Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach.

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Indicators Research Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1007/s11205-023-03139-0
Vineet Kaushik, Shobha Tewari
{"title":"Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach.","authors":"Vineet Kaushik, Shobha Tewari","doi":"10.1007/s11205-023-03139-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Opportunity as a construct has been widely examined in for-profit entrepreneurship research, but it is scarcely studied in the context of social entrepreneurship. It is being observed that many entrepreneurs venture into social enterprise because they perceive it as an opportunity. This study aims to address this phenomenon by extensively identifying the opportunity indicators that promote entrepreneurs to pursue social entrepreneurship. We accomplish this by employing a mixed-methods approach wherein we used both quantitative and qualitative data from experts and analysed it using a hybrid approach of Delphi rounds and the best-worst method. We identified 13 opportunity indicators from the literature, and in the first round of Delphi, four new indicators were added to the list by a panel of 24 experts drawn from industry and academia across India. In the second round of the Delphi method, 18 of the 24 experts took part and rated the importance of each indicator on a 5-point Likert scale. Depending on the availability of the experts, both rounds of Delphi were held in person and virtually. Based on the cut-off levels for standard deviation, interquartile range, and probability of occurrence, experts agreed on 16 indicators. Furthermore, a best-worst method approach was used to prioritise these indicators based on the opinions of industry and academic experts. The study used a theoretical lens of entrepreneurial opportunity and its two different views: objectively discovered and subjectively perceived. The results revealed a consensus among academicians and practitioners for objectively discovered opportunity indicators, which gave the highest priority to \"institutional support\" and \"funding opportunities.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":21943,"journal":{"name":"Social Indicators Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-32"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10252175/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Indicators Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03139-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Opportunity as a construct has been widely examined in for-profit entrepreneurship research, but it is scarcely studied in the context of social entrepreneurship. It is being observed that many entrepreneurs venture into social enterprise because they perceive it as an opportunity. This study aims to address this phenomenon by extensively identifying the opportunity indicators that promote entrepreneurs to pursue social entrepreneurship. We accomplish this by employing a mixed-methods approach wherein we used both quantitative and qualitative data from experts and analysed it using a hybrid approach of Delphi rounds and the best-worst method. We identified 13 opportunity indicators from the literature, and in the first round of Delphi, four new indicators were added to the list by a panel of 24 experts drawn from industry and academia across India. In the second round of the Delphi method, 18 of the 24 experts took part and rated the importance of each indicator on a 5-point Likert scale. Depending on the availability of the experts, both rounds of Delphi were held in person and virtually. Based on the cut-off levels for standard deviation, interquartile range, and probability of occurrence, experts agreed on 16 indicators. Furthermore, a best-worst method approach was used to prioritise these indicators based on the opinions of industry and academic experts. The study used a theoretical lens of entrepreneurial opportunity and its two different views: objectively discovered and subjectively perceived. The results revealed a consensus among academicians and practitioners for objectively discovered opportunity indicators, which gave the highest priority to "institutional support" and "funding opportunities."

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
培育社会创业的机会指标建模:德尔菲和最佳-最差方法的混合。
机会作为一种结构在营利性创业研究中得到了广泛的研究,但很少在社会创业的背景下进行研究。据观察,许多企业家之所以冒险进入社会企业,是因为他们认为这是一个机会。本研究旨在通过广泛确定促进企业家追求社会创业的机会指标来解决这一现象。我们通过采用混合方法来实现这一点,其中我们使用了来自专家的定量和定性数据,并使用德尔菲轮和最佳-最差方法的混合方法进行分析。我们从文献中确定了13个机会指标,在第一轮Delphi中,来自印度工业界和学术界的24名专家组成的小组将四个新指标添加到了列表中。在德尔菲法的第二轮测试中,24名专家中有18人参加了测试,并用5分的Likert量表对每个指标的重要性进行了评分。根据专家的可用性,两轮Delphi都是亲自和虚拟举行的。根据标准差、四分位间距和发生概率的临界水平,专家们商定了16个指标。此外,根据行业和学术专家的意见,采用了最佳-最坏方法对这些指标进行优先排序。该研究使用了创业机会的理论视角及其两种不同的观点:客观发现和主观感知。研究结果显示,院士和从业者对客观发现的机会指标达成了共识,这些指标将“机构支持”和“资助机会”列为最高优先事项
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1974, Social Indicators Research has become the leading journal on problems related to the measurement of all aspects of the quality of life. The journal continues to publish results of research on all aspects of the quality of life and includes studies that reflect developments in the field. It devotes special attention to studies on such topics as sustainability of quality of life, sustainable development, and the relationship between quality of life and sustainability. The topics represented in the journal cover and involve a variety of segmentations, such as social groups, spatial and temporal coordinates, population composition, and life domains. The journal presents empirical, philosophical and methodological studies that cover the entire spectrum of society and are devoted to giving evidences through indicators. It considers indicators in their different typologies, and gives special attention to indicators that are able to meet the need of understanding social realities and phenomena that are increasingly more complex, interrelated, interacted and dynamical. In addition, it presents studies aimed at defining new approaches in constructing indicators.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Livelihoods? Critical Reflections on the Use of Common Indicators to Capture Socioeconomic Outcomes for Ecological Restoration workers in South Africa Quantifying Turbulence: Introducing a Multi-crises Impact Index for Lebanon A Machine Learning Approach to Well-Being in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence: The Children’s Worlds Data Case Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: Perceived (In)Equality and Demand for Democracy in Africa An Evaluation of the Impact of the Pension System on Income Inequality: USA, UK, Netherlands, Italy and Türkiye
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1