Introduction

Social entrepreneurship is deemed important in alleviating both economic and social problems worldwide. Numerous recorded change-making attempts, from local context until global context, have raised our interest within this area (Poland, 2011; Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, 2018). Needless to say that the awareness of the concept of empowerment has also purportedly being translated into action by some people who has eagerness in not only develop themselves but also other people. Nevertheless, there is paucity within the literatures and the application, as well as the impact measurements (Mort et al., 2002). Research regarding social value creation (Jespersen, 2001) that are motored by female social entrepreneur, is very limited.

In Indonesia, several social entrepreneurs have already being awarded and recognized by social entrepreneurships practitioners worldwide for their ability to tackle problems within their surroundings. However, their initiatives have not being depicted well in academic literatures. Many of them, even though sometimes constricted by the social structures, are female. Moreover, since in this country’s majority of the kinship structures are patriarchal, female struggles were still ostracized and belittled. On the other hand, several reports on their attempts to help others has already recognized as another social movements which should be seen as their portion in empowering others.

According to Indonesia Central Bureau of Statistics, from around 250 million citizens, more than 27 million were in an impoverished condition (BPS, 2017). According to the Community-Based Welfare Monitoring Survey (SPKBK), more than half that are on the lowest income are households that were headed by female or put female as the main earner of the family. This figure shows that these female were facing numerous hardships due to their current condition. It needed to be stated that several conditions has put these female into a destitutions circumstances. For example, Indonesia Marriage Law no 1 year 1974, which stated that females are not recognized as household head. Even though they have become household head due to several reasons namely the passed away of their husband, divorce, polygamous husband, etc., the law cannot ensure much to protect these females need.

The consequences follow as they were having a hard time to access several important things such as access to get marriage certificate or divorce certificate, access to health, economic, and other important things. It is almost impossible for them to gain decent income by working outside their houses in standard working hours, while they are also constricted by the conditions such as having several children or need to take care of their sick family members, as well as illiteracy that apparently hindered them gaining decent work, such as in the factory or in a company. If we try to relate with the data from Ecosysteme (Danone, 2017), from around 7 billion people that currently live all over the world, more than half live in poverty and 70% of them are female. This is quite aligning with the data of Indonesia Central Bureau of Statistics. It is stated that from around 250 million citizens, more than 27 million were in an impoverished condition (BPS, 2017).

However, despite many female were being underrepresented, several others shows their potential and do help other through the empowerment initiative. In order to accommodate the social needs and problems that need to be tackled seriously, these female social entrepreneurs even change their purely-profit oriented business focus and target into a hybrid enterprise or social enterprises by also doing some empowerment. These gestures are seen as social entrepreneurship, which is about channeling entrepreneurial activity towards solving social problems (Corner & Ho, 2010).

Based on the huge number of female that can be seen as untapped potentials, we see this as a major opportunity to practice the social entrepreneurship where they may apply both social and economic enterprises through empowerment process. Thus, this research aim is to give clear understanding on the process of finding several points that were used to build initial construct for the model. This model was built by using deductive approach through integrative literature reviews as well as inductive approach based on the grounded research. This model was built by using deductive approach through integrative literature reviews. Meanwhile since it is imperative to see this measures be taken seriously by keeping a close observation, authors do the grounded approach. This is done in order to understand how the implementation was actually happen at the grassroots level. Therefore, it may give more robust details in developing the conceptual model by using mixed method

Literature Review

There are several constructs, which are deemed important in understanding why female social entrepreneur’s role is very important in creating social value and why the title of this paper stated that this is a movement. These females social enterprises is one of their means to meets the end, one of it is to empower people on their surroundings. The first construct that we will discuss more based on our deductive process is the female position and the condition in society. This is one of the reasons why authors choose to use the term female rather than woman and how are they are being depicted as individual or part of the society. The second one is Entrepreneurship and their activities related with the livelihood of most of these females since generally, most of female in Indonesia is taking part as an entrepreneur, either as the owner or even the main enabler of how their enterprise could be initiated. The next one is the concept of Female Social Entrepreneur that shows how are these female try to break the barriers, which have entailed their position in society for so long. By understanding their traits and motives, it gives us an understanding on why these female are seen fit to be a social entrepreneur. The next construct and one of the main focuses of the important point is social innovation that interdependent with these females’ social enterprises. This can be seen as the main focus of this research where through this means these female are able to create social values.

