Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Richard N. Pitt

While we tend to think of entrepreneurs only as individuals or groups who create “firms”—that is, organizations whose primary goal is to create wealth—social scientists who study organizational emergence and entrepreneurship have been using the word “entrepreneur” to describe a broad range of organizational founders, from those starting schools and hospitals to those founding savings and loan associations and art museums. But consistently these scholars leave churches out of their examinations of entrepreneurial orientations and actions. This book is an attempt to disrupt this impulse by shining a light on a unique, but not insubstantial, set of organizational founders: individuals who start new churches. This chapter introduces three questions: (1) Are church founders “entrepreneurs”? (2) What motivates religion entrepreneurship in a crowded and competitive field trying to appeal to an increasingly anti-institutional-religion customer base? (3) What factors reduce these entrepreneurs’ uncertainty and fear of failure?

Author(s):  
Samiul Hasan ◽  
Ruth Crocker ◽  
Damien Rousseliere ◽  
Georgette Dumont ◽  
Sharilyn Hale ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Louis M. Imbeau ◽  
Sule Tomkinson ◽  
Yasmina Malki

This chapter assesses descriptive, explanatory, and interpretive approaches. ‘Description’, ‘explanation’, and ‘interpretation’ are distinct stages of the research process. Description makes the link between what is to be described and a concept and its empirical referent. It defines a way to understand empirical reality, as variations, significations, or processes. Description refers to the ‘what’ question, as the first step towards explanation. When it comes to answering the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions, some social scientists differentiate between explanation and interpretation. For them, the aim of social sciences is to ‘understand’, that is, to uncover the meanings of individuals’ or groups’ actions through the interpretation of their beliefs and discourses, whereas the aim of natural sciences is to ‘explain’, that is, to establish causality and general laws. The chapter presents an approach which offers a broader perspective for the social sciences, advocating an explanatory pluralism that allows for a more ecumenical approach.


Societies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathilde Cecchini

Many social scientists are interested in studying stereotypes and stereotyped reasoning. This interest often comes from a wish to contribute to creating a more just and equal society. However, when we as scholars study stereotypes and stereotyped reasoning, we risk reproducing and maybe even reinforcing these processes, and thereby harming individuals or groups of individuals. The debates of this ethical issue mainly take the form of general discussions of research ethics and of weighing the aim of the research against potential harm to participants. While these reflections are extremely important, there is a need for discussing how this ethical issue can be handled in practice. The aim of this article is to develop a set of practical guidelines for managing this ethical issue, based on the examination of ethically delicate moments experienced during an ethnographic study of the construction of health and risk identities among seventh-graders in Denmark. Three guiding principles are proposed: Develop an ethical sensibility in order to identify ethically delicate moments; consider ethics as well as methods when constructing and posing questions; more specifically, briefings and debriefings can be used to address ethical issues; and, finally, make participants reflect upon their opinions and answers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document