This paper has three overarching objectives. The first is to document the development of the body of work known as women's entrepreneurship research. The second is to assess the contributions of this work, specifically vis-a-vis the broader entrepreneurship literature. The third is to discuss how this broader literature poses challenges (both difficulties as well as opportunities) for scholarship on female entrepreneurs. We approach these objectives from the standpoint of informed pluralism, seeking to explore whether and how women's entrepreneurship research offers extensions to—and can be extended by—general research on entrepreneurs and their ventures.

Research on Women Entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the Broader Entrepreneurship Literature?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0149206318793196

Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises:

/pdf/getting-to-maybe-how-the-world-is-changed-482du7opw2.pdf

Getting to Maybe: How the World Is Changed

http://dspace.jgu.edu.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10739/3439/1/Publication.pdf

Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda

In this paper, we employ bibliometric analysis to empirically analyse the research on social entrepreneurship published between 1996 and 2017. By employing methods of citation analysis, document co-citation analysis, and social network analysis, we analyse 1296 papers containing 74,237 cited references and uncover the structure, or intellectual base, of research on social entrepreneurship. We identify nine distinct clusters of social entrepreneurship research that depict the intellectual structure of the field. The results provide an overall perspective of the social entrepreneurship field, identifying its influential works and analysing scholarly communication between these works. The results further aid in clarifying the overall centrality features of the social entrepreneurship research network. We also examine the integration of ethics into social entrepreneurship literature. We conclude with a discussion on the structure and evolution of the social entrepreneurship field.

Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-citation Analysis

This paper provides an overview of the state of art of research on social entrepreneurship and the establishment of this topic in the academic world. It uses scientometric methods in measuring the ...

The Scientometrics of Social Entrepreneurship and Its Establishment as an Academic Field

This paper provides an overview on the state of art of research on social entrepreneurship and the establishment of this topic in the academic world. It uses scientometric methods, especially bibliometrics, in measuring the maturity of social entrepreneurship research. The empirical part reveals the increasing number of literature, the institutionalization of social entrepreneurship in seven dimensions, the emergence of thematic clusters, and methodological issue. The paper makes concrete suggestions on how to overcome methodological challenges at the boarder of advanced qualitative and early quantitative research designs. Using Harzing’s “Publish or Perish” software this article furthermore provides a ranking of the 20 most cited academic contributions in social entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, almost half of the most cited papers have not been published in journals but in books, rising doubts on the current (over-)rating of journal publications.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/97203/1/748707158.pdf

A Bibliometric Based Review on Social Entrepreneurship and its Establishment as a Field of Research

Establishing the core principals of “entrepreneurial management” within an organization describes a
certain strategic choice that affects a company in six dimensions, according to Stevenson (1983). Our
aim is to empirically measure entrepreneurial management (it’s existence and degree) and to link
this measured strategic choice (for or against) entrepreneurial management with firm performance.
Our argument here is that companies that follow core principals of entrepreneurial management
should outperform other more administrative firms in certain measures of strategic performance.
This paper builds on an empirical investigation published by Brown, Davidson & Wiklund (2001), who
have developed and tested a reliable measurement instrument for Stevenson’s definition of
“entrepreneurial management” (Stevenson 1983, Stevenson & Jarillo 1990). In the first part of our
paper we aim to replicate and to some extent improve this study. In the second part we link the
measured degree of “entrepreneurial management” with firm performance. To our knowledge, even
so Stevenson’s definition of entrepreneurial management is commonly acknowledged and Brown et
al. (2001) developed a reliable instrument to empirically capture this behavioral approach to
management, the construct of entrepreneurial management never before has been linked to firm
performance in an empirical study. Since most papers on corporate entrepreneurship and firm
performance are based on Covin & Slevin’s (1991) or Miller’s (1983) concept of entrepreneurial
orientation, we contribute to the literature on corporate entrepreneurship in a novel way, given the
fact that the entrepreneurial management dimensions measured in our study can theoretically and
empirically be clearly distinguished from the construct of entrepreneurial orientation as defined by
Covin & Selvin (1991).

“Entrepreneurial management” as a strategic choice in firm behavior : linking it with performance

Establishing the core principals of “entrepreneurial management” within an organization describes a certain strategic choice that affects a company in six dimensions, according to Stevenson (1983). Our aim is to empirically measure entrepreneurial management (it’s existence and degree) and to link this measured strategic choice (for or against) entrepreneurial management with firm performance. Our argument here is that companies that follow core principals of entrepreneurial management should outperform other more administrative firms in certain measures of strategic performance. This paper builds on an empirical investigation published by Brown, Davidson & Wiklund (2001), who have developed and tested a reliable measurement instrument for Stevenson’s definition of “entrepreneurial management” (Stevenson 1983, Stevenson & Jarillo 1990). In the first part of our paper we aim to replicate and to some extent improve this study. In the second part we link the measured degree of “entrepreneurial management” with firm performance. To our knowledge, even so Stevenson’s definition of entrepreneurial management is commonly acknowledged and Brown et al. (2001) developed a reliable instrument to empirically capture this behavioral approach to management, the construct of entrepreneurial management never before has been linked to firm performance in an empirical study. Since most papers on corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance are based on Covin & Slevin’s (1991) or Miller’s (1983) concept of entrepreneurial orientation, we contribute to the literature on corporate entrepreneurship in a novel way, given the fact that the entrepreneurial management dimensions measured in our study can theoretically and empirically be clearly distinguished from the construct of entrepreneurial orientation as defined by Covin & Selvin (1991).

"Entrepreneurial Management" as a Strategic Choice in Firm Behavior:Linking it with Performance

This article takes stock of 99 journals dedicated to the field of entrepreneurship research and examines their evaluations and impact. It compares several journal quality assessments, the Australian ERA 2010, ABDC 2010 and UQ 2011 lists, with other international rankings and with highly regarded impact measurements. In a following section, the H-Index and the HC-Index for journals are introduced. The H-Indices are Google Scholar based impact measurements which can be easily executed by anyone. The results for the entrepreneurship journals H-Indices are compared with other impact factors and with journal rankings from Australia and elsewhere. Results reveal that rankings are incomplete in regard to entrepreneurship journals and that many rankings are inconsistent when compared to impact measurements. This holds true even for the ERA and the ABDC 2010 lists, even though these are among the most appropriate lists.

https://www.econstor.eu/obitstream/10419/68719/1/715304674.pdf

Sean Patrick Sassmannshausen

Papers

The Scientometrics of Social Entrepreneurship and Its Establishment as an Academic Field

A Bibliometric Based Review on Social Entrepreneurship and its Establishment as a Field of Research

“Entrepreneurial management” as a strategic choice in firm behavior : linking it with performance

"Entrepreneurial Management" as a Strategic Choice in Firm Behavior:Linking it with Performance

99 Entrepreneurship Journals: A Comparative Empirical Investigation of Rankings, Impact, and H/HC-Index