05
H2d Community impact 3.50 (0.73) 2.41 (0.91) T (110) = 6.87; p < .01
The second analysis was a paired sample t-test, which was used to determine differences in opportunity recognition within the social sample group between the prototypical distinctiveness dimensions (shown in table 6). In line with the formulated hypotheses, the paired sample t-test showed that social value creation was of higher importance for people in the social condition compared to
superior product or changing industry (T = -7.25, p < .01; T = -10.24, p < .01). This was also the case
for community impact, which was of higher importance for people in the social condition than superior
23
Table 6. Summary of paired sample t-test (N = 54).Dimensions Paired sample t-test for social condition
Superior product – Social value creation T (54) = -7.25; p < .01 Superior product – Community impact T (54) = -3.26; p < .01 Changing industry – Social value creation T (54) = -10.24; p < .01 Changing industry – Community impact T (54) = -13.89; p < .01
4.4 MANCOVA analysis
In order to have a more in-depth understanding of the collected data, a MANCOVA analysis was performed to examine the effect of control variables and independent variable on prototypical dimensions (shown in Appendix 3). All eta squared (η2) values above the 0.25 have a medium effect size whereas values above the 0.4 have a large effect (Cohen, 1998). The results of the MANCOVA analysis showed that there was a significant effect of the opportunity context on prototypical viability dimensions solves customers’ problems (F = 6.067, η2 = .07, p < .05), generates cash-flow (F = 6.281,
η2 = .08, p < .05), and addressing a social problem (F = 66.174, η2 = .46, p < .01) and prototypical
distinctiveness dimensions social value creation (F = 21.729, η2 = .22, p < .01) and community impact (F = 32.923, η2 = .30, , p < .01). Interestingly, descriptive statistics showed that the effect size of the context was the highest on the new social prototypical dimensions addressing a social problem, social
value creation, and community impact. We also found a significant effect of control variable social
entrepreneurial efficacy on prototypical viability dimensions solves customers’ problems (F = 16.242,
η2 = .17), generates cash-flow (F = 4.946, η2 = .06), and addressing a social problem (F = 6.329, η2 = .08) and prototypical distinctiveness dimensions superior product (F = 8.643, η2 = .10), changing industry (F = 19.187, η2 = .20), social value creation (F = 5.929, η2 = .07), and community impact (F = 13.591, η2 = .15). However, the effect of control variable social entrepreneurial efficacy appeared to
be small when looking at the eta squared. The other control variables (i.e., gender, age, educational field, and working experience) had no effect on the prototypical dimensions identified.
4.5 Content analysis
24
such as “healthy relationship with the costumer”. The other new dimension, awareness creation, is related to the prototypical distinctiveness of business opportunities because it refers to the characteristics that makes it distinct from other opportunities. A code for awareness creation is “educate people about a social or environmental problem”, which is derived from quotes such as “educate people about a social or environmental problem”. More details about the codes and quotes can be found in Appendix 5 and 6.
After the content analysis, we analyzed the expressions used by participants to write down the business opportunity they had recognized in the scenario. The expressions were either related to existing prototypical dimensions or to new potential ones. We derived the frequencies of family codes from the quantity of references linked to them. A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed in order to determine whether the variables had a non-normal distribution or not. The null hypothesis of the Shapiro-Wilk test is that the sample has a normal distribution, which is rejected when the p-value is less than 0.05. The variables appeared to be non-normal distributed since all variables had a p-value of 0 (see Appendix 4). Consequently, the Whitney U was suitable as non-parametric test. By performing a Mann-Whitney U test, the amount of expressions was compared between the prototypical dimensions by scenario.
Focusing on the prototypical viability expressions by scenario (shown in table 7), the analysis indicates that the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension generates cash-flow after reading the social scenario (Mdn = 0) was not significantly different from the amount of expressions related to the same dimension from participants who had read the commercial scenario (Mdn = 0), U = 1455.0, z = -1.05, ns.
Significant differences were found between the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension solves customers’ problems in the social scenario (Mdn = 0) and commercial scenario (Mdn
= 1), U = 1133.5, z = -2.63, p < .01. The effect size was calculated in order to examine what percentage
of variability in the ranks was accounted for by the independent variable. According to Field (2009), all R values above the 0.3 have a medium effect size whereas values above the 0.5 have a large effect. The effect of the context of the business opportunity on the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension solves customers’ problems is small (r = 0.25). There were also significant differences found between the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension manageable risk in the social scenario (Mdn = 0) and commercial scenario (Mdn = 0), U = 1161.5, z = -3.52, p < .01. The effect of the context of the business opportunity on the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension manageable risk is moderate (r = 0.34). Significant differences were found between the amount of expressions related to the prototypical addressing a social problem in the social scenario (Mdn = 1) and commercial scenario (Mdn = 0), U = 581.0, z = -6.17, p < .01. The effect of the context of the business opportunity on the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension
manageable risk is high (r = 0.59). Finally, there were significant differences found between the amount
of expressions related to the prototypical dimension customer cooperation in the social scenario (Mdn
25
business opportunity on the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension customer
cooperation is high (r = 0.59).
Table 7. Descriptive statistics of viability expressions by scenario (N = 110).
Social Condition Commercial Condition
M SD Mdn Min Max M SD Mdn Min Max
Solve customers’ problems 0.30 0.50 0 0 2 0.59 0.63 1 0 2
Generates cash-flow 0.06 0.23 0 0 1 0.02 0.13 0 0 1
Manageable risk 0.02 0.14 0 0 1 0.27 0.49 0 0 2
Addressing social problem 1.07 0.80 1 0 3 0.21 0.46 0 0 2
Customer cooperation 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.54 0.50 1 0 1
*Given values for minimum and maximum quotes are per participant, per dimension
Looking at the prototypical distinctiveness expressions by scenario (shown in table 8), the analysis shows that the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension superior product after reading the social scenario (Mdn = 0) was significantly different from the amount of expressions related to the same dimension from participants who had read the commercial scenario (Mdn = 0), U = 1052.0, z = -4.19, p < .01. The effect of the context of the business opportunity on the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension superior product is moderate (r = 0.40). There were also significant differences found between the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension changing industry in the social scenario (Mdn = 0) and commercial scenario (Mdn = 1), U = 775.0, z = -5.33, p < .01. The effect of the context of the business opportunity on the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension changing industry is high (r = 0.53). Significant differences were found between the amount of expressions related to the prototypical dimension social
value creation in the social scenario (Mdn = 1) and commercial scenario (Mdn = 0), U = 796.0, z =
26
Table 8. Descriptive statistics of distinctiveness expressions by scenario (N = 110).
Social Condition Commercial Condition
M SD Mdn Min Max M SD Mdn Min Max
Superior product 0.02 0.14 0 0 1 0.39 0.62 0 0 2
Changing industry 0.09 0.29 0 0 1 0.66 0.64 1 0 2
Social value creation 0.65 0.68 1 0 2 0.07 0.26 0 0 1
Community impact 0.31 0.47 0 0 1 0.05 0.23 0 0 1
Awareness creation 0.46 0.54 0 0 2 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
*Given values for minimum and maximum quotes are per participant, per dimension
5 Discussion
In the current study, we have analyzed whether the opportunity context of business opportunities influences the way potential entrepreneurs recognize business opportunity characteristics. Specifically, we tried to explain how the mental, cognitive representation of social business opportunities look like by extending the business opportunity prototype model of Baron and Ensley (2006).
The results were mixed when the hypotheses were tested. The context of business opportunity had effect on recognizing most of the prototypical dimensions, but not always as hypothesized. As expected, participants confronted with a social business opportunity were more able to recognize
addressing a social problem. This is in line with findings from other studies, which argue that social
entrepreneurs are more focused on addressing social problems than commercial entrepreneurs (Austin et al., 2006; Mair & Marti, 2006; Zahra et al., 2009). Although commercial entrepreneurship benefits society in the form of new and valuable goods, services and jobs, and can have transformative social impacts (Austin et al., 2006, p. 3), the magnitude of its social impact is smaller compared to social entrepreneurship. Also in line with our expectations, participants confronted with a social business opportunity scored a higher recognition on creating social value. This underlines findings from studies such as Zahra et al. (2009, p. 3), which suggests that social value delineates the distinctiveness and contribution of social entrepreneurship. Finally, as hypothesized, participants confronted with a social business opportunity were more able to recognize impacting the community as central characteristic of the business opportunity. Prior research explains this by stating that social entrepreneurs are strongly motivated by helping communities and, therefore, making a difference (Galera & Borzaga, 2009; Renko, 2012). However, we did not find evidence to support our hypothesis stating that solves customers’
27
viability regardless the context. Participants in the social condition were more able to recognize solves
customers’ problems as a prototypical characteristic of the opportunity, while participants in the
commercial condition scored a higher recognition on generates cash-flow. Furthermore, all participants were equally able to recognize superior product and changing industry, which was also not in line with our hypotheses formulation. Ahead in this section we discuss these results in more detail.
Since the literature was scarce in describing the business opportunity prototype in social contexts, we also applied an exploratory approach that went beyond testing the existing prototypical dimensions. Interestingly, some of these results were contradicting with our primary findings. Participants in the social context condition considered solves customers’ problems as a key characteristic of the business opportunity when using a scale referring to these characteristics. However, when participants in the social condition used their own words to characterize the business opportunity, their focus was not on this dimension. This was also the case for generates cash-flow, which was a prototypical dimension that participants confronted with a social business opportunity were first less able to recognize, but afterwards equally able to recognize compared to their commercial counterparts. Another interesting finding was the fact that the exploratory analysis enabled us to add two prototypical dimensions, next to the existing prototypical dimensions based on literature. More specifically, the prototypical dimensions awareness creation and customer cooperation emerged from the data. The former was more prevalent in the social condition, whereas the latter was more related to the commercial condition.
28
Distinctiveness Viability C o mm er ci al c o n te x t S o ci al c o n te x t C o mm er ci al c o n te x t S o ci al c o n te x t C o mm er ci al co n te x t S o ci al c o n te x t S o ci al c o n te x t C o mm er ci al c o n te x t Distinctiveness Viability Content Analysis Hypothesis Testingthe descriptive and exploratory analyses. Hence, for future research, we suggest the development of a new scale for the social context of opportunity recognition rather than extending the prototypical model of Baron and Ensley (2006) to a social context. This will be discussed in more detail in the section limitations and directions for future research.
Figure 3. Overview results of both research methods.
5.1 Practical implications
Our results make a valid contribution in both a practical and theoretical way. We found empirical evidence for the influencing effect of the context upon the way potential entrepreneurs recognize a business opportunity. This is important for potential social entrepreneurs because it implies that they
29
should approach business opportunities differently than potential commercial entrepreneurs. Specifically, when looking for key characteristics to assess the prototypical viability and distinctiveness of an opportunity. Besides, the results are important for entrepreneurship education because most social entrepreneurship courses are currently drawn on principles that originate from traditional entrepreneurship education (Mueller et al., 2015). Consequently, it is likely that potential social entrepreneurs do not effectively recognize social business opportunities due to the commercial setting they are taught in. Only when social entrepreneurship courses rely less on traditional entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurs can be trained to be better at recognizing social business opportunities or social problems. For instance, specific and relevant information about addressing a social problem can be provided in social entrepreneurship courses. As a result, cognitive structures of individuals will be stimulated and eventually help to develop a well-defined prototype for social business opportunities (Baron, 2004).
Focusing on the theoretical contribution, we demonstrated that the social business opportunity prototype looks differently than the prototype of commercial business opportunities. This conclusion is consistent with findings of previous studies that assumed that opportunity recognition is influenced by a social or commercial context (Lehner and Kansikas, 2012; Corner and Ho, 2010). However, this previous research was not generalizable and not based on entrepreneurial cognition. The present study included findings and theories of cognitive science and showed that the business opportunity prototype concept offers opportunities to understand how the mental, cognitive representation of social business opportunities look like.
5.2 Limitations and directions for future research
The present study dealt with several limitations. First of all, we used the prototypical business opportunity model of Baron and Ensley (2006) for creating a new prototypical model for social business opportunities. Specifically, the social-related prototypical dimensions were derived from existing commercial dimensions. As explained in the discussion, it appears that extending the model of Baron and Ensley (2006) to a social context may be too simplistic as way to capture the complexity of recognizing social opportunities. For instance, we found that the social business opportunity prototype is likely to contain different prototypical dimensions in addition to the ones described in the literature for commercial setting. Therefore, it might be interesting for future research to develop a new scale for the social context of opportunity recognition.
30
commercial counterparts than enterprising non-profits that do not have any commercial aspect to its operations (Austin et al., 2006). It could be interesting for future research to modify the scenarios where participants are obligated to recognize a business opportunity by themselves.
Third, the prototypical dimension manageable risk was excluded from the analysis due to its poor reliability. Even though our participants (students and recently graduated students) did not consider manageable risk as prototypical dimension of a business opportunity, it is very likely that more experienced entrepreneurs do recognize this dimension since their prototypes are better defined and richer in content (Baron & Ensley, 2006). Hence, future research could experiment with different measures for risk and check whether they result in a higher reliability.
6 Conclusion
31
7 References
Aguinis, H., & Bradley K. J. (2014). Best-practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 351-371.
