پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 163 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,827 |
| تعداد مقالات | 73,631 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 135,098,841 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 105,363,990 |
واکاوی جامعه شناختی کنش نانمادی و نمادی زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی: تحلیل روایتی پیامدی زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی | ||
| فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی توسعه کارآفرینی | ||
| دوره 18، شماره 2، تیر 1404، صفحه 81-107 اصل مقاله (7.57 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقالات پژوهشی- کیفی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jed.2025.387723.654470 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حسین مقیمی اسفندآبادی1؛ سید مصطفی رضوی* 2؛ زهرا سرافرازی3 | ||
| 1گروه جامعه شناسی اقتصادی و توسعه، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2گروه مدیریت تکنولوژی و نوآوری،دانشکده مدیریت صنعتی، دانشدگان مدیریت،دانشگاه تهران،تهران،ایران. | ||
| 3گروه منابع طبیعی، دانشکده منابع طبیعی و کویرشناسی دانشگاه یزد،یزد، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| چکیده هدف: هدف اصلی مقاله، واکاوی جامعه شناختی کنش نانمادی و کنش نمادی زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی است که در 2 زمینه خانواده و سازمان اجتماعی با روش تحلیل روایتی پیامدی تشریح می گردد. درهم تنیدگی مفهوم روایتی هویت کارآفرین اجتماعی به شروع سازمان یابی تصویر می گردد که با متن جدید، معانی جدید و هویت کسب و کار اجتماعی برجسته می شود. شناسایی مساله اجتماعی کارآفرینان، پیامد روایتی کنش نانمادی است که با رخداد جامعه پذیری به پیامد رخدادی مدعی سازی کارآفرین اجتماعی منتهی می شود. زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی فارغ از جنسیت، به کنش نانمادی وابسته هستند؛ آنان از طریق ارزش های جامعه پذیرشده به شروع فعالیت های اجتماعی گرایش دارند. از این رو، زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی با 2 کنش نانمادی و کنش نمادی مواجه هستند که هر کنش نانمادی به کنش نمادی پیوسته است و کنش نمادی از کنش نانمادی برخاسته می شود. برای واکاوی کنش نانمادی و نمادی زنان کارآفرینی از نظریه جامعه شناختی بلومر (1936) استفاده گردید. با استفاده از این نظریه، بنیان جامعه پذیری زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی از زمینه خانواده به شروع فعالیت اجتماعی یا کنش نمادی توصیف می شود. روش شناسی : روش شناسی برحسب هدف، کاربردی؛ و برحسب گردآوری اطلاعات کیفی- تحلیل روایتی پیامدی است. جامعه مورد مطالعه، تمام زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی (سطح تحلیل فرد) هستند که درصدد حل مساله اجتماعی در سطح جامعه برآمده‌اند؛ با توجه به اینکه تعریف جامعه مورد مطالعه گسترده است؛ برای تحلیل روایتی پیامدی، 3 نفر کارآفرین زن اجتماعی با روش نمونه گیری هدفمندی انتخاب گردید و برحسب پروتکل 3 مرحله گردآوری داده ها (تحلیل زندگینامه، 5W1H، و گفتگویی)، به تحلیل روایتی پیامدی پرداخته شد. روش تحلیل دادها مبتنی بر 3 مرحله شامل شناسایی رخدادها؛ رخدادها و پیامدها در طول زمان؛ و درهم تنیدگی کنش نانمادی و کنش نمادی پرداخته شد. روایی در روش کیفی مبتنی بر اعتبار سوالات مصاحبه با اعتبار محتوایی مورد توجه قرار می گیرد. پروتکل اعتبار در روش کیفی اعتبار سوالات مصاحبه است؛ بعد از پایلوت مصاحبه اولیه، سوالات مصاحبه اعتباریابی گردید. که در همین حال، پرسش‌های مصاحبه مجددا توسط خبرگان دانشگاهی و کارآفرینان اجتماعی بازنگری و تایید شد. نتیجه: با توجه به روش تحلیل روایتی پیامدی، درهم تنیدگی کنش نانمادی و کنش نمادی زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی تحلیل گردید. در این پژوهش، کنش نانمادی زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی شامل آرامش و جامعه پذیری توصیف می گردد که با شروع سازمان اجتماعی و شغل قبلی (اولیه) درهم تنیده است و این درهم تنیدگی با شناسایی مساله اجتماعی به مثابه کنش نمادی منجر می شود. در پژوهش به پیوستگی و درهم تنیدگی کنش نانمادی و نمادی زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی تاکید گردید؛ همچنین، این پژوهش تحلیل روایتی پیامدی برحسب رخدادها از کنش نانمادی به کنش نمادی زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی پرداخت که این تحلیل به ما نشان می دهد که رخداد ها و پیامد رخدادها برای زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی تصادفی نیست و بلکه برحسب زمینه خانوادگی آنان احیا شده است. کلیدواژه‌ها: کارآفرینی اجتماعی، کنش نانمادی، کنش نمادی، زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها: کارآفرینی اجتماعی؛ کنش نانمادی؛ کنش نمادی؛ زنان کارآفرین اجتماعی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Sociological Analysis of Non-symbolic and Symbolic Action of Women Social Entrepreneurs: Sequence Narrative Analysis of Women Social Entrepreneurs | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Hossein Moghimi Esfandabadi1؛ Syed Mostafa Razavi2؛ زهرا سرافرازی3 | ||
| 1Department of Economics and Development Sociology, Faculty of Social Science, University of Islamic Azad, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Technology and Innovation Management, Faculty of Industrial Management, College of Management, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Department of Natural Resources, Faculty of Natural Resources and Desertification, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective: The main purpose of the article is to sociologically analyze the non-symbolic and symbolic actions of women social entrepreneurs, which are explained in two contexts: family and social organization using the method of consequential narrative analysis. The intertwining of the narrative concept of social entrepreneur identity is illustrated by the beginning of organization, which is highlighted by new text, new meanings, and social business identity. Identifying the social problem of entrepreneurs is the narrative consequence of non-material actions, which leads to the event of socialization and the event consequence of claiming social entrepreneur. Regardless of gender, women social entrepreneurs are dependent on non-material actions; they tend to start social activities through the values of the accepting society. Therefore, women social entrepreneurs face two non-material actions and symbolic actions, each non-material action is connected to a symbolic action, and the symbolic action arises from the non-material action. Blumer's sociological theory (1936) was used to analyze the non-material and symbolic actions of women entrepreneurs. Using this theory, the basis of socialization of women social entrepreneurs is described from the family context to the initiation of social activity or symbolic action. Method: The methodology is applied in terms of purpose; and in terms of qualitative data collection - consequential narrative analysis. The study population is all women social entrepreneurs (individual analysis level) who are trying to solve a social problem at the community level; considering that the definition of the study population is broad; for consequential narrative analysis, 3 female social entrepreneurs were selected by purpose sampling method and consequential narrative analysis was conducted according to the 3-step data collection protocol (biographical analysis, 5W1H, and conversation). The data analysis method is based on 3 steps including identifying events; events and consequences over time; and the intertwining of non-material action and symbolic action. Validity in the qualitative method is based on the validity of interview questions with content validity. The validity protocol in the qualitative method is the validity of interview questions; after the initial interview pilot, the interview questions were validated. In the meantime, the interview questions were reviewed and approved again by academic experts and social entrepreneurs. Conclusion: According to the consequential narrative analysis method, the intertwining of non-material action and symbolic action of women social entrepreneurs was analyzed. In this study, the non-material action of women social entrepreneurs is described as including relaxation and sociability, which is intertwined with the beginning of the social organization and the previous (primary) job, and this intertwining leads to the identification of the social problem as a symbolic action. The research emphasized the continuity and intertwining of non-symbolic and symbolic action of women social entrepreneurs; also, this research analyzed the consequential narrative in terms of events from non-material action to symbolic action of women social entrepreneurs, which shows us that the events and consequences of events for women social entrepreneurs are not accidental but are revived in terms of their family background. Keywords: Social entrepreneurship, non-material action, symbolic action, women social entrepreneurs | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Keywords: Social entrepreneurship, non-symbolic action, symbolic action, women social entrepreneurs | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
مقیمی اسفندآبادی، حسین؛ معینی، سید رضا. (1398). واکاوی جامعه‌شناختی چالشهای بیرونی خلق ارزش اجتماعی رهبران کارآفرینی اجتماعی با رویکرد عادت واره بوردیو. توسعه کارآفرینی، 12(4)، 581–600.
مقیمی اسفندآبادی، حسین؛ معینی، سید رضا؛ یداللهی فارسی، جهانگیر. (1402). واکاوی رفتارهای حل مساله اجتماعی در بین رهبران کارآفرین اجتماعی. پژوهشهای کارآفرینی و نوآوری، 2(2)، 65–80.
Abbott, A. (1990). A Primer on Sequence Methods. Organization Science, 1(4), 375–392.
Abbott, A. (1995). Sequence Analysis: New Methods for old Ideas. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(0), 93–113.
Abbott, A. (2007). Mechanisms and Relations. Sociologica, 1(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2383/24750
Abell, P. (1987). The Syntax of Social Life; the Theory and Method of Comparative Narratives. O.U.P.
Abell, P. (1993). Some aspects of narrative method. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 18(2–3), 93–134.
Adamoniene, R., & Astromskiene, A. (2015). Peculiarities of entrepreneurial socialization expression. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213(0), 890–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.501
Akar, H., & Aydin, S. (2015). The predictive level of social entrepreneurship characteristics of the personality traits of preservice teachers. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 3(12), 425–436.
Akar, H., & Üstüner, M. (2017). Mediation Role of Self-Efficacy Perceptions in the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence Levels and Social Entrepreneurship Traits of Pre-Service Teachers. In Journal of Education and Future.
Andrejeva, S., Zubule, E., & Znotina, D. (2019). SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ITS DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES. Scientific Journal of Polonia University, 34(3), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.23856/3401
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059
Bhaskar, R., & Norrie, A. (1998). Introduction:Dialectical and dialectical Critical Realism. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical Realism (pp. 561–574). Routledge.
Blumer, H. (1936). Social Attitudes and Nonsymbolic Interaction. Journal of Educational Sociology, 9(9), 515–523.
Blumer, H. (1969). Society as Symbolic Interaction. In Symbolic Interactionism. In Perspective and Method (pp. 78–89). University of California Press.
Blumer, H. (1971). SOCIAL PROBLEMS AS COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR. Social Problem, 156–165. .https://doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/12236_12
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Combridge University Press.
Braga, J. C., Proença, T., & Ferreira, M. R. (2014). Motivations for social entrepreneurship – Evidences from Portugal. Tékhne, 12(0), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tekhne.2015.01.002
Burk, K. (1969). Grammar of Motives. University of California Press.
Busenitz, L. W., Sharfman, M. P., Townsend, D. M., & Harkins, J. A. (2015). The Emergence of Dual-Identity Social Entrepreneurship: Its Boundaries and Limitations. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2014.987801
Buttriss, G. J., & Wilkinson, I. F. (2007). Using narrative sequence methods to advance international entrepreneurship theory. Journal International Entrepreneurship, 4, 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-007-0012-4
Campbell, B. (2021). Entrepreneurial uncertainty in context : an ethnomethodological perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(3), 648–667. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0627
Chandra, Y. (2017). Social Entrepreneurship as Institutional-Change Work: A Corpus Linguistics Analysis. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 14–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2016.1233133
Collingridge, D. S., & Gantt, E. E. (2019). The Quality of Qualitative Research *. American Journal of Medical Quality, 34(5), 449–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860619873187
Davis, P. E., Bendickson, J. S., Muldoon, J., & Mcdowell, W. C. (2021). Agency theory utility and social entrepreneurship: issues of identity and role conflict. Review of Managerial Science, 15(0), 2299–2318. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00423-y
Dees, J. . (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf
Dimov, D. (2020). Opportunities, language, and time. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 333–351.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.https://doi.org/doi/abs/10.1086/231209
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.https://doi.org/doi/abs/10.1086/231294
Faghih, N., Bonyadi, E. & Sarreshtehdari, L. Entrepreneurial Motivation Index: importance of dark data. J Glob Entrepr Res 11, 15–27 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-021-00277-y
Fligstein, N. (2001). Social Skill and the Theory of Fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00132
Foss, L. (2004). Going against the grain . ..’ Construction of entrepreneurial identity through narratives. In D. Hjorth & C. Steyaert (Eds.), Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship (pp. 80–104). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Fossa, P., Cortés, C., Molina, M., Barros, M., Marcotti, C., Sprovera, I., & Novoa, J. (2021). Microgenetic Analysis of Thought Trajectories : A Mixed. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 56(3), 630–652. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09633-9
Gaddis, J. (2002). The landscape of history: how historians map the past. Oxford University Press.
Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P. (2013). A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0055
Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(2), 1479–1492.
Ghalwash, S., Tolba, A., & Ismail, A. (2017). What motivates social entrepreneurs to start social ventures? Social Enterprise Journal, 13(3), 268–298.https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-05-2016-0014
Giddens, A. (1984a). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory structuration in social analysis. Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Giddens, A. (1984c). The Constitution of Society. University of California Press.
Goss, D., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2018). Opportunity creation: Entrepreneurial agency, interaction, and affect. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1273
Hechavarría, D. M. (2016). Mother nature ’ s son ? The impact of gender socialization and culture on environmental venturing. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 137–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-10-2015-0038
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hervieux, C., & Voltan, A. (2016). Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3252-1
Hervieux, C., & Voltan, A. (2018). Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship discourse analysis. Journal Business Ethics, 151, 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3252-1
Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. The American Political Science Review, 75(4), 880–900.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Post modernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press.
Jablin, F. . (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In The new handbook of organizational communication:Advances in theory, research, and method (Sage, pp. 732–818).
Joas, H. (1996). The Creativity of Action. Polity Press.
Kamran, S. M., Khaskhely, M. K., Nassani, A. A., Haffar, M., & Abro, M. M. Q. (2022). Social Entrepreneurship Opportunities via Distant Socialization and Social Value Creation. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(6).https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063170
Lacap, J. P. G., Mulyaningsih, H. D., & Ramadani, V. (2018). The mediating effects of social entrepreneurial antecedents on the relationship between prior experience and social entrepreneurial intent: The case of Filipino and Indonesian university students. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 9(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-03-2018-0028
Leitch, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2016). Identity, identity formation and identity work in entrepreneurship: conceptual developments and empirical applications. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(3–4), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1155740
Leong, D. (2023). Action in Complexity: Entanglement and Emergent Order in Entrepreneurship. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 32(1), 182–217.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH: A SOURCE OF EXPLANATION, PREDICTION, AND DELIGHT.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258324-16
Maslow, A. H. (1950). Self-actualizing people: A study of psychological health. Personality, 0(0), 11–34.
McAdams, P. D. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.52.100
Mckelvey, B. (2002). Emergent order in firms: Complexity science vs. the entanglement trap. In E. Mitleton-kelly (Ed.), Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives of organizations: Applications of complexity theory to organizations. Oxford.
McMullen, J. S., Brownell, K. M., & Adams, J. (2021). What Makes an Entrepreneurship Study Entrepreneurial? Toward A Unified Theory of Entrepreneurial Agency. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1197–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720922460
Mcmullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12049
Mcmullen, J. S., Wood, M. S., & Kier, A. S. (2016). An Embedded Agency Approach to Enrepreneurship Public Policy:Managerial Position And Politics in new ventuew location Decisions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 222–246.
Meliou, E., & Edwards, T. (2017). Relational practices and reflexivity: Exploring the responses of women entrepreneurs to changing household dynamics. International Small Business Journal, 1–36.
Minniti, M. (2010). Female entrepreneurship and economic activity. European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 294–312.
Mitchell, K. R., & Mitchell, J. R. (2011). Socially Situated Cognition : Imagining New. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 774–778. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0001
Mobaraki, M. ., Zali, M. ., Abdolvahab, S., & Moghimi Esfandabadi, H. (2012). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation on The Performance of Private Insurance Companies In Iran, Based on Lumpkin And Dess Model. Iranian Journal of Insurance Research, 27(31), 71–95.
Moghimi Esfandabadi, H., Sarafrazi Esfandabadi, Z., Mollaie, Y., & Moghimi Esfandabadi, A. (2022). Analyze Sociological Daily Self- Experience in an Entrepreneurial Environment a Review of Entrepreneur. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 28(5), 1–9.
Ney, S., Beckmann, M., Graebnitz, D., & Mirkovic, R. (2014). Social entrepreneurs and social change: tracing impacts of social entrepreneurship through ideas, structures and practices. In Int. J. Entrepreneurial Venturing. (Vol. 6, Issue 1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2014.059405
Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00397.x
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Okumura, A., Ikeda, T., & Muraki, K. (1999). Text Summarization based on information extraction and categorization using 5W1H. Journal of NLP, 6(6), 27–44.
Razavi, S. M., Asadi, M., Moghimi Esfandabadi, H., & Ekbatani, H. (2014). Barriers to Social Entrepreneurship in Iran: An Application of Grounded Theory. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Organization Management, 03(02), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-026x.1000118
Ritzer, G. (2008a). Sociological Theory (Eighth). McGraw-Hil.
Santos, F. ., Roomi, M. ., & Linan, F. (2016). About gender differences and the social environment in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 49–66.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a theoretical Shift From Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 26(2), 243–263.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation:Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. In Sciences-New York. Charlottesville.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2021). The Middle Class of Business: Endurance as a Dependent Variable in Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1054–1082. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211015983
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1908.
Seymour, R. G. (2006). Hermeneutic phenomenology and international entrepreneurship research. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(4), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-007-0011-5
Shahverdi, M., Ismail, K., & Qureshi, M. I. (2018). The effect of perceived barriers on social entrepreneurship intention in Malaysian universities: The moderating role of education. Management Science Letters, 8(5), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.4.014
Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Family Business, Identity Conflict, and an Expedited Entrepreneurial Process: A Process of Resolving Identity Conflic. Entrepenruership Theory and Practice, 33(6), 1245–1264.
Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. . (2007). Choose Your Method : A Comparison of Phenomenology , Discourse Analysis , and Grounded Theory. Quality Heaith Research, 17(10), 1372–1380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307031
Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(6), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620701671759
Suddaby, R., Israelsen, T., Mitchell, J. R., & Dominic, S. k L. (2023). Entrepreneurial Visions as Rhetorical History: A Diegetic Narrative Model of Stakeholder Enrollment. Academy of Management Review, 48(2), 220–243.
Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(10), 495–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1120963
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship— Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepenruership Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(2), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0613
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 396 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 183 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب