Позитивные изменения. Том 2, № 3 (2022). Positive changes. Volume 2, Issue 3 (2022)

4. Social entrepreneurs from Belarus mostly rate the image of a social entrepreneur in their country as “weak”. They give the lowest scores (compared to other respondents) to their country on factor 1 (“An effective entrepreneur creating social value, offering an innovative solution to a social problem with the support of foundations, investors, and the public”), and the highest for factor 4 (“Not supported by the state and the church”). But they also describe the image of a social entrepreneur in their home country as not fitting strongly with the description “More of a commercial rather than social entrepreneur, an unsuccessful businessman; a loner, working without a team” than respondents from other countries.

5. Among the CIS countries that participated in the study, Russian respondents are more positive about the image of a social entrepreneur in their country than respondents from Belarus and Kazakhstan assessing the situation in their respective home countries (this is especially evident in the analysis of factors 1 and 4).

6. In general, respondents from Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have similar views on the image of a social entrepreneur in relation to each of the objects: their home country, the United States and the “perfect country.” The respondents had different views (especially when evaluating their home countries) with respect to the property “More of a commercial rather than social entrepreneur, an unsuccessful businessman; a loner, working without a team.” “More social” is the image of a social entrepreneur in their home country, according to Belarusian respondents. “More commercial” is the image of a social entrepreneur in Kazakhstan, according to Kazakh respondents.

7. Social entrepreneurs from all three countries tend to attribute the characteristic “Not supported by the state and the church” to the image of a social entrepreneur in their home country and other CIS countries (Russia for Kazakhstan and Belarus, and Kazakhstan for Russia). Conversely, “Supported by the state and the church” for social entrepreneurs in the U. S. and “under perfect conditions.”

8. Social entrepreneurs from the three countries tend to attribute the property “Dependent on outside funding, weak business, not supported by the state and society, unhappy person” to the image of a social entrepreneur in their home country and other CIS countries (Russia for Kazakhstan and Belarus, and Kazakhstan for Russia). The opposite is attributed to the image of social entrepreneurs in the United States and entrepreneurs “under perfect conditions.”

APPENDIX 1. EXAMPLE OF A QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

Dear ______,

You are invited to participate in a public opinion survey on social entrepreneurship in different countries.

Please rate (on a scale from 0 to 5) the extent to which, in your opinion, a particular statement is typical of a social entrepreneur in each of the countries listed below. Place ‘5’ in the respective cell if the quality is expressed to the maximum extent, 0 if the opposite is expressed to the maximum extent. Use ratings 1, 2, 3, 4 to mark values in-between.

Answers are anonymous, but your opinion will describe a holistic picture of the public attitude towards social entrepreneurship in the world.

Thank you very much for your participation!

REFERENCES

1. Mitina, O. V. & Petrenko, V. F. (2000). A Cross-Cultural Study of Stereotypes of Female Behavior (in Russia and the United States). “Voprosy Psychologii” journal, 1, p.68–86. (In Russian).

2. Petrenko, V. F. (2005). Psychosemantic aspects of the subject’s world picture. Psychology. Higher School of Economics Journal, 2(2), p.3–23. (In Russian).

3. Petrenko, V. F. (2005). Fundamentals of Psychosemantics. Saint-Petersburg: Piter Publishing House. (In Russian).

4. Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. (1954). Person perception. Handbook of social psychology, 2, 634–654.

5. Kelly, G. (1955). Personal construct psychology. Nueva York: Norton.

6. Moscovici S. et al. (1981). On social representations.

In social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding, 8(12), 181–209.