Alt, E., & Bacq, S. (2018). Feeling capable and valued: A prosocial perspective on the link between empathy and social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3), 333-350.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 11-26.
Anderson, A. R., & Jack, S. L. (2008). Role Typologies for Enterprising Education: The Professional Artisan? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15, 259-73.
Andrews, K. (1971). The concept of strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(3), 370-384.
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.
Bamber, D., Owens J., Davies J., & Suleman, A. (2002). Enabling the Emergent Entrepreneurial Organization to Develop New Products. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior
and Research, 8(4), 203-221.
32
Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science,
52, 133-1344.
Baron, R. A., & Ozgen, E. (2007). Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 174-192.
Baron, R. A., & Shane, S. A. (2008). Entrepreneurship: A Process Perspective, 2nd ed. South- Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Barsalou , L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211-27.
Chambliss, D., & Schutt, R. (2003). Making sense of the social world: Methods of investigation. London: Pine Forge Press.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363-376.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635-659.
Costa, S. F., Ehrenhard, M. L., Caetano, A., & Santos, S. C. (2016). The Role of Different
Opportunities in the Activation and Use of the Business Opportunity Prototype. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 25(1), 58-72.
Costa, S. F., Santos, S. C., Wach, D., & Caetano, A. (2018). Recognizing Opportunities across Campus: The Effects of Cognitive Training and Entrepreneurial Passion on the Business Opportunity Prototype. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 51-75.
33
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37-57.
Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re- conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674-695.
Davidsson, P. (2016). Researching Entrepreneurship: Conceptualization and Design, 2nd ed. Springer, New York.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Working paper, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Dehue, T. (2005). History of the control group. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of statistics in behavioral science (829-836). Chichester: Wiley.
Elwood, J. M. (1988). Causal Relationships in Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal Views on the Future of Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.
Frese, M., & Gielnik, M. M. (2014). The Psychology of Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 413-38.
Galera, G., & Borzaga, C. (2009). Social enterprise: An international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210-228.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenone of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.
Gartner, W. (1988). ‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business, 12(4), 11-32.
Green, J., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in education
34
Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. (2010). Cognitive Processes of Opportunity Recognition: The Role of Structural Alignment. Organization Science, 21, 413-31.
Hansen, D. J., Shrader, R. C., & Monllor, J. (2011). Defragmenting definitions of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 283-304.
Harris, J. D., Sapienza, H. J., & Bowie, N. E. (2009). Ethics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(5), 407-418.
Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, R. (2010). What Do We Know about Social Entrepreneurship? An Analysis of Empirical Research. International Review of
Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 1-42.
Hsu, D. K., Simmons, S. A., & Wieland, A. M. (2017). Designing Entrepreneurship Experiments: A Review, Typology, and Research Agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 379-412.
Hsu, D. K.,Wiklund, J., & Cotton, R. D. (2015). Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry: An experimental assessment of the veracity of self-efficacy and prospect theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi:10.1111/etap.12166.
Keh, H. T., Foo, M. D., & Lim, B. C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 125-148.
Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Perception, opportunity and profits: Studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lehner, O. M., & Kaniskas, J. (2012). Opportunity Recognition in Social Entrepreneurship: A Thematic Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 21(1), 25-58.
Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer Experience Quality: An Exploration in
Business and Consumer Contexts Using Repertory Grid Technique. Journal of the Academy of
35
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The global entrepreneurship monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40, 693-714.
Mair, J., & Ganly, K. (2010). “Social Entrepreneurs: Innovating towards Sustainability”, in E. Assadourian (ed.), State of the World 2010, Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism to
Sustainability, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, p. 304.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2004). Social entrepreneurship: what are we talking about? A framework for
future research. Barcelona: IESE Business School Working Paper No. 546.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). “Social entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Venture are Formed.” In Social entrepreneurship, edited by J. Mair, J. Robinson and K. Hockerts, 121- 135. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Matlin, M. W. 2005. Cognition, 6th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Mason, C., & Harvey, C. (2013). Entrepreneurship: Contexts, opportunities and processes. Business
History, 55(1), 1-8.
Miller, K. D. (2007). Risk and rationality in entrepreneurial processes. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 1(1–2), 57-74.
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: how compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management
Review, 37(4), 616-640.
Mueller, S., Brahm, T., & Neck, H. (2015). Service Learning in Social Entrepreneurship Education: Why Students Want to Become Social Entrepreneurs and How to Address Their Motives.
Journal of Enterprising Culture, 23(3), 357-380.
