Ethics in Researching Sport and Social Entrepreneurship

  • Daniel Bjärsholm
  • Per Gerrevall
  • Susanne Linnér
  • Tomas Peterson
  • Katarina Schenker


When researching sport and social entrepreneurship it is important to be aware of several ethical dilemmas. This chapter examines four sport-related cases, concluding that entrepreneurs may prefer not to be anonymous informants in research ventures; that they may become part of the brand and the branding process; and that researchers have to navigate different sectors of society and thus run the risk of being accused of becoming accomplices in the venture.


Social entrepreneurship Sport Ethical dilemmas Brand Research ethics Storytelling 


  1. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (2010). Amendments to the 2002 ‘ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct’. American Psychologist, 65, 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bréda, C., Delattre, M., & Ocler, R. (2008). The story behind identities: From corporate discourse to individual recognition. Tamara Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 7, 82–90.Google Scholar
  5. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22, 1203–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gartner, W. B. (1989). Who is an entrepreneur?’ Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gawell, M. (2015). Social enterprise in Sweden: Intertextual consensus and hidden paradoxes (ICSEM working papers, 08). Liege: The International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project.Google Scholar
  9. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Harris, J. D., Sapienza, H. J., & Bowie, N. E. (2009). Ethics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hermerén, G. (2011). Good research practice. Stockholm: The Swedish Research Council.Google Scholar
  12. Hibbert, P., Coupland, C., & MacIntosh, R. (2010). Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeanes, E. (2016). Are we ethical? Approaches to ethics in management and organisation research. Organization, 24(2), 174–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaiser, C. P. (1990). Entrepreneurship and resource allocation. Eastern Economic Journal, 16, 9–20.Google Scholar
  15. Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Prentice: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, B., Collier, P. M., & Cullen, J. (2007). Reflections on the use of case studies in the accounting, management and organizational disciplines. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 2(3), 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McNamara, P., Pazzaglia, F., & Sonpar, K. (2015). Large-scale events as catalysts for creating mutual dependence between social ventures and resource providers. Journal of Management
  18. Ministry of Justice. (2006). Personal data protection. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  19. Myrdal, G. (1968). Objektivitetsproblemet i samhällsforskningen [The objectivity problem in social research]. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.Google Scholar
  20. Perry, B. (2011). Case study research. In T. May (Ed.), Social research: Issues, methods and process (pp. 219–241). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Peterson, T. (2008). The professionalization of sport in the Scandinavian countries.
  22. Roper, J., & Cheney, G. (2005). The meanings of social entrepreneurship today. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 5, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sarasvathy, S. (2002). Entrepreneurship as economics with imagination. The Ruffin Series in Business Ethics, 3, 95–112.Google Scholar
  25. SFS 2003:460 (Swedish Statute Book). The Swedish Act on ethics review of research involving humans.Google Scholar
  26. SOU 2008:59 (Swedish Government Official Reports). Föreningsfostran och tävlingsfostran. En utvärdering av statens stöd till idrotten. Betänkande från Idrottsstödsutredningen [Club fostering and competition fostering. An evaluation of state support to sport]. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  27. Walford, G. (2009). The practice of writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Ethnography and Education, 4, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams, D., & K’nife, K. A. K. (2012). The dark side of social entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 16, 63–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Bjärsholm
    • 1
  • Per Gerrevall
    • 2
  • Susanne Linnér
    • 2
  • Tomas Peterson
    • 1
  • Katarina Schenker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sport ScienceMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden
  2. 2.Department of Sport ScienceLinnæus UniversityVäxjöSweden

Personalised recommendations