Entrepreneurship and Strategy: Analyzing Themes from Bibliometric Studies in the Light of the Concept of Strategic Entrepreneurship

ABSTRACT

Entrepreneurship and strategy have common interests of research and they are close fields of studies; however, it is important to know the boundaries of each research field to preserve the identity of each discipline, as well as to advance in the comprehension of the strategic entrepreneurship domain. This research aims to identify common and distinct themes between entrepreneurship and strategy to understand the boundaries of each discipline, the interfaces between them, as well as contribute to the discussion of the strategic entrepreneurship concept. A scoping literature review was carried out about bibliometric studies on entrepreneurship, strategy, and entrepreneurship and strategy together. From 62 bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship, 18 in strategy, and 22 in entrepreneurship and strategy, a thematic analysis was performed. Entrepreneurship bibliometric resulted in 25 themes, strategy in 9 themes, and 12 in entrepreneurship and strategy together. This research presents a theoretical contribution to the field of research in entrepreneurship, strategy, and strategic entrepreneurship. Comparing the bibliometric studies in each field evidenced what are the themes focused on each discipline. To the concept of strategic entrepreneurship, results of this research contribute to advance in the comprehension of what can be entrepreneurship and what can be strategy in the concept, as the gap of studies. Furthermore, this study provides inputs about contexts of study to strategic entrepreneurship, such as familiar, social, and sustainable ventures.

Keywords:
strategy; entrepreneurship; bibliometric; strategic entrepreneurship

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship is a multidisciplinary and dynamic field with focus on opportunities and new businesses (Cornelius, Landström, & Persson, 2006; Gartner, Davidsson, & Zahra, 2006; Ireland & Webb, 2007b; Stuart & Sorenson, 2008). In turn, the field of strategy focuses on internal and external aspects of the organization, such as the relationship between structure and strategy (Chandler, 1962; Höskisson, Hitt, Wan, & Yiu, 1999; Porter, 1985). Both disciplines have common interests of research (Hitt & Ireland, 2000; Shane, 2012), what sometimes blurs the boundaries between them. They are close fields of studies; however, it is important to know the boundaries of each research field to preserve the identity of each discipline.

Furthermore, the concept of strategic entrepreneurship, understood as “an entrepreneurial action with a strategic perspective, a dual focus on creating change” (Agarwal, Audretsch, & Sarkar, 2010, p. 273), represents the symbiotic relationship between strategic management and entrepreneurship (Ireland & Webb, 2007b). This relationship, nevertheless, is not enough developed in the literature. For instance, Simsek, Heavey, and Fox (2017) underscored that strategic entrepreneurship remains “ill-defined and under-developed as a theoretical construct” (Simsek, Heavey, & Fox, 2017, p. 505). They argue that it is not known what the strategic dimension of strategic entrepreneurship is, as well as what is the entrepreneurial dimension of strategic entrepreneurship. In addition, Kuratko and Audretsch (2009) underscored that many important questions and boundary conditions related to strategic entrepreneurship need to be discussed (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009).

Considering that the intersection of strategy and entrepreneurship is critical to the domain of strategic entrepreneurship that involves the identification and exploitation of opportunities, while “simultaneously creating and sustaining a competitive advantage” (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009, p. 13), the assumption of this research is that topics of bibliometric research in entrepreneurship and strategy are important to elucidate the boundaries of each research field. At the same time, this discussion is important to advance in the concept of strategic entrepreneurship, evidencing strategy and the entrepreneurial dimensions.

Given that, this research was guided by the following research questions: What are the topics of research in entrepreneurship and in strategy? What are the common and distinct themes between entrepreneurship and strategy? Do common themes relate to the concept of strategic entrepreneurship? The research aims to identify common and distinct themes between entrepreneurship and strategy in order to understand the boundaries of each discipline, the interfaces between them, as well as contribute to the discussion of the strategic entrepreneurship concept. Considering that bibliometric studies provide possibility to identify themes evolved in disciplines (Ferreira, Storopoli, & Serra, 2016), this research had as a starting point scoping literature review to identify bibliometric studies in strategy, in entrepreneurship, and in strategy and entrepreneurship. In the sequence, a thematic analysis was performed in each one of the three topics (strategy, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and strategy). Finally, the themes were compared and discussed, in the light of the concept of strategic entrepreneurship.

This article is structured in five topics. Besides this introduction, the second topic discusses the field of research in entrepreneurship and strategy, as well as the concept of strategic entrepreneurship. In the sequence, the methodological procedures are presented, followed by results and discussions. The article ends with final considerations and suggestions for future studies.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND STRATEGY AS RESEARCH FIELDS

The origin of entrepreneurship as a research field is related to the foundations of economics (Matthews, Chalmers, & Fraser, 2018). The field developed in an evolutionary way (Gartner et al., 2006; Landström & Harirchi, 2018; Short, Ketchen, Combs, & Ireland, 2010) and presents a methodological and analytical pluralism and heterogeneity (Audretsch, 2012).

Landström (2008) classifies the development of the entrepreneurship in three phases: (a) emergency; (b) growth (from 1990); and (c) domain (from 2000). The trajectory of the field was influenced by the following important points: (a) the approach of creation of new markets; (b) the Schumpeterian school; (c) Kirzner’s school of opportunities; (d) the Knightian school, emphasizing risk and decision; (e) integrative approach, influenced by Mark Casson, emphasizing entrepreneurship as a process of market; (f) characteristics of the entrepreneur as an individual; (g) evolution of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship as a process; (h) survival and growth business approach (Landström, Harirchi, & Aström, 2012). In the domain phase, that is, from 2000, the field is influenced by Shane and Sarasvathy (Landström & Harirchi, 2018). Shane (2012) introduced the processual approach, in which opportunities and individual are central to the phenomenon. With that, opportunity became a key term in the field (Matthews et al., 2018).

Given that, innovation, risk, opportunities, uncertainty, business development (including social and sustainable entrepreneurship), and wealth value are among the central topics in entrepreneurship (Landström, Harirchi, & Astrom, 2012; Landström & Harirchi, 2018; Matthews et al., 2018). It is important to highlight that entrepreneurship can be analyzed in several levels of analysis. The phenomenon can be described by the micro (individual), intermediate (firm), or macro level (environment) (Gartner, 1985). Another focus of analysis concerns the diverse possibilities of understanding the entrepreneurial action, which can be processual, causal, effectual, or bricolage (Fisher, 2012).

In the strategy field, the 1960s represent the field start, and the first academic research published was titled Strategy and structure, published by Alfred Chandler Jr. (1962). In the initial period, studies were more concentrated on best strategic practices of companies (Höskisson, Hitt, Wan, & Yiu, 1999). The development of the field was launched by the emergence of the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ). In addition, studies on the economics of industrial organization (EOI) became prominent, especially based on the propositions of Porter (1980, 1985) and Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro (2004). In the 1990s, the resource-based view (RBV) approach, supported by Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1991), originated in firm-specific resources, influenced the field. In recent years, derived from the RBV approach, and with elements of the evolutionary economy, the approach of dynamic capabilities has developed. Furrer, Thomas, and Goussevskaia (2008) mention that, among the texts quoted in the strategy area in recent years, these can be highlighted: Teece, Pisano, and Schuen (1997), Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), and absorptive capacity by Cohen and Levinthal (1990). Another emerging theme is entrepreneurial orientation (Campos, Parra, & Parellada, 2012), originated in Miller (1983), with consequent contributions by Lumpkin and Dess (1996) and Covin and Wales (2012).

The proximity of entrepreneurship and strategy is mentioned by Ronda-Pupo (2015). He analyzed the articles published in the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) until 2013 and identified that entrepreneurship is one of the main themes of study in the field of strategy. In addition, Venkataraman and Sarasvathy (2001) argue that entrepreneurship and strategy are inseparable. The creation of the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (SEJ) in 2007, dismembered from the SMJ, is a testimony of convergence between the fields of research.

Strategic entrepreneurship

Hitt, Ireland, Camp and Sexton (2001) introduced the concept of strategic entrepreneurship, as the intersection between entrepreneurship and strategy. As pioneers in the study of strategic entrepreneurship, Ireland, Hitt and Sirmon (2003) argue that the central elements to strategic entrepreneurship come from two models: (a) Ireland, Hitt, Camp and Sexton (2001), which mentions as central elements to strategic entrepreneurship: innovation, networks, internationalization, organizational learning, growth, top management teams, and governance; (b) Hitt et al. (2001), which includes the following elements: external networks and alliances, resources and organizational learning, innovation and internationalization. Resources, competencies, and capabilities strengthened the strategic focus of the model.

Ireland et al. (2003) improved their previous model and introduced the following elements: an entrepreneurial mindset (encompassing insight, alertness, and flexibility to use appropriate resources), entrepreneurial leadership and culture (innovation and creativity are expected), strategic management of resources (including financial, human, and social capital), and creativity to develop innovations (radical and incremental). According to this model, the integration of the three dimensions results in wealth creation. In 2007, Ireland and Webb pointed out that strategic entrepreneurship is a balance between opportunity-seeking (exploration) and advantage-seeking (exploitation) behaviors, and continuous innovation is important (Ireland & Webb, 2007a; 2007b; 2009).

Therefore, strategic entrepreneurship is related to initiatives in search for competitive advantage, pursuit of opportunity, new entry into products, markets, processes, or technological innovations (Agarwal, Audretsch, & Sarkar, 2010; Autio, 2017). The entrepreneurship aspect of strategic entrepreneurship highlights the importance of exposure and alertness to emerging opportunities, whereas the strategic management side emphasizes the role of deep knowledge and strong expertise for exploiting those opportunities (Zhao, Ishihara, & Jennings, 2020).

Another element introduced in the strategic management construct is the internationalization (Agarwal, Dushnitsky, Lumpkin, Wright, & Zott, 2017; Autio, 2017). International entrepreneurship can meet the criterion of being strategic when

“internationalization leads to the creation of unique, valuable, and difficult-to-imitate resource combinations across national borders or perhaps when a cross-border operation drives the creation of organizational capabilities that are more effective and dynamic than what would normally be possible through a domestic operation” (Autio, 2017, p. 211).

However, strategic entrepreneurship as a theoretical construct is not enough developed (Simsek, Heavey, & Fox, 2017). For instance, Luke, Kearins, and Verreynne (2010) argue that the existent models do not capture the nature of strategic entrepreneurship and that they are not enough to characterize the integration of entrepreneurship and strategy. For the authors, “a strategic approach to entrepreneurship involves the promotion of activity which is both entrepreneurial, and leverages from an organization’s core skills and resources” (Luke, Kearins, & Verreynne, 2010, p. 333). They argue that the focus on resources (the resource-based view) and competencies is important and suggest a conceptual framework that constitutes a distinct concept of strategic entrepreneurship, summarized in: (a) Strategic entrepreneurship is a distinct process, based on bringing something new to the market; a combination of innovation, opportunity identification, and growth; (b) Strategic entrepreneurship is a process represented by four key aspects: entrepreneurial activity; applied in the strategic context of businesses; which develop expertise within their core skills and resources; and take advantage of that by transferring and applying their knowledge of those skills and resources to new products, services, or markets.

There is a lack of consensus about the research agenda. Besides the internationalization (Agarwal, Dushnitsky, Lumpkin, Wright, & Zott, 2017; Autio, 2017), Webb, Ireland and Ketchen (2014) suggest the topic of informal economy and Gölgeci, Larimo, and Arslan (2017) mention the following topics: bricolage, business model, institutional work, and entrepreneurial orientation.

Another critical aspect in the strategic entrepreneurship theoretical construct is the necessity to distinguish large and small firms in the models (Folta, 2014; Kraus & Kauranen, 2009). The level of analysis is also critical. While Agarwal, Audretsch, and Sarkar (2010) argue that strategic entrepreneurship encompasses actions undertaken by individuals, teams, and firms, in an intra- or interorganizational perspective, Foss, Klein, Kor, and Mahoney (2008) argue for the necessity to advance concerning the role of subjectivism.

RESEARCH METHOD

This research was developed through a scoping literature review, following Rumrill, Fitzgerald, and Merchant (2010). The topics of review are bibliometric studies on entrepreneurship and strategy. Bibliometric studies were chosen because bibliometric methods produce a spatial representation and structural images of a research field, enabling the identification of research subfields (Zupic & Čater, 2015). The study is based on a script adapted from Rumrill et al. (2010), developed in six stages: (a) delimitation of the research question; (b) choice of data sources; (c) selection of strings; (d) definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (e) evaluation of selected articles; (f) interpretation and synthesis. Figure 1 shows the steps followed.

Figure 1
Stages of the scoping literature review

The search was performed in the electronic databases Scopus and Web of Science, both multidisciplinary databases. The Web of Science acts with citation index. Data collection was performed in January 2019. Only articles published in scientific journals were selected as filtering criteria. The initial survey used as an inclusion criterion the keywords, abstracts, and titles of articles, identified from three search strings: I) Strateg* AND bibliom*; II) Entrepreneu* AND Bibliom*, III) Strateg* Entrepreneu* AND Bibliom*. The choice of these search terms shows the three stages of the study: first on the bibliometric studies on strategy, then on bibliometric studies on entrepreneurship, and finally, bibliometric studies with the two issues together.

In the first stage, 1,712 articles were identified, of which 1,481 resulted from the string I (Strateg* AND Bibliom*), 171 resulting from string II (Entrepreneu* AND Bibliom*), and 60 articles resulting from string III (Strateg* Entrepreneu* AND Bibliom*). A file has been created for each search string and results were transported to Excel. Based on the title of the articles, the duplicate articles were removed by search string. The total exclusion was 23 articles. Considering that, duplicate articles were verified by string, and some articles are in more than one file. This is the case of the following articles: (a) Martens, Lacerda, Belfort and Freitas (2016): “Research on entrepreneurial orientation: Current status and future agenda.”; (b) Ferreira, Fernandes and Ratten (2016): “A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research.”; (c) Di Stefano, Garmbardella and Verona (2012): “Technology push and demand-pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions.”

It is important to clarify that the criteria of selection of articles were based on title, keywords, and abstract. This information was given by the authors. Hence, if an author classified the article in both fields, it was preserved according to the information of the author.

All titles and keywords of the articles were read by all researchers and the articles that did not fit the scope of the research were removed from each database - for instance, those that use the word ‘strategy,’ but were not in the field of study. In this case, 762 articles remained from the three search strings: 615 from the string I, 94 from the string II, and 53 from the string III. Then, all abstracts were read by all researchers and those articles that were not in fact a bibliometric study were removed from each database, leaving 102 articles.

The final sample consisted of 102 articles: 18 of string I; 62 of string II; and 22 of string III. The 102 articles were read in full and the data systematized in one file in Excel software. To ensure greater consistency to the data, the information was reviewed by at least two authors.

Initial analysis included citations and journals analyses, identifying the most cited articles with the greatest impact in the research fields (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015; Wallin, 2005; Zupic & Čater, 2015). In the sequence, a thematic analysis was performed (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This allowed pointing out the themes and subtopics studied in each area (Tables 2 and 4) as well as the themes and subtopics together (Table 6).

RESULTS

In this section, the results from the three analyzed topics are displayed. First, data from bibliometric studies in strategy are presented, followed by bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship. After this, the data from the bibliometric studies with both themes are presented - entrepreneurship and strategy.

Bibliometric studies in strategy

The first bibliometric study in strategy was published in 2004, and is the most referenced, with 960 quotations. This article is a bibliometric study of articles published in the Strategic Management Journal from 1980 to 2000. As the most referenced, it can be considered the most important in influencing other publications (Zupic & Čater, 2015). The second most referenced (481) was published in 2008 and is an analysis of author co-citation, published in the Strategic Management Journal. In the sequence, quoted 248 times, is the bibliometric study about dynamic capability, published in the International Journal of Management Review. Table 1 shows the eighteen bibliometric studies in strategy.

Table 1
Bibliometric studies in strategy

Title of the article	Authors	Year	Cited
Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000	Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro	2004	960
The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co-citation analysis	Nerur, Rasheed and Natarajan	2008	481
The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review	Vogel and Güttel	2012	248
Research on entrepreneurial orientation: Current status and future agenda	Martens et al.	2016	36
A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research	Ferreira, Fernandes and Ratten	2016	27
Mapping the institutional collaboration network of strategic management research: 1980-2014	Köseoglu	2016	22
Relative absorptive capacity: A research profiling	Martinez, Jaime and Camacho	2012	19
Uma análise bibliométrica de literatura sobre estratégia e avaliação de desempenho	Lacerda, Ensslin and Ensslin	2012	17
Trends in international strategic management research from 2000 to 2013: Text mining and bibliometric analyses	White, Guldiken, Hemphill, He and Khoobdeh	2016	17
Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis	Albort-Morant, Leal-Rodríguez, Fernández-Rodríguez and Ariza-Montes	2018	9
The dynamic capabilities perspective of strategic management: A co-citation analysis	Fernandes et al.	2017	9
Progress, maturity or exhaustion? Sources and modes of theorizing on the international strategy performance relationship (1990-2011)	Martin and Oever	2013	7
A bibliometric study of the resource-based view (RBV) in international business research using Barney (1991)	Ferreira, Serra, Costa and Almeida	2016	7
Can resources act as capabilities foundations? A bibliometric analysis	Álvarez-Melgarejo and Torres-Barreto	2018	6
Absorptive capacity, alliance portfolios and innovation performance: An analytical model based on bibliographic research	Macedo-Soares; Barboza and Paula	2016	2
Nordic strategy research - topics, theories, and trends	Schriber	2016	2
Absorptive capacity and innovation: An overview of international scientific production of last twenty-five years	Rossetto, Carvalho, Bernardes and Borini	2017	0
Strategy and public relations: A bibliometric comparative study	Compte-Pujol, Matilla and Hernández	2018	0

According to the data in Table 1, bibliometric studies in strategy were published from 2004 (one article) until 2018 (three articles). The largest number of publications occurred in 2016 (seven studies). The second and third articles most quoted focused on the structure of strategic management and the dynamic capability approach, respectively: (a) “The intellectual structure of strategic management field: The author co-citation analysis,” published in 2008, quoted 481 times; and (b) “The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review,” published in 2012 and quoted 248 times.

After reading the abstracts, they were classified into themes, as can be seen in Table 2. The nine themes in bibliometric studies in strategy were: international strategy, dynamic capabilities, performance, entrepreneurial orientation, absorptive capacity, strategy and public relations, and contexts.

Table 2
Themes in strategy bibliometric studies

Themes/Subthemes	Authors/Year
Themes: International strategy Subtopics: International strategic management; resource-based view and international strategy	Ferreira, Serra, et al. (2016); Martin and Oever (2013); White et al. (2016)
Themes: Dynamic capabilities Subtopics: Portfolio and innovation; relation between resources and capabilities	Albort-Morant et al. (2018); Álvarez-Melgarejo & Torres-Barreto (2018); Vogel and Güttel (2012)
Themes: Performance	Lacerda et al. (2012)
Themes: Entrepreneurial orientation	Martens et al. (2016)
Themes: Absorptive capacity Subtopics: Absorptive capacity and innovation; absorptive capacity and knowledge	Martinez et al. (2012); Rossetto et al. (2017)
Themes: Strategy and public relations	Compte-Pujol et al. (2018)
Themes: Strategy and contexts	Schriber (2016)
Themes: Co-citation analysis Subtopics: Networks, researchers and institutions; co-citation of dynamic capabilities	Köseoglu (2016); Ferreira, Fernandes and Ratten (2016); Fernandes et al. (2017); Nerur et al. (2008);
Themes: Evolution of studies	Ramos-Rodríguez & Ruíz-Navarro (2004)

Bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship

The second step of the research consisted of bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship. In Table 3, a total of 62 articles can be seen. The two most mentioned articles were published in 2006 and 2012, respectively.

Table 3
Bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship

Title of the article	Authors	Year	Cited
Entrepreneurial studies: The dynamic research front of a developing social science	Cornelius, Landström and Persson	2006	294
Technology push and demand-pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions	Di Stefano et al.	2012	292
Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis	Schildt, Zahra and Sillanpää	2006	259
Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies?	Van der Have and Rubalcaba	2016	254
Are you talking to me? The nature of community in entrepreneurship scholarship	Gartner, Davidsson and Zahra	2006	179
Entrepreneurship research (1985-2009) and the emergence of opportunities	Busenitz, Plummer, Klotz, Shahzad and Rhoads	2014	135
The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship	Ghio, Guerini, Lehmann and Rossi-Lamastra	2014	126
Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship	Teixeira	2011	93
A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship	Rey-Martí, Ribeiro-Soriano and Palacios-Marqués	2016	76
A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators	Albort-Morant and Ribeiro-Soriano	2016	71
Twenty years of rural entrepreneurship: A bibliometric survey	Pato and Teixeira	2016	71
A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university-industry links	Teixeira and Mota	2012	60
Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review	Schmitz, Urbano, Dandolini, Souza and Guerrero	2017	49
Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering	Murray	2002	49
Structuring the technology entrepreneurship publication landscape: Making sense out of chaos	Ratinho, Harms and Walsh	2015	41
The evolution of the small business and entrepreneurship field: A bibliometric investigation of articles published in the International Small Business Journal	Volery and Mazzarol	2015	38
Entrepreneurship and family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emerging field	López-Fernández, Serrano-Bedia and Pérez-Pérez	2016	37
Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends	Gomes, Facin, Salerno and Ikenami	2016	37
Research on entrepreneurial orientation: Current status and future agenda	Martens et al.	2016	36
Is international entrepreneurship a field? A bibliometric analysis of the literature (1989-2015)	Servantie, Cabrol, Guieu and Boissin	2016	34
What do we [not] know about technology entrepreneurship research?	Ferreira, Ferreira, Fernandes et al.	2016	30
Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems	Malecki	2018	29
Title of the article	Authors	Year	Cited
Organizational decline: A yet largely neglected topic in organizational studies	Serra, Ferreira and Almeida	2013	29
A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research	Ferreira, Fernandes and Ratten	2016	27
Citation footprints on the sands of time: An analysis of idea migrations in strategic management	Nerur, Rasheed and Pandey	2015	27
Intención emprendedora en estudiantes universitarios: um estúdio bibliométrico	Arias, Restrepo and Restrepo	2016	25
The scientometrics of social entrepreneurship and its establishment as an academic field	Sassmannshausen and Volkmann	2016	19
Mapeo del campo de conocimiento em intenciones emprendedoras mediante el análisis de redes sociales de conocimiento	Restrepo, Valencia and Restrepo	2016	18
A bibliometric analysis of born global firms	Dzikowski	2018	17
Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation?	Wilden, Hohberger, Devinney and Lavie	2018	13
The phenomenon of social enterprises: Are we keeping watch on this cultural practice?	Gonçalves, Carrara and Schmittel	2016	12
Inspecting the Achilles heel: A quantitative analysis of 50 years of family business definitions	Hernández-Linares, Sarkar and Cobo	2018	10
Mapping the intellectual structure of research on ‘born global’ firms and INVs: A citation/cocitation	García-Lillo, Claver-Cortés, Marco-Lajara and Úbeda-García	2017	9
A bibliometric study of John Dunning’s contribution to international business research	Ferreira, Pinto, Serra and Santos	2013	8
Charting the growth of entrepreneurship: A citation analysis of FER content, 1981-2008	Kushkowski	2012	8
A decade of the International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business: A bibliometric analysis	Laudano, Marzi and Caputo	2018	6
Entrepreneurship education and training as facilitators of regional development: A systematic literature review	Galvão, Ferreira and Marques	2018	6
Exploring the landscape of corporate venture capital: A systematic review of the entrepreneurial and finance literature	Röhm	2018	6
Is social innovation about innovation? A bibliometric study identifying the main authors, citations and co-citations over 20 years	Silveira and Zilber	2017	6
The evolution of the social understanding of ethnic entrepreneurship: Results from a bibliometric analysis of the literature	Ganzaroli, Orsi, and Noni	2013	5
Where do we go from now? Research framework for social entrepreneurship	Macke, Sarate, Domeneghini and Silva	2018	5
Business angels research in entrepreneurial finance: A literature review and a research agenda	Tenca, Croce and Ughetto	2018	4
Conceptualizing social entrepreneurship: Perspectives from the literature	Ferreira, Fernandes, Peres-Ortiz and Alves	2017	4
Financial return crowdfunding: Literature review and bibliometric analysis	Martínez-Climent, Zorio-Grima and Ribeiro-Soriano	2018	4
International entrepreneurship research: Mapping and cognitive structures	Ferreira, Fernandes and Ratten	2017	4
Title of the article	Authors	Year	Cited
Modeling complex entrepreneurial processes: A bibliometric method for designing agent-based simulation models	Shim, Bliemel and Choi	2017	4
Economic globalization and its impacts on clustering	Razminienė and Tvaronavičienė	2017	3
Let the best story win - Evaluation of the most cited business history articles	Ojala, Eloranta, Ojala and Valtonen	2017	3
A look back over the past 40 years of female entrepreneurship: Mapping knowledge networks	Santos, Marques and Ferreira	2018	2
Mapping the conceptual structure of science and technology parks	Mora-Valentin, Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado and Nájera-Sánchez	2018	2
Structural and longitudinal analysis of the knowledge base on spin-off research	Ferreira, Reis, Paula and Pinto	2017	2
A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems	Chang	2018	1
A research agenda on open innovation and entrepreneurship: A co-word analysis	Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, Nájera-Sánchez and Mora-Valentín	2018	1
Analyzing informal entrepreneurship: A bibliometric survey	Santos and Ferreira	2017	1
Bridging past and present entrepreneurial marketing research: A co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis	Most, Conejo and Cunningham	2018	1
Mapping the ‘dynamic capabilities’ scientific landscape, 1990-2015: A bibliometric analysis	Mota, Pinto, Paranhos and Hasenclever	2017	1
Redressing oversights: Exploring informal innovation in small IT firms	Hine and Miettinen	2006	1
A review of born global.	Oyna & Alon	2018	0
Bibliographic analysis and strategic management research in Africa	Zoogah and Rigg	2014	0
Can family business loosen the grips of accounting, economics, and finance?	Stewart	2018	0
Educação empreendedora: um estudo bibliométrico sobre a produção científica recente	Johan et al.	2018	0
The development of sustainable entrepreneurship research field	Sarango-Lalangui, Santos and Hormiga	2018	0

The first bibliometric in entrepreneurship was published in 2002. In 2006, four bibliometric studies were published. The largest number of publications occurred in 2018 (18 studies). This result evidences that entrepreneurship is still seeks the comprehension of the field of research.

The most referenced bibliometric study was by Cornelius et al. (2006), discussing entrepreneurial studies and published in the Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, quoted 294 times. The second one was published in Research Policy in 2012, about innovation, with 292 references. The third, by Schildt et al. (2006), published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, is about a network of the scientific community, quoted 259 times. The fourth most cited article was published in Research Policy, and discusses social innovation; it was published in 2016 and is quoted 254 times. It is important to highlight the interface in entrepreneurship and in innovation, as also pointed out by Stuart and Sorenson (2008).

In the sequence, themes and subthemes can be seen in Table 4. In entrepreneurship, twenty-five themes emerged from data.

Table 4
Themes in entrepreneurship bibliometric studies

Themes/Subthemes	Authors/Year
Themes: Evolution of studies	Cornelius et al. (2006)
Themes: Innovation Subthemes: Social innovation; Incubators; University-industry relationship; Innovation and entrepreneurship; Technological networks; Knowledge and spin-offs; Technological parks; Social innovation; Co-citation; Innovators ecosystems entrepreneurship; Patents classification systems; Innovation in small business; Knowledge spillover	Murray (2002); Hine and Miettinen (2006); Di Stefano et al. (2012); Teixeira and Mota (2012); Ghio et al. (2014); Ratinho et al. (2015); Ferreira, Ferreira, Fernandes et al. (2016); Van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016); Albort-Morant and Ribeiro-Soriano (2016); Gomes et al. (2016); Schmitz et al. (2017); Ferreira, Fernandes and Ratten (2017); Chang (2018); Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado et al. (2018)
Themes: Co-citation	Gartner et al. (2006); Kushkowski (2012); Schildt et al. (2006); Teixeira (2011)
Themes: Opportunities	Busenitz et al. (2014)
Themes: Social entrepreneurship	Ferreira, Ferreira, Fernandes et al. (2016); Macke et al. (2018); Rey-Martí et al. (2016); Sassmannshausen and Volkmann (2016)
Themes: Rural entrepreneurship	Pato and Teixeira (2016)
Themes: Small businesses	Volery and Mazzarol (2015)
Themes: Family business	Hernández-Linares et al. (2018); López-Fernández et al. (2016); Stewart (2018)
Themes: Entrepreneurial orientation	Martens et al. (2016)
Themes: International entrepreneurship Subthemes: Born global firms; Contribution of John Dunning; International entrepreneurship and small businesses	Dzikowski (2018); Ferreira et al. (2013); Ferreira, Reis, Paula and Pinto (2017); Garcıa-Lillo et al. (2017); Laudano et al. (2018); Øyna and Alon (2018); Servantie et al. (2016)
Themes: Entrepreneurial ecosystems	Malecki (2018)
Themes: Organizational decline	Serra et al. (2013)
Themes: Strategy Subthemes: Bibliometric in strategic management research; Migration in the strategic management; Exploration e exploitation; Dynamic capabilities	Zoogah and Rigg (2014); Ferreira, Fernandes and Ratten (2016); Nerur et al. (2015); Wilden et al. (2018); Mota et al. (2017)
Themes: Entrepreneurial intentions Subthemes: Social networks	Arias et al. (2016); Restrepo et al. (2016)
Themes: Social enterprises	Gonçalves et al. (2016)
Themes: Entrepreneurial education	Galvão et al. (2018); Krüger, Johann, and Minello (2018)
Themes: Ethnic entrepreneurship	Ganzaroli et al. (2013)
Themes: Venture capital Subthemes: Angel; return of investment crowdfunding	Tenca et al. (2018); Martínez-Climent et al. (2018); Röhm (2018)
Themes: Entrepreneurial process	Shim et al. (2017)
Themes: Territories/Clusters	Razminienė and Tvaronavičienė (2017)
Themes: Business histories	Ojala et al. (2017)
Themes/Subthemes	Authors/Year
Themes: Women entrepreneurs	Santos et al. (2018)
Themes: Informal entrepreneurship	Santos and Ferreira (2017)
Themes: Marketing entrepreneurship	Most et al. (2018)
Themes: Sustainable entrepreneurship	Sarango-Lalangui et al. (2018)

Bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship and strategy

The bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship and strategy together are twenty-four articles, as shown in Table 5. The first study was published in 2012 and in 2019 four studies were published. The most quoted is the article by Di Stefano et al. (292 times), published in 2012 and titled “Technology push and demand-pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions.” It was published in the Research Policy journal.

Table 5
Bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship and strategy

Title of the article	Authors	Year	Cited
Technology push and demand-pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions	Di Stefano et al.	2012	292
Foresight methods for smart specialization strategy development in Lithuania	Paliokaitė, Martinaitis and Reimeris	2015	26
Innovation in family firms: Examining the inventory and mapping the path	Filser, Brem, Gast, Kraus and Calabrò	2016	15
National characteristics and competitiveness in mot research: A comparative analysis of ten specialty journals, 2000-2009	Choi, Lee, Yung and Lee	2012	12
A co-word analysis of organizational constraints for maintaining sustainability	Guo, Chen, Long, Lu and Long	2017	6
Analysis of essential patent portfolios via bibliometric mapping: An illustration of leading firms in the 4G era	Han	2015	6
Identifying new business opportunities from competitor intelligence: An integrated use of patent and trademark databases	Lee and Lee	2017	6
Technological innovation research in China and India: a bibliometric analysis for the period 1991-2015	Chatterjee and Sahasranamam	2017	6
The past and future of evolutionary economics: Some reflections based on new bibliometric evidence	Hodgson and Lamberg	2018	6
Model for innovation management by companies based on corporate entrepreneurship	Escobar-Sierra, Valencia-Delara and Vera-Acevedo	2018	2
A bibliometric study of research-technology management, 1998-2017	Shum, Park, Maine and Pitt	2019	0
Bibliometric analysis of entrepreneurial orientation	Andrade-Valbuena, Merigo-Lindahl and Olavarrieta	2018	0
On the use of bibliometric indicators for the analysis of emerging topics and their evolution: Spin-offs as a case study	González-Alcaide, Gorraiz and Hervás-Oliver	2018	0
Title of the article	Authors	Year	Cited
Small enterprises and management practices: Contributions of Brazilian journals	Gonçalves-Araújo, Barbosa-da-Silva and Cardoso-da-Silva	2018	0
Some predictors of entrepreneurship article impact	Perry, Hanke, Chandler and Markova	2016	0
Visualized bibliometric mapping on smart specialization: A co-citation analysis	Fellnhofer	2018	0
What’s new in the research on agricultural entrepreneurship?	Dias, Rodrigues and Ferreira	2019	0
Discovering and forecasting interactions in big data research: A learning-enhanced bibliometric study	Zhang, Huang, Porter, Zhang and Lu	2019	0
Habilidades y capacidades del emprendimiento: um estúdio bibliométrico	Ovalles-Toledo, Freites, Urbina, Ángel and Harold	2018	0
Evolution of strategic management research lines in hospitality and tourism	Köseoglu, Okumus, Dogan, and Law	2018	0
Intellectual structure of international new venture research: A bibliometric analysis and suggestions for a future research agenda	Rodríguez-Ruiz, Almodóvar and Nguyen	2019	0
A new corporate entrepreneurship knowledge schema as a research field	Escobar-Sierra et al.	2018	0

The categorization of the bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship and strategy can be seen in Table 6 and represent twelve themes.

Table 6
Themes in bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship and strategy

Themes/Subthemes	Authors/Year
Theme: Innovation Subthemes: Smart specialization in strategy; Smart specialization; Patents; Innovation in different contexts; Innovation and corporative entrepreneurship; Management of technology; Spin-offs; Big data; Evolutionary economy; Management of technology and innovation; Networks	Choi et al. (2012); Paliokaitė et al. (2015); Han (2015); Hodgson and Lamberg (2018); Chatterjee and Sahasranamam (2018); Escobar-Sierra et al. (2018); Fellnhofer (2018); González-Alcaide et al. (2018); Zhang et al. (2019); Shum et al. (2019)
Theme: Family business Subtopics: Innovation in family business	Filser et al. (2016)
Theme: Sustainable development	Guo et al. (2017)
Theme: Opportunities Subthemes: Patents and opportunities	Lee and Lee (2017)
Theme: Entrepreneurial orientation	Andrade-Valbuena et al. (2018)
Theme: Small businesses Subthemes: Management practices	Gonçalves-Araújo et al. (2018)
Theme: Co-citation in entrepreneurship	Perry et al. (2016)
Theme: Rural entrepreneurship	Dias et al. (2019)
Themes/Subthemes	Authors/Year
Theme: Behavior of entrepreneurs Subthemes: Entrepreneurial skills	Ovalles-Toledo et al. (2018)
Theme: Strategic management Subthemes: Strategic management in tourism	Köseoglu et al. (2018)
Theme: International businesses Subthemes: Nascent businesses	Rodríguez-Ruiz et al. (2019)
Theme: Corporative entrepreneurship	Escobar-Sierra et al. (2018)

Journals that published the bibliometric studies

The journal that published the largest number of bibliometric studies is the Scientometrics, which published 11 articles. The Technological Forecasting & Social Change published five articles and, subsequently, four articles were published in the following journals: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice; International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management; and Research Policy, as can be seen in Table 7.

Table 7
Journals, JCR, and number of published articles

Name of the journal	JCR	Number of articles
Scientometrics Technological Forecasting & Social Change Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Research Policy International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research Journal of Business Research Strategic Management Journal International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Journal of Small Business Management Management International Review Sustainability	2,173 2,017 5,321 1,863 4,661 2,406 1,863 2,509 5,482 7,700 5,888 1,937 2,279 2,177	11 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2

It is interesting to observe in Table 7 that the two journals that published the most articles are not aimed at publications in entrepreneurship or strategy. Moreover, among the fifty most cited bibliometric studies, there are no studies published in Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.

Themes and subthemes analysis

The general themes presented in Tables 2, 4, and 6 are summarized in Table 8. As can be seen in Table 8, strategy presents a smaller number of themes than entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship and strategy.

Table 8
General themes

Bibliometric study	Themes
Strategy	International strategy, dynamic capabilities; Performance; Entrepreneurial orientation, absorptive capacity; Strategy and public relations; Strategy and contexts, co-citation, evolution of studies.
Entrepreneurship	Innovation, opportunities, social entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial ecosystems; Rural entrepreneurship; Small businesses; Family business; Entrepreneurial orientation; International entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial ecosystems; Organizational decline; Entrepreneurial intentions; Entrepreneurial education; Ethnic entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial process; Strategy; Venture capital; Women entrepreneurs; Informal entrepreneurship; Social enterprise; Sustainable entrepreneurship; Marketing entrepreneur; Business stories; Territories/Clusters.
Entrepreneurship and strategy	Innovation, family business, sustainable development; Opportunities; Entrepreneurial orientation; Small businesses; Co-citation in entrepreneurship; Rural entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial behavior; Strategic management; International business; Corporate entrepreneurship.

• Note. Source: The authors.

Excluding co-citation and evolution of studies, seven themes account for the themes analyses in bibliometric studies in the field of strategy. In turn, bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship were distributed in twenty-three topics. Moreover, some themes extended in several topics, like innovation, which was classified in the subthemes: social innovation, incubators, university, industry relations, innovation and entrepreneurship, technological networks, technological entrepreneurship, innovative ecosystems, technological parks, knowledge and spin-offs, patent classification system, innovation in small business, and knowledge spillover. Given that, entrepreneurship bibliometric studies evidenced that innovation and entrepreneurship are two fields with connections, as pointed in previous study by Landström, Aström, and Harirchi (2015).

The results of this research showed that the bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship and strategy are in line with themes pointed out in previous studies in each one of these fields of research. Concerning the themes in entrepreneurship, they present similarities to themes pointed out by Meyer et al. (2014), who published a bibliometric study covering publications from 1991 to 2009. Furthermore, there are similar themes identified by Kuratko, Morris, and Schindehutte (2015): venture capital, corporate entrepreneurship, social and sustainable entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial cognition, women and entrepreneurial minorities, global entrepreneurship movement, family business, and entrepreneurship education.

Strategy themes are related to internal and external aspects of the organization, as pointed out by Höskisson, Hitt, Wan, and Yiu (1999). In addition, bibliometric studies covered referred topics discussed in the strategy field, like dynamic capabilities, entrepreneurial orientation, and absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).

The comparison between strategy and entrepreneurship bibliometric studies allows identifying four aspects: the pluralism of themes, the level of analysis, the nature of the themes, and common themes. The first one relates to the pluralism of themes. The largest number of themes is in entrepreneurship. Excluding co-citation and evolution of studies, seven themes account for the analysis of themes in bibliometric studies in strategy. In turn, bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship were classified in twenty-three topics. This result evidences the heterogeneity and pluralism in entrepreneurship (Audretsch, 2012; Leitch, Hill, & Harrison, 2010). However, pluralism may be related to difficulties in establishing the boundaries of the field.

The second aspect is the level of analysis in research. In general, the topics in strategy are more concentrated on internal and external aspects of the organization (Höskisson et al., 1999). In this study, when comparing the themes in strategy and in entrepreneurship, it can be observed that in strategy the themes are predominantly related to the intermediate level of analysis (the enterprise). In this sense, Foss et al. (2008) highlight the necessity to advance discussions emphasizing social and cognitive dynamics that allow understanding how firms initiate and carry out entrepreneurial discovery and action. Subjectivism is important to strategic entrepreneurship with regard to skills and knowledge (Luke et al., 2010). Themes in entrepreneurship focus on individuals, environment, and intermediate level. Entrepreneurship focused on subjective aspects, for instance, in the following themes: entrepreneurial intentions, women and social entrepreneurs; or in the type of entrepreneurial actors (female, ethnic, informal, and social). The entrepreneurial intention has a research potential for studies in strategic entrepreneurship, as it can be developed in a construct to identify individual propensity to explore and exploit opportunities, what is important to create new markets, as well as to develop and grow. This is significant, because ‘growth’ is a missing theme in strategic studies, although it is suggested in the Luke et al. (2010) strategic entrepreneurship model. Furthermore, advance to the individual level in strategic entrepreneurship expands the scope and the boundaries of the field (Simsek et al., 2017).

The third aspect is about the nature of the themes. Entrepreneurship studies present a greater number of studies focusing on context of studies than the strategy field. For instance, entrepreneurship focused on informal, technological, family business and rural context (Ferreira, Fernandes, & Ratten, 2016; López-Fernández, Serrano-Bedia, & Pérez-Pérez, 2016; Pato & Teixeira, 2016; Santos & Ferreira, 2017). In turn, in bibliometric studies in strategy there is only one study, the context of Nordic countries (Schriber, 2016). In addition, among the entrepreneurship themes is the trajectory of organizations, including opportunities and decline (Busenitz, Plummer, Klotz, Shahzad, & Rhoads, 2014; Serra, Ferreira & Almeida, 2013). Organizational decline is recognized as an important subject to understand the development of organizations (Serra et al., 2013) and can bring important contributions to understand the entrepreneurial action with a strategic perspective (Agarwal, Audretsch, & Sarkar, 2010).

The last aspect concerns the themes that are common to strategy and entrepreneurship studies and denotes the proximity of the fields (Ronda-Pupo, 2015; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001). Three common themes were identified: entrepreneurial orientation, internationalization, and innovation. Hitt and Ireland (2000) mentioned as common themes for strategy and entrepreneurship the following: innovation, networks, internationalization, and organizational learning. In this study, ‘network’ is in a subtheme in the bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship, but ‘organizational learning’ is not identified.

Innovation was observed in strategy bibliometric studies, but in subthemes. For instance, the theme ‘dynamic capability’ was divided into the subthemes ‘portfolio and innovation’ and ‘relation between resources and capacities.’ In addition, in the theme ‘absorptive capacity,’ the innovation is in the subthemes ‘absorptive capacity’ and ‘innovation and knowledge.’ Comparing this to the concept of strategic entrepreneurship, it corroborates previous studies that pointed out the innovation as a core theme in strategic entrepreneurship (Agarwal et al., 2017; Autio, 2017; Hitt & Ireland, 2000; Ireland & Webb, 2007a; Ireland & Webb, 2009; Luke et al., 2010).

The theme ‘entrepreneurial orientation’ is another convergent topic in entrepreneurship and strategy, as can be seen in data in Table 8. ‘Entrepreneurial orientation’ is already a research theme in strategy (Covin & Wales, 2012; Campos et al., 2012; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) and it is also in the strategic entrepreneurship models (Gölgeci, Larimo, & Arslan, 2017; Ireland & Webb, 2009).

The third convergent theme is ‘internationalization,’ with the following subthemes: (a) born global, international entrepreneurship, and small business (in entrepreneurship bibliometric studies); (b) international strategic management, resource-based view (RBV), and international strategy (in strategy bibliometric studies); (c) nascent international business (in entrepreneurship and strategy bibliometric studies).

It is relevant to mention the themes in bibliometric studies with the strings ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘strategy’ together, highlighting family business, sustainable development, and corporative entrepreneurship. Figure 2 summarizes the findings of this research, showing the themes by fields of study.

Figure 2
The topics of bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship, strategy, and entrepreneurship and strategy and strategic entrepreneurship field themes

Bibliometric studies in entrepreneurship and strategy and the strategic management field

The themes ‘dynamic capabilities’ and ‘absorptive capacities,’ identified in this research among the strategy themes, represent the strategy side in the strategic entrepreneurship model suggested by Simsek et al. (2017). These two topics are important to exploration and exploitation, elements of the Ireland and Webb’s models (2007b; 2009). With regard to the entrepreneurship side in strategic entrepreneurship (Simsek et al., 2017), the theme ‘opportunities’ represents the central concept for entrepreneurship (Matthews et al., 2018; Shane, 2002) and it is a theme identified in the entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship and strategy data (Table 8).

The concept of strategic entrepreneurship is related to the perception of creation of values by companies and the integration of strategic and entrepreneurial activities (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001; Ketchen, Ireland, & Snow, 2007). The intersection of strategy and entrepreneurship is critical to the domain of strategic entrepreneurship involving the identification and exploitation of opportunities, while “simultaneously creating and sustaining a competitive advantage” (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009, p. 13). Entrepreneurship is related to the creation of organizations (Gartner, 1985) and strategy is related to competitive advantage (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009). The current focus of strategic entrepreneurship is on the creation of value in existing companies, which evidences a predominance of the strategic focus in the concept. Broadening the entrepreneurial approach implies insert in the studies aspects prior to organizations, such as the development of individuals with potential to strategically create and manage organizations.

This requires the introduction of topics focusing on individuals and not just in organizations. According to the data in this research, themes such as ‘entrepreneurial intentions’ can be studied in the context of strategic entrepreneurship, combining the perspectives of creation and growth of organizations (Gartner, 1985; Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009). Among the themes in strategy, there is no reference to subjectivism, what would be important in the perspective of Foss et al. (2008). They highlight the need to advance discussions about subjectivism in strategic management, emphasizing social and cognitive dynamics that allow understanding how firms initiate and carry out entrepreneurial discovery and action. Subjectivism is also important to strategic entrepreneurship with regard to skills and knowledge (Luke et al., 2010).

The intersection of strategy and entrepreneurship is critical to the domain of strategic entrepreneurship involving the identification and exploitation of opportunities, while “simultaneously creating and sustaining a competitive advantage” (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009, p. 13). As the results of this research, innovation, internationalization, and entrepreneurial orientation are intersectional elements in the study of strategy and entrepreneurship. Themes like ‘growth’ and ‘opportunities’ (Ireland, Hitt, Camp, & Sexton, 2001; Luke et al., 2010) and ‘organizational learning’ (Hitt & Ireland, 2000) are relevant to the path of the concept of strategic entrepreneurship. Another theme is ‘entrepreneurial culture,’ not identified in this research, but important to the strategic manage of resources, applying creativity and developing innovation in order to get competitive advantage and wealth creation (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003).

In terms of contexts of study to strategic entrepreneurship, the themes in bibliometric studies in strategy and entrepreneurship highlight the potential to broad studies in various contexts, such as family businesses, and social and sustainable enterprises. Furthermore, strategic entrepreneurship is an important topic to entrepreneurial ecosystems and to territories and clusters. Considering that entrepreneurial orientation, internationalization, and innovation are core topics do strategic entrepreneurship, according to the results of this research and to previous studies (Agarwal et al., 2017; Autio, 2017; Gölgeci et al., 2017; Hitt & Ireland, 2000; Ireland & Webb, 2009), entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems are relevant contexts of study.

Comparing the set of themes identified in the bibliometric studies, object of studies of this research, the results suggest steps that could approximate both fields of studies toward the concept of strategic entrepreneurship. One of them concerns the level of analysis of studies in strategy, whose focus is on the study of organizations, and there is little emphasis on subjectivities, as previous studies have pointed out (Foss, Klein, Kor, & Mahoney, 2008). Another step is associated with the importance of approaches that cover a longitudinal perspective of development of organizations, including antecedents, factors associated with the creation of enterprises, as well as organizational growth and decline.

FINAL REMARKS

The aim of this research was to identify common and distinct themes between entrepreneurship and strategy in order to understand the boundaries of each discipline, the interfaces between them, as well as contribute to the discussion of the strategic entrepreneurship concept. Initially, a scoping literature review was carried out to identify bibliometric studies in strategy and entrepreneurship, and then a thematic analysis was performed. This analysis provides the possibility to better understand the intersection of themes in strategy and entrepreneurship, which is a critical point to the field of strategic entrepreneurship (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009).

According to results of this research, nine themes were identified in the strategy field, twenty-five in entrepreneurship field, and twelve themes in entrepreneurship and strategy. The common themes in both disciplines are ‘innovation,’ ‘internationalization,’ and ‘entrepreneurial orientation.’ In addition, distinct themes were observed, some of them as potential themes for the strategic entrepreneurship research. In this direction, this research demonstrated that there is a field of studies in strategic entrepreneurship related to themes in entrepreneurship and strategy, mainly focusing on individual and contextual level, considering the longitudinal perspective of development of organizations.

The theoretical contribution of this study can be emphasized for both fields of entrepreneurship and strategy. In each field of study, the bibliometric studies represent the themes of interest, as well as a balance of the scientific publications. Although the themes of bibliometric studies are not enough to determine the boundaries of each area, they contribute to think about the boundaries of each field of study, starting from the interest of researchers. This is a contribution to understand what can be entrepreneurship and what can be strategy in the concept of strategic entrepreneurship, as the gap of studies underscored by Simsek et al. (2017). The findings of this study also provide a theoretical contribution to the strategic management field, pointing out no convergent themes, such as familiar, social, and sustainable ventures, that can be a path to the ongoing boundaries of the strategic management field.

As practical contributions, results underscore the potential do expand strategic entrepreneurship domain to different types of organizations, as well as the importance of the concept of strategic entrepreneurship to provide directions to promote the creation and the growth of organizations. The results also provide guidelines for topics in conferences and scientific events oriented to strategic entrepreneurship. The results of the research can serve as a guide for the construction of curricular programs in the areas of strategy and entrepreneurship.

It is important to underscore that the results are limited to scientific articles and themes that have been the subject of studies in bibliometric studies. Although bibliometric studies are important to know themes, they did not allow identifying different approaches that could be reveal tendencies in both fields of study because they are related to past studies.

As a suggestion for future studies, a scoping literature review about bibliometric studies in strategic entrepreneurship is relevant to identify themes in this field and compare them with results of this research. In that sense, is important to investigate the incidence of themes like ‘business growth’ and themes related to individual level of analysis in strategic entrepreneurship studies.

REFERENCES

• Agarwal, R., Dushnitsky, G., Lumpkin, G. T., Wright, M., & Zott, C. (2017). Strategic entrepreneurship journal at 10: Retrospect and prospect. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 197-199. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1260
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1260
• Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.96
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.96
• Albort-Morant, G., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1775-1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.054
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.054
• Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Fernández-Rodríguez, V., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2018). Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 24(1), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.06.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.06.004
• Álvarez-Melgarejo, M., & Torres-Barreto, M. L. (2018). Can resources act as capabilities foundations? A bibliometric analysis. Revista UIS Ingenierías, 17(2), 185-200. https://doi.org/10.18273/revuin.v17n2-2018017
  » https://doi.org/10.18273/revuin.v17n2-2018017
• Andrade-Valbuena, N. A., Merigo-Lindahl, J. M., & Olavarrieta, S. S. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of entrepreneurial orientation. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 15(1), 45-69. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-08-2017-0048
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-08-2017-0048
• Arias, A. V., Restrepo, I. M., & Restrepo, A. M. (2016). Intención emprendedora en estudiantes universitarios: Un estudio bibliométrico. Intangible Capital, 12(4), 881-922. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.730
  » https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.730
• Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5) 755-764. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227384
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227384
• Autio, E. (2017). Strategic entrepreneurial internationalization: A normative framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1261
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1261
• Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014920639101700108
  » https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014920639101700108
• Busenitz, L. W., Plummer, L. A., Klotz, A. C., Shahzad, A., & Rhoads, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985-2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12120
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12120
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2).77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  » https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Campos, H. M., Parra, J. P. N., & Parellada, F. S. (2012). The entrepreneurial orientation-dominant logic-performance relationship in new ventures: An exploratory quantitative study. Brazilian Administration Review, 9(spe), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922012000500005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922012000500005
• Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chatterjee, D., & Sahasranamam, S. (2018). Technological innovation research in China and India: A bibliometric analysis for the period 1991-2015. Management and Organization Review, 14(01), 179-221. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.46
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.46
• Chang, S. H. (2018). A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems. Scientometrics,114(3), 951-970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2613-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2613-6
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective in learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
• Choi, D. G., Lee, Y., Jung, M., & Lee, H. (2012). National characteristics and competitiveness in MOT research: A comparative analysis of ten specialty journals, 2000-2009. Technovation, 32(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.09.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.09.004
• Compte-Pujol, M., Matilla, K., & Hernández, S. (2018). Estrategia y relaciones públicas: Un estudio bibliométrico comparativo. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 73, 748-764. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2018-1280
  » https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2018-1280
• Cornelius, B., Landström, H., & Persson, O. (2006). Entrepreneurial studies: The dynamic research front of a developing social science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 375-398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00125.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00125.x
• Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 677-702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00432.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00432.x
• Dias, C. S. L., Rodrigues, R. G., & Ferreira, J. J. (2019). What’s new in the research on agricultural entrepreneurship? Journal of Rural Studies, 65, 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.11.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.11.003
• Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research Policy, 41(8), 1283-1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021
• Dzikowski, P. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of born global firms. Journal of Business Research, 85, 281-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054
• Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
• Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(1), 1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
• Escobar-Sierra, M., Valencia-DeLara, P., & Vera-Acevedo, L. D. (2018). A new corporate entrepreneurship knowledge schema as a research field. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 24(4). Retrieved from https://www.abacademies.org/articles/a-new-corporate-entrepreneurship-knowledge-schema-as-a-research-field-7600.html
  » https://www.abacademies.org/articles/a-new-corporate-entrepreneurship-knowledge-schema-as-a-research-field-7600.html
• Fellnhofer, K. (2018). Visualised bibliometric mapping on smart specialisation: A co-citation analysis journal knowledge-based development. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 9(1), 76-99. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2018.090502
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2018.090502
• Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J. J., Raposo, M. L., Estevão, C., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Rueda-Armengot, C. (2017). The dynamic capabilities perspective of strategic management: A co-citation analysis, Scientometrics, 112(1), 529-555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2397-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2397-8
• Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., & Ratten, V. (2016). A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research. Scientometrics, 109(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2008-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2008-0
• Ferreira, J. J, Fernandes, C. I., & Ratten, V. (2017). International entrepreneurship research: Mapping and cognitive structures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 30(4), 545-566. Retrieved from http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=82880
  » http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=82880
• Ferreira, J. J., Ferreira, F. A. F., Fernandes, C., Jalali, M., Raposo, M. L., & Marques, C. S. (2016). What do we [not] know about technology entrepreneurship research? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 713-733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0359-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0359-2
• Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., Peres-Ortiz, M., & Alves, H. (2017). Conceptualizing social entrepreneurship: Perspectives from the literature. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 14, 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-016-0165-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-016-0165-8
• Ferreira, M. P., Storopoli, J. E., & Serra, F. R. (2016). Two decades of research on strategic alliances: Analysis of citations, co-citations and themes researched. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 18(spe), 109-133. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac20142022
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac20142022
• Ferreira, M. A. S. P. V., Pinto, C. S. F., Serra, F. A. R., & Santos, J. C. (2013). A bibliometric study of John Dunning’s contribution to international business research. Review of Business Management, 15(46), 56-75. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v15i46.1163
  » https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v15i46.1163
• Ferreira, M. P., Serra, F. R., Costa, B. K., & Almeida, M. (2016). A bibliometric study of the resource-based view (RBV) in international business research using barney (1991) as a key marker. Innovar, 26(61), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v26n61.57173
  » https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v26n61.57173
• Ferreira, M. P., Reis, N. R., Paula, R. M., & Pinto, C. F. (2017). Structural and longitudinal analysis of the knowledge base on spin-off research. Scientometrics, 112, 289-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2391-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2391-1
• Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 1019-1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x
• Filser, M., Brem, A., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Calabrò, A. (2016). Innovation in family firms - Examining the inventory and mapping the path. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(06), 1650054. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919616500547
  » https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919616500547
• Folta, T. B. (2014). A model scholar and preeminent contributor to our understanding of strategic entrepreneurship: Arnold C. Cooper (1933-2012). Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(4), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1183
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1183
• Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. (2008). Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the resource-based view: Toward a new synthesis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.41
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.41
• Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00217.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00217.x
• Galvão, A., Ferreira, J. J., & Marques, C. (2018). Entrepreneurship education and training as facilitators of regional development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2017-0178
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2017-0178
• Ganzaroli, A., Orsi, L., & Noni, I. D. (2013). The evolution of the social understanding of ethnic entrepreneurship: Results from a bibliometric analysis of the literature. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(4), 383-401. Retrieved from http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=57198
  » http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=57198
• García-Lillo, F., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., Úbeda-García, M. (2017). Mapping the intellectual structure of research on ‘born global’ firms and INVs: A citation/co-citation analysis. Management International Review, 57(4), 631-652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-016-0308-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-016-0308-5
• Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279094
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279094
• Gartner, W. B., Davidsson, P., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Are you talking to me? The nature of community in entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 321-331. ttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00123.x
• Ghio, N., Guerini, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9588-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9588-y
• Gölgeci, I., Larimo, J., & Arslan, A. (2017). Institutions and dynamic capabilities: Theoretical insights and research agenda for strategic entrepreneurship. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33(4), 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2017.08.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2017.08.003
• Gomes, L. A. de V., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2016). Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136(C), 30-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009
• Gonçalves-Araújo, J., Barbosa-da-Silva, L., & Cardoso-da-Silva, M. E. (2018). Small enterprises and management practices: Contributions of brazilian journals. Estudios Gerenciales, 34(149), 457-468. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2018.149.2752
  » https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2018.149.2752
• Gonçalves, C. P, Carrara, K., & Schmittel, R. M. (2016). The phenomenon of social enterprises: Are we keeping watch on this cultural practice? Voluntas, 27(4), 1585-1610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9624-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9624-9
• González-Alcaide, G., Gorraiz, J., & Hervás-Oliver, J.-L. (2018). On the use of bibliometric Indicators for the analysis of emerging topics and their evolution: Spin-offs as a case study. Profesional de la Información, 27(3), 493-510. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.04
  » https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.04
• Guo, D., Chen, H., Long, R., Lu, H., & Long, Q. (2017). A co-word analysis of organizational constraints for maintaining sustainability. Sustainability, 9(10), 1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101928
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101928
• Han, Y.-J. (2015). Analysis of essential patent portfolios via bibliometric mapping: An illustration of leading firms in the 4G era. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(7), 809-839. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1019850
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1019850
• Hernández-Linares, R., Sarkar, S., & Cobo, M. J. (2018). Inspecting the Achilles heel: A quantitative analysis of 50 years of family business definitions. Scientometrics, 115(2), 929-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2702-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2702-1
• Hine, D., & Miettinen, A. (2006). Redressing oversights: Exploring informal innovation in small IT firms. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 1(3), 258. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2006.010611
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2006.010611
• Hitt, M., & Ireland, R. D. (2000). The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research. In Sexton, D. L., Landstrom, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of entrepreneurship. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 479-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.196
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.196
• Höskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500307
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500307
• Hodgson, G. M., & Lamberg, J.-A. (2018). The past and future of evolutionary economics: Some reflections based on new bibliometric evidence. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 15(1), 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0044-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0044-3
• Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. J. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4251393
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4251393
• Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007a). A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management, 33(6), 891-927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307643
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307643
• Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007b). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1) 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2006.06.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2006.06.002
• Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963-989. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00086-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00086-2
• Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2009). Crossing the great divide of strategic entrepreneurship: Transitioning between exploration and exploitation. Business Horizons, 52(5), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.05.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.05.002
• Ketchen, D. J., Ireland, R. D., & Snow, C. C. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship, collaborative innovation and wealth creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3-4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.20
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.20
• Köseoglu, M. A. (2016). Mapping the institutional collaboration network of strategic management research: 1980-2014. Scientometrics, 109, 203-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1894-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1894-5
• Köseoglu, M. A., Okumus, F., Dogan, I. C., & Law, R. (2018). Intellectual structure of strategic management research in the hospitality management field: A co-citation analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.09.006
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.09.006
• Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring different perspectives of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00278.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00278.x
• Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Schindehutte, M. (2015). Understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship through framework approaches. Small Business Economics, 45, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9627-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9627-3
• Kushkowski, J. D. (2012). Charting the growth of entrepreneurship: A citation analysis of FER content, 1981-2008. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(3), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.685035
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.685035
• Kraus, S., & Kauranen, I. (2009). Strategic management and entrepreneurship: Friends or foes? International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 4(1), 37-50. Retrieved from https://www.business-and-management.org/paper.php?id=37
  » https://www.business-and-management.org/paper.php?id=37
• Krüger, C., Johann, D., & Minello, I. (2018). Educação empreendedora: Um estudo bibliométrico sobre a produção científica recente. Navus - Revista de Gestão e Tecnologia, 8(4), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2018.v8n4.p125-145.722
  » https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2018.v8n4.p125-145.722
• Lacerda, R. T. de O., Ensslin, L., & Ensslin, S. R. (2012). Uma análise bibliométrica da literatura sobre estratégia e avaliação de desempenho. Gestão & Produção, 19(1), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2012000100005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2012000100005
• Landström, H. (2008). Entrepreneurship research: A missing link in our understanding of the knowledge economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(2), 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930810870355
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930810870355
• Landström, H., & Harirchi, G. (2018). The social structure of entrepreneurship as a scientific field. Research Policy, 47(3), 650-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.013
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.013
• Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Aström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154-1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.009
• Landström, H., Aström, F., & Harirchi, G. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship studies: One or two fields of research? International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 11(3), 493-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0282-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0282-3
• Laudano, M. C., Marzi, G., & Caputo, A. (2018). A decade of the international journal of entrepreneurship and small business: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 33(2), 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2018.090151
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2018.090151
• Lee, M., & Lee, S. (2017). Identifying new business opportunities from competitor intelligence: An integrated use of patent and trademark databases. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 170-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.026
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.026
• Leitch, C. M., Hill, F. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2010). the philosophy and practice of interpretivist research in entrepreneurship: Quality, validation, and trust. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109339839
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109339839
• López-Fernández, M. C., Serrano-Bedia, A. M., & Pérez-Pérez, M. (2016). Entrepreneurship and family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emerging field. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 622-639. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12161
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12161
• Luke, B., Kearins, K., & Verreynne, M-L. (2010). Developing a conceptual framework of strategic entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 17(3), 314-337. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111130736
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111130736
• Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-160. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568
• Macke, J., Sarate, J. A. R., Domeneghini, J., & Silva, K. A. (2018). Where do we go from now? Research framework for social entrepreneurship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 677-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.017
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.017
• Macedo-Soares, T. D. L. V. A., Barboza, T. S., & Paula, F. O. (2016). Absorptive capacity, alliance portfolios and innovation performance: An analytical model based on bibliographic research. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11(3), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242016000300003
  » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242016000300003
• Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12(3), e12359. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359
• Martens, C. D. P., Lacerda, F. M., Belfort, A. C., & Freitas, H. M. R. D. (2016). Research on entrepreneurial orientation: Current status and future agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(4), 556-583. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-08-2015-0183
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-08-2015-0183
• Martin, X., & Oever, K. V. D. (2013). Progress, maturity or exhaustion? Sources and modes of theorizing on the international strategy - Performance relationship (1990-2011). In T. M. Devinney, T. Pedersen, L. Tihanyi (Eds.), Philosophy of Science and Meta-Knowledge in International Business and Management (Vol. 26, pp. 331-361). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1571-5027(2013)0000026018
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/S1571-5027(2013)0000026018
• Martinez, H., Jaime, A., & Camacho, J. (2012). Relative absorptive capacity: A research profiling. Scientometrics, 92, 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0652-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0652-6
• Martínez-Climent, C., Zorio-Grima, A., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2018). Financial return crowdfunding: Literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), 527-553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0511-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0511-x
• Matthews, R., Chalmers, D., & Fraser, S. (2018). The intersection of entrepreneurship and selling: An interdisciplinary review, framework, and future research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(6), 691-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.04.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.04.008
• Meyer, M., Libaers, D., Thijs, B., Grant, K., Glänzel, W., & Debackere, K. (2014). Origin and emergence of entrepreneurship as a research field. Scientometrics, 98(1), 473-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1021-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1021-9
• Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
  » https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
• Mora-Valentín, E.-M., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & Nájera-Sánchez, J.-J. (2018). Mapping the conceptual structure of science and technology parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1410-1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9654-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9654-8
• Most, F., Conejo, F. J., & Cunningham, L. F. (2018). Bridging past and present entrepreneurial marketing research: A co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 20(2), 229-251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-11-2017-0049
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-11-2017-0049
• Mota, F. B., Pinto, C. D., Paranhos, J., & Hasenclever, L. (2017). Mapping the dynamic capabilities scientific landscape, 1990-2015: A bibliometric analysis. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 11(2), 309-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2017.1306181
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2017.1306181
• Murray, F. (2002). Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1389-1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00070-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00070-7
• Nerur, S. P., Rasheed, A. A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.659
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.659
• Nerur, S., Rasheed, A. A., & Pandey, A. (2015). Citation footprints on the sands of time: An analysis of idea migrations in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(6), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2377
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2377
• Ojala, J., Eloranta, J., Ojala, A., & Valtonen, H. (2017). Let the best story win - evaluation of the most cited business history articles. Management & Organizational History, 12(4), 305-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2017.1394200
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2017.1394200
• Øyna, S., & Alon, I. (2018). A review of born globals. International Studies of Management & Organization, 48(2), 157-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1443737
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1443737
• Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., Nájera-Sánchez, J.-J., & Mora-Valentín, E.-M. (2018). A research agenda on open innovation and entrepreneurship: A co-word analysis. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030034
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030034
• Ovalles-Toledo, L. V., Freites, Z. M., Urbina, O., Ángel, M. A. O., & Harold, S. G. (2018). Habilidades y capacidades del emprendimiento: Un estudio bibliométrico. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 23(81), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.37960/revista.v23i81.23477
  » https://doi.org/10.37960/revista.v23i81.23477
• Pato, M. L., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2016). Twenty years of rural entrepreneurship: A bibliometric survey. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12058
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12058
• Paliokaitė, A., Martinaitis, Ž., & Reimeris, R. (2015). Foresight methods for smart specialisation strategy development in Lithuania. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.008
• Perry, J. T., Hanke, R. H., Chandler, G. N., & Markova, G. (2016). Some predictors of entrepreneurship article impact. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(1), 42-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355715616234
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355715616234
• Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). The competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
• Ramos-Rodríguez, A.-R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397
• Ratinho, T., Harms, R., & Walsh, S. (2015). Structuring the technology entrepreneurship publication landscape: Making sense out of chaos. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.004
• Razminienė, K., & Tvaronavičienė, M. (2017). Economic globalization and its impacts on clustering. Terra Economicus, 15(2),109-121. https://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2017-15-2-109-121
  » https://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2017-15-2-109-121
• Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651-1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.033
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.033
• Restrepo, I. M, Valencia, A. A., & Restrepo, A. M. (2016). Mapeo del campo de conocimiento en intenciones emprendedoras mediante el análisis de redes sociales de conocimiento. Ingeniare, 24(2), 337-350. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33052016000200015
  » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33052016000200015
• Rodríguez-Ruiz, F., Almodóvar, P., & Nguyen, Q. T. K. (2019). Intellectual structure of international new venture research: A bibliometric analysis and suggestions for a future research agenda. Multinational Business Review, 27(4), 285-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbr-01-2018-0003
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/mbr-01-2018-0003
• Röhm, P. (2018). Exploring the landscape of corporate venture capital: A systematic review of the entrepreneurial and finance literature. Management Review Quarterly, 68(3), 279-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0140-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0140-z
• Rossetto, D. E., Carvalho, F. C. A., Bernardes, R. C. & Borini, F. M. (2017). Absorptive capacity and innovation: An overview of international scientific production of last twenty-five years. International Journal of Innovation, 5(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v5i1.172
  » https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v5i1.172
• Ronda-Pupo, G. A. (2015). Growth and consolidation of strategic management research: Insights for the future development of strategic management. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 155-169. Retrieved from https://www.abacademies.org/articles/asmjