ArticleSocial indicators research2023
Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach.
Article in Social indicators research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.