Social Entrepreneurship and Complex Thinking: A Bibliometric Study

Vázquez-Parra, José Carlos; Cruz-Sandoval, Marco; Carlos-Arroyo, Martina

doi:10.3390/su142013187

Open AccessArticle

Social Entrepreneurship and Complex Thinking: A Bibliometric Study

by

José Carlos Vázquez-Parra

,

Marco Cruz-Sandoval

^*

and

Martina Carlos-Arroyo

Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13187; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013187

Submission received: 7 September 2022 / Revised: 3 October 2022 / Accepted: 12 October 2022 / Published: 14 October 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Business and Impact for Sustainable Growth)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

:

This article presents the results of a bibliometric study that aimed to identify academic publications that considered the relationship between social entrepreneurship and the competency of complex thinking and its sub-competencies. The intention is to create a theoretical horizon that provides a complete overview of the current academic correlation between both competencies to identify areas of opportunity for new studies. Methodologically, we reviewed the Scopus and Web of Science databases under the PRISMA protocol. R, RStudio, and Bibliometrix were used to quantitatively analyze the data. The results showed that the number of related publications was minimal and corresponded to current studies, which sheds light on the vast possibilities to analyze the relationship between both variables.

Keywords:

professional education; educational innovation; future of education; complex thinking; social entrepreneurship; higher education

1. Introduction

For the past few decades, publications on complex thinking have increased. Over the years, this competency has been linked to other notions and areas of study as it is a cognitive tool that integrates different skills that can impact people’s decision-making and problem-solving processes in the contemporary world [1]. Thus, it is not unusual to find studies, and therefore, new publications that relate complex thinking and its sub-competencies to other competencies because of the breadth of this approach can easily be linked to elements and domains of other cognitive, aptitudinal, and attitudinal knowledge [2].

One of these relationships, which the authors have been working on, is that of complex thinking and entrepreneurship, considering that, from ideation, planning, design, and execution, the entrepreneurial process develops skills beyond forming a business plan. However, there are approaches to entrepreneurship (such as social entrepreneurship, which in practice has shown a favorable impact on the training process of entrepreneurs, especially in the acquisition and scaling of critical reasoning and creative and innovative thinking) that do not translate into academic production, thus creating a clear area of opportunity that requires more thorough work.

Seeking a theoretical platform that provides a comprehensive view of this, this article presents the results of bibliometric research and focuses on identifying studies and academic publications carried out so far that consider the relationship between complex thinking and its sub-competencies and social entrepreneurship. This work facilitates the treatment and quantitative analysis of the scientific publications published in the SCOPUS and Web of Sciences databases to complement the opinions, judgments, and research carried out by the authors themselves as part of their work in a research group focused on the study of complex thinking and its links with other competencies.

The computational tools, R [3], RStudio [4], and Bibliometrix [5], were used to carry out this research process.

1.1. On the Competency of Complex Thinking

The competency of complex thinking refers to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow for the comprehensive analysis of phenomena to develop a broad and interconnected vision of all the elements and factors involved [6]. For Morin [7], complex thinking is a priority competency in contemporary society, in which factors such as globalization, diversity, and uncertainty are vital parts of the decisions taken and the problems faced.

From this point of view, complex thinking is qualified as a general competency, i.e., its relevance at a training and professional level is not limited exclusively to a particular discipline or job, but has a transversal impact [8]. Critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, collaboration, creativity, innovation, intercultural skills, productivity and responsibility, and leadership are part of the complex thinking skills that are indispensable for decision-making in any professional field [9].

Complex thinking is an integral competency that considers four sub-competencies or types of thoughts. This gives it the broad and flexible character that characterizes it [10,11]. These four sub-competencies are: systems, critical, scientific, and innovative thinking. Systems thinking is the type of reasoning that allows us to analyze interconnected problems, thus recognizing the elements that comprise them and the dynamics between them [12]. Critical thinking allows for the validity of reasoning to be evaluated from its own point of view, thereby rethinking problems beyond existing paradigms [13]. Scientific thinking allows people to make decisions and solve problems with objective and validated methodologies, adopting tools to reason, formulate, and test hypotheses [14]. Finally, innovative thinking (also called creative thinking) considers the inclusion of processes that evaluate reality from different angles and perspectives, seeking to generate original and feasible proposals and solutions [15].

It is possible to appreciate that competency in general, and its sub-competencies, adhere to the transversality approach mentioned above and therefore it is possible to understand why this competency can be easily linked to others, as is the case for entrepreneurship.

1.2. About the Social Entrepreneurship Competency

The competency of social entrepreneurship refers to developing professional skills that enable individuals to respond to problems in their environment by generating innovative solutions that create value and positively impact society [16].

Unlike traditional entrepreneurship, which is usually associated primarily with business areas, social entrepreneurship is not limited exclusively to this discipline because, as a competency, it involves cognitive processes, skills, and aptitudes that are useful for any professional with a desire to address the problems in their environment. Currently, universities pay special attention to this type of entrepreneurship, considering that beyond the administrative aspects, social entrepreneurship broadens the vision of the students’ environment, thus triggering a process of identification and involvement with their reality that is not always achieved by traditional entrepreneurship [17]. According to the proposal by García-González, Ramírez-Montoya, de León, and Aragón [18], the social entrepreneurship competency is comprised of four sub-competencies that, in turn, are divided into 17 indicators. Table 1 shows each of the sub-competencies and indicators that comprise the social entrepreneurship competency.

García-González, Ramírez-Montoya, de León, and Aragón [18] proposed that social entrepreneurship competency involves developing skills and indicators that, although focused on entrepreneurship, are broad enough to be helpful in decision-making and problem-solving processes. Thus, some educational institutions consider it to be a general or transversal competency [19].

Considering the above, studies such as the one conducted by Vázquez-Parra et al. [20] have shown a correlation between social entrepreneurship competency and complex thinking. This hypothesis is based on the multiple skills developed in both competencies to address a problem in the environment and the link to decision-making and problem-solving processes [21]. Unfortunately, there are few studies like the one cited above. While this relationship between the two competencies can be elucidated, it is an area of study that has been little explored.

1.3. About Bibliometric Studies

The exponential growth of research and scientific production in recent decades has brought about the need to make the data analysis methods as efficient as possible, both in those disciplines that are highly studied and those in which research is still exploratory [22,23]. Information technologies have enabled more widespread and universal access to research results, thus blurring geographical limitations and enhancing the sociability of knowledge [24].

In this sense, academic publishing has had expansive growth as there is an increasing desire to be able to communicate research results, thereby generating space for discussion in an academic environment. Logically, this trend has led to publication processes becoming more efficient and rigorous, considering that the quality of a journal is directly related to its content’s characteristics and educational value [25]. Based on this, more and more attention is being paid to the study of scientific production, which makes it possible to generate indicators that reflect research progress and knowledge generation. Thus, the analysis of publications has become an essential part of the research process [23].

This requirement has made bibliometric studies more relevant, which acquire value in the academic literature by providing relevant information on the progress or direction of research on a particular topic, time, region, or publication type [26]. As noted above, bibliometric studies aim to quantitatively analyze academic publications related to a topic or area of study for retrospective analysis of how that topic or area has been researched and to evaluate the research potential of the authors or institutions that have been involved in those studies [27].

The object of these analyses are to produce publications from specific, previously selected databases that consider indicators of impact and international visibility that argue for the relevance of considering these texts [28]. Bibliometrics is a sub-discipline of Scientometrics that allows for the evaluation of scientific activity based on information sources and quantitative and statistical techniques that facilitate analysis of many documents to reduce biases or errors that may occur in the processes of classifying relevant documents or for the consultation of limited texts [29].

Bibliometric analysis is generally carried out through the study of periodicals that consider the descriptors for the cataloging of texts. It is important to note that descriptors allow for more sensitive thematic searches that not only delve into the title or keywords, but also the abstract and the text in general [30]. Additionally, bibliometrics is based on two types of indicators [31]:

By activity: They display the number and distribution of publications, productivity, dispersion, collaboration, and connection between authors.
By impact: These are based on the impact factor of the text, i.e., the frequency of text citations in a year, thus making it possible to compare articles and journals and to assess their importance within the scientific field.

Along with its importance as an analytical tool, it has become more common in recent years to find bibliometric studies published in academic journals. This has been driven by the support of more accessible statistical and computational tools that allow for more straightforward analyses, making the process more efficient than traditional bibliographic reviews [32].

Thus, this article aims to present the results of bibliometric research and is focused on identifying studies that consider the relationship between complex thinking competencies and social entrepreneurship. To do so, we researched scientific articles published in the SCOPUS and Web of Sciences databases, which, employing a systematic analysis of the literature, provides a broad view of the academic reality of these subjects and fixes a horizon for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

To carry out this study, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) in two of the leading scientific databases (Scopus and Web of Science) as a methodological approach [33]. This method aimed to identify, analyze, and address the research questions formulated in this study in an accurate and unbiased way to avoid skewing answers in a given period [34]. The review process was based on the protocol established in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement [35]. This protocol provides rigor to systematic review research through four stages of analysis: (a) Identification: historical publications identified during the database search process; (b) screening: publications are screened; duplicate material in databases is eliminated; (c) eligibility: according to specific established criteria, publications are accepted or rejected; and (d) inclusion: publications are included after synthesis and qualitative and quantitative analyses of their content.

This protocol includes two stages (planning and action) to establish a standardized protocol for replication. Figure 1 shows these two stages of the PRISMA protocol, which has been used by different authors in different disciplines [16,36,37,38].

2.1. Defining Research Questions

The research questions posed in this paper are intended to cover the landscape researchers face concerning academic publications that consider the relationship between social entrepreneurship and complex thinking and the relationships among their sub-competencies. Questions have arisen because of the identification of a gap in the literature that focuses on these aspects. In this sense, recognizing that we live in a complex system implies that the questions posed must be solved from a complex thinking approach. For this reason, Table 2 shows the research questions, delimited in a time frame that spans from January 2007 to August 2022. It is worth mentioning that the date that defines the starting time frame in our research is based on the temporality of the longest-lived result in the databases established in line with the search criteria.

2.2. Definition of Inclusion and Exclusion Criterion

Defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria is one of the most delicate and critical processes. Inaccurate selection of items can lead to erroneous results and conclusions [33]. This study considered the most relevant material to answer the previously defined research questions. Table 3 shows the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the present study.

2.3. Search for Descriptors

The search for descriptors (Table 4) was carried out in two leading scientific databases (Scopus and WoS). The search was limited to keywords in the title section, abstract, and keywords.

2.4. Data Collection and Analysis

Figure 2 shows the screening process in four stages, according to the PRISMA protocol [35,39]. In the identification phase, the papers resulting from the descriptor search were considered. In the screening phase, duplicate items were removed. Regarding the eligibility phase, all publications that answered the research questions and met the established criteria of this work were considered. Finally, in the inclusion stage, the papers were considered after conducting quantitative and qualitative analyses of each.

2.5. Data Representation

The present study used the computational tools, R [3], Rstudio [4], and Bibliometrix [5], to perform the quantitative bibliometric analysis.

3. Results

The results are presented for each research question described above.

RQ1.

What type of entrepreneurship is addressed?

Table 5 shows that both traditional and social entrepreneurship have been addressed in the literature.

RQ2.

Is the relationship between social entrepreneurship and complex thinking addressed?

The analysis shows the studies that relate complex thinking and its sub-competencies to types of entrepreneurship. Regarding traditional entrepreneurship, Table 5 shows that around 652 studies (Scopus and WoS) were found that relate it to the competency of complex thinking or one of the sub-competencies, while for social entrepreneurship, there were only 33 studies (Scopus and WoS).

This section may be divided into subheadings. It provides a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

RQ3.

If you address the relationship, which of the sub-competencies of complex thinking do you employ?

The results in Table 5 show that social and traditional entrepreneurship have been studied chiefly in relation to their relationship with critical thinking. Likewise, although less frequently, both types of entrepreneurship and their relationship with creative and innovative thinking have been studied.

Similarly, Figure 3 provides a better illustration of the studies on social entrepreneurship and its relationship with the competency of complex thinking and its sub-competencies.

RQ4.

What is the annual production per the established search chains?

Between January 2007 and August 2022, only 19 publications were produced that studied social entrepreneurship and its relationship with complex thinking and some of its sub-competencies. Figure 4 shows that 2021 was the year in which the most productions on this topic were generated (five products).

RQ5.

What are the prominent authors, countries, and areas of knowledge that focus on the relationship between social entrepreneurship and complex thinking?

Figure 5 shows the author’s results, the author’s contribution country, and the area of knowledge of the material generated. The results show that the authors with the highest incidence of social entrepreneurship and its relationship with complex thinking or one of its sub-competencies (critical thinking being the most important) were from the UK.

However, the scientific production by country is shown in Figure 6, which shows that the countries with the highest production in these topics were the United States (5), the United Kingdom (3), China (3), and India (2). Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Spain, and Tunisia had one publication.

RQ6.

Which authors present the most substantial intellectual structure regarding social entrepreneurship and complex thinking?

Figure 7 shows the intellectual structure of the works relation to social entrepreneurship and the relationship with the competency of complex thinking and some of its sub-competencies. As can be seen, five authors and one institution developed the most important theoretical foundations regarding these topics in the academia. Similarly, it can be seen that the work by Mulgan et al. [40] has served as a reference in the other important works because it is the longest-standing work that develops these topics. However, the role of Ashoka U. [41] stands out as the institution generating the most extensive reference base for the subject domains.

RQ7.

What are the main keywords of the studies, and how are they related?

Figure 8 shows the most relevant keywords used in the papers. As can be seen, the two most relevant terms are Social Entrepreneurship (8) and Social Innovation (3). Critical thinking is the most frequently used keyword concerning the competency or sub-competencies of complex thinking (2).

Figure 9 shows the thematic network of keywords. As can be seen, the most relevant term is social entrepreneurship, which acts as a nodal center. From it, other terms emerge that function as thematic nodes that group other related terms. Regarding the competencies of complex thinking, social entrepreneurship is mainly related to the themes of critical thinking (blue cluster) and creative/innovative thinking (green cluster).

Figure 10 shows the thematic trend from 2013 onwards, a year from which slightly more continuity was given to social entrepreneurship and the competencies of complex thinking or some of its sub-competencies. As can be seen, the works that include the sub-competency of critical thinking have emerged since 2020 and have maintained a slight upward trend to the present day. This is the only competency maintained as a thematic trend in social entrepreneurship work over a period of time.

4. Discussion

The results presented here allow us to verify a previous point, namely that there is a positive trend in the relationship between entrepreneurship and complex thinking, but this relationship remains little explored when talking specifically about social entrepreneurship. Table 5 shows an academic production of 652 publications focused on complex thinking or its sub-competencies and entrepreneurship. However, this is radically limited when examining social entrepreneurship, which only yielded 33 publications, with links such as Scientific Thinking-Social Entrepreneurship, Systemic Thinking-Social Entrepreneurship, and even Complex Thinking-Social Entrepreneurship, where no results were found. This search was carried out in the Scopus and WoS databases, in English and Spanish, without limiting the year or type of publication.

Figure 3 shows that the thematic relationship with the best results is the one that focuses on the link between critical thinking and social entrepreneurship (13 Scopus–12 WoS), followed by innovative thinking and social entrepreneurship (3 Scopus–1 WoS) and creative thinking and social entrepreneurship (3 Scopus–1 WoS). Many of these results correspond to a trend in countries, such as the United States and Canada, where great attention has been paid to the training of critical thinking as a necessary skill in management education, leadership, and entrepreneurship [42]. Thus, the first conclusion of this study verifies that little existing production addresses the relationship between social entrepreneurship and complex thinking and its sub-competencies, thus opening an area of opportunity for studies of this nature in the future.

However, concerning the temporal development of this limited production, Figure 4 shows that the works carried out are relatively new and that this type of study is no more than a few decades old. While the first article with this link was from 2007, it took four years for a second publication on this topic, and it was not until 2013 that a constant positive trend could be seen, reaching its highest production in 2021 with the publication of five documents. It is noteworthy that the growing interest in social entrepreneurship and its relationship with other areas of study and competencies has had a similar trend institutionally. For example, although the Ashoka Organization has been working hard since the 1980s, in the early 2000s, it began paying particular attention to training entrepreneurs in university environments under its Ashoka U proposal [41]. Additionally, with the declaration of the Millennium Development Goals, and later the Sustainable Development Goals, it is clear that there is considerable interest in viable and effective alternatives to address local problems, with social entrepreneurship being a good option [43]. Thus, we note that this interest would lead to studies that link social entrepreneurship with developing competencies and skills in entrepreneurs, including complex thinking and its sub-competencies.

Delving deeper into the text characteristics (Figure 5), it is possible to note that most were published by sources in the United Kingdom (5), a country with a long history of social entrepreneurship and other responsible or conscious companies. Since the 1970s, the notion of social entrepreneurship has been put forth in the United Kingdom [44]. This type of entrepreneurship became particularly relevant in 2000, with the book The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur by Charles Leadbeater [45]. Thus, there is a long history of studies related to training entrepreneurs. However, a positive tendency to publish these notions can be identified in Chinese sources. In the last decade, Chinese universities have paid particular attention to social entrepreneurship and its approach [46]. Another country with a notable trend in the use of the term “social entrepreneurship” is the United States, with various institutional efforts being made, such as those carried out by the Ashoka Organization, the Social Enterprise Alliance, and the Global Alliance for Social Entrepreneurship. Thus, it can be corroborated that the trend in publications linking complex thinking with social entrepreneurship responds to the relevance given to this subject, which is congruent with the academic work carried out in these nations (see it graphically in Figure 6). While countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and China are strengthening academic production linking these competencies, other nations such as India, Australia, Brazil, Spain, Tunisia, and Korea are beginning to show a growing interest in these training trends.

A relevant point to be noted is the authors’ co-citation network, which is notorious because the limited existing production on the subject means that the researchers who work on this relationship are few—they cite the same sources or even each other. Figure 7 shows the challenge and opportunity of studying complex thinking and its relationship with social entrepreneurship processes. While, on the one hand, research must confront the lack of previous studies, on the other hand, the results can be quickly positioned in the academic literature. It is interesting to find that some of these sources are equally relevant in studies on traditional entrepreneurship, or they focus on organizational efforts to promote social entrepreneurship, as with Ashoka U. The graph in Figure 7 is an additional argument for the relevance of further studies on the relationship between social entrepreneurship and complex thinking and its sub-competencies.

Figure 8 identifies how, despite there being so few documents, a series of keywords are repeated in most of them, such as social entrepreneurship (8), social innovation (3), critical thinking (2), employability (2), entrepreneurial intention (2), and phenomenography (2). These keywords let us know more about the approach from which the texts are developed and the profile their authors seek to emphasize. On the one hand, some studies work directly with social entrepreneurship, its development, its impact, and key characteristics, usually published in entrepreneurship and management journals, where attention is paid to critical thinking as a relevant element of all entrepreneurs. On the other hand, some texts focus on the formative process, paying attention to the qualities, characteristics, and styles of social leadership, considering how complex thinking is a very relevant element for the development of entrepreneurs. Educational training, training, and leadership spaces are also considered in entrepreneurial environments.

Finally, following this interest in understanding the focus and objectives of the existing texts, we conducted a thematic mapping analysis (Figure 9) and produced a trend graph (Figure 10). In the thematic map, social innovation is one of the most frequently replicated themes of social entrepreneurship and complex thinking, as well as social awareness, higher education, and transformative education and teaching, showing the trend toward training and developing entrepreneurs. An interest in social entrepreneurship as an alternative to solve local problems can also be noted, with texts focusing on topics such as alternative economies, social economy, agency for change, social activism, social work, and knowledge transfer. Thus, it is noticeable how, thematically, the studies combined social entrepreneurship and complex thinking as commonly relevant tools to address and solve environmental problems.

Figure 10 allows us to visualize the thematic evolution that developed in publications over the last few decades, which began by paying attention to conceptual and argumentative aspects that enabled common elements of the two competencies to be identified, then opening up spaces for studies more focused on formative aspects, which not only point out the possible relationship, but even consider how one and the other interact (intention, critical thinking, compassion and care, and course design).

With these results, it is possible to go beyond the quantitative data and appreciate that, although the relationship between social entrepreneurship and complex thinking has been a relatively little studied topic, it has a sufficient background to project its development in the coming years. The texts published so far are consistent and demonstrate the need for new research that addresses this pair of topics for their relevance in the gestation of entrepreneurship and in the construction of entrepreneurial profiles with better skills to confront the challenges of the environment.

5. Conclusions

This article aimed to present the results of bibliometric research focused on identifying studies that considered the relationship between social entrepreneurship and the competency of complex thinking and its sub-competencies. As noted, the quantitative results show a large area of opportunity for research on this topic, as there are few studies that directly or indirectly work on this link. However, although the data collected are few, this does not prevent the conclusion of relevant findings.

First, although practical elements allow us to appreciate the relationship between complex thinking and social entrepreneurship as competencies that impact the identification and resolution of problems, this has not been translated into formal studies. These are only just beginning to be conducted within academic spaces and can feasibly be published in the coming years, thus allowing us to appreciate the existing opportunity area. Second, we note a very marked tendency for the sources where these studies are placed to be from countries with a prior academic interest in social entrepreneurship, thus indicating a viable route for new research that is being carried out and is in search of a publication platform. However, other countries with universities having valuable experiences in the possible relationship between social entrepreneurship and other competencies, such as complex thinking, can develop their own publication platforms and position themselves internationally on these issues.

The final conclusion relates to the thematic evolution seen in this study, which sheds light on the current state of the research carried out and the need for current and future research. As we can appreciate, there are already studies of a theoretical nature that allow us to understand the academic arguments for the possible relationship between complex thinking and social entrepreneurship. However, what is lacking are experimental studies that delve deeper into this possible link and that consider numerous variables that have not been included and that may be valuable for future implementation by the institutions that train entrepreneurs.

The main limitation of this study is the low number of documents identified and analyzed; however, this is also an area of opportunity, as it shows the vast possibilities that still exist for the study of this topic. While the alternative to extend the study to other more regional or less relevant databases exist, this could be counterproductive in the long run because the objective of this study was based on identifying sources that are setting trends in the academic approach to the subject, and was not to simply list texts that are little known or are of limited impact. Despite these limitations, this study is valuable and sets a benchmark for studying the relationship between social entrepreneurship and complex thinking and its sub-competencies.

Thus, although this is a bibliometric study that is more focused on quantitative identification, it makes visible the various possibilities for the development of future studies that delve deeper into the relationship between social entrepreneurship and complex thinking and their respective sub-competencies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C.V.-P., M.C.-S. and M.C.-A.; methodology, M.C.-S.; software, M.C.-S.; validation, J.C.V.-P. and M.C.-A.; formal analysis, J.C.V.-P., M.C.-S. and M.C.-A.; investigation, J.C.V.-P. and M.C.-S.; resources, J.C.V.-P. and M.C.-A.; data curation, M.C.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C.V.-P., M.C.-S. and M.C.-A.; writing—review and editing, J.C.V.-P., M.C.-S. and M.C.-A.; visualization, M.C.-S.; supervision, J.C.V.-P. and M.C.-A.; project administration, J.C.V.-P.; funding acquisition, J.C.V.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is a product of the project “EduToolkit: innovation with artificial intelligence for the development of social entrepreneurship, innovation and complex thinking skills”, with funding from NOVUS 2021 and 2022. Fund ID 206 and 268.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This paper has been reviewed by WritingLab at the Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, and has been approved for publication.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The support of the Tecnologico de Monterrey for educational innovation projects is appreciated (Agreement: Novus 2022). The authors acknowledge the financial and technical support of Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in producing this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Tobón, S. Formación Integral y Competencias. Pensamiento Complejo, Currículo, Didáctiva y Evaluación; ECOE Edici.: Bogotá, Colombia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Silva Pacheco, C.; Iturra Herrera, C. A Conceptual Proposal and Operational Definitions of the Cognitive Processes of Complex Thinking. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021, 39, 100794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R 2022; RStudio Team: Boston, MA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tobón, S.; Luna-Nemecio, J. Complex Thinking and Sustainable Social Development: Validity and Reliability of the COMPLEX-21 Scale. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Morin, E. Introducción Al Pensamiento Complejo; GEDISA, Ed.: Ciudad de México, México, 1990. Available online: https://www.trabajosocial.unlp.edu.ar/uploads/docs/morin___introduccion_al_pensamiento_complejo.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2022).
Drucker, J. Sustainability and Complexity: Knowledge and Authority in the Digital Humanities. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 2021, 36, ii86–ii94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Koerber, S.; Osterhaus, C. Individual Differences in Early Scientific Thinking: Assessment, Cognitive Influences, and Their Relevance for Science Learning. J. Cogn. Dev. 2019, 20, 510–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cruz-Sandoval, M.; Vázquez-Parra, J.C.; Carlos-Arroyo, M.; Amézquita-Zamora, J.A. Student Perception of the Level of Development of Complex Thinking: An Approach Involving University Women in Mexico. J. Latinos Educ. 2022, in press.
Cruz-Sandoval, M.; Vázquez-Parra, J.C.; Alonso-Galicia, P.E. Student Perception of Competencies and Skills for Social Entrepreneurship in Complex Environments: An Approach with Mexican University Students. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jaaron, A.A.M.; Backhouse, C.J. Operationalisation of Service Innovation: A Systems Thinking Approach. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 38, 561–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cui, L.; Zhu, Y.; Qu, J.; Tie, L.; Wang, Z.; Qu, B. Psychometric Properties of the Critical Thinking Disposition Assessment Test amongst Medical Students in China: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Med. Educ. 2021, 21, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Suryansyah, S.A.; Kastolani, W.; Somantri, L. Scientific Thinking Skills in Solving Global Warming Problems. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 683, 012025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zhou, Q. RETRACTED: Development of Creative Thinking Skills through Aesthetic Creativity in Middle School Educational Music Course. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021, 40, 100825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
García-González, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S. Systematic Mapping of Scientific Production on Open Innovation (2015–2018): Opportunities for Sustainable Training Environments. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Bublitz, M.G.; Chaplin, L.N.; Peracchio, L.A.; Cermin, A.D.; Dida, M.; Escalas, J.E.; Eilert, M.; Gloukhovtsev, A.; Miller, E.G. Rise Up: Understanding Youth Social Entrepreneurs and Their Ecosystems. J. Public Policy Mark. 2021, 40, 206–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
García-González, A.; Ramirez-Montoya, M.S.; de León, G.; Aragón, S. Social Entrepreneurship as a Transversal Competency: Construction and Validation of an Assessment Instrument in the University Context. Rev. Estud. Coop. 2021, 136, e71862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tecnologico de Monterrey. Competencias Transversales Tec21; Tecnologico de Monterrey: Monterrey, Mexico, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Vázquez-Parra, J.C.; Cruz-Sandoval, M.; Sotelo, C.; Sotelo, D.; Carlos-Arroyo, M.; Welti-Chanes, J. Social Entrepreneurship and Its Impact on the Development of Complex Thinking Skills. An Exploratory Proposal for Educational Innovation. Innov. High. Educ. 2022, in press.
García-González, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Social Entrepreneurship Education: Changemaker Training at the University. High. Educ. Ski. Work. Learn. 2021, 11, 1236–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Pattnaik, D. Forty-Five Years of Journal of Business Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moral-Muñoz, J.A.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Santisteban-Espejo, A.; Cobo, M.J. Software Tools for Conducting Bibliometric Analysis in Science: An up-to-Date Review. Prof. Inf. 2020, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Goyal, K.; Kumar, S. Financial Literacy: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 45, 80–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gaviria-Marin, M.; Merigó, J.M.; Baier-Fuentes, H. Knowledge Management: A Global Examination Based on Bibliometric Analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 140, 194–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forliano, C.; De Bernardi, P.; Yahiaoui, D. Entrepreneurial Universities: A Bibliometric Analysis within the Business and Management Domains. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 165, 120522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ye, G.; Hudders, L.; De Jans, S.; De Veirman, M. The Value of Influencer Marketing for Business: A Bibliometric Analysis and Managerial Implications. J. Advert. 2021, 50, 160–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cebral-Loureda, M.; Tamés-Muñoz, E.; Hernández-Baqueiro, A. The Fertility of a Concept: A Bibliometric Review of Human Flourishing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wang, P.; Tian, D. Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Research on COVID-19. J. Biosaf. Biosecur. 2021, 3, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Urbizagastegui, R. A Bibliometria Brasileira e o Modelo de Difusao de Inovacoes. Cienc. Inf. 2021, 50. Available online: https://revista.ibict.br/ciinf/article/view/5231 (accessed on 15 May 2022).
Paz Enrique, L.E.; Ponjuán Dante, G. Sociología Del Conocimiento, Teoría de Los Campos y Bibliometría. Telos Rev. Estud. Interdiscip. Cienc. Soc. 2022, 24, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kroll, J.; Richardson, I.; Prikladnicki, R.; Audy, J.L.N. Empirical Evidence in Follow the Sun Software Development: A Systematic Mapping Study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2018, 93, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
García-Peñalvo, J.F. Mapeos Sistemáticos de Literatura, Revisiones Sistemáticas de Literatura y Benchmarking de Programas Formativos. Available online: https://repositorio.grial.eu/bitstream/grial/1056/3/Mapping.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).
Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Alonso-García, S.; Aznar-Díaz, I.; Cáceres-Reche, M.-P.; Trujillo-Torres, J.-M.; Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. Systematic Review of Good Teaching Practices with ICT in Spanish Higher Education. Trends and Challenges for Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Kitchenham, B.; Pretorius, R.; Budgen, D.; Pearl Brereton, O.; Turner, M.; Niazi, M.; Linkman, S. Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering—A Tertiary Study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2010, 52, 792–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Radu, V.; Radu, F.; Tabirca, A.I.; Saplacan, S.I.; Lile, R. Bibliometric Analysis of Fuzzy Logic Research in International Scientific Databases. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2021, 16, 4120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 10, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mulgan, G.; Tucker, S.; Ali, R.; Sanders, B. Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated; University of Oxford, Young Foundation: London, UK, 2007; pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
Ashoka Emprendimiento Social. Available online: https://www.ashoka.org/es-mx/focus/social-entrepreneurship (accessed on 19 July 2022).
Baldoni, J. How Leaders Should Think Critically. Harvard Business Review. Available online: https://hbr.org/2010/01/how-leaders-should-think-criti (accessed on 30 June 2022).
WEF. How Collaborations with Social Entrepreneurs Are Helping to Make the SDGs a Reality. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/how-collaborations-with-social-entrepreneurs-are-accelerating-change-and-sdgs (accessed on 30 June 2022).
Banks, L. The Sociology of Social Movements; MacMillan: London, UK, 1972. [Google Scholar]
Leadbeater, C. The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur; Demos: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
Yu, L. The Emergence of Social Entrepreneurs in China. J. Int. Counc. Small Bus. 2020, 1, 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Prisma Protocol Stages. Created by the authors inspired on the work by Alonso-García et al. [35] and Page et al. [39].

Figure 2. PRISMA review phases. Created by the authors.

Figure 3. Original search by social entrepreneurship in Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). Created by the authors.

Figure 4. Annual scientific production. Created by the authors.

Figure 5. Authors, country, and knowledge area. Created by the authors with Bibliometrix [5].

Figure 6. Scientific Production by country. Created by the authors with Bibliometrix [5].

Figure 7. Intellectual structure. Created by the authors.

Figure 8. Keywords. Created by the authors with Bibliometrix [5].

Figure 9. Thematic map. Created by the authors with Bibliometrix [5].

Figure 10. Topic trend. Created by the authors with Bibliometrix [5].