Social entrepreneurship (SE) research has been presented in the literature as a field of action in a pre-paradigmatic state, a field that lacks an established epistemology. Despite that impediment, several qualitative and quantitative studies have already been undertaken on the sole base of some institutions’ worldview and without previous solidification of theory. Consequently, critics and social constructivists have found much ambivalence in these and owing to the resulting mess, even question SE’s legitimization as a distinctive item of research. Articles on the topic of SE make use of a variety of frameworks, borrowing from neo-institutional or dialectic theory, bringing with them different research methods and views from other disciplines. Instead of propos- ing another conceptual approach and yet contributing to the ongoing discussion, the authors enact on a deductive journey by examining and clustering underlying paradigmatic assumptions found in a large-scale sample (>300) of current articles. In comparison to results from the management (entrepreneurship) literature, the study finds statistical evidence to the hypotheses that SE differs in researchers’ paradigms, that seminal SE research transcends the foci on either detached struc- tures or individuals, and that research in SE is often led by advocacy worldviews of the researchers themselves.

Crowdfunding (CF) in a social entrepreneurship (SE) context is praised in media narrations for its multifaceted potential. From an academic point of view, little has been written about CF as a whole, and enquiries from the SE sphere are mostly concerned with donation-based CF. This paper first reviews extant literature on financing social ventures and CF. Based upon the findings, the author draws up a schema of CF’s inner workings and subsequently discusses it in an SE context. From this model, a research agenda consisting of eight themes is derived: types and utility functions; corporate governance; investor relations, reporting and risk; opportunity recognition; networking; legitimacy; financial metrics and legal and regulatory hurdles.