Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: Uncovering themes, trends, and discourse

Sampaio, Carlos; Sebastião, João Renato Article Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: Uncovering themes, trends, and discourse Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Sampaio, Carlos; Sebastião, João Renato (2024) : Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: Uncovering themes, trends, and discourse, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 3, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030053 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320876 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Sampaio, Carlos, and João Renato Sebastião. 2024. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering Themes, Trends, and Discourse. Administrative Sciences 14: 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14030053 Received: 28 December 2023 Revised: 24 February 2024 Accepted: 4 March 2024 Published: 11 March 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering Themes, Trends, and Discourse Carlos Sampaio 1,2,* and João Renato Sebastião1,3 1Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Polytechnic University, 6000-084 Castelo Branco, Portugal; [email protected] 2 NECE-UBI (Research Centre for Business Sciences), Universidade da Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal 3CISeD-Research Centre in Digital Services, Instituto Politécnico de Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The world is marked by persistent and recurring socio-economic and environmental changes. The domains of social innovation and social entrepreneurship have gained prominence as catalysts for positive change and societal resilience. Despite the substantial body of literature assessing social innovation and social entrepreneurship, most studies address these topics through analyses of scientific production output or through systematic literature reviews. Conversely, the main objective of this paper is to conduct a thematic analysis of the existing scientific literature on social innovation and social entrepreneurship, published across various geographical contexts, to assess themes, trends, and discourse within these fields worldwide. Therefore, it synthesizes, analyzes, and evaluates the evolving landscape of social innovation and social entrepreneurship research over time, employing a sliding windows methodology. This approach divides the analyzed period into distinct times to meticulously track changes in themes and discourse over time. To accomplish this objective, this paper examines the evolving thematic dynamics of social innovation and social entrepreneurship within the scientific literature, serving as a driver and compelling researchers and practitioners to explore new dimensions in social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Evidence from the analysis is discussed, including the main theoretical and practical implications and proposals for future research. This paper emphasizes the importance of adaptive and resilient approaches within the domains of social innovation and social entrepreneurship and contributes to a deeper understanding of how social innovation and social entrepreneurship evolve and adapt over time, shedding light on the transformative potential of social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Keywords: social innovation; social entrepreneurship; nonprofit organizations; thematic analysis 1. Introduction Innovation is a multifaceted concept studied across various disciplines including economics, management, sociology, and psychology. It not only involves the development of new products or the commercialization of inventions but also encompasses social, economic, behavioral, and institutional changes (Kochetkov 2023). Social innovation is a process of developing and implementing novel solutions to social problems and needs, often involving a combination of creativity, collaboration, and resourcefulness (Phills et al. 2008). It is closely linked to technological innovation and can lead to social transformation (Bitencourt et al. 2016). However, small, resource-constrained organizations may face operational obstacles in this process (Chalmers 2013). Despite the existence of social innovation as a field of practice, its theoretical aspects are still underdeveloped (Bitencourt et al. 2016). Social innovation can be expressed as changes in behaviors, perceptions, or attitudes that ultimately lead to the establishment of new social practices (CajaibaSantana 2014). It encompasses multiple areas of study, such as urban and city development, community growth, public policy, technology, design, and social entrepreneurship (Mulgan et al. 2007). Furthermore, it can be seen as a novel way of structuring business, companies, Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030053 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 2 of 20 or workplaces to enhance economic activities with the final goal of creating new ideas that contribute to widespread social transformation or, ultimately, guiding the development and execution of innovative approaches to attain shared objectives (Neumeier 2012). Entrepreneurship can be defined as the process of discovering, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities to create future goods and services (Shane and Venkataraman 2000) which can also have an innovation-centric prospect, based on the introduction of new technologies, products, and services (Schumpeter 1934). It involves a degree of risk-taking by entrepreneurs and the mobilization and organization of resources to create value, which can be economic, social, or cultural, through the development of new ideas. Social entrepreneurship aligns with this definition, centered around a social mission driven by social entrepreneurs. Its defining characteristic is the primary goal of addressing social issues and creating positive change in society through entrepreneurial ventures, with the main focus of generating social value rather than personal or shareholder wealth. Hence, social entrepreneurship embodies the role of a change agent in the social sector, focusing on creating and sustaining social value over private gains. It involves recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve a social mission, engaging in continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning. Social entrepreneurs act boldly, often without being limited by current resources, and exhibit a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and the outcomes created. This approach distinguishes them from business entrepreneurs by emphasizing social impact and mission-related impacts over wealth creation (Dees 1998). Moreover, social entrepreneurship combines innovative resource use and opportunities to address social needs and catalyze social change. It differs from commercial entrepreneurship in its greater emphasis on creating social value over economic gain. This process involves not only service and product offerings but also the establishment of new organizations, with a primary focus on social transformation and addressing societal issues (Austin et al. 2006;Mair and Martí2006), or as a multifaceted activity through which individuals or groups aim to create social value. This is achieved through a combination of recognizing and exploiting opportunities to create social value, employing innovation, tolerating risk, and operating with relative disregard for limitations in available resources (Peredo and McLean 2006). Accordingly, social entrepreneurship and social innovation emerge as critical conduits for social change. Social entrepreneurship embodies the pursuit of opportunity beyond controlled resources, characterized by a unique blend of vision, innovation, and risk-taking to set up social change (Dees 1998). This entrepreneurial spirit extends to the innovative processes within existing organizations aiming for social impact, thereby emphasizing the importance of innovation and entrepreneurial characteristics in the nonprofit sector (Dart 2004). Moreover, social innovation lies at the core of