Next Article in Journal
Factors Influencing User Perception and Adoption of E-Government Services
Next Article in Special Issue
Using the Case Study Method in Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Education
Previous Article in Journal
Managerial Digitalisation Cost in the Hotel Sector: The Case of Northern Greece
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluating Inspiring Factors and Obstacles in the Start-Up of Owned Agri-Preneurial Businesses: Underlying Evidence from South Africa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/admsci14030053
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering Themes, Trends, and Discourse

by
Carlos Sampaio
1,2,* and
João Renato Sebastião
1,3
1
Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Polytechnic University, 6000-084 Castelo Branco, Portugal
2
NECE-UBI (Research Centre for Business Sciences), Universidade da Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
3
CISeD-Research Centre in Digital Services, Instituto Politécnico de Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14(3), 53; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030053
Submission received: 28 December 2023 / Revised: 24 February 2024 / Accepted: 4 March 2024 / Published: 11 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Entrepreneurship for Economic Growth)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The world is marked by persistent and recurring socio-economic and environmental changes. The domains of social innovation and social entrepreneurship have gained prominence as catalysts for positive change and societal resilience. Despite the substantial body of literature assessing social innovation and social entrepreneurship, most studies address these topics through analyses of scientific production output or through systematic literature reviews. Conversely, the main objective of this paper is to conduct a thematic analysis of the existing scientific literature on social innovation and social entrepreneurship, published across various geographical contexts, to assess themes, trends, and discourse within these fields worldwide. Therefore, it synthesizes, analyzes, and evaluates the evolving landscape of social innovation and social entrepreneurship research over time, employing a sliding windows methodology. This approach divides the analyzed period into distinct times to meticulously track changes in themes and discourse over time. To accomplish this objective, this paper examines the evolving thematic dynamics of social innovation and social entrepreneurship within the scientific literature, serving as a driver and compelling researchers and practitioners to explore new dimensions in social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Evidence from the analysis is discussed, including the main theoretical and practical implications and proposals for future research. This paper emphasizes the importance of adaptive and resilient approaches within the domains of social innovation and social entrepreneurship and contributes to a deeper understanding of how social innovation and social entrepreneurship evolve and adapt over time, shedding light on the transformative potential of social innovation and social entrepreneurship.

1. Introduction

Innovation is a multifaceted concept studied across various disciplines including economics, management, sociology, and psychology. It not only involves the development of new products or the commercialization of inventions but also encompasses social, economic, behavioral, and institutional changes (Kochetkov 2023). Social innovation is a process of developing and implementing novel solutions to social problems and needs, often involving a combination of creativity, collaboration, and resourcefulness (Phills et al. 2008). It is closely linked to technological innovation and can lead to social transformation (Bitencourt et al. 2016). However, small, resource-constrained organizations may face operational obstacles in this process (Chalmers 2013). Despite the existence of social innovation as a field of practice, its theoretical aspects are still underdeveloped (Bitencourt et al. 2016). Social innovation can be expressed as changes in behaviors, perceptions, or attitudes that ultimately lead to the establishment of new social practices (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). It encompasses multiple areas of study, such as urban and city development, community growth, public policy, technology, design, and social entrepreneurship (Mulgan et al. 2007). Furthermore, it can be seen as a novel way of structuring business, companies, or workplaces to enhance economic activities with the final goal of creating new ideas that contribute to widespread social transformation or, ultimately, guiding the development and execution of innovative approaches to attain shared objectives (Neumeier 2012).
Entrepreneurship can be defined as the process of discovering, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities to create future goods and services (Shane and Venkataraman 2000) which can also have an innovation-centric prospect, based on the introduction of new technologies, products, and services (Schumpeter 1934). It involves a degree of risk-taking by entrepreneurs and the mobilization and organization of resources to create value, which can be economic, social, or cultural, through the development of new ideas.
Social entrepreneurship aligns with this definition, centered around a social mission driven by social entrepreneurs. Its defining characteristic is the primary goal of addressing social issues and creating positive change in society through entrepreneurial ventures, with the main focus of generating social value rather than personal or shareholder wealth. Hence, social entrepreneurship embodies the role of a change agent in the social sector, focusing on creating and sustaining social value over private gains. It involves recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve a social mission, engaging in continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning. Social entrepreneurs act boldly, often without being limited by current resources, and exhibit a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and the outcomes created. This approach distinguishes them from business entrepreneurs by emphasizing social impact and mission-related impacts over wealth creation (Dees 1998).
Moreover, social entrepreneurship combines innovative resource use and opportunities to address social needs and catalyze social change. It differs from commercial entrepreneurship in its greater emphasis on creating social value over economic gain. This process involves not only service and product offerings but also the establishment of new organizations, with a primary focus on social transformation and addressing societal issues (Austin et al. 2006; Mair and Martí 2006), or as a multifaceted activity through which individuals or groups aim to create social value. This is achieved through a combination of recognizing and exploiting opportunities to create social value, employing innovation, tolerating risk, and operating with relative disregard for limitations in available resources (Peredo and McLean 2006).
Accordingly, social entrepreneurship and social innovation emerge as critical conduits for social change. Social entrepreneurship embodies the pursuit of opportunity beyond controlled resources, characterized by a unique blend of vision, innovation, and risk-taking to set up social change (Dees 1998). This entrepreneurial spirit extends to the innovative processes within existing organizations aiming for social impact, thereby emphasizing the importance of innovation and entrepreneurial characteristics in the nonprofit sector (Dart 2004). Moreover, social innovation lies at the core of social entrepreneurship. Social innovation involves the development, application, and scaling of solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues (Mulgan et al. 2007). This process transcends traditional boundaries by fostering new collaborations and applying fresh approaches to solve old problems, thus creating added value for society at large (Phills et al. 2008). Synergy between social entrepreneurship and social innovation is essential as it demands a proactive stance in identifying gaps within the social fabric and deploying inventive solutions that are sustainable, impactful, and scalable (Mair and Martí 2006).
The essence of social entrepreneurship transcends participation in voluntary activities, requiring a profound entrepreneurial mindset that thrives on continuous innovation and a deep-rooted desire to drive social change (Nicholls 2006). This connection between recognizing new opportunities and engaging in social innovation highlights the potential of social entrepreneurship as both social innovation and social entrepreneurship serve as vital mechanisms for fostering a resilient and equitable society (Dart 2004; Dees 1998; Mair and Martí 2006).
Therefore, while social entrepreneurship involves the creation of new ventures or managing existing ones in an innovative way, with the objective of defining and exploiting opportunities to improve social wealth (Zahra et al. 2009), social innovation presents a new and more efficient, effective, and sustainable solution for a social problem, with a focus on society rather than on individuals (Phills et al. 2008). However, social innovation and social entrepreneurship seek to identify a problem that needs to be addressed to meet a social need, sharing common overlaps for unmet social needs.
Both social innovation and social entrepreneurship are embodied within the concept of the social economy, which emerged alongside with the formation of cooperative, mutualistic, and associative organizations throughout human history. This evolution is linked to the emergence of freedom of association, religious influences, forces of nationalism, and the quest for a third way. The emergence of the third sector occurred during the 19th century and developed alongside the industrial revolution. It arose as a response to the social and economic challenges brought about by rapid industrialization and urbanization. This period saw the creation of several cooperative, mutual, and associative organizations. These organizations aimed to provide solutions to the social issues of the time, embodying a collective approach to economic activity with a focus on social objectives and solidarity. The social economy represents an alternative to both capitalist market economies and state-controlled economies, emphasizing community, social responsibility, and mutual aid (Defourny and Develtere 1999).
The third sector plays a vital role in providing socioeconomic support, particularly in times of economic crisis. This sector includes non-governmental, voluntary, and nonprofit organizations. In Europe, the third sector engages the full-time equivalent of 28.3 million workers across Europe, accounting for almost 13% of the workforce, highlighting the sector’s contribution to employment and its broader socioeconomic impact (European Commission 2017). Moreover, the relevance of the sector is additionally driven by active citizenship, or involvement in informal and formal (organized) voluntary activities, accounting for one-fifth of the European Union member states’ population who participate in those activities, including political groups, associations, and parties (European Commission 2023).
Recent times have been characterized by persistent turmoil. The COVID-19 pandemic brought a generalized lockdown encompassing stay-at-home orders, curfews, quarantines, cordons sanitaires, and similar societal restrictions involving companies and the general population. The aftermath of the pandemic crisis brought generalized constraints in the world’s supply chains and increased inflation. Subsequently, war in hot spots for commodities, such as grain and oil, spiked the prices of raw materials, which led to an increase in inflation and interest rates in several economic blocks. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship can play important roles in times of economic crises (Maclean et al. 2013; European Commission 2017). People volunteering, addressing community needs, and providing socioeconomic support are common during periods of disaster (Linnenluecke and McKnight 2017) as new ways of addressing a community’s needs through the application of creative problem solving (Gundry et al. 2011), emphasizing the relevance of innovation and entrepreneurship in preventing and overcoming economic and financial crises (Pereira 2019).
Despite the wide body of literature on social innovation and social entrepreneurship, assessing its origins and trends using thorough methods including systematic literature reviews and bibliometric approaches (Farinha et al. 2020; Sainaghi et al. 2018; Grilo and Moreira 2022; Bozhikin et al. 2019), there is lack of understanding of the involving and evolving aspects surrounding social innovation and social entrepreneurship, particularly the development of themes and discourse. Some papers have emerged over time, particularly following periods of acute crises such as the economic crisis that followed the 2007–2008 financial crisis, sovereign debt crises (Apostolopoulos et al. 2019; Maclean et al. 2013), and the COVID-19 pandemic (Weaver 2023; Farhoud et al. 2021; Iskandar et al. 2022). Therefore, this study uses a co-word analysis, which is both a bibliometric method (Zupic and Čater 2015) and a content analysis technique (Callon et al. 1983), to analyze the contents of a large number of documents, create a similarity measure, build a thematic analysis, and represent the conceptual space of the social innovation and social entrepreneurship research field (Zupic and Čater 2015).
Consequently, this paper seeks to address this gap in the literature and to determine the evolving themes, trends, and discourses that shape social innovation and social entrepreneurship. It uses a co-word analysis to assess themes and concepts shaping social innovation and social entrepreneurship to assess how the scientific field evolved over time and to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding its future.
The remainder of this study has the following structure: Section 2 presents the methodology, including information about data and methods. Section 3 shows the study results. Conclusions are presented in Section 4.

2. Methodology

This study aimed to explore the evolving landscape of ‘Social Innovation’ and ‘Social Entrepreneurship’, employing bibliometric methods for an in-depth analysis. The use of a bibliometric analysis as a quantitative approach to the assessment of scientific literature provides insights into the thematic and developmental trends within a research field. Essential to our approach was the concept of bibliometrics, as outlined by Pritchard (1969), and the co-word analysis methodology developed in (Callon et al. 1983).
The methodology used in this study involved a sliding window analysis of scientific production over a five-year time frame, beginning with the period from 2012 to 2016 and advancing annually until 2023. This technique enables researchers to assess the evolving impact of new research within the field and includes the analysis of eight timeframes (2012–2016, 2013–2017, 2014–2018, 2015–2019, 2016–2020, 2017–2021, 2018–2022, and 2019–2023). This technique involves analyzing data within specific time frames (windows) over the period of interest, allowing for a temporal analysis of the data. The relevance of the temporal co-word analysis has been acknowledge in the literature (He 1999). Furthermore, the use of a sliding window strategy to construct networks provides an accurate picture of the research field once it connects characters across different groups and enables one to trace the development of the stream (Grayson et al. 2016).
Data for this study were meticulously gathered from the Web of Science (WoS) database on 10 November 2023, using targeted filters to select publications relevant to social innovation and social entrepreneurship which were published in the English language. The search query was ‘TS = ‘social innovat*’ OR TS = ‘Social Entrepren*’ AND English (Languages)’, resulting in a collection of 6646 publications published over the 2012–2023 period. The decision to rely on just one database was made to avoid using unstandardized data and potential errors when merging multiple databases (Donthu et al. 2021). Additionally, the WoS database is one of the largest databases and a reliable source of published scientific documents (Ellegaard and Wallin 2015)
This study conducted a thematic analysis using a co-word analysis, a technique that is not suitable for dealing with small samples (Donthu et al. 2021). However, the scientific production output published prior to 2012 was small. When using small datasets, the co-occurrence of words might not be sufficiently representative to draw meaningful conclusions about the research domain. This may lead to a sparse co-occurrence matrix indicating that most words do not co-occur, which could result in fragmented or overly simplified results. Consequently, papers published before 2012 were excluded from the analysis.
The thematic analysis was based on the framework proposed by Cobo et al. (2011), which classifies research themes into four quadrants: thematic motors, emergent or declining themes, niche themes, and basic and transversal themes. This classification allows for a comprehensive understanding of the dominant and peripheral topics within the fields of social innovation and social entrepreneurship. The thematic motor category includes mature and well-developed themes that have been extensively researched. These areas represent the core of the field, characterized by a substantial body of established work, indicating robust and thoroughly explored topics in social innovation and social entrepreneurship. The emergent or declining themes category is characterized by themes with a dynamic nature. Some themes in this category are gaining momentum (emergent), while others are losing significance (declining). This fluctuation implies shifting trends within the field, highlighting areas that are drawing new research interest or becoming less focal. Niche themes encompass highly specialized areas within a field and are typically marked by lower volumes of research. Despite their specialized nature, niche themes are crucial for the development of specific, focused areas within social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Basic and transversal themes are fundamental to the field. These themes extend across several study areas. They form the foundational bedrock of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, connecting different aspects and offering a broad and integrative perspective.
For the analysis, R (R Core Team 2023) was used, employing the ‘Bibliometrix’ package (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017), which is specifically designed for bibliometric studies. The use of this advanced analytical tool enables a sophisticated exploration of the collected data, offering insights into the thematic structures and trends within the research fields of interest.
The methodologies used in this study allowed for the creation of thematic maps for each of the periods analyzed based on the document ‘Author Keywords’. Although only the thematic map for the 2012–2016 period is presented in Figure 1, information from the other maps was extracted and compiled into tables depicted in the remainder of the paper. This compilation provides essential insights, enabling a detailed characterization of each period. Additionally, it facilitates an understanding of the impacts and transitions associated with the advent of new periods. This approach is crucial for identifying and understanding the evolving dynamics and trends in the fields of social innovation and social entrepreneurship as it highlights changes and continuities in the thematic emphasis over different timeframes, an essential process for obtaining the results presented in the following sections, which offer a comprehensive and informed view of thematic evolution within these fields.

3. Results

Following the proposed methods, this section presents the study results. It begins by displaying the thematic map for the first analyzed period (2012–2016). Each of the subsections presents the evolution of research themes within the social innovation and social entrepreneurship field according to the changing year.
An analysis of the data related to social innovation and social entrepreneurship until 2016 reveals a research domain enriched with thematic areas, each uncovering distinct aspects of the social innovation and social entrepreneurship research field’s dynamic nature. Figure 1 shows the thematic map for the first analyzed period.
According to the results (Figure 1), the theme centered on ‘sustainability’ comprises a broad array of topics from ‘corporate social responsibility’ to ‘climate change’. This theme acts as a motor within the field, propelling the integration of environmental concerns into the core of social entrepreneurial ventures and scholarly research. Moreover, it further includes terms such as ‘sustainable development’, ‘green’, and ‘renewable energy’, showing a trend in research that prioritizes sustainable practices as fundamental components of social innovation. Meanwhile, the ‘social enterprise’ theme stands on foundational ground, with keywords such as ‘social entrepreneurs’ and ‘business model’ which constitute the basic themes of the discipline. This theme provides the underpinnings of the field by focusing on the interplay of entrepreneurial activities with social aims and reflects the key concepts and practices that have shaped the evolution of social entrepreneurship.
The ‘co-creation’ theme, linked with ‘open innovation’ and ‘smart cities’, represents another ‘motor theme‘ that signals the field’s movement toward collaborative and open innovation approaches. It underscores the role of co-creative processes as catalysts for inclusive and sustainable urban development. Additionally, it denotes a significant area of research that pushes partnerships and community participation in social innovation.
The ‘education’ theme stands out as a niche area even though it is characterized by a single keyword. It highlights the role of educational strategies and pedagogical innovations in developing a culture of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, pointing to a dense line of research that investigates how education shapes the future of social innovators.
The ‘social economy’ theme, although also denoted by a single keyword, encompasses themes that are either on the rise or on the wane. However, it draws attention to changing economic models linked with social innovation and signals the shifting landscape of social entrepreneurship.

3.1. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2017

The shift in thematic categorization from 2016 to 2017 involves the addition of new trends to the analysis to consolidate knowledge. Shifting the period means that the analysis is now focused on the 2013–2017 period. Table 1 illustrates the evolution of themes and subjects over time. The ‘Cluster’ column identifies the specific cluster within the thematic map. The ‘Before’ column indicates whether the cluster was present in the preceding period and, if so, in which quadrant it was located. The ‘Current’ column reveals the current quadrant position of the cluster. Finally, the ‘Words’ column provides a collection of terms and words associated with each cluster.
Examining the results (Table 1), ‘sustainability’ has transitioned from being a ‘motor theme’ to a ‘basic theme’, indicating that the concept has now become a fundamental element of the field. This change implies that sustainability considerations have been thoroughly assimilated into the social innovation and social entrepreneurship scientific literature, suggesting a level of maturity at which these principles are now assumed rather than highlighted as emergent.
Meanwhile, ‘social enterprise’ and ‘sustainability’ maintain their classification as ‘basic themes’, reinforcing their status as pillars of the field. This continuity shows that the role of social enterprises in advancing social innovation remains central to the field, reflecting a consensus on their value as instruments for social change through entrepreneurial action. Furthermore, the continuous identification of ‘co-creation’ as a ‘motor theme’ underscores its ongoing relevance as central force driving the research stream forward. The unaltered status of co-creation addresses the ongoing emphasis on collaborative innovation and the importance of engaging diverse stakeholders in the development of shared value, which influences research and practice within social innovation. Moreover, it further emphasizes the field’s commitment to collaborative approaches.
The arrival of new themes within the field over this period is reflected in the emergence of the theme ‘bibliometric analysis’, which signals the emergence of a methodologic approach to map the field’s literature. Concurrently, the theme ‘India’ emerged, along with terms such as ‘technology’, ‘base of the pyramid’, and ‘development’, revealing a geographical and regional context approach, mixed with technological innovations. These niche themes, while specialized, point up to a diverse research landscape.

3.2. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2018

The thematic progression from 2017 to 2018 involves adding new trends to the analysis portrayed within documents published in 2018 to consolidate knowledge about the evolution of themes. Table 2 shows the evolution of themes and subjects.
The results (Table 2) show that ‘social enterprise’ emerged as a motor theme, transitioning from its ‘basic theme’ status to become a central force in current research. This shift is demonstrated by a surge in associated keywords that broaden its scope to include economic, sustainability, and organizational dimensions. ‘Co-creation’ moved to a ‘basic theme’, showing its established foundational scope within the field. The diminished relevance of ‘bibliometric analysis’ and the regional focus on ‘India’ suggest that its interest diminished. Meanwhile, ‘sustainability’ maintains its ‘basic theme’ classification, continuing to be an essential element, with a focus on integrating sustainable practices into business and governance, demonstrated by keywords like ‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘business model’, ‘governance’, ‘open innovation’, and ‘social responsibility’.
Over the 2014–2018 period, ‘education’ emerged as a “basic theme”, underscoring its status as a cornerstone of social innovation essential for fostering an environment in which innovation can be fostered and sustained. ‘Gender’ emerged as a ‘niche theme’, representing a recognition of the need to explore the intersections between gender dynamics and innovation, emphasizing that social entrepreneurship is inclusive and equitable. Furthermore, ‘service design’ emerged as a specialized area, highlighting the importance of designing services that are not only efficient but also empathetic and user-oriented, leveraging co-design to ensure services meet the demands of diverse communities. Lastly, the ‘public sector’ theme indicates a growing interest in the roles of government and public institutions as facilitators, or partners, in social innovation initiatives. This could mean a recognition of the public sector’s potential to scale solutions and create systemic impact.

3.3. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2019

The shift to 2019 was marked by additional thematic changes and consolidations, illustrating its dynamic and varied focus areas. Table 3 depicts the evolution of theme that occurred through the shift to 2019, depicting thematic evolution via the shift to the 2015–2019 period.
The results (Table 3) show that a key transformation is observed in ‘social enterprise’, which transitions from being a driving ‘motor theme’ to a foundational ‘basic theme’ and highlights its essential role in shaping the landscape of innovation and social change. This change implies its role as a foundational aspect of the field. The theme includes a set of keywords such as ‘social entrepreneurs’, ‘social economy’, and ‘social capital’, emphasizing the multifaceted role of social enterprises in driving economic and social change. The presence of terms like ‘hybrid organizations’, ‘social value’, and ‘rural development’ underscores the different approaches and impacts of social enterprises, including their ability to blend different organizational models and contribute to development in varied contexts.
Co-creation maintains its status from the previous period as a ‘basic theme’, reaffirming its importance within the research field. This theme emphasizes keywords, including ‘co-creation’ and ‘smart cities’, which encompass collaborative and participatory approaches, particularly in urban innovation and development. Additionally, the theme ‘education’ shifts from a ‘basic theme’ to an ‘emerging or declining theme’, reflecting a transformation or re-evaluation of the role of education within the field. The presence of ‘higher education’ and ‘creativity’ within this theme suggests a new focus on innovative pedagogies and the nurturing of creative thinking in educational settings. This perspective indicates how education supports social innovation. Sustainability remains a ‘basic theme’, further cementing its role. With a wide range of related keywords like ‘governance’, ‘resilience’, ‘social inclusion’, and ‘open innovation’, sustainability maintains its role within the field. These themes indicate an ongoing commitment in embedding sustainable practices across various dimensions of social innovation.
Themes such as ‘gender’, ‘service design’, and ‘public sector’ did not show evolution, suggesting that while these areas remain relevant, they have not expanded significantly in their influence or scope within the broader context. Their stable status points to a potential for deeper exploration and application in the field. As shown from the themes that have been carried forward, 2019 also brought new and emerging areas of focus, showing the field’s ongoing evolution and adaptation to challenges and perspectives. The theme ‘India’ emerged as a ‘motor theme’, suggesting its significant influence in the field. The concentration on ‘India’ and related concepts like ‘institutions’, ‘development’, ‘institutional theory’, and ‘gender’ indicates a comprehensive approach to understanding India’s role and challenges in social innovation. The inclusion of keywords such as ‘empowerment’, ‘technology’, and ‘poverty’ signals a focus on several aspects of socioeconomic development and technological advancement within the Indian context. The comparison with ‘China’ and the mention of ‘policy’ highlights a broader regional perspective and the importance of policy frameworks in shaping social innovation within these economies.
‘Sustainable development’ solidified its position as a “basic theme”, illustrating its foundational role in the field. This theme encompasses a wide range of topics, including ‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘business models’, ‘bibliometric analysis’, and ‘collaboration’, reflecting the complex nature of sustainable development in social innovation. Keywords such as ‘social change’, ‘community’, ‘social responsibility’, and ‘sustainable entrepreneurship’ underscore a commitment to integrate sustainability into various dimensions of entrepreneurial practice and research.
Emerging as ‘niche themes’, ‘crowdfunding’, ‘co-design’, and ‘social business’ reflect specialized, but significant, areas of interest within the field. The focus on ‘crowdfunding’ and ‘legitimacy’ suggests a growing interest in new forms of financing and their credibility in the context of social innovation. ‘Co-design’ and ‘service design’, along with ‘design thinking’, highlight the importance of user-centric and collaborative design approaches. ‘Social business’ and its association with ‘motivation’ indicate an interest in understanding the internal drivers behind socially oriented business ventures. The theme ‘design’, also categorized as a ‘niche theme’, emphasizes the field’s recognition of the broader implications of design principles and methodologies in driving innovative solutions.

3.4. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2020

Table 4 presents the themes’ evolution over the 2016–2020 period. Following the shift to 2020, it shows the social innovation and social entrepreneurship research stream’s evolving priorities and emerging areas.
The results (Table 4) show that the theme ‘India’ experienced a notable turn, shifting from being a central force as a ‘motor theme’ to a more specialized area of study and therefore becoming a ‘niche theme’. This transition can reflect a more deepened exploration of the complexities of India’s role in the broader context of emerging economies. Additionally, themes like ‘institutions’, ‘development’, ‘gender’, and ‘policy’ stress a multifaceted approach to understanding the dynamics at play in the Indian context, while the inclusion of ‘China’ indicates a broader regional perspective. Conversely, themes such as ‘sustainable development’ and ‘education’, which previously showed dynamic growth, did not exhibit further evolution. This stabilization suggests that these areas, while still fundamental to the field, might have reached a point of maturity or saturation.
Meanwhile, ‘social enterprise’ maintained its status as a ‘basic theme’, which highlights the importance of the theme in driving ‘sustainable development’ and ‘social responsibility’ toward responsible change. The remaining themes included within this cluster involve ‘social entrepreneurs’, ‘social economy’, ‘social capital’, and ‘corporate social responsibility’. The broad spectrum of topics covers several dimensions of social enterprises, from their economic models to their role in fostering social responsibility and community impact. Similarly, ‘sustainability’ remains a ‘basic theme’, which emphasizes its role in innovative entrepreneurship. The range of related keywords such as ‘governance’, ‘education’, ‘smart cities’, and ‘resilience’ seem to indicate a comprehensive approach to embedding sustainable practices in different contexts and sectors. On the other hand, ‘co-creation’ changed from a ‘basic theme’ to a ‘niche theme’, showing a transition from a more general to a more specialized theme. This suggests a focus on collaborative and participatory approaches, as evidenced by terms such as ‘co-design’, ‘design thinking’, and ‘service design’.
The themes ‘crowdfunding’, ‘co-design’, ‘social business’, and ‘design’ did not suffer changes transitioning into 2020, maintaining their previous importance. This suggests that while they remain pertinent, these areas might not be at the forefront of current research trends. This presents an opportunity for reinvigoration to expand their influence and applicability in the broader context of the field.

3.5. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2021

The inclusion of 2021 in the sliding window for the analysis shows that the social innovation and social entrepreneurship field dynamically responded to global challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and shifting societal needs. Table 5 shows the themes’ evolution over the 2017–2021 period.
The analysis of the sliding window including the years 2017–2021 displays a research field engaged with ‘sustainability’ and ‘social enterprise’. Results (Table 5) show themes such as ‘resilience’ and ‘circular economy’ emerging as key elements in sustainable systems. ‘Social enterprise’ expanded to include ‘hybrid organizations’ and ‘rural development’, broadening its scope. ‘Co-creation’ became a basic theme, underscoring its importance in collaborative solutions, while the absence of the ‘India’ theme suggests a shift or pause on its prominence.
‘Higher education’ emerged as a ‘motor theme’, presenting a central role in the research stream. The developed activity in this sector, particularly under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, signals a re-examination and transformation of educational models. This sector is positioned at the nexus of fostering social entrepreneurial intentions, nurturing community engagement, and enhancing creativity among learners. The interaction between social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education underscores the response to the pandemic disruption, highlighting a focus on providing students with the skills to innovate for social change. Simultaneously, the concept of ‘smart cities’ emerged classified as a ‘niche theme’. This focus is indicative of a rising recognition of the strategic importance of urban spaces in spearheading social innovation. Smart cities seem to be reimagined through lenses of ‘co-production’ and sustainable ‘energy transitions’, emphasizing the need for innovative urban planning that will embrace technological advancement and prioritizes sustainability and citizen engagement.
The emergence of ‘social responsibility’ as a ‘niche theme’ reflects a sustained commitment to addressing ethical issues and social impacts. Furthermore, ‘design thinking’ emerged as a ‘niche theme’, showing the relevant role of iterative, user-centered problem-solving for social innovation and social entrepreneurship. The incorporation of ‘co-design’ and ‘service design’ practices within the field of social innovation emphasizes engagement and collaborative creation processes. Lastly, the theme education, which appears among ‘emerging or declining themes’, suggesting a point of change. Regarding the term ‘education’, while it remains a significant theme, its future direction appears to indicate shifts in how educational practices and frameworks intersect with social innovation and entrepreneurship.

3.6. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2022

The transition to 2022 depicts the 2018–2022 thematic landscape. The thematic narrative reflects the evolving and responsive nature of the field, as presented in Table 6.
Results regarding the 2018–2022 period (Table 6) show that ‘higher education’ has firmly established itself as a cornerstone within the field of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, changing into a role that is less about driving new trends and more about underpinning the sector with enduring principles of ‘social change’, ‘community’ building, and ‘leadership’ development. This shift may underscore the recognition of ‘higher education’ as an essential player in shaping agents of societal transformation. Simultaneously, ‘social enterprise’ has emerged with renewed strength as a ‘motor theme’, highlighting its central role to the research field. Its extensive engagement with concepts like ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ could represent the catalytic effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, signaling a deepening commitment to integrating ethical and environmentally friendly practices represented by the term ‘circular economy’. Moreover, the remaining lexicon associated with ‘social enterprise’, like ‘social economy’, ‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘circular economy’, and ‘hybrid organizations’, illustrates a more resilient and socially conscious social business paradigm.
Themes such as ‘sustainability’, ‘smart cities’, and ‘social responsibility’, despite their clear relevance, did not display the same momentum, suggesting a period of stasis. ‘Design thinking’ persisted as a ‘niche theme’, continuing to emphasize user-centric innovation, reinforcing its relevance and critical contribution within the research field. The path of ‘co-creation’ hints at a possible inflection point as it finds itself categorized among ‘emerging or declining themes’. This change opens a dialogue about the current and future position of collaborative innovation in the social entrepreneurship narrative. Lastly, the theme of ‘education’ became absent, and ‘higher education’ transitioned to a ‘basic theme’. This evolution signals a potential need for strategic re-evaluation to ensure that educational initiatives and research continue to align with the social innovation field.
Moreover, ‘social entrepreneurial intention’ ascended as a ‘motor theme’, emphasizing the importance of the mindset and educational pathways leading individuals to engage in social entrepreneurship. This theme’s prominence indicates a shift toward exploring the underlying motivations, educational influences, and creative impulses which social entrepreneurial activities are based on. It represents a holistic view of the social innovation and social entrepreneurship process from intention to action, highlighting the importance of nurturing and understanding their foundational elements. Meanwhile, the theme ‘social entrepreneurs’ persisted in its role, cementing its status as a ‘basic theme’. This acknowledgment reflects the diverse experiences and contributions of social entrepreneurs across various dimensions, including ‘social capital’, ‘gender’ perspectives, and geographic diversity, with specific references to ‘China’ and ‘India’. The theme’s broad reach represents the nature of social entrepreneurship, recognizing the different factors that influence and are influenced by the scientific field.

3.7. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2023

The inclusion of 2023 resulted in a sliding window incorporating the 2019–2023 period. Table 7 displays the thematic evolution over this period.
The results for the 2019–2023 period (Table 7) show changes in the focus areas, despite maintaining several established themes from the previous period. ‘Design thinking’ and ‘co-creation’, once relevant themes, became stabilized, suggesting a need for renewed exploration and application. ‘Social enterprise’ transitioned from a ‘motor theme’ to a ‘basic theme’, which may signify its establishment as a foundational element in the field. The dominance of keywords such as ‘sustainability’, ‘sustainable development’, and ‘social entrepreneurs’ reveals an integration of ethical and environmentally conscious practices within the domain of ‘social enterprise. This theme’s wide reach, including ‘social capital’, ‘social impact’, ‘circular economy’, and ‘resilient business models’, illustrates the ways social enterprises drive sustainable change. ‘Governance’ maintained its status as a ‘niche theme’, emphasizing the role of administrative and policy frameworks in shaping social innovation. Furthermore, the focus on ‘rural development’, ‘energy transition’, and ‘networks’ highlights the importance of governance for local communities as well as environmental concerns.
‘Social entrepreneurial intention’ evolved from a ‘motor theme’ to a ‘basic theme’. The prevalence of terms like ‘gender’, ‘education’, ‘empathy’, and ‘creativity’ suggests an evolution of the motivational and educational foundations that drives individuals toward social entrepreneurship. The inclusion of ‘design thinking’ within this theme indicates a problem-solving approach to social entrepreneurial activities. On the other hand, ‘higher education’ has transitioned from a ‘basic theme’ to a ‘niche theme’, reflecting a more specialized focus or an evolving approach within ‘higher education’, emphasizing ‘entrepreneurial intention’ and ‘entrepreneurship education’. The emergence of ‘educational innovation’ as a relevant theme points to growing interest from future social innovators. Moreover, the theme ‘social enterprise’ evolved from a ‘motor theme’ to a ‘basic theme’, showing an emphasis of ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’.
The theme ‘COVID-19’ emerged as a dominant ‘basic theme’, highlighting the impact of the pandemic. This theme further emphasizes the implications of the pandemic for various aspects of social innovation. Its association with ‘co-creation’, ‘social change’, ‘community’, and ‘smart cities’ shows how COVID-19 became a catalyst for collaborative approaches, community dynamics, and urban development. The inclusion of ‘India’ and ‘digital social innovation’ within this theme points to the geographical and technological dimensions of the pandemic’s influence. Additionally, the terms ‘transformation’, ‘action research’, and ‘leadership’ within the COVID-19 theme indicate the broader role of the pandemic in driving systemic change, exploring new research methodologies, and influencing leadership styles and strategies.
‘Policy’ emerged as a “niche theme”, reflecting an increasing focus on the interplay between public policy and social innovation. The emphasis on ‘policy’ coupled with ‘public health’ suggests a specific interest in how policy frameworks were shaped and adapted in response to health-related challenges, likely influenced by the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The emergence of this theme means an increased recognition of the important role of ‘policy’ in enabling, guiding, and responding to social innovation, especially in the context of public health.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

4.1. Discussion

The field of ‘social innovation and social entrepreneurship’ has undergone significant thematic evolution over the analyzed period (2012–2023). This evolution reflects the field’s response to changing societal needs and emerging global challenges. From 2012 onward, scientific output was characterized by themes such as ‘sustainability’ (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2013; Cajaiba-Santana 2014; Parris and McInnis-Bowers 2014; Voorberg et al. 2015; van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016; Calic and Mosakowski 2016; Rey-Martí et al. 2016; Glavas 2016; Kaika 2017; Hoogendoorn et al. 2019; Dionisio and de Vargas 2020; Johnson and Schaltegger 2020) and ‘social enterprise’ (Smith et al. 2013; Wilson and Post 2013; Cajaiba-Santana 2014; Stephan et al. 2015; Maier et al. 2016; Zahra and Wright 2016; York et al. 2016; Belz and Binder 2017; Parhankangas and Renko 2017; Saebi et al. 2019; Avelino et al. 2019; Gupta et al. 2020; Hota et al. 2020), which emerged as central drivers in the literature, highlighting the growing emphasis on integrating environmental concerns and entrepreneurial practices with social objectives. The prominence of ‘co-creation’ (Herrera 2015; Castelnovo et al. 2016; Mirvis et al. 2016; Windrum et al. 2016; Frantzeskaki 2019; Chin et al. 2019; Fuglsang et al. 2021), especially in urban settings (Castelnovo et al. 2016), governance (Castelnovo et al. 2016; Frantzeskaki 2019; Maddalena Sorrentino and Howlett 2018; Voorberg et al. 2017), and the public sector (Windrum et al. 2016; Fuglsang et al. 2021), underscored the field’s commitment to collaborative innovation. The period saw a slight expansion with the introduction of new themes, such as ‘bibliometric analysis’ (Voorberg et al. 2015; Wu and Wu 2017), and a geographical focus on ‘India’ (Parris and McInnis-Bowers 2014; Stephan et al. 2015; Sutter et al. 2019; Pel et al. 2020). This revealed a wider research landscape, showing an emphasis on ‘education’, reflecting its role in future social innovators.
The year 2021 brought the impact of COVID-19 to the research field (Zahra 2021). This development stressed responsiveness to current global challenges within the research field. Themes such as ‘smart cities’ (Ghazal et al. 2021; Castelnovo et al. 2016; Kaika 2017) and ‘design thinking’ (Parris and McInnis-Bowers 2017; Phi and Clausen 2021; Tiwari et al. 2022; Blomkamp 2022; Bartoloni et al. 2022; Usman et al. 2022) gained traction, highlighting the strategic importance of urban spaces and user-centric problem solving in social innovation. Over the final analyzed timeframe, 2019–2023, ‘COVID-19′ (Mirza et al. 2020; Zahra 2021; Ghazal et al. 2021; Boysen 2022; Rizvi et al. 2020) ascended as a dominant theme and ‘policy’ (Watson et al. 2023; Plutshack et al. 2019; Alkon et al. 2019; Aung et al. 2022) emerged as a new niche theme, indicating a focus on the intersection of public policy and social innovation, especially in the context of public health. Hence, the evolution of themes over the years shows the emergence of themes such as ‘smart cities’, ‘design thinking’, ‘policy’, ‘governance’, and the ‘circular economy’.
Overall, the field has demonstrated consistent evolution, integrating several perspectives and adapting to contemporary challenges. Key themes have changed, reflecting the field’s adaptability and changes related to social needs. Its ongoing adaptation is evidenced by the emergence and consolidation of new themes, showcasing the field’s responsiveness to current global challenges and changes in its focus.

4.2. Conclusions

The concepts of social innovation and social entrepreneurship emerged from the concept of a social economy. This construct was primarily developed in the 19th century through the emergence of freedom of association, religious influences, forces of nationalism, and the quest for a third way (Defourny and Develtere 1999). Despite having existed for more than a century, the concept has become increasingly relevant over the last decade. This relevance can be recognized through its economic impact (European Commission 2017) as well as citizens and their involvement in informal and formal (organized) voluntary activities (European Commission 2023). Departing from this framework, this paper deals with a critical topic, particularly over periods of socioeconomic constraints (Maclean et al. 2013; European Commission 2017; Linnenluecke and McKnight 2017; Gundry et al. 2011; Pereira 2019).
The results showed a set of main themes in the social innovation and social entrepreneurship research field, including sustainability, the social enterprise, and co-creation. These themes became relevant and central to the research field over the analyzed period. However, over the years, themes such as co-creation, governance, public policies, design thinking, circular economy, and topics related to city organization and as a conjunctural topic (COVID-19) also became relevant. Hence, concepts related to sustainable cities and the required public policies that need to be put forward, particularly adjustments to transportation policies, redrawing cities, and the adoption of measures targeted at sustainable development, seem to be among the most relevant. Furthermore, the obtained results showed that co-creation, as well as design thinking, sustainability, and the social enterprise, represent the cornerstone for policy makers, social innovators, and social entrepreneurs and foundations for the emergence of social innovations.
The emergence of social constraints, such as crises, war, terrorism, migrations, or climate change, sets a point of departure for innovation in a social economy and an increasing momentum within social entrepreneurship. Hence, based on the obtained results and the thematic evolution over time, recent themes such as ‘smart cities’, ‘design thinking’, ‘policy’, ‘governance’, and the ‘circular economy’, targeting ‘sustainability’, highlight directions for future research on social innovation and social entrepreneurship.
Despite providing enlightenments, this paper presents some limitations, among them the number of documents in the sample analyzed and the type of analysis. A set of 6646 documents were assessed. This number is well above the recommend analytical minimum of 200 (Rogers et al. 2020) or 300 to 500 (Donthu et al. 2021). However, more detailed results could be provided using a systematic literature review of the most cited documents. This type of analysis could provide additional understanding about the thematic evolution of the research field and represent a starting point for future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.S. and J.R.S.; methodology, C.S. and J.R.S.; software, J.R.S.; validation, C.S. and J.R.S.; formal analysis, C.S.; investigation, C.S. and J.R.S.; resources, J.R.S.; data curation, C.S. and J.R.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.S. and J.R.S.; writing—review and editing, C.S. and J.R.S.; visualization, C.S. and J.R.S.; supervision, C.S. and J.R.S.; project administration, C.S. and J.R.S.; funding acquisition, C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

NECE and this work are supported by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia), I.P., project reference UIDB/04630/2020 and DOI identifier 10.54499/UIDP/04630/2020. This work was funded by National Funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), I.P., within the scope of the project UIDB/05583/2020, DOI identifier https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/05583/2020 (accessed on 1 December 2023). Furthermore, we would like to thank the Research Centre in Digital Services (CISeD) and the Instituto Politécnico de Viseu for their support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alkon, Alison Hope, Yahya Josh Cadji, and Frances Moore. 2019. Subverting the New Narrative: Food, Gentrification and Resistance in Oakland, California. Agriculture and Human Values 36: 793–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Apostolopoulos, Nikolaos, Robert Newbery, and Menelaos Gkartzios. 2019. Social Enterprise and Community Resilience: Examining a Greek Response to Turbulent Times. Journal of Rural Studies 70: 215–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aria, Massimo, and Corrado Cuccurullo. 2017. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11: 959–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aung, Myo Nyein, Yuka Koyanagi, Satomi Ueno, Sariyamon Tiraphat, and Motoyuki Yuasa. 2022. Age-Friendly Environment and Community-Based Social Innovation in Japan: A Mixed-Method Study. The Gerontologist 62: 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Austin, James, Howard Stevenson, and Jane Wei–Skillern. 2006. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30: 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Avelino, Flor, Julia M Wittmayer, Bonno Pel, Paul Weaver, Adina Dumitru, Alex Haxeltine, René Kemp, Michael S. Jørgensen, Tom Bauler, Saskia Ruijsink, and et al. 2019. Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis)Empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 145: 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bartoloni, Sara, Ernesto Calò, Luca Marinelli, Federica Pascucci, Luca Dezi, Elias Carayannis, Gian Marco Revel, and Gian Luca Gregori. 2022. Towards Designing Society 5.0 Solutions: The New Quintuple Helix—Design Thinking Approach to Technology. Technovation 113: 102413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Belz, Frank Martin, and Julia Katharina Binder. 2017. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Convergent Process Model. Business Strategy and the Environment 26: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bitencourt, Cláudia Cristina, Diego Antô nio Bittencourt Marconatto, Luciano Barin Cruz, and Emmanuel B Raufflet. 2016. Introduction to special edition social innovation: Researching, defining and theorizing social innovation. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 17: 14–19. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:157181514 (accessed on 1 December 2023). [CrossRef]
  10. Blomkamp, Emma. 2022. Systemic Design Practice for Participatory Policymaking. Policy Design and Practice 5: 12–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boons, Frank, and Florian Lüdeke-Freund. 2013. Business Models for Sustainable Innovation: State-of-the-Art and Steps towards a Research Agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 45: 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boysen, Mikkel Snorre Wilms. 2022. The Incorporation of Entrepreneurship into Social Work Education: Combining Social and Commercial Norms. Social Work Education 41: 1367–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bozhikin, Ivan, Janaina Macke, and Luana Folchini da Costa. 2019. The Role of Government and Key Non-State Actors in Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 226: 730–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cajaiba-Santana, Giovany. 2014. Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A Conceptual Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 82: 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Calic, Goran, and Elaine Mosakowski. 2016. Kicking Off Social Entrepreneurship: How A Sustainability Orientation Influences Crowdfunding Success. Journal of Management Studies 53: 738–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, William A Turner, and Serge Bauin. 1983. From Translations to Problematic Networks: An Introduction to Co-Word Analysis. Social Science Council 22: 191–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Castelnovo, Walter, Gianluca Misuraca, and Alberto Savoldelli. 2016. Smart Cities Governance: The Need for a Holistic Approach to Assessing Urban Participatory Policy Making. Social Science Computer Review 34: 724–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chalmers, Dominic. 2013. Social Innovation: An Exploration of the Barriers Faced by Innovating Organizations in the Social Economy. Local Economy 28: 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chin, Tachia, Yin Yang, Pei Zhang, Xiaofen Yu, and Luying Cao. 2019. Co-Creation of Social Innovation: Corporate Universities as Innovative Strategies for Chinese Firms to Engage with Society. Sustainability 11: 1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cobo, Manuel Jesus, Antonio Gabriel López-Herrera, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, and Francisco Herrera. 2011. An Approach for Detecting, Quantifying, and Visualizing the Evolution of a Research Field: A Practical Application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory Field. Journal of Informetrics 5: 146–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dart, Raymond. 2004. The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise. Nonprofit Managment and Leadership 14: 411–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dees, J. Gregory. 1998. The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Kansas City and Palo Alto: The Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. [Google Scholar]
  23. Defourny, Jacques, and Patrick Develtere. 1999. Social Economy the Worlwide Making of the Third Sector. Liège: Centre D’economie Sociale, Universite de Liege. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dionisio, Marcelo, and Eduardo Raupp de Vargas. 2020. Corporate Social Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review. International Business Review 29: 101641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Donthu, Naveen, Satish Kumar, Debmalya Mukherjee, Nitesh Pandey, and Weng Marc Lim. 2021. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research 133: 285–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ellegaard, Ole, and Johan A. Wallin. 2015. The Bibliometric Analysis of Scholarly Production: How Great Is the Impact? Scientometrics 105: 1809–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. European Commission. 2017. The Contribution of the Third Sector to Europe’s Socio-Economic Development. 2017. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/204470-the-third-sectors-hidden-potential (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  28. European Commission. 2023. Archive: Social Participation and Integration Statistics. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Social_participation_and_integration_statistics&direction=next&oldid=506205#Formal_and_informal_voluntary_activities (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  29. Farhoud, Mohamed, Sheeza Shah, Pekka Stenholm, Ewald Kibler, Maija Renko, and Siri Terjesen. 2021. Social Enterprise Crowdfunding in an Acute Crisis. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 15: e00211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Farinha, Luís, João Renato Sebastião, Carlos Sampaio, and João Lopes. 2020. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Discovering Origins, Exploring Current and Future Trends. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 17: 77–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Frantzeskaki, Niki. 2019. Seven Lessons for Planning Nature-Based Solutions in Cities. Environmental Science & Policy 93: 101–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fuglsang, Lars, Anne Vorre Hansen, Ines Mergel, and Maria Taivalsaari Røhnebæk. 2021. Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review. Administrative Sciences 11: 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ghazal, Taher M, Mohammad Kamrul Hasan, Muhammad Turki Alshurideh, Haitham M Alzoubi, Munir Ahmad, Syed Shehryar Akbar, Barween Al Kurdi, and Iman A. Akour. 2021. IoT for Smart Cities: Machine Learning Approaches in Smart Healthcare—A Review. Future Internet 13: 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Glavas, Ante. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Grayson, Siobhán, Karen Wade, Gerardine Meaney, and Derek Greene. 2016. The Sense and Sensibility of Different Sliding Windows in Constructing Co-Occurrence Networks from Literature. In Computational History and Data-Driven Humanities. Edited by Bojan Bozic, Gavin Mendel-Gleason, Christophe Debruyne and Declan O’Sullivan. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  36. Grilo, Ricardo, and António Carrizo Moreira. 2022. The Social as the Heart of Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: An Emerging Area or an Old Crossroads? International Journal of Innovation Studies 6: 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gundry, Lisa K., Jill R. Kickul, Mark D. Griffiths, and Sophie C. Bacq. 2011. Creating Social Change Out of Nothing: The Role of Entrepreneurial Bricolage in Social Entrepreneurs’ Catalytic Innovations. In Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 13, pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gupta, Parul, Sumedha Chauhan, Justin Paul, and Mahadeo Prasad Jaiswal. 2020. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Business Research 113: 209–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. He, Qin. 1999. Knowledge Discovery Through Co-Word Analysis. Library Trends 48: 133–59. [Google Scholar]
  40. Herrera, Maria Elena Baltazar. 2015. Creating Competitive Advantage by Institutionalizing Corporate Social Innovation. Journal of Business Research 68: 1468–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hoogendoorn, Brigitte, Peter van der Zwan, and Roy Thurik. 2019. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Role of Perceived Barriers and Risk. Journal of Business Ethics 157: 1133–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hota, Pradeep Kumar, Balaji Subramanian, and Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy. 2020. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-Citation Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 166: 89–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Iskandar, Yusuf, Joeliaty Joeliaty, Umi Kaltum, and Hilmiana Hilmiana. 2022. Systematic Review of the Barriers to Social Enterprise Performance Using an Institutional Framework. Cogent Business and Management 9: 2124592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Johnson, Matthew P., and Stefan Schaltegger. 2020. Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A Review and Multilevel Causal Mechanism Framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44: 1141–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kaika, Maria. 2017. ‘Don’t Call Me Resilient Again!’: The New Urban Agenda as Immunology … or … What Happens When Communities Refuse to Be Vaccinated with ‘Smart Cities’ and Indicators. Environment and Urbanization 29: 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kochetkov, Dmitry M. 2023. Innovation: A State-of-the-Art Review and Typology. International Journal of Innovation Studies 7: 263–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Linnenluecke, Martina K., and Brent McKnight. 2017. Community Resilience to Natural Disasters: The Role of Disaster Entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities 11: 166–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Maclean, Mairi, Charles Harvey, and Jillian Gordon. 2013. Social Innovation, Social Entrepreneurship and the Practice of Contemporary Entrepreneurial Philanthropy. International Small Business Journal 31: 747–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Maddalena Sorrentino, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, and Michael Howlett. 2018. Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool. Policy and Society 37: 277–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Maier, Florentine, Michael Meyer, and Martin Steinbereithner. 2016. Nonprofit Organizations Becoming Business-Like: A Systematic Review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45: 64–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mair, Johanna, and Ignasi Martí. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of World Business 41: 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mirvis, Philip, Maria Elena Baltazar Herrera, Bradley Googins, and Laura Albareda. 2016. Corporate Social Innovation: How Firms Learn to Innovate for the Greater Good. Journal of Business Research 69: 5014–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mirza, Nawazish, Bushra Naqvi, Birjees Rahat, and Syed Kumail Abbas Rizvi. 2020. Price Reaction, Volatility Timing and Funds’ Performance during COVID-19. Finance Research Letters 36: 101657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mulgan, Geoff, Simon Tucker, Rushanara Ali, and Ben Sanders. 2007. Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters, How It Can Be Accelerated. The Young Foundation, Working Paper. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, Oxford University. [Google Scholar]
  55. Neumeier, Stefan. 2012. Why Do Social Innovations in Rural Development Matter and Should They Be Considered More Seriously in Rural Development Research?—Proposal for a Stronger Focus on Social Innovations in Rural Development Research. Sociologia Ruralis 52: 48–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nicholls, Alex. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  57. Parhankangas, Annaleena, and Maija Renko. 2017. Linguistic Style and Crowdfunding Success among Social and Commercial Entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 32: 215–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Parris, Denise L., and Cecilia V. McInnis-Bowers. 2014. Social Entrepreneurship Questioning the Status Quo: Waste as a Resource. Journal of Economic Issues 48: 359–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Parris, Denise Linda, and Cecilia McInnis-Bowers. 2017. Business Not as Usual: Developing Socially Conscious Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs. Journal of Management Education 41: 687–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pel, Bonno, Alex Haxeltine, Flor Avelino, Adina Dumitru, René Kemp, Tom Bauler, Iris Kunze, Jens Dorland, Julia Wittmayer, and Michael Søgaard Jørgensen. 2020. Towards a Theory of Transformative Social Innovation: A Relational Framework and 12 Propositions. Research Policy 49: 104080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Peredo, Ana María, and Murdith McLean. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept. Journal of World Business 41: 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pereira, Elisabeth T. 2019. Innovation and Entrepreneurship During Economic Crises. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Internationalization. Edited by Nuno Miguel Teixeira, Teresa Gomes da Costa and Inês Margarida Lisboa. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 258–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Phi, Giang Thi, and Helene Balslev Clausen. 2021. Fostering Innovation Competencies in Tourism Higher Education via Design-Based and Value-Based Learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 29: 100298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Phills, James, Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale Miller. 2008. Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6: 34–43. [Google Scholar]
  65. Plutshack, Victoria, Subhanjan Sengupta, Arunaditya Sahay, and Jorge E Viñuales. 2019. New and Renewable Energy Social Enterprises Accessing Government Support: Findings from India. Energy Policy 132: 367–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pritchard, Alan. 1969. Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation 25: 348–49. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rey-Martí, Andrea, Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano, and Daniel Palacios-Marqués. 2016. A Bibliometric Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research 69: 1651–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rizvi, Syed Kumail Abbas, Nawazish Mirza, Bushra Naqvi, and Birjees Rahat. 2020. COVID-19 and Asset Management in EU: A Preliminary Assessment of Performance and Investment Styles. Journal of Asset Management 21: 281–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rogers, Gordon, Martin Szomszor, and Jonathan Adams. 2020. Sample Size in Bibliometric Analysis. Scientometrics 125: 777–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Saebi, Tina, Nicolai J Foss, and Stefan Linder. 2019. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. Journal of Management 45: 70–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sainaghi, Ruggero, Paul Phillips, Rodolfo Baggio, and Aurelio Mauri. 2018. Cross-Citation and Authorship Analysis of Hotel Performance Studies. International Journal Of Hospitality Management 73: 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Schumpeter, Joseph. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  73. Shane, Scott, and Sankaran Venkataraman. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review 25: 217–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Smith, Wendy K., Michael Gonin, and Marya L. Besharov. 2013. Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly 23: 407–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Stephan, Ute, Lorraine M. Uhlaner, and Christopher Stride. 2015. Institutions and Social Entrepreneurship: The Role of Institutional Voids, Institutional Support, and Institutional Configurations. Journal of International Business Studies 46: 308–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sutter, Christopher, Garry D. Bruton, and Juanyi Chen. 2019. Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Extreme Poverty: A Review and Future Research Directions. Journal of Business Venturing 34: 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. R Core Team. 2023. R Core Team 2023 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  78. Tiwari, Preeti, Anil K. Bhat, and Jyoti Tikoria. 2022. Mediating Role of Prosocial Motivation in Predicting Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 13: 118–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Usman, Sumaiya, Fazeelat Masood, Mubashir Ali Khan, and Naveed ur Rehman Khan. 2022. Impact of Empathy, Perceived Social Impact, Social Worth and Social Network on the Social Entrepreneurial Intention in Socio-Economic Projects. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 14: 65–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. van der Have, Robert P., and Luis Rubalcaba. 2016. Social Innovation Research: An Emerging Area of Innovation Studies? Research Policy 45: 1923–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Voorberg, William, Victor Bekkers, Sophie Flemig, Krista Timeus, Piret Tonurist, and Lars Tummers. 2017. Does Co-Creation Impact Public Service Delivery? The Importance of State and Governance Traditions. Public Money & Management 37: 365–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Voorberg, William H., Victor. J. J. M. Bekkers, and Lars G. Tummers. 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey. Public Management Review 17: 1333–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Watson, Rosina, Kristian Roed Nielsen, Hugh N Wilson, Emma K Macdonald, Christine Mera, and Lucia Reisch. 2023. Policy for Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Crowdsourced Framework. Journal of Cleaner Production 383: 135234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Weaver, Rasheda L. 2023. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Social Enterprise Sector. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 14: 177–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wilson, Fiona, and James E Post. 2013. Business Models for People, Planet (& Profits): Exploring the Phenomena of Social Business, a Market-Based Approach to Social Value Creation. Small Business Economics 40: 715–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Windrum, Paul, Doris Schartinger, Luis Rubalcaba, Faiz Gallouj, and Marja Toivonen. 2016. The Co-Creation of Multi-Agent Social Innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management 19: 150–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wu, Yen-Chun Jim, and Tienhua Wu. 2017. A Decade of Entrepreneurship Education in the Asia Pacific for Future Directions in Theory and Practice. Management Decision 55: 1333–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. York, Jeffrey G., Isobel O’Neil, and Saras D. Sarasvathy. 2016. Exploring Environmental Entrepreneurship: Identity Coupling, Venture Goals, and Stakeholder Incentives. Journal of Management Studies 53: 695–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zahra, Shaker A. 2021. International Entrepreneurship in the Post Covid World. Journal of World Business 56: 101143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zahra, Shaker A., and Mike Wright. 2016. Understanding the Social Role of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies 53: 610–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zahra, Shaker A., Eric Gedajlovic, Donald O. Neubaum, and Joel M. Shulman. 2009. A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Business Venturing 24: 519–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zupic, Ivan, and Tomaž Čater. 2015. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods 18: 429–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 14 00053 g001
Figure 1. Thematic map for the period from 2012 to 2016.
Figure 1. Thematic map for the period from 2012 to 2016.
Admsci 14 00053 g001
Table 1. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2013–2017.
Table 1. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2013–2017.
PeriodClusterBeforeCurrentWords
2013–2017bibliometric analysis-- Absent --Niche Themesbibliometric analysis
co-creationMotor ThemesMotor Themesco-creation; service design; co-design; smart cities; open innovation
educationNiche Themes-- Absent -----
India-- Absent --Niche ThemesIndia; technology; base of the pyramid; development
social economyEmerging or
Declining Themes		-- Absent -----
social enterpriseBasic ThemesBasic Themessocial enterprise; social entrepreneurs; social economy; hybrid organizations; sustainable development; social capital; rural development
sustainabilityMotor ThemesBasic Themessustainability; corporate social responsibility; business model; education; governance; collaboration; social change; social business; resilience; social responsibility; social value
Table 2. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2014–2018.
Table 2. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2014–2018.
PeriodClusterBeforeCurrentWords
2014–2018bibliometric analysisNiche Themes-- Absent -----
co-creationMotor ThemesBasic Themesco-creation; smart cities
education-- Absent --Basic Themeseducation; bibliometric analysis; higher education
gender-- Absent --Niche Themesgender; technology; institutions
IndiaNiche Themes-- Absent -----
public sector-- Absent --Niche Themespublic sector
service design-- Absent --Niche Themesservice design; co-design
social enterpriseBasic ThemesMotor Themessocial enterprise; social entrepreneurs; social economy; sustainable development; hybrid organizations; India; social capital; collaboration; social change; development; social business; rural development; social value; entrepreneurial intention; bricolage; empowerment
2018sustainabilityBasic ThemesBasic Themessustainability; corporate social responsibility; business model; governance; resilience; open innovation; case study; social responsibility
Table 3. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2015–2019.
Table 3. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2015–2019.
PeriodClusterBeforeCurrentWords
2015–2019co-creationBasic ThemesBasic Themesco-creation; smart cities
co-design-- Absent --Niche Themesco-design; service design; design thinking
crowdfunding-- Absent --Niche Themescrowdfunding; legitimacy
design-- Absent --Niche Themesdesign
educationBasic ThemesEmerging or Declining Themeseducation; higher education; creativity
genderNiche Themes-- Absent -----
India-- Absent --Motor ThemesIndia; institutions; development; institutional theory; gender; empowerment; technology; China; policy; poverty
public sectorNiche Themes-- Absent -----
service designNiche Themes-- Absent -----
social business-- Absent --Niche Themessocial business; motivation
social enterpriseMotor ThemesBasic Themessocial enterprise; social entrepreneurs; social economy; social capital; hybrid organizations; social value; bricolage; entrepreneurial intention; rural development; social impact
sustainabilityBasic ThemesBasic Themessustainability; governance; resilience; social inclusion; open innovation
sustainable development-- Absent --Basic Themessustainable development; corporate social responsibility; business model; bibliometric analysis; collaboration; social change; case study; community; social responsibility; sustainable entrepreneurship; networks
Table 4. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2016–2020.
Table 4. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2016–2020.
YearClusterBeforeCurrentWords
2016–2020co-creationBasic ThemesNiche Themesco-creation; co-design; design thinking;
service design
co-designNiche Themes-- Absent -----
crowdfundingNiche Themes-- Absent -----
designNiche Themes-- Absent -----
educationEmerging or Declining Themes-- Absent -----
IndiaMotor ThemesNiche ThemesIndia; institutions; development; gender; institutional theory; empowerment; China; policy
social businessNiche Themes-- Absent -----
social enterpriseBasic ThemesBasic Themessocial enterprise; social entrepreneurs; sustainable development; social economy; social capital; business model; corporate social responsibility; bibliometric analysis; hybrid organizations; social value; collaboration; sustainable entrepreneurship; rural development; bricolage; entrepreneurial intention; social impact; networks; social business; social responsibility; crowdfunding; Italy; legitimacy; third sector; cooperatives; entrepreneurial orientation
sustainabilityBasic ThemesBasic Themessustainability; governance; education; higher education; social change; smart cities; case study; creativity; resilience; community; digital social innovation; social inclusion
sustainable developmentBasic Themes-- Absent -----
Table 5. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2017–2021.
Table 5. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2017–2021.
YearClusterBeforeCurrentWords
2017–2021co-creationNiche ThemesBasic Themesco-creation
design thinking-- Absent --Niche Themesdesign thinking; co-design; service design
education-- Absent --Emerging or Declining Themeseducation
higher education-- Absent --Motor Themeshigher education; COVID-19; social entrepreneurial intention; community; entrepreneurial intention; creativity; entrepreneurship education
IndiaNiche Themes-- Absent -----
smart cities-- Absent --Niche Themessmart cities; co-production; energy transition
social enterpriseBasic ThemesBasic Themessocial enterprise; sustainable development; social entrepreneurs; social capital; social economy; bibliometric analysis; business model; social change; hybrid organizations; gender; rural development; India; social impact; case study; institutions; bricolage; collaboration; social value; digital social innovation; empowerment; China; development; institutional theory; networks; leadership
social responsibility-- Absent --Niche Themessocial responsibility; poverty
sustainabilityBasic ThemesBasic Themessustainability; governance; corporate social responsibility; sustainable entrepreneurship; resilience; circular economy; entrepreneurial orientation
Table 6. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2018–2022.
Table 6. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2018–2022.
YearClusterBeforeCurrentWords
2018–2022co-creationBasic ThemesEmerging or Declining Themesco-creation; co-production
design thinkingNiche ThemesNiche Themesdesign thinking; empathy
educationEmerging or Declining Themes-- Absent -----
governance-- Absent --Niche Themesgovernance; rural development; smart cities; digital social innovation; energy transition
higher educationMotor ThemesBasic Themeshigher education; social change; community; leadership
smart citiesNiche Themes-- Absent -----
social enterpriseBasic ThemesMotor Themessocial enterprise; sustainability; sustainable development; bibliometric analysis; COVID-19; social economy; corporate social responsibility; business model; social impact; circular economy; sustainable entrepreneurship; social value; hybrid organizations; resilience; institutions; case study; development; networks; transformation; entrepreneurial orientation; bricolage; social responsibility; value co-creation; institutional theory
social entrepreneurial intention-- Absent --Motor Themessocial entrepreneurial intention; education; entrepreneurial intention; entrepreneurship education; creativity
social entrepreneurs-- Absent --Basic Themessocial entrepreneurs; social capital; gender; China; India; collaboration; legitimacy
social responsibilityNiche Themes-- Absent -----
sustainabilityBasic Themes-- Absent -----
Table 7. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2019–2023.
Table 7. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2019–2023.
YearClusterBeforeCurrentWords
2023co-creationEmerging or Declining Themes-- Absent -----
2023COVID-19-- Absent --Basic ThemesCOVID-19; co-creation; social change; community; smart cities; India; digital social innovation; transformation; action research; leadership
2023design thinkingNiche Themes-- Absent -----
2023governanceNiche ThemesNiche Themesgovernance; rural development; energy transition; co-production; institutions; networks
2023higher educationBasic ThemesNiche Themeshigher education; entrepreneurial intention; entrepreneurship education; educational innovation
2023policy-- Absent --Niche Themespolicy; public health
2023social enterpriseMotor ThemesBasic Themessocial enterprise; sustainability; sustainable development; bibliometric analysis; social entrepreneurs; social capital; social impact; corporate social responsibility; social economy; circular economy; social value; business model; sustainable entrepreneurship; China; resilience; case study; entrepreneurial orientation; hybrid organizations; collaboration; legitimacy; value co-creation
2023social entrepreneurial intentionMotor ThemesBasic Themessocial entrepreneurial intention; gender; education; design thinking; empathy; creativity
2023social entrepreneursBasic Themes-- Absent -----
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sampaio, C.; Sebastião, J.R. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering Themes, Trends, and Discourse. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030053

AMA Style

Sampaio C, Sebastião JR. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering Themes, Trends, and Discourse. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(3):53. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030053

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sampaio, Carlos, and João Renato Sebastião. 2024. "Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering Themes, Trends, and Discourse" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 3: 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030053

APA Style

Sampaio, C., & Sebastião, J. R. (2024). Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering Themes, Trends, and Discourse. Administrative Sciences, 14(3), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030053

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop