Advertisement

A Methodological Tool for Researching Sport and Social Entrepreneurship

  • Daniel Bjärsholm
  • Per Gerrevall
  • Susanne Linnér
  • Johan R. Norberg
  • Tomas Peterson
  • Katarina Schenker
Chapter

Abstract

The last chapter introduces a methodological tool for analysing social entrepreneurship in a sports policy context, built on a number of steps in relation to the five theses. This tool has become useful in the research process and is valuable for communicating the analysis. A comparison of the seven case studies is conducted in which both similarities and differences are identified and analysed.

Keywords

Social entrepreneurship Sport Methodological tool Contextualization Socially good Cases 

References

  1. Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, J. C. (2013). Struggling over the mode of incorporation: Backlash against multiculturalism in Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(4), 531–556.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. Bacq, S., Hartog, C., & Hoogendoorn, B. (2013). A quantitative comparison of social and commercial entrepreneurship: Toward a more nuanced understanding of social entrepreneurship organizations in context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2012.758653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Englund, T. (2000). Deliberativa samtal som värdegrund—historiska perspektiv och aktuella förutsättningar [Deliberative conversations as fundamental values—Historical perspectives and current conditions]. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  6. Heidegren, C. (2009). Erkännande [Recognition.] 1. uppl. Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  7. Honneth, A. (2014). Freedom’s right: The social foundations of democratic life. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeanes, E. (2016). Are we ethical? Approaches to ethics in management and organisation research. Organization, 24(2), 174–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Myrdal, G. (1968). Objektivitetsproblemet i samhällsforskningen [The objectivity problem in social research]. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.Google Scholar
  10. Schluchter, W. (1985). The rise of western rationalism. Max Weber’s developmental history. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Seippel, Ø. (2015). På vilka sätt kan föreningsidrott ha demokratiska effekter? [In what ways can organized sports have democratic effects?]. In Föreningen, jaget och laget: 7 perspektiv på idrottens demokratiska effekter [The association, the self and the team: 7 perspectives on the democratic effects of sport] (pp. 15–24). Stockholm: Centrum för idrottsforskning.Google Scholar
  12. Yitshaki, R., Lerner, M., & Sharir, M. (2008). What social ventures are? Toward a theoretical framework and empirical examination of successful social ventures. In G. E. Shockley, P. M. Frank, & R. R. Stough (Eds.), Non-market entrepreneurship: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 217–241). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations