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

Vineet Kaushik, Shobha Tewari
Author Information
  1. Vineet Kaushik: Indian Institute of Management Kashipur, Kashipur, 244713 Uttarakhand India. ORCID
  2. Shobha Tewari: Indian Institute of Management Kashipur, Kashipur, 244713 Uttarakhand India.

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."

Keywords

References

  1. Omega. 2020;96: [PMID: 33746337]
  2. J Adv Nurs. 2003 Feb;41(4):376-82 [PMID: 12581103]
  3. Qual Quant. 2002 Feb;36(1):43-53 [PMID: 26523073]
  4. Int J Intell Syst. 2021 Jun;36(6):3011-3034 [PMID: 38607903]
  5. Bus Horiz. 2020 Nov-Dec;63(6):705-723 [PMID: 32398883]
  6. J Adv Nurs. 1994 Jan;19(1):180-6 [PMID: 8138622]
  7. Int Small Bus J. 2020 Sep;38(6):481-491 [PMID: 35125599]
  8. J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15 [PMID: 11095242]
  9. J Adv Nurs. 2004 Mar;45(5):504-11 [PMID: 15009353]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0indicatorsopportunityexpertsDelphientrepreneurshipmethodOpportunitysocialapproachuseddiscoveredentrepreneursstudyroundsbest-worstround24industryobjectivelyperceivedSocialconstructwidelyexaminedfor-profitresearchscarcelystudiedcontextobservedmanyventureenterpriseperceiveaimsaddressphenomenonextensivelyidentifyingpromotepursueaccomplishemployingmixed-methodswhereinquantitativequalitativedataanalysedusinghybrididentified13literaturefirstfournewaddedlistpaneldrawnacademiaacrossIndiasecond18tookpartratedimportanceindicator5-pointLikertscaleDependingavailabilityheldpersonvirtuallyBasedcut-offlevelsstandarddeviationinterquartilerangeprobabilityoccurrenceagreed16Furthermoreprioritisebasedopinionsacademictheoreticallensentrepreneurialtwodifferentviews:subjectivelyresultsrevealedconsensusamongacademicianspractitionersgavehighestpriority"institutionalsupport""fundingopportunities"ModelingIndicatorsFosteringEntrepreneurship:HybridBest-WorstApproachBest-worstEntrepreneurialMixed-methodsObjectivelySubjectively

Similar Articles

Cited By