Related with the term female and woman, there are few notions that differentiating sex and gender. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, sex is either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.

Many believe that the distinction between sex and gender were demarcated by society. Sex is based on the birth right and anatomical given by God, whereas gender is the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex. Ann Oakley was the first to distinguish between the concept of sex and gender in 1972. In her book, she refers sex to differences on the basis of biological characteristics, while gender is a symbolic or social difference that stems from gender differences. She stated that “Sex is a word that refers to the biological differences between male and female which is shows by the genitalia and procreative differences”. On the other side, gender is a matter of culture where according to Oakley (1985) comprised into two, either masculine or feminine. Therefore, it may be concluded that gender is defined as a social construction or attribute imposed on humans, which is built by culture. Related with epistemological context where in return there are certain pressures for female to perform, one of the pressures came from the outgoing trends in the global female studies where they need to work or create things to be acknowledged.

Despite their ability to position themselves in the organization successfully, they were still trapped by male-culture (Kelley et al., 2012; Ortner, 1974). By the differentiation of sex and gender, even though it is seen as a western concept, these phenomena are also happening in patriarchal countries. One of many countries that are considered as having a patriarchal society is Indonesia, where countless conditions in which female became subjugated are shown. Patriarchal countries, such as Indonesia, consist of many ethnic variations in which influences each other depend on the cultural background (Beecher, n.d.).

Culture is taking a great deal of positions, not to mention Indonesia’s religious majority, which cannot be separated from the day-to-day activities as well as local wisdom. It is strongly believed that vested culture of Indonesia and diverse demographic which in some part is quite paternalistic, gives female barriers to pursue their career path.

Nevertheless, the government realized that there are practices of gender stereotyping within the social and economical system in Indonesia. Therefore, according to Outlines of State Policy (GBHN) 1999, Law no. 25 year 2000 on the National Development Program-PROPENAS 2000-2004, and reinforced in Presidential Instruction No. 9 of 2000 on Gender Mainstreaming (PUG) in National Development, stated that gender mainstreaming is one of the strategies to achieve justice and gender equality. The government's commitment to create justice and gender equality is also seen in the International Context, which has ratified the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which is a convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women in 1984 and stipulated in Law Number 7 year 1984.

Even as the abovementioned measures have been taken, there are certain studies that still stated the importance of gender mainstreaming as part of the awareness programs since it still lacked in the implementation. Several research within health and economic shows the importance of female’s role as well as female’s empowerment. Therefore, as one of the strategies in solving this problem is to continuously improve empowerment and gender equality by doing promotion that reaches the family unit. The strategies include improving education, improving maternal and child health facilities, and increasing access to health services. This is only one of many examples of implementations that are pursued by the government. Currently the issue of gender equality in Indonesia is contained in the vision of long-term national development 2005- 2025, to create an independent, progressive, just and prosperous Indonesia.

As related with the sex and gender, the analysis in this research will be directed at female’s interpersonal, social, or relational self that depends on connections between people (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Baumeister, 1998). The relational self can operate automatically to accommodate people in the particular social context (Chen et al., 2006). In here, female saw the concept of themselves as competent individuals who have potential to do more, both for themselves and for society.

The next important thing is the concept of entrepreneurship where becomes one of the main source of livelihood by the majority of female in Indonesia. Due to Indonesia’s social structure, there are two main options that most female choose, whether to become a housewife or work in a professional basis. However, due to the needs and problems in the fields there is another option to comprise both. It may be seen from the preference of become an entrepreneur. Few researches mentioned about male-dominant environment and traits shows that female need to perform harder in order to achieve success.

The abovementioned contexts, also related with epistemological context where in return there are certain pressures for them to perform. One of the pressures came from the outgoing trends in the global female studies where they need to work or create things to be acknowledged. It is strongly believed that vested culture of Indonesia and diverse demographic which in some part is quite paternalistic, gives female barriers to pursue their career path (Hakim, 1995).

Related with the above research, there are 2 (two) types of female entrepreneurs by means of motives (Morris et al., 2015; Zott et al., 2011). The first one is entrepreneur by passion and the second one is entrepreneur by conditions. Most businessperson that falls into the first category is the one that already has aspiration to become an entrepreneur, which may be influenced by demographic, role model, culture counterpart (Wennekers et al., 2005) and economic characteristics that formed individual preferences (Tosun, 2003). On the opposite, entrepreneurs by condition are businesspersons that did not have any background that lead them into entrepreneurial path. They are forced into entrepreneurship because they have no other options (Shane et al., 2003a). The conditions here are the one that listed as reasons why they choose this path; it may because those people did not have certain capabilities and education (Sökjer-petersen & Thorssell, 2012) or skills to perform in working condition.

Other reasons shows that it may be difficult for them to earn income outside their house in order to have a balance life between work and family (Brush & Welter, 2010; Demartino & Barbato, 2003; Hughes et al., 2012; Shane et al., 2003b). Other studies demonstrate that familyrelated factors at the household level, such as motherhood and spousal self-employment as well as family-oriented initiatives at the state level, such as childcare and maternity leave policies (Tonoyan et al., 2010), impact the likelihood that female will pursue self-employment

These findings also supported by research by Buttner and Moore (1997) that differentiate between traditional and modern female entrepreneurs. A comparative study of sexes shows that usually female started to become an entrepreneur after completed their family obligations (Robichaud et al., 2007; Trihopoulou & Sarri, 1997). Moreover, a resource-pulling female talent is quite vital (Baughn et al., 2006) in entrepreneurship, since they can be expected to make a change.

Related with the option to create their own business or enterprise, according to Ajzen (1991), entrepreneurship is an attitude that may reflect motivation and ability to identify opportunities and to generate new values for an economic success. Entrepreneurship is often suggested as a breakthrough to overcome poverty (United Nations, 2012) and considered as process of cultural innovation. Nevertheless, the definition and concept that author derived is from aiming for development through innovation (Doepke & Zilibotti, 2014; Mulgan, 2006) Align with it, Schumpeter stated that entrepreneurs are a change agent whereas Drucker sees them as canny and committed exploiters of change. So, the concept of entrepreneurship may be used as one of the solution to tackle both economical and societal problems in Indonesia and may be used as one of the medium to solve the dependency that has become such issues.

Entrepreneurship is often suggested as a breakthrough to overcome poverty (Kelley et al., 2012; Ortner, 1974) and considered as process of cultural innovation (Corner & Ho, 2010). Despite their ability to position themselves in the organization successfully, females were still trapped by male-culture where they need to perform harder to be acknowledged (Newth & Woods, 2014). Indonesia’s social structure, too, has limited female’s attempt to perform and put options to whether become a housewife or work in a professional basis. Females have seen the concept of themselves as competent individuals who have potential to do more, both for them and for the society. There are multiple reasons that have driven female motivation to involve in social entrepreneurship.

While conventional entrepreneurship is primarily concerned with discovering and exploiting business opportunities (Newth & Woods, 2014), social entrepreneurship is about channeling entrepreneurial activity towards solving social problems (Kim & Puri, 2005). It is then creating new dichotomy in social senses other than merely creating economic value (Mort et al., 2002). There are several points that may be able to help us to understand core motives for females’ involvement social entrepreneurship, which are belonging; understanding; controlling; enhancing self; and trust as a form of social intelligence (Mort et al., 2002).

The above theory regarding the female motives and traits are one of the major drives on why female interested in doing social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is often based on ethical motives and moral responsibility (Fiske, 2000), thus the motives for social entrepreneurship can also include less altruistic reasons such as personal fulfilment. Secondly, and more importantly, entrepreneurship in the business sector also has social aspects. This aspect may give female alternatives in order to self-actualizing by helping other people to fulfil their self-need.

Many empirical researches already stated the differences of male entrepreneurship compared to those performed by female. They consistently emphasize non-monetary entrepreneurial motivations (Fiske, 2000), while on the other hand, male shown that they are more likely to pursue traditional economic entrepreneurial activity than females. In other words, females businesses in terms of success are less fruitful compared to those who were initiated by male (Thurik, 2008). Females are more likely to engage in social and environmental entrepreneurial activity than males. Thus, females are more aligned with social rather than economic goals.

Different with the entrepreneurship concept, several scholars agree that in order to define the word “social” in front of social entrepreneurship, one’s must embark from the definition of entrepreneurship itself. While conventional entrepreneurship is primarily concerned with discovering and exploiting business opportunities (Certo & Miller, 2008), social entrepreneurship is about channelling entrepreneurial activity towards solving social problems (Corner and Ho, 2010). The word “social” itself are not merely prefix that is put in front of the word entrepreneurship since the aim of it is not only business profit but also social benefit. Nevertheless, the term social entrepreneurship shows an amount of high degree of understanding human behaviors (Macionis, 2005). It is then creating new dichotomy in social senses other than creating economic value (Bruni et al., 2004; Dees & Anderson, 2003) that the one that should be measured are the intangible benefits.

Thus, it leads to value capture which leads to sustainable solutions (Baker and Nelson, 2005), since the main difference of social enterprise and business enterprise lies within the wealth creation. Social entrepreneurship relies on social wealth creation without ignoring the “earned income”. There are diverse definition on the term, for example as a process of creating value (Schumpeter in Drejer, 2004) by combining resources in new ways and combine resources to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change (Alvord et al., 2002) or meeting social needs. Social entrepreneurship as a process need to be viewed and involved the offering of services and products. It also has to refer to the creation of new organizations. Based on the condition, we need to look back to the supply and demand side of the social needs.

In order to have the same definition of social innovation, authors chose to use the definition by Pol and Ville (2009) who stated that “an innovation is termed a social innovation if the implied new idea has the potential to improve either the quality or the quantity of life”. According to Peredo and McLean (2005) there are some agreement among observers on two aspects, the pressure to innovate and being part-and-parcel of social entrepreneurship. The above points is also emphasized by Chell (2007) who observe that ‘social enterprises seek business solutions to social problems and in order to do so it is necessary for social enterprises to foster innovation’. It can be seen here that they social entrepreneur need to come up with new idea in order to tackle the problems in their surroundings.

Nicholls (2010) defines social entrepreneurship as ‘innovative and effective activities that focus on resolving social market failures and creating opportunities to add social value systematically by using a range of organizational formats to maximize social impact and bring about change’.

According to Brandon and Lombardi in Ihuah & Eaton (2013) there are 10 types of social innovation, namely socio-juridical; socio-cultural; socio-political; socio-ideological; socioethical; socio-economical; socio-organizational; socio-technical; socio-ecological; and socioanalytical. These mentioned innovations were seen as the most adaptive typology of social innovation, which apparently aligns with several other types of innovation that is seen in the field.

Therefore, it is also important for these female to restructure their profit-oriented business using social enterprise business model, which can be used as the platform to be replicated by other researcher. Tuan et al. (2015) also distinguish six generic elements of a business model namely the mission; structures; processes; revenues; legal issues; and technology. In order to depict these issues is by creating certain model. One of the main concepts that widely used is the social entrepreneurship business canvas model. According to several researches “business models” are needed. Nonetheless, it is rarely studied in order to define how and where organizations create “value” (Auerswald, 2009; Mair & Schoen, 2007). Therefore, further research is also needed to shows its relations towards the social value creation. Since, in order to create sustainability, social enterprise also needs to be sustained to, both in terms of sustainable development as well as sustainable growth.

The Innovation School of thought is one of the streams that focus on the social entrepreneurs as individuals who tackle social problems and meet social needs in an innovative manner. According to one recent examination, “The school is focused on establishing new and better ways to address social problems or meet social needs” (Dees & Anderson, 2003). Revenue generating is truly emphasized thus it is also clear that changes in public funding of the third sector played an important role in shaping new attitudes and strategies. Nevertheless, commercial income needs to be increased significantly. Social entrepreneurs are defined as change makers as they carry out “new combinations” in at least one the following ways: new services, new quality of services, new methods of production, new production factors, new forms of organizations or new markets. Social entrepreneurship can therefore be more about outcomes and social impact than about incomes. Other factors of revenue, replicability and scalability are desirable, but not mandatory for their development.

Even though most innovation is directly associated with technology, several researches have already defined it as being widely accepted in the social sciences research. In relation with it, (Hoogendoorn et al., 2010; Thurik, 2008) observed that ‘social enterprises seek business solutions to social problems and in order to do so, it is necessary for social enterprises to foster innovation. It can be seen here that they social entrepreneur need to come up with new idea in order to tackle the problems in their surroundings. (Brush & Welter, 2010) defines social entrepreneurship as ‘innovative and effective activities that focus on resolving social market failures and creating opportunities to add social value systematically by using a range of organizational formats to maximize social impact.

There is some consensus that the creation of social value is central to both social innovation and social entrepreneurship (Tuan et al., 2015). The primary objective of social enterprises is “mission-related impact” rather than profitability per se (Tuan et al., 2015). Therefore, in this point there are several social values that will be broke down in three major concepts, namely social empowerment, social benefit, and sustainability.

Research Methodology

The method that we used took into few steps of process. The first process was deductive approach where literature was reviewed regarding female, entrepreneurship, and social entrepreneurship. In order to capture the phenomenon and categorize it into a more fitting context-based story, some preliminary quantitative surveys and do theoretical sampling was done. The online questionnaires were distributed among 100 female entrepreneurs across Indonesia.

The next step was the aim to find out which informants already changed their profit oriented businesses into social enterprises, or even has already initiate their businesses to be a social enterprise from the first place. Based on the theoretical sampling, literature reviews, and observation, in regards with the limitations, there were 6 female social entrepreneurs that fit as the key informants. The data was collected through literature studies, in-depth interview, observation, and focus group discussion (Tuan et al., 2015) is also implemented.

By using mixed methodology, this research found out how social innovation bring female social entrepreneurship in creating social values by using several case studies. We did some observation on their social enterprises and their surroundings to find out their problems. Desk reviews on their secondary data is also seen as important in order to find out their kinds of innovation as well as their growth. Based on those data, we also done several interviews as well as triangulations by applying constant comparative checking.

The next part was data analysis process, which consists of 3 phases (Dees, 2007). In the open coding forms were coded of categorization about the phenomenon by segmenting information. Within each category, we found several properties or sub categories and looks for data to dimensionalised or shown the extreme possibilities on a continuum or the property (Creswell, 2007). In the Axial Coding investigate the data and try to understand them into each part of concept. It was presented by using a coding paradigm or logic diagram that identifies central phenomenon and finds out the proper strategies in identifying context. The last part was selective coding where story line was identified and wrote a story that integrates the categories in the axial coding model.

The next process was followed by triangulations where existing empirical condition was built based on the gathered data both from the literatures as well as data gathered from the field.

Results And Discussion

According to several in-depth interviews and observations, there are several things that become the main starting points on why female creates social enterprises. Some are moved because they have seen social and economical problems around them, and some are moved by their own conditions and then led to the need to empower others. This is also align with the literatures of push and pull factors. Nevertheless, some are seen to be able to capture the social and economic phenomenon around them and create an enterprise as a catalyst for changes.

Below are fragments based on the interviews regarding the social and economical problems:

1. I live in cimahi (one of the city near one of the capital provinces in Indonesia), and I always observe that every weekends there are small children and teenager wearing punk outfit. They live in a slum area. So I kept thinking what can we contribute for them? (Informant 1).

2. When I first met them, I feel that this is quite impactful. We are females, we are on the same age, and Lembang is not very far from Bandung (capital of West Java province in Indonesia). But I compare options that I have with them. I can graduate and get job offers, my friends can continue pursue her master degree or open businesses. We have got a lot of options. Apparently options that they had did not as plenty as we had. (Informant 4).

3. I like working in something that I know will brought impact, and what I did now, I believe has create some opportunity for other people, and I am thrilled when I know I made progress. I am glad that I still got a chance to gain input and able to fix it. (Informant 2).

4. There are a lot of former female inmates. This is the problem. Government and private company won’t help. Who knows that they already learn from their mistakes? Or they only trapped in those conditions? But no one would give them second-chances (informant 5).

Below are several fragments shows their needs to help others are also based on faith or religious beliefs, which is related with these female’s motivation:

1. There is this hadith, if you have problems go help the orphan. It’s just that simple. I think grateful is doing what I have, so what I have now is my social enterprise. Knowledge when it is applied will be rewarded by goodness (Informant 1).

2. If we help people, Allah will help us. By helping we get both margin, in this world and in the afterlife (Informant 2).

3. In front of Allah, the one that will be respected is the piety. Good suggestion will lead to good acts, and I believe we will be awarded for it (Informant 3).

Below are several fragments regarding their enterprises management and funding, as well as innovation that lead fragments that show empowerment; social benefit; as well as sustainability.

1. Maybe this is one of my weaknesses, but I don't want to ask for donations. We can [still] use our own resources. We need to make sure that our enterprise can withhold every obstacles and challenges. (Informant 1)

2. So we don't have to necessarily accept everything, but we may be able to utilize things that we have, but we always need to find something new, we have to strive in order to provide and give back to the society. (Informant 6)

3. At first, we got help from several institutions, not only in terms of money but also training and coaching. But in the end, we try to struggle and educate others to use the resources that we have. Thank God we survive and able to expand our enterprise. (Informant 3)

Below are the model shows that according to the deductive process, there are three main constructs that are interdependent. However, it was found that a more comprehensive data based on grounded research that are purportedly being translated into several important dimension resulted from the social entrepreneurship process that depicting female as their main orchestrator.

This conceptual framework was built from the literature review that can be seen from Figure 1 in the upper box based on the importance of social innovation to create social values. Meanwhile, the current condition of female social entrepreneurs in Indonesia can be seen from the lower box. Based on the deductive process, several papers stated that entrepreneurship is considered to be one of the important activities to break the chain of poverty (Naudé et al., 2011). Unfortunately, those who are performed by female are still considered to be unnoticed since they are merely seen as the helper of main actors of entrepreneurship and rarely seen as the main actor (Kim & Puri, 2005). Many literatures focus on the differences between male and female entrepreneurship.

Meanwhile, they rarely discuss the importance of social innovation in influencing dynamic social values to solve social problems (Kim & Puri, 2005). Even though it is already stated that social innovation does create more social values within the society compared to conventional or traditional innovation. Therefore, there is huge needs to make the process of entrepreneurship become more meaningful rather than searching for profit only (Kim & Puri, 2005). Thus, it can be attained through social entrepreneurship.

The lower box framework is generated from the collected inductive or grounded research. According to data processed from the questionnaires, most female are not aware that what they are doing is considered as social entrepreneurship. Based on 100 questionnaires, 90 females stated that they just wanted to do something good, so they are including people in needs and try to empower them. Therefore, some of them did not understand the term social entrepreneurship. They are mostly intended to use their business to help and empower other people. Based on our findings of questionnaires and in-depth interviews, female who are considered as social entrepreneur will try to orchestrate a social innovation in order to create social values. These three points (female social entrepreneur, social innovation, and social value creation) are interdependent.

Based on the coding process, there are three main points that are listed as the main dimension generated from the social entrepreneurship activities. Aligned with what was received in the questionnaires, based on several in-depth interviews and observations, there are several things that become the main starting points on why female creates social enterprises. Some are moved because they had social and economic problems around them, and others are moved since their own conditions push them to do these entrepreneurial activities, which then led to their need and desire to empower other people as well. They focus more to the social benefit rather than financial profit.

We found that they also focuses on the sustainability of their business after they have felt that their business impactful. This is proven since they felt and see that they have empowered people on their surrounding and provide social benefit to those people. Most female social entrepreneur struggles to not only empower people in their surroundings or people who are facing difficulties, but also try to provide social benefits for them.

These processes are also interdependent with the sustainable business in order to guarantee the future of their social enterprise. It can be seen from the existing empirical condition of female social entrepreneurs. The social innovation leads to more dynamic social values that are being purportedly translated into initiatives to develop the society, which then created a more sustainable condition for all the stakeholders. Thus, there are need to develop female social entrepreneurs and capture problems within their surroundings. One of the main findings from this research is they are using feminine management style which is tend to be more assertive and nurturing in trying to empower their surroundings.

Limitations And Implications

Even though we have tried to perform the mixed-method, there are plenty of limitations that we faced. One of it is the limitation in the number of case studies that we focus on and time limitations. Therefore, we encourage further research that can capture broader scope of area of observation and probably can be deepened into a more quantitative study to give insights on how many social enterprises that are initiated by females, what kind of impacts that they have achieved, and probably measurement on the social return of investment of the empowerment process.

The implication of this research is the suggestion to create social replication platform, in which female social entrepreneurs can be actively engaged to create sustainable concept of social entrepreneurship thoroughly. Based on our inductive research there should be different treatment and activities that aimed to be applied in a very diverse local culture such as Indonesia. It should also proceed based on preliminary social mapping and approach as well.

References

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
2. Alvord, S.H., Brown, L.D.D., & Letts, C.W. (2002). Social entrepreneurship and social transformation: An exploratory study. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1, 1-26.
3. Andersen, S.M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological REview, 109(4), 619.
4. Auerswald, P. (2009). Creating social value by philip auerswald stanford social innovation review. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 49-55.
5. Baumeister, R.F. (2002). Ego depletion and self-control failure: An energy model of the self's executive function. Self and Identity, 1(2), 129-136.
6. Bruni, A., Gherardi, S., & Poggio, B. (2004). Entrepreneur‐mentality, gender and the study of women entrepreneurs. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(3), 256-268.
7. Brush, C., & Welter, F. (2010). Gender embeddedness of women entrepreneurs : An empirical test of the 5 M Framework (Summary). Frontier of Entrepreneurship Research, 30(8).
8. Buttner, H.E., & Moore, D.P. (1997). Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: Self-reported motivations and correlates with success. Journal of Small Business Management, 35, 34-46.
9. Certo, S.T., & Miller, T. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons, 51(4), 267-271.
10. Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5-26.
11. Chen, S., Boucher, H.C., & Tapias, M.P. (2006). The relational self revealed: integrative conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 151.
12. Corner, P.D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635-659.
13. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method aproaches. SAGE Publications, 203-223.
14. Dees, J.G. (2007). Taking Social entrepreneurship seriously.
15. Dees, J.G., & Anderson, B.B. (2003). 2 . For-profit social ventures.
16. Demartino, R., & Barbato, R. (2003). Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs: Exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators, 18, 815-832.
17. Doepke, M., & Zilibotti, F. (2014). Culture, entrepreneurship and growth. Handbook of Economic Growth.
18. Drejer, I. (2004). Identifying innovation in surveys of services: A Schumpeterian perspective. Research Policy, 33(3), 551-562.
19. Driscoll, D.L., Appiah-yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D.J. (2007). Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. Policy Analysis, 3(1), 19-28.
20. Fiske, S.T. (2000). Agenda 2000 stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind and brain.
21. Guclu, A., Dees, J.G., & Anderson, B.B. (2002). The process of social entrepreneurship: Creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit.
22. Hakim, C. (1995). Five feminist myths about women's employment. British Journal of Sociology, 429-455.
23. Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E. & Thurik, R. (2010). What do we know about social entrepreneurship: An analysis of empirical research. EMRI Report Series.
24. Hughes, C., Jaffee, S.R., Happé, F., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., &Taylor, A. (2012). Origins of individual differences in theory of mind: From nature to nurture. Children Development, 76(2), 356-370.
25. Huybrechts, B., Nicholls, A., Huybrehts, B., & Nicholls, A. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: definitions, drivers and challenges. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business, 2, 31-48.
26. Ihuah, P.W., & Eaton, D. (2013). The pragmatic research approach: A framework for sustainable management of public housing estates in Nigeria. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 10(10), 933-944.
27. Jr, R.D.W. (2011). Are women more ethical ? Recent Findings on the effects of gender upon moral development. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 459-472.
28. Kelley, D.J., Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G., & Litovsky, Y. (2012). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2012 women’ s report. Global Entreprneurship Research Association, 1-57.
29. Kim, H.S., & Puri, J. (2005). Conceptualizing gender-sexuality-state-nation: An introduction. Gender and Society, 19(2), 137-159.
30. Mair, J., & Schoen, O. (2007). Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context of developing economies. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1), 54-68.
31. Morris, M.H., Avila, R.A., & Allen, J. (2015). lnciividualism and the modern corporation: lmplica tions for lnnova tion and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 19(3).
32. Mort, G.S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2002). Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88.
33. Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145-162.
34. Nationas, U. (2012). Entreprenerneurship policy franework and implementation guidance. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 1-72.
35. Naudé, W., Szirmai, A., & Goedhuys, M. (2011). Innovation and entrepreneurship in developing countries. Policy Brief from the United Nations University, 1, 1-8.
36. Newth, J., & Woods, C. (2014). Resistance to social entrepreneurship: How context shapes innovation. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 192-213.
37. Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611-633.
38. Ortner, S.B. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture? Feminist Studies, 1(2), 5-31.
39. Peredo, A., & McLean, M. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 1-29.
40. Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878-885.
41. Poland, A. (2011). The social entrepreneurship and the theory of social change.
42. Researchers, Q. (2008). An introduction to codes and coding.
43. Robichaud, Y., LeBrasseur, R., & Nagarajan, K.V. (2010). Necessity and opportunity-driven entrepreneurs in canada: an investigation into their characteristics and an appraisal of the role of gender. Journal of Applied Business & Economics, 11(1).
44. Shane, S., Locke, E.A., & Collins, C.J. (2003). Entrepreneurial Motivation.
45. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (2018). Social entrepreneurship? Oxford Saïd Business School.
46. Sökjer-petersen, M., & Thorssell, J. (2012). Women’s view of trust and its influence on entrepreneurship and career development. Nordic Psychology, 60(2), 114-128.
47. Thurik, R. (2008). Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations and their drivers. Small Bussiness Economics, 31(3), 323-339.
48. Tonoyan, V., Budig, M., & Strohmeyer, R. (2010). Exploring the heterogeneity of women’s entrepreneurship: The impact of family structure and family policies in Europe and the US. In  A. de Bruin, C.G. Brush, E.J. Gatewood, C. henry (eds.), Women Entrepreneurs and the Global Environment for Growth, pp.137-162. Edward Elgar Publishing.
49. Tosun, M.S. (2003). Population aging and economic growth: Political economy and open economy effects. Economics Letters, 81(3), 291-296.
50. Trihopoulou, A., & Sarri, K.K. (1997). Characteristics and needs of new female business owners. Research for the Ergani Center, Thessaloniki.
51. Tuan, M.T., Box, P.O., Jr, R.D.W., Words, K.E.Y., Walby, S., Wickes, R., & Pande, R. (2015). Organising for social value creation: The case of social entrepreneurship in Senegal. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(8), 34-44.
52. Wennekers, S., Stel, A. Van, Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent Entrepreneurship and the Level of Economic Development. Small Bussiness Economics, 24(3), 293-309.
53. Zahra, S.A., Korri, J.S., & Yu, J.F. (2005). Cognition and international entrepreneurship: Implications for research on international opportunity recognition and exploitation. International Business Review, 14(2), 129-146.
54. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-1042.