infonet-economy

Purpose - This paper pinpoints the importance of critical research that can problematise the self-evidences, myths, and political truth effects of social entrepreneurship, thus creating space for different, more radical enactments.

Design/methodology/approach - We develop a typology that maps four types of critical research, and illustrate the merits and limitations of each critique through existing research. We also delineate the contours of a fifth form of critique, which aims at radicalising social entrepreneurship through interventionist research.

Findings - The typology we present involves myth-busting (problematising by using empirical facts), a critique of power effects (problematising by denormalising discourses, ideologies, and symbols), a normative critique (problematising by engaging in moral reflection), and a critique of transgression (problematising by considering practitioners' counter conduct).

Research limitations/implications: We make it clear that the critique of social
entrepreneurship must not be judged on the basis of what it says but on whether or not it creates the conditions for novel articulations and enactments of social entrepreneurship.

Practical implications: We argue that practitioners' perspectives and viewpoints are indispensible for challenging and extending scientific doxa. Further, prospective critical research must include an even stronger focus on practitioners' experience.

Originality/value - This is the first contribution of its kind to map critical activities in the field of social entrepreneurship, and to indicate how the more radical possibilities of social entrepreneurship can be fostered through interventionist research.