评估社会企业家精神的定义:科学哲学的规则手册

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS International Journal of Management Reviews Pub Date : 2024-01-14 DOI:10.1111/ijmr.12359
Luc Glasbeek, Christopher Wickert, Jonathan Schad
{"title":"评估社会企业家精神的定义:科学哲学的规则手册","authors":"Luc Glasbeek,&nbsp;Christopher Wickert,&nbsp;Jonathan Schad","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scholars have long debated the definition of social entrepreneurship, but disagreement persists. Despite sustained efforts to craft a universal definition, social entrepreneurship has been characterized as an ʻessentially contested concept’. However, little is known about the root causes of this ongoing contestation. Therefore, we delve into the literature's social entrepreneurship definitions to examine this complex issue. Our systematic literature review leverages insights from the philosophy of science and formal logic—specifically, a theory of definition—to present four rules for definitional evaluation in the social sciences. Accordingly, definitions should convey the essence of a concept (Rule 1: <i>essence</i>), differentiate between their defining and defined terms (Rule 2: <i>expression</i>), be phrased positively (Rule 3: <i>explication</i>), and avoid figurative and obscure language (Rule 4: <i>eloquence</i>). Using these rules to analyse 156 original social entrepreneurship definitions reveals varying interpretations of the concept's essence and sheds light on epistemological issues, such as tautological definitions. Integrating these findings into a practical ʻrulebook’ for definitional evaluation significantly contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature and other highly contested fields by helping to understand different sources of contestation. Guided by our rulebook, we suggest future research avenues and highlight diverse theorizing styles, the engagement of opposing and paradoxical definitional views and the role of academic language in shaping the social entrepreneurship field.</p>","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"26 3","pages":"384-409"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12359","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating definitions of social entrepreneurship: A rulebook from the philosophy of science\",\"authors\":\"Luc Glasbeek,&nbsp;Christopher Wickert,&nbsp;Jonathan Schad\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijmr.12359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Scholars have long debated the definition of social entrepreneurship, but disagreement persists. Despite sustained efforts to craft a universal definition, social entrepreneurship has been characterized as an ʻessentially contested concept’. However, little is known about the root causes of this ongoing contestation. Therefore, we delve into the literature's social entrepreneurship definitions to examine this complex issue. Our systematic literature review leverages insights from the philosophy of science and formal logic—specifically, a theory of definition—to present four rules for definitional evaluation in the social sciences. Accordingly, definitions should convey the essence of a concept (Rule 1: <i>essence</i>), differentiate between their defining and defined terms (Rule 2: <i>expression</i>), be phrased positively (Rule 3: <i>explication</i>), and avoid figurative and obscure language (Rule 4: <i>eloquence</i>). Using these rules to analyse 156 original social entrepreneurship definitions reveals varying interpretations of the concept's essence and sheds light on epistemological issues, such as tautological definitions. Integrating these findings into a practical ʻrulebook’ for definitional evaluation significantly contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature and other highly contested fields by helping to understand different sources of contestation. Guided by our rulebook, we suggest future research avenues and highlight diverse theorizing styles, the engagement of opposing and paradoxical definitional views and the role of academic language in shaping the social entrepreneurship field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"volume\":\"26 3\",\"pages\":\"384-409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12359\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12359\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12359","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者们对社会创业的定义争论已久,但分歧依然存在。尽管人们一直在努力制定一个通用的定义,但社会创业仍被描述为一个 "本质上有争议的概念"。然而,人们对这一持续争议的根源知之甚少。因此,我们深入研究了文献中的社会创业定义,以探讨这一复杂问题。我们的系统性文献综述借鉴了科学哲学和形式逻辑--特别是定义理论--的见解,提出了社会科学定义评估的四条规则。据此,定义应传达概念的本质(规则 1:本质),区分定义术语和被定义术语(规则 2:表达),正面措辞(规则 3:阐释),避免形象化和晦涩难懂的语言(规则 4:雄辩)。利用这些规则分析 156 个原始的社会创业定义,可以发现对概念本质的不同解释,并揭示同义反复等认识论问题。将这些发现整合到一本实用的定义评估 "规则手册 "中,有助于理解不同的争议来源,从而为社会创业文献和其他备受争议的领域做出重大贡献。在我们的 "规则手册 "的指导下,我们提出了未来的研究途径,并强调了不同的理论化风格、对立和矛盾的定义观点的参与以及学术语言在塑造社会创业领域中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Evaluating definitions of social entrepreneurship: A rulebook from the philosophy of science

Scholars have long debated the definition of social entrepreneurship, but disagreement persists. Despite sustained efforts to craft a universal definition, social entrepreneurship has been characterized as an ʻessentially contested concept’. However, little is known about the root causes of this ongoing contestation. Therefore, we delve into the literature's social entrepreneurship definitions to examine this complex issue. Our systematic literature review leverages insights from the philosophy of science and formal logic—specifically, a theory of definition—to present four rules for definitional evaluation in the social sciences. Accordingly, definitions should convey the essence of a concept (Rule 1: essence), differentiate between their defining and defined terms (Rule 2: expression), be phrased positively (Rule 3: explication), and avoid figurative and obscure language (Rule 4: eloquence). Using these rules to analyse 156 original social entrepreneurship definitions reveals varying interpretations of the concept's essence and sheds light on epistemological issues, such as tautological definitions. Integrating these findings into a practical ʻrulebook’ for definitional evaluation significantly contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature and other highly contested fields by helping to understand different sources of contestation. Guided by our rulebook, we suggest future research avenues and highlight diverse theorizing styles, the engagement of opposing and paradoxical definitional views and the role of academic language in shaping the social entrepreneurship field.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
期刊最新文献
Uncovering the impact of digital technologies on strategising: Evidence from a systematic literature review One name for two concepts: A systematic literature review about meta‐organizations Career success and geographical location: A systematic review and future research agenda Towards a heuristic view of managerial heuristics: Integrating divergent perspectives The good, the bad and the evil: A unified conceptualization of negative leadership behaviour
×
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