social entrepreneurship. Social innovation involves the development, application, and scaling of solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues (Mulgan et al. 2007). This process transcends traditional boundaries by fostering new collaborations and applying fresh approaches to solve old problems, thus creating added value for society at large (Phills et al. 2008). Synergy between social entrepreneurship and social innovation is essential as it demands a proactive stance in identifying gaps within the social fabric and deploying inventive solutions that are sustainable, impactful, and scalable (Mair and Martí2006). The essence of social entrepreneurship transcends participation in voluntary activities, requiring a profound entrepreneurial mindset that thrives on continuous innovation and a deep-rooted desire to drive social change (Nicholls 2006). This connection between recognizing new opportunities and engaging in social innovation highlights the potential of social entrepreneurship as both social innovation and social entrepreneurship serve as vital mechanisms for fostering a resilient and equitable society (Dart 2004;Dees 1998;Mair and Martí2006). Therefore, while social entrepreneurship involves the creation of new ventures or managing existing ones in an innovative way, with the objective of defining and exploiting Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 3 of 20 opportunities to improve social wealth (Zahra et al. 2009), social innovation presents a new and more efficient, effective, and sustainable solution for a social problem, with a focus on society rather than on individuals (Phills et al. 2008). However, social innovation and social entrepreneurship seek to identify a problem that needs to be addressed to meet a social need, sharing common overlaps for unmet social needs. Both social innovation and social entrepreneurship are embodied within the concept of the social economy, which emerged alongside with the formation of cooperative, mutualistic, and associative organizations throughout human history. This evolution is linked to the emergence of freedom of association, religious influences, forces of nationalism, and the quest for a third way. The emergence of the third sector occurred during the 19th century and developed alongside the industrial revolution. It arose as a response to the social and economic challenges brought about by rapid industrialization and urbanization. This period saw the creation of several cooperative, mutual, and associative organizations. These organizations aimed to provide solutions to the social issues of the time, embodying a collective approach to economic activity with a focus on social objectives and solidarity. The social economy represents an alternative to both capitalist market economies and state-controlled economies, emphasizing community, social responsibility, and mutual aid (Defourny and Develtere 1999). The third sector plays a vital role in providing socioeconomic support, particularly in times of economic crisis. This sector includes non-governmental, voluntary, and nonprofit organizations. In Europe, the third sector engages the full-time equivalent of 28.3 million workers across Europe, accounting for almost 13% of the workforce, highlighting the sector’s contribution to employment and its broader socioeconomic impact (European Commission 2017). Moreover, the relevance of the sector is additionally driven by active citizenship, or involvement in informal and formal (organized) voluntary activities, accounting for one-fifth of the European Union member states’ population who participate in those activities, including political groups, associations, and parties (European Commission 2023). Recent times have been characterized by persistent turmoil. The COVID-19 pandemic brought a generalized lockdown encompassing stay-at-home orders, curfews, quarantines, cordons sanitaires, and similar societal restrictions involving companies and the general population. The aftermath of the pandemic crisis brought generalized constraints in the world’s supply chains and increased inflation. Subsequently, war in hot spots for commodities, such as grain and oil, spiked the prices of raw materials, which led to an increase in inflation and interest rates in several economic blocks. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship can play important roles in times of economic crises (Maclean et al. 2013;European Commission 2017). People volunteering, addressing community needs, and providing socioeconomic support are common during periods of disaster (Linnenluecke and McKnight 2017) as new ways of addressing a community’s needs through the application of creative problem solving (Gundry et al. 2011), emphasizing the relevance of innovation and entrepreneurship in preventing and overcoming economic and financial crises (Pereira 2019). Despite the wide body of literature on social innovation and social entrepreneurship, assessing its origins and trends using thorough methods including systematic literature reviews and bibliometric approaches (Farinha et al. 2020;Sainaghi et al. 2018;Grilo and Moreira 2022;Bozhikin et al. 2019), there is lack of understanding of the involving and evolving aspects surrounding social innovation and social entrepreneurship, particularly the development of themes and discourse. Some papers have emerged over time, particularly following periods of acute crises such as the economic crisis that followed the 2007–2008 financial crisis, sovereign debt crises (Apostolopoulos et al. 2019;Maclean et al. 2013), and the COVID-19 pandemic (Weaver 2023;Farhoud et al. 2021;Iskandar et al. 2022). Therefore, this study uses a co-word analysis, which is both a bibliometric method (Zupic and ˇ Cater 2015) and a content analysis technique (Callon et al. 1983), to analyze the contents of a large number of documents, create a similarity measure, build a thematic analysis, Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 4 of 20 and represent the conceptual space of the social innovation and social entrepreneurship research field (Zupic and ˇ Cater 2015). Consequently, this paper seeks to address this gap in the literature and to determine the evolving themes, trends, and discourses that shape social innovation and social entrepreneurship. It uses a co-word analysis to assess themes and concepts shaping social innovation and social entrepreneurship to assess how the scientific field evolved over time and to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding its future. The remainder of this study has the following structure: Section 2presents the methodology, including information about data and methods. Section 3shows the study results. Conclusions are presented in Section 4. 2. Methodology This study aimed to explore the evolving landscape of ‘Social Innovation’ and ‘Social Entrepreneurship’, employing bibliometric methods for an in-depth analysis. The use of a bibliometric analysis as a quantitative approach to the assessment of scientific literature provides insights into the thematic and developmental trends within a research field. Essential to our approach was the concept of bibliometrics, as outlined by Pritchard (1969), and the co-word analysis methodology developed in (Callon et al. 1983). The methodology used in this study involved a sliding window analysis of scientific production over a five-year time frame, beginning with the period from 2012 to 2016 and advancing annually until 2023. This technique enables researchers to assess the evolving impact of new research within the field and includes the analysis of eight timeframes (2012–2016, 2013–2017, 2014–2018, 2015–2019, 2016–2020, 2017–2021, 2018–2022, and 2019– 2023). This technique involves analyzing data within specific time frames (windows) over the period of interest, allowing for a temporal analysis of the data. The relevance of the temporal co-word analysis has been acknowledge in the literature (He 1999). Furthermore, the use of a sliding window strategy to construct networks provides an accurate picture of the research field once it connects characters across different groups and enables one to trace the development of the stream (Grayson et al. 2016). Data for this study were meticulously gathered from the Web of Science (WoS) database on 10 November 2023, using targeted filters to select publications relevant to social innovation and social entrepreneurship which were published in the English language. The search query was ‘TS = ‘social innovat*’ OR TS = ‘Social Entrepren*’ AND English (Languages)’, resulting in a collection of 6646 publications published over the 2012–2023 period. The decision to rely on just one database was made to avoid using unstandardized data and potential errors when merging multiple databases (Donthu et al. 2021). Additionally, the WoS database is one of the largest databases and a reliable source of published scientific documents (Ellegaard and Wallin 2015) This study conducted a thematic analysis using a co-word analysis, a technique that is not suitable for dealing with small samples (Donthu et al. 2021). However, the scientific production output published prior to 2012 was small. When using small datasets, the co-occurrence of words might not be sufficiently representative to draw meaningful conclusions about the research domain. This may lead to a sparse co-occurrence matrix indicating that most words do not co-occur, which could result in fragmented or overly simplified results. Consequently, papers published before 2012 were excluded from the analysis. The thematic analysis was based on the framework proposed by Cobo et al. (2011), which classifies research themes into four quadrants: thematic motors, emergent or declining themes, niche themes, and basic and transversal themes. This classification allows for a comprehensive understanding of the dominant and peripheral topics within the fields of social innovation and social entrepreneurship. The thematic motor category includes mature and well-developed themes that have been extensively researched. These areas represent the core of the field, characterized by a substantial body of established work, indicating robust and thoroughly explored topics in social innovation and social entrepreneurship. The emergent or declining themes category is characterized by themes Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 5 of 20 with a dynamic nature. Some themes in this category are gaining momentum (emergent), while others are losing significance (declining). This fluctuation implies shifting trends within the field, highlighting areas that are drawing new research interest or becoming less focal. Niche themes encompass highly specialized areas within a field and are typically marked by lower volumes of research. Despite their specialized nature, niche themes are crucial for the development of specific, focused areas within social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Basic and transversal themes are fundamental to the field. These themes extend across several study areas. They form the foundational bedrock of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, connecting different aspects and offering a broad and integrative perspective. For the analysis, R (R Core Team 2023) was used, employing the ‘Bibliometrix’ package (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017), which is specifically designed for bibliometric studies. The use of this advanced analytical tool enables a sophisticated exploration of the collected data, offering insights into the thematic structures and trends within the research fields of interest. The methodologies used in this study allowed for the creation of thematic maps for each of the periods analyzed based on the document ‘Author Keywords’. Although only the thematic map for the 2012–2016 period is presented in Figure 1, information from the other maps was extracted and compiled into tables depicted in the remainder of the paper. This compilation provides essential insights, enabling a detailed characterization of each period. Additionally, it facilitates an understanding of the impacts and transitions associated with the advent of new periods. This approach is crucial for identifying and understanding the evolving dynamics and trends in the fields of social innovation and social entrepreneurship as it highlights changes and continuities in the thematic emphasis over different timeframes, an essential process for obtaining the results presented in the following sections, which offer a comprehensive and informed view of thematic evolution within these fields. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22 fields of social innovation and social entrepreneurship. The thematic motor category includes mature and well-developed themes that have been extensively researched. These areas represent the core of the field, characterized by a substantial body of established work, indicating robust and thoroughly explored topics in social innovation and social entrepreneurship. The emergent or declining themes category is characterized by themes with a dynamic nature. Some themes in this category are gaining momentum (emergent), while others are losing significance (declining). This fluctuation implies shifting trends within the field, highlighting areas that are drawing new research interest or becoming less focal. Niche themes encompass highly specialized areas within a field and are typically marked by lower volumes of research. Despite their specialized nature, niche themes are crucial for the development of specific, focused areas within social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Basic and transversal themes are fundamental to the field. These themes extend across several study areas. They form the foundational bedrock of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, connecting different aspects and offering a broad and integrative perspective. For the analysis, R (R Core Team 2023) was used, employing the ‘Bibliometrix’ package (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017), which is specifically designed for bibliometric studies. The use of this advanced analytical tool enables a sophisticated exploration of the collected data, offering insights into the thematic structures and trends within the research fields of interest. The methodologies used in this study allowed for the creation of thematic maps for each of the periods analyzed based on the document ‘Author Keywords’. Although only the thematic map for the 2012–2016 period is presented in Figure 1, information from the other maps was extracted and compiled into tables depicted in the remainder of the paper. This compilation provides essential insights, enabling a detailed characterization of each period. Additionally, it facilitates an understanding of the impacts and transitions associated with the advent of new periods. This approach is crucial for identifying and understanding the evolving dynamics and trends in the fields of social innovation and social entrepreneurship as it highlights changes and continuities in the thematic emphasis over different timeframes, an essential process for obtaining the results presented in the following sections, which offer a comprehensive and informed view of thematic evolution within these fields. Figure 1. Thematic map for the period from 2012 to 2016. Figure 1. Thematic map for the period from 2012 to 2016. 3. Results Following the proposed methods, this section presents the study results. It begins by displaying the thematic map for the first analyzed period (2012–2016). Each of the subsections presents the evolution of research themes within the social innovation and social entrepreneurship field according to the changing year. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 6 of 20 An analysis of the data related to social innovation and social entrepreneurship until 2016 reveals a research domain enriched with thematic areas, each uncovering distinct aspects of the social innovation and social entrepreneurship research field’s dynamic nature. Figure 1shows the thematic map for the first analyzed period. According to the results (Figure 1), the theme centered on ‘sustainability’ comprises a broad array of topics from ‘corporate social responsibility’ to ‘climate change’. This theme acts as a motor within the field, propelling the integration of environmental concerns into the core of social entrepreneurial ventures and scholarly research. Moreover, it further includes terms such as ‘sustainable development’, ‘green’, and ‘renewable energy’, showing a trend in research that prioritizes sustainable practices as fundamental components of social innovation. Meanwhile, the ‘social enterprise’ theme stands on foundational ground, with keywords such as ‘social entrepreneurs’ and ‘business model’ which constitute the basic themes of the discipline. This theme provides the underpinnings of the field by focusing on the interplay of entrepreneurial activities with social aims and reflects the key concepts and practices that have shaped the evolution of social entrepreneurship. The ‘co-creation’ theme, linked with ‘open innovation’ and ‘smart cities’, represents another ‘motor theme‘ that signals the field’s movement toward collaborative and open innovation approaches. It underscores the role of co-creative processes as catalysts for inclusive and sustainable urban development. Additionally, it denotes a significant area of research that pushes partnerships and community participation in social innovation. The ‘education’ theme stands out as a niche area even though it is characterized by a single keyword. It highlights the role of educational strategies and pedagogical innovations in developing a culture of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, pointing to a dense line of research that investigates how education shapes the future of social innovators. The ‘social economy’ theme, although also denoted by a single keyword, encompasses themes that are either on the rise or on the wane. However, it draws attention to changing economic models linked with social innovation and signals the shifting landscape of social entrepreneurship. 3.1. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2017 The shift in thematic categorization from 2016 to 2017 involves the addition of new trends to the analysis to consolidate knowledge. Shifting the period means that the analysis is now focused on the 2013–2017 period. Table 1illustrates the evolution of themes and subjects over time. The ‘Cluster’ column identifies the specific cluster within the thematic map. The ‘Before’ column indicates whether the cluster was present in the preceding period and, if so, in which quadrant it was located. The ‘Current’ column reveals the current quadrant position of the cluster. Finally, the ‘Words’ column provides a collection of terms and words associated with each cluster. Examining the results (Table 1), ‘sustainability’ has transitioned from being a ‘motor theme’ to a ‘basic theme’, indicating that the concept has now become a fundamental element of the field. This change implies that sustainability considerations have been thoroughly assimilated into the social innovation and social entrepreneurship scientific literature, suggesting a level of maturity at which these principles are now assumed rather than highlighted as emergent. Meanwhile, ‘social enterprise’ and ‘sustainability’ maintain their classification as ‘basic themes’, reinforcing their status as pillars of the field. This continuity shows that the role of social enterprises in advancing social innovation remains central to the field, reflecting a consensus on their value as instruments for social change through entrepreneurial action. Furthermore, the continuous identification of ‘co-creation’ as a ‘motor theme’ underscores its ongoing relevance as central force driving the research stream forward. The unaltered status of co-creation addresses the ongoing emphasis on collaborative innovation and the importance of engaging diverse stakeholders in the development of shared value, which influences research and practice within social innovation. Moreover, it further emphasizes the field’s commitment to collaborative approaches. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 7 of 20 Table 1. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2013–2017. Period Cluster Before Current Words 2013–2017 bibliometric analysis -- Absent -- Niche Themes bibliometric analysis co-creation Motor Themes Motor Themes co-creation; service design; co-design; smart cities; open innovation education Niche Themes -- Absent -- --- India -- Absent -- Niche Themes India; technology; base of the pyramid; development social economy Emerging or Declining Themes -- Absent -- --- social enterprise Basic Themes Basic Themes social enterprise; social entrepreneurs; social economy; hybrid organizations; sustainable development; social capital; rural development sustainability Motor Themes Basic Themes sustainability; corporate social responsibility; business model; education; governance; collaboration; social change; social business; resilience; social responsibility; social value The arrival of new themes within the field over this period is reflected in the emergence of the theme ‘bibliometric analysis’, which signals the emergence of a methodologic approach to map the field’s literature. Concurrently, the theme ‘India’ emerged, along with terms such as ‘technology’, ‘base of the pyramid’, and ‘development’, revealing a geographical and regional context approach, mixed with technological innovations. These niche themes, while specialized, point up to a diverse research landscape. 3.2. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2018 The thematic progression from 2017 to 2018 involves adding new trends to the analysis portrayed within documents published in 2018 to consolidate knowledge about the evolution of themes. Table 2shows the evolution of themes and subjects. The results (Table 2) show that ‘social enterprise’ emerged as a motor theme, transitioning from its ‘basic theme’ status to become a central force in current research. This shift is demonstrated by a surge in associated keywords that broaden its scope to include economic, sustainability, and organizational dimensions. ‘Co-creation’ moved to a ‘basic theme’, showing its established foundational scope within the field. The diminished relevance of ‘bibliometric analysis’ and the regional focus on ‘India’ suggest that its interest diminished. Meanwhile, ‘sustainability’ maintains its ‘basic theme’ classification, continuing to be an essential element, with a focus on integrating sustainable practices into business and governance, demonstrated by keywords like ‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘business model’, ‘governance’, ‘open innovation’, and ‘social responsibility’. Over the 2014–2018 period, ‘education’ emerged as a “basic theme”, underscoring its status as a cornerstone of social innovation essential for fostering an environment in which innovation can be fostered and sustained. ‘Gender’ emerged as a ‘niche theme’, representing a recognition of the need to explore the intersections between gender dynamics and innovation, emphasizing that social entrepreneurship is inclusive and equitable. Furthermore, ‘service design’ emerged as a specialized area, highlighting the importance of designing services that are not only efficient but also empathetic and user-oriented, leveraging co-design to ensure services meet the demands of diverse communities. Lastly, the ‘public sector’ theme indicates a growing interest in the roles of government and public institutions as facilitators, or partners, in social innovation initiatives. This could mean a recognition of the public sector’s potential to scale solutions and create systemic impact. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 8 of 20 Table 2. Classification of themes by year, period, and keywords for 2014–2018. Period Cluster Before Current Words 2014–2018 bibliometric analysis Niche Themes -- Absent -- --- co-creation Motor Themes Basic Themes co-creation; smart cities education -- Absent -- Basic Themes education; bibliometric analysis; higher education gender -- Absent -- Niche Themes gender; technology; institutions India Niche Themes -- Absent -- --- public sector -- Absent -- Niche Themes public sector service design -- Absent -- Niche Themes service design; co-design social enterprise Basic Themes Motor Themes social enterprise; social entrepreneurs; social economy; sustainable development; hybrid organizations; India; social capital; collaboration; social change; development; social business; rural development; social value; entrepreneurial intention; bricolage; empowerment 2018 sustainability Basic Themes Basic Themes sustainability; corporate social responsibility; business model; governance; resilience; open innovation; case study; social responsibility 3.3. Thematic Evolution: Transitioning to 2019 The shift to 2019 was marked by additional thematic changes and consolidations, illustrating its dynamic and varied focus areas. Table 3depicts the evolution of theme that occurred through the shift to 2019, depicting thematic evolution via the shift to the 2015–2019 period. The results (Table 3) show that a key transformation is observed in ‘social enterprise’, which transitions from being a driving ‘motor theme’ to a foundational ‘basic theme’ and highlights its essential role in shaping the landscape of innovation and social change. This change implies its role as a foundational aspect of the field. The theme includes a set of keywords such as ‘social entrepreneurs’, ‘social economy’, and ‘social capital’, emphasizing the multifaceted role of social enterprises in driving economic and social change. The presence of terms like ‘hybrid organizations’, ‘social value’, and ‘rural development’ underscores the different approaches and impacts of social enterprises, including their ability to blend different organizational models and contribute to development in varied contexts. Co-creation maintains its status from the previous period as a ‘basic theme’, reaffirming its importance within the research field. This theme emphasizes keywords, including ‘cocreation’ and ‘smart cities’, which encompass collaborative and participatory approaches, particularly in urban innovation and development. Additionally, the theme ‘education’ shifts from a ‘basic theme’ to an ‘emerging or declining theme’, reflecting a transformation or re-evaluation of the role of education within the field. The presence of ‘higher education’ and ‘creativity’ within this theme suggests a new focus on innovative pedagogies and the nurturing of creative thinking in educational settings. This perspective indicates how education supports social innovation. Sustainability remains a ‘basic theme’, further cementing its role. With a wide range of related keywords like ‘governance’, ‘resilience’, ‘social inclusion’, and ‘open innovation’, sustainability maintains its role within the field. These themes indicate an ongoing commitment in embedding sustainable practices across various dimensions of social innovation. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 15 of 20 and ‘social entrepreneurs’ reveals an integration of ethical and environmentally conscious practices within the domain of ‘social enterprise. This theme’s wide reach, including ‘social capital’, ‘social impact’, ‘circular economy’, and ‘resilient business models’, illustrates the ways social enterprises drive sustainable change. ‘Governance’ maintained its status as a ‘niche theme’, emphasizing the role of administrative and policy frameworks in shaping social innovation. Furthermore, the focus on ‘rural development’, ‘energy transition’, and ‘networks’ highlights the importance of governance for local communities as well as environmental concerns. ‘Social entrepreneurial intention’ evolved from a ‘motor theme’ to a ‘basic theme’. The prevalence of terms like ‘gender’, ‘education’, ‘empathy’, and ‘creativity’ suggests an evolution of the motivational and educational foundations that drives individuals toward social entrepreneurship. The inclusion of ‘design thinking’ within this theme indicates a problem-solving approach to social entrepreneurial activities. On the other hand, ‘higher education’ has transitioned from a ‘basic theme’ to a ‘niche theme’, reflecting a more specialized focus or an evolving approach within ‘higher education’, emphasizing ‘entrepreneurial intention’ and ‘entrepreneurship education’. The emergence of ‘educational innovation’ as a relevant theme points to growing interest from future social innovators. Moreover, the theme ‘social enterprise’ evolved from a ‘motor theme’ to a ‘basic theme’, showing an emphasis of ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’. The theme ‘COVID-19’ emerged as a dominant ‘basic theme’, highlighting the impact of the pandemic. This theme further emphasizes the implications of the pandemic for various aspects of social innovation. Its association with ‘co-creation’, ‘social change’, ‘community’, and ‘smart cities’ shows how COVID-19 became a catalyst for collaborative approaches, community dynamics, and urban development. The inclusion of ‘India’ and ‘digital social innovation’ within this theme points to the geographical and technological dimensions of the pandemic’s influence. Additionally, the terms ‘transformation’, ‘action research’, and ‘leadership’ within the COVID-19 theme indicate the broader role of the pandemic in driving systemic change, exploring new research methodologies, and influencing leadership styles and strategies. ‘Policy’ emerged as a “niche theme”, reflecting an increasing focus on the interplay between public policy and social innovation. The emphasis on ‘policy’ coupled with ‘public health’ suggests a specific interest in how policy frameworks were shaped and adapted in response to health-related challenges, likely influenced by the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The emergence of this theme means an increased recognition of the important role of ‘policy’ in enabling, guiding, and responding to social innovation, especially in the context of public health. 4. Discussion and Conclusions 4.1. Discussion The field of ‘social innovation and social entrepreneurship’ has undergone significant thematic evolution over the analyzed period (2012–2023). This evolution reflects the field’s response to changing societal needs and emerging global challenges. From 2012 onward, scientific output was characterized by themes such as ‘sustainability’ (Boons and LüdekeFreund 2013;Cajaiba-Santana 2014;Parris and McInnis-Bowers 2014;Voorberg et al. 2015; van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016;Calic and Mosakowski 2016;Rey-Martíet al. 2016; Glavas 2016;Kaika 2017;Hoogendoorn et al. 2019;Dionisio and de Vargas 2020;Johnson and Schaltegger 2020) and ‘social enterprise’ (Smith et al. 2013;Wilson and Post 2013; Cajaiba-Santana 2014;Stephan et al. 2015;Maier et al. 2016;Zahra and Wright 2016;York et al. 2016;Belz and Binder 2017;Parhankangas and Renko 2017;Saebi et al. 2019;Avelino et al. 2019;Gupta et al. 2020;Hota et al. 2020), which emerged as central drivers in the literature, highlighting the growing emphasis on integrating environmental concerns and entrepreneurial practices with social objectives. The prominence of ‘co-creation’ (Herrera 2015;Castelnovo et al. 2016;Mirvis et al. 2016;Windrum et al. 2016;Frantzeskaki 2019; Chin et al. 2019;Fuglsang et al. 2021), especially in urban settings (Castelnovo et al. 2016), Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 16 of 20 governance (Castelnovo et al. 2016;Frantzeskaki 2019;Maddalena Sorrentino and Howlett 2018;Voorberg et al. 2017), and the public sector (Windrum et al. 2016;Fuglsang et al. 2021), underscored the field’s commitment to collaborative innovation. The period saw a slight expansion with the introduction of new themes, such as ‘bibliometric analysis’ (Voorberg et al. 2015;Wu and Wu 2017), and a geographical focus on ‘India’ (Parris and McInnis-Bowers 2014;Stephan et al. 2015;Sutter et al. 2019;Pel et al. 2020). This revealed a wider research landscape, showing an emphasis on ‘education’, reflecting its role in future social innovators. The year 2021 brought the impact of COVID-19 to the research field (Zahra 2021). This development stressed responsiveness to current global challenges within the research field. Themes such as ‘smart cities’ (Ghazal et al. 2021;Castelnovo et al. 2016;Kaika 2017) and ‘design thinking’ (Parris and McInnis-Bowers 2017;Phi and Clausen 2021;Tiwari et al. 2022; Blomkamp 2022;Bartoloni et al. 2022;Usman et al. 2022) gained traction, highlighting the strategic importance of urban spaces and user-centric problem solving in social innovation. Over the final analyzed timeframe, 2019–2023, ‘COVID-19 ′ (Mirza et al. 2020;Zahra 2021; Ghazal et al. 2021;Boysen 2022;Rizvi et al. 2020) ascended as a dominant theme and ‘policy’ (Watson et al. 2023;Plutshack et al. 2019;Alkon et al. 2019;Aung et al. 2022) emerged as a new niche theme, indicating a focus on the intersection of public policy and social innovation, especially in the context of public health. Hence, the evolution of themes over the years shows the emergence of themes such as ‘smart cities’, ‘design thinking’, ‘policy’, ‘governance’, and the ‘circular economy’. Overall, the field has demonstrated consistent evolution, integrating several perspectives and adapting to contemporary challenges. Key themes have changed, reflecting the field’s adaptability and changes related to social needs. Its ongoing adaptation is evidenced by the emergence and consolidation of new themes, showcasing the field’s responsiveness to current global challenges and changes in its focus. 4.2. Conclusions The concepts of social innovation and social entrepreneurship emerged from the concept of a social economy. This construct was primarily developed in the 19th century through the emergence of freedom of association, religious influences, forces of nationalism, and the quest for a third way (Defourny and Develtere 1999). Despite having existed for more than a century, the concept has become increasingly relevant over the last decade. This relevance can be recognized through its economic impact (European Commission 2017) as well as citizens and their involvement in informal and formal (organized) voluntary activities (European Commission 2023). Departing from this framework, this paper deals with a critical topic, particularly over periods of socioeconomic constraints (Maclean et al. 2013;European Commission 2017;Linnenluecke and McKnight 2017;Gundry et al. 2011; Pereira 2019). The results showed a set of main themes in the social innovation and social entrepreneurship research field, including sustainability, the social enterprise, and co-creation. These themes became relevant and central to the research field over the analyzed period. However, over the years, themes such as co-creation, governance, public policies, design thinking, circular economy, and topics related to city organization and as a conjunctural topic (COVID-19) also became relevant. Hence, concepts related to sustainable cities and the required public policies that need to be put forward, particularly adjustments to transportation policies, redrawing cities, and the adoption of measures targeted at sustainable development, seem to be among the most relevant. Furthermore, the obtained results showed that co-creation, as well as design thinking, sustainability, and the social enterprise, represent the cornerstone for policy makers, social innovators, and social entrepreneurs and foundations for the emergence of social innovations. The emergence of social constraints, such as crises, war, terrorism, migrations, or climate change, sets a point of departure for innovation in a social economy and an increasing momentum within social entrepreneurship. Hence, based on the obtained results and the Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 17 of 20 thematic evolution over time, recent themes such as ‘smart cities’, ‘design thinking’, ‘policy’, ‘governance’, and the ‘circular economy’, targeting ‘sustainability’, highlight directions for future research on social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Despite providing enlightenments, this paper presents some limitations, among them the number of documents in the sample analyzed and the type of analysis. A set of 6646 documents were assessed. This number is well above the recommend analytical minimum of 200 (Rogers et al. 2020) or 300 to 500 (Donthu et al. 2021). However, more detailed results could be provided using a systematic literature review of the most cited documents. This type of analysis could provide additional understanding about the thematic evolution of the research field and represent a starting point for future research. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.S. and J.R.S.; methodology, C.S. and J.R.S.; software, J.R.S.; validation, C.S. and J.R.S.; formal analysis, C.S.; investigation, C.S. and J.R.S.; resources, J.R.S.; data curation, C.S. and J.R.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.S. and J.R.S.; writing— review and editing, C.S. and J.R.S.; visualization, C.S. and J.R.S.; supervision, C.S. and J.R.S.; project administration, C.S. and J.R.S.; funding acquisition, C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: NECE and this work are supported by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia), I.P., project reference UIDB/04630/2020 and DOI identifier 10.54499/UIDP/04630/2020. This work was funded by National Funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), I.P., within the scope of the project UIDB/05583/2020, DOI identifier https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/05583/2020 (accessed on 1 December 2023). Furthermore, we would like to thank the Research Centre in Digital Services (CISeD) and the Instituto Politécnico de Viseu for their support. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Alkon, Alison Hope, Yahya Josh Cadji, and Frances Moore. 2019. Subverting the New Narrative: Food, Gentrification and Resistance in Oakland, California. Agriculture and Human Values 36: 793–804. [CrossRef] Apostolopoulos, Nikolaos, Robert Newbery, and Menelaos Gkartzios. 2019. Social Enterprise and Community Resilience: Examining a Greek Response to Turbulent Times. Journal of Rural Studies 70: 215–24. [CrossRef] Aria, Massimo, and Corrado Cuccurullo. 2017. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11: 959–75. [CrossRef] Aung, Myo Nyein, Yuka Koyanagi, Satomi Ueno, Sariyamon Tiraphat, and Motoyuki Yuasa. 2022. Age-Friendly Environment and Community-Based Social Innovation in Japan: A Mixed-Method Study. The Gerontologist 62: 89–99. [CrossRef] Austin, James, Howard Stevenson, and Jane Wei–Skillern. 2006. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30: 1–22. [CrossRef] Avelino, Flor, Julia M Wittmayer, Bonno Pel, Paul Weaver, Adina Dumitru, Alex Haxeltine, RenéKemp, Michael S. Jørgensen, Tom Bauler, Saskia Ruijsink, and et al. 2019. Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis)Empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 145: 195–206. [CrossRef] Bartoloni, Sara, Ernesto Calò, Luca Marinelli, Federica Pascucci, Luca Dezi, Elias Carayannis, Gian Marco Revel, and Gian Luca Gregori. 2022. Towards Designing Society 5.0 Solutions: The New Quintuple Helix—Design Thinking Approach to Technology. Technovation 113: 102413. [CrossRef] Belz, Frank Martin, and Julia Katharina Binder. 2017. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Convergent Process Model. Business Strategy and the Environment 26: 1–17. [CrossRef] Bitencourt, Cláudia Cristina, Diego Antônio Bittencourt Marconatto, Luciano Barin Cruz, and Emmanuel B Raufflet. 2016. Introduction to special edition social innovation: Researching, defining and theorizing social innovation. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 17: 14–19. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:157181514 (accessed on 1 December 2023). [CrossRef] Blomkamp, Emma. 2022. Systemic Design Practice for Participatory Policymaking. Policy Design and Practice 5: 12–31. [CrossRef] Boons, Frank, and Florian Lüdeke-Freund. 2013. Business Models for Sustainable Innovation: State-of-the-Art and Steps towards a Research Agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 45: 9–19. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 18 of 20 Boysen, Mikkel Snorre Wilms. 2022. The Incorporation of Entrepreneurship into Social Work Education: Combining Social and Commercial Norms. Social Work Education 41: 1367–86. [CrossRef] Bozhikin, Ivan, Janaina Macke, and Luana Folchini da Costa. 2019. The Role of Government and Key Non-State Actors in Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 226: 730–47. [CrossRef] Cajaiba-Santana, Giovany. 2014. Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A Conceptual Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 82: 42–51. [CrossRef] Calic, Goran, and Elaine Mosakowski. 2016. Kicking Off Social Entrepreneurship: How A Sustainability Orientation Influences Crowdfunding Success. Journal of Management Studies 53: 738–67. [CrossRef] Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, William A Turner, and Serge Bauin. 1983. From Translations to Problematic Networks: An Introduction to Co-Word Analysis. Social Science Council 22: 191–235. [CrossRef] Castelnovo, Walter, Gianluca Misuraca, and Alberto Savoldelli. 2016. Smart Cities Governance: The Need for a Holistic Approach to Assessing Urban Participatory Policy Making. Social Science Computer Review 34: 724–39. [CrossRef] Chalmers, Dominic. 2013. Social Innovation: An Exploration of the Barriers Faced by Innovating Organizations in the Social Economy. Local Economy 28: 17–34. [CrossRef] Chin, Tachia, Yin Yang, Pei Zhang, Xiaofen Yu, and Luying Cao. 2019. Co-Creation of Social Innovation: Corporate Universities as Innovative Strategies for Chinese Firms to Engage with Society. Sustainability 11: 1438. [CrossRef] Cobo, Manuel Jesus, Antonio Gabriel López-Herrera, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, and Francisco Herrera. 2011. An Approach for Detecting, Quantifying, and Visualizing the Evolution of a Research Field: A Practical Application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory Field. Journal of Informetrics 5: 146–66. [CrossRef] Dart, Raymond. 2004. The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise. Nonprofit Managment and Leadership 14: 411–24. [CrossRef] Dees, J. Gregory. 1998. The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Kansas City and Palo Alto: The Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Defourny, Jacques, and Patrick Develtere. 1999. Social Economy the Worlwide Making of the Third Sector. Liège: Centre D’economie Sociale, Universite de Liege. Dionisio, Marcelo, and Eduardo Raupp de Vargas. 2020. Corporate Social Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review. International Business Review 29: 101641. [CrossRef] Donthu, Naveen, Satish Kumar, Debmalya Mukherjee, Nitesh Pandey, and Weng Marc Lim. 2021. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research 133: 285–96. [CrossRef] Ellegaard, Ole, and Johan A. Wallin. 2015. The Bibliometric Analysis of Scholarly Production: How Great Is the Impact? Scientometrics 105: 1809–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed] European Commission. 2017. The Contribution of the Third Sector to Europe’s Socio-Economic Development. 2017. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/204470-the-third-sectors-hidden-potential (accessed on 1 December 2023). European Commission. 2023. Archive: Social Participation and Integration Statistics. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Social_participation_and_integration_statistics&direction=next&oldid= 506205#Formal_and_informal_voluntary_activities (accessed on 1 December 2023). Farhoud, Mohamed, Sheeza Shah, Pekka Stenholm, Ewald Kibler, Maija Renko, and Siri Terjesen. 2021. Social Enterprise Crowdfunding in an Acute Crisis. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 15: e00211. [CrossRef] Farinha, Luís, João Renato Sebastião, Carlos Sampaio, and João Lopes. 2020. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Discovering Origins, Exploring Current and Future Trends. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 17: 77–96. [CrossRef] Frantzeskaki, Niki. 2019. Seven Lessons for Planning Nature-Based Solutions in Cities. Environmental Science & Policy 93: 101–11. [CrossRef] Fuglsang, Lars, Anne Vorre Hansen, Ines Mergel, and Maria Taivalsaari Røhnebæk. 2021. Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review. Administrative Sciences 11: 58. [CrossRef] Ghazal, Taher M, Mohammad Kamrul Hasan, Muhammad Turki Alshurideh, Haitham M Alzoubi, Munir Ahmad, Syed Shehryar Akbar, Barween Al Kurdi, and Iman A. Akour. 2021. IoT for Smart Cities: Machine Learning Approaches in Smart Healthcare—A Review. Future Internet 13: 218. [CrossRef] Glavas, Ante. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 144. [CrossRef] Grayson, Siobhán, Karen Wade, Gerardine Meaney, and Derek Greene. 2016. The Sense and Sensibility of Different Sliding Windows in Constructing Co-Occurrence Networks from Literature. In Computational History and Data-Driven Humanities. Edited by Bojan Bozic, Gavin Mendel-Gleason, Christophe Debruyne and Declan O’Sullivan. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 65–77. Grilo, Ricardo, and António Carrizo Moreira. 2022. The Social as the Heart of Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: An Emerging Area or an Old Crossroads? International Journal of Innovation Studies 6: 53–66. [CrossRef] Gundry, Lisa K., Jill R. Kickul, Mark D. Griffiths, and Sophie C. Bacq. 2011. Creating Social Change Out of Nothing: The Role of Entrepreneurial Bricolage in Social Entrepreneurs’ Catalytic Innovations. In Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 13, pp. 1–24. [CrossRef] Gupta, Parul, Sumedha Chauhan, Justin Paul, and Mahadeo Prasad Jaiswal. 2020. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Business Research 113: 209–29. [CrossRef] He, Qin. 1999. Knowledge Discovery Through Co-Word Analysis. Library Trends 48: 133–59. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 19 of 20 Herrera, Maria Elena Baltazar. 2015. Creating Competitive Advantage by Institutionalizing Corporate Social Innovation. Journal of Business Research 68: 1468–74. [CrossRef] Hoogendoorn, Brigitte, Peter van der Zwan, and Roy Thurik. 2019. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Role of Perceived Barriers and Risk. Journal of Business Ethics 157: 1133–54. [CrossRef] Hota, Pradeep Kumar, Balaji Subramanian, and Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy. 2020. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-Citation Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 166: 89–114. [CrossRef] Iskandar, Yusuf, Joeliaty Joeliaty, Umi Kaltum, and Hilmiana Hilmiana. 2022. Systematic Review of the Barriers to Social Enterprise Performance Using an Institutional Framework. Cogent Business and Management 9: 2124592. [CrossRef] Johnson, Matthew P., and Stefan Schaltegger. 2020. Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A Review and Multilevel Causal Mechanism Framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44: 1141–73. [CrossRef] Kaika, Maria. 2017. ‘Don’t Call Me Resilient Again!’: The New Urban Agenda as Immunology . . . or . . . What Happens When Communities Refuse to Be Vaccinated with ‘Smart Cities’ and Indicators. Environment and Urbanization 29: 89–102. [CrossRef] Kochetkov, Dmitry M. 2023. Innovation: A State-of-the-Art Review and Typology. International Journal of Innovation Studies 7: 263–72. [CrossRef] Linnenluecke, Martina K., and Brent McKnight. 2017. Community Resilience to Natural Disasters: The Role of Disaster Entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities 11: 166–85. [CrossRef] Maclean, Mairi, Charles Harvey, and Jillian Gordon. 2013. Social Innovation, Social Entrepreneurship and the Practice of Contemporary Entrepreneurial Philanthropy. International Small Business Journal 31: 747–63. [CrossRef] Maddalena Sorrentino, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, and Michael Howlett. 2018. Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool. Policy and Society 37: 277–93. [CrossRef] Maier, Florentine, Michael Meyer, and Martin Steinbereithner. 2016. Nonprofit Organizations Becoming Business-Like: A Systematic Review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45: 64–86. [CrossRef] Mair, Johanna, and Ignasi Martí. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of World Business 41: 36–44. [CrossRef] Mirvis, Philip, Maria Elena Baltazar Herrera, Bradley Googins, and Laura Albareda. 2016. Corporate Social Innovation: How Firms Learn to Innovate for the Greater Good. Journal of Business Research 69: 5014–21. [CrossRef] Mirza, Nawazish, Bushra Naqvi, Birjees Rahat, and Syed Kumail Abbas Rizvi. 2020. Price Reaction, Volatility Timing and Funds’ Performance during COVID-19. Finance Research Letters 36: 101657. [CrossRef] Mulgan, Geoff, Simon Tucker, Rushanara Ali, and Ben Sanders. 2007. Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters, How It Can Be Accelerated. The Young Foundation, Working Paper. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, Oxford University. Neumeier, Stefan. 2012. Why Do Social Innovations in Rural Development Matter and Should They Be Considered More Seriously in Rural Development Research?—Proposal for a Stronger Focus on Social Innovations in Rural Development Research. Sociologia Ruralis 52: 48–69. [CrossRef] Nicholls, Alex. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parhankangas, Annaleena, and Maija Renko. 2017. Linguistic Style and Crowdfunding Success among Social and Commercial Entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 32: 215–36. [CrossRef] Parris, Denise L., and Cecilia V. McInnis-Bowers. 2014. Social Entrepreneurship Questioning the Status Quo: Waste as a Resource. Journal of Economic Issues 48: 359–66. [CrossRef] Parris, Denise Linda, and Cecilia McInnis-Bowers. 2017. Business Not as Usual: Developing Socially Conscious Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs. Journal of Management Education 41: 687–726. [CrossRef] Pel, Bonno, Alex Haxeltine, Flor Avelino, Adina Dumitru, RenéKemp, Tom Bauler, Iris Kunze, Jens Dorland, Julia Wittmayer, and Michael Søgaard Jørgensen. 2020. Towards a Theory of Transformative Social Innovation: A Relational Framework and 12 Propositions. Research Policy 49: 104080. [CrossRef] Peredo, Ana María, and Murdith McLean. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept. Journal of World Business 41: 56–65. [CrossRef] Pereira, Elisabeth T. 2019. Innovation and Entrepreneurship During Economic Crises. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Internationalization. Edited by Nuno Miguel Teixeira, Teresa Gomes da Costa and Inês Margarida Lisboa. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 258–81. [CrossRef] Phi, Giang Thi, and Helene Balslev Clausen. 2021. Fostering Innovation Competencies in Tourism Higher Education via Design-Based and Value-Based Learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 29: 100298. [CrossRef] Phills, James, Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale Miller. 2008. Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6: 34–43. Plutshack, Victoria, Subhanjan Sengupta, Arunaditya Sahay, and Jorge E Viñuales. 2019. New and Renewable Energy Social Enterprises Accessing Government Support: Findings from India. Energy Policy 132: 367–78. [CrossRef] Pritchard, Alan. 1969. Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation 25: 348–49. Rey-Martí, Andrea, Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano, and Daniel Palacios-Marqués. 2016. A Bibliometric Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research 69: 1651–55. [CrossRef] Rizvi, Syed Kumail Abbas, Nawazish Mirza, Bushra Naqvi, and Birjees Rahat. 2020. COVID-19 and Asset Management in EU: A Preliminary Assessment of Performance and Investment Styles. Journal of Asset Management 21: 281–91. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 53 20 of 20 Rogers, Gordon, Martin Szomszor, and Jonathan Adams. 2020. Sample Size in Bibliometric Analysis. Scientometrics 125: 777–94. [CrossRef] Saebi, Tina, Nicolai J Foss, and Stefan Linder. 2019. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. Journal of Management 45: 70–95. [CrossRef] Sainaghi, Ruggero, Paul Phillips, Rodolfo Baggio, and Aurelio Mauri. 2018. Cross-Citation and Authorship Analysis of Hotel Performance Studies. International Journal Of Hospitality Management 73: 75–84. [CrossRef] Schumpeter, Joseph. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shane, Scott, and Sankaran Venkataraman. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review 25: 217–26. [CrossRef] Smith, Wendy K., Michael Gonin, and Marya L. Besharov. 2013. Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly 23: 407–42. [CrossRef] Stephan, Ute, Lorraine M. Uhlaner, and Christopher Stride. 2015. Institutions and Social Entrepreneurship: The Role of Institutional Voids, Institutional Support, and Institutional Configurations. Journal of International Business Studies 46: 308–31. [CrossRef] Sutter, Christopher, Garry D. Bruton, and Juanyi Chen. 2019. Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Extreme Poverty: A Review and Future Research Directions. Journal of Business Venturing 34: 197–214. [CrossRef] R Core Team. 2023. R Core Team 2023 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2023). Tiwari, Preeti, Anil K. Bhat, and Jyoti Tikoria. 2022. Mediating Role of Prosocial Motivation in Predicting Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 13: 118–41. [CrossRef] Usman, Sumaiya, Fazeelat Masood, Mubashir Ali Khan, and Naveed ur Rehman Khan. 2022. Impact of Empathy, Perceived Social Impact, Social Worth and Social Network on the Social Entrepreneurial Intention in Socio-Economic Projects. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 14: 65–92. [CrossRef] van der Have, Robert P., and Luis Rubalcaba. 2016. Social Innovation Research: An Emerging Area of Innovation Studies? Research Policy 45: 1923–35. [CrossRef] Voorberg, William, Victor Bekkers, Sophie Flemig, Krista Timeus, Piret Tonurist, and Lars Tummers. 2017. Does Co-Creation Impact Public Service Delivery? The Importance of State and Governance Traditions. Public Money & Management 37: 365–72. [CrossRef] Voorberg, William H., Victor. J. J. M. Bekkers, and Lars G. Tummers. 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey. Public Management Review 17: 1333–57. [CrossRef] Watson, Rosina, Kristian Roed Nielsen, Hugh N Wilson, Emma K Macdonald, Christine Mera, and Lucia Reisch. 2023. Policy for Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Crowdsourced Framework. Journal of Cleaner Production 383: 135234. [CrossRef] Weaver, Rasheda L. 2023. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Social Enterprise Sector. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 14: 177–85. [CrossRef] Wilson, Fiona, and James E Post. 2013. Business Models for People, Planet (& Profits): Exploring the Phenomena of Social Business, a Market-Based Approach to Social Value Creation. Small Business Economics 40: 715–37. [CrossRef] Windrum, Paul, Doris Schartinger, Luis Rubalcaba, Faiz Gallouj, and Marja Toivonen. 2016. The Co-Creation of Multi-Agent Social Innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management 19: 150–66. [CrossRef] Wu, Yen-Chun Jim, and Tienhua Wu. 2017. A Decade of Entrepreneurship Education in the Asia Pacific for Future Directions in Theory and Practice. Management Decision 55: 1333–50. [CrossRef] York, Jeffrey G., Isobel O’Neil, and Saras D. Sarasvathy. 2016. Exploring Environmental Entrepreneurship: Identity Coupling, Venture Goals, and Stakeholder Incentives. Journal of Management Studies 53: 695–737. [CrossRef] Zahra, Shaker A. 2021. International Entrepreneurship in the Post Covid World. Journal of World Business 56: 101143. [CrossRef] Zahra, Shaker A., and Mike Wright. 2016. Understanding the Social Role of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies 53: 610–29. [CrossRef] Zahra, Shaker A., Eric Gedajlovic, Donald O. Neubaum, and Joel M. Shulman. 2009. A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Business Venturing 24: 519–32. [CrossRef] Zupic, Ivan, and Tomaž ˇ Cater. 2015. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods 18: 429–72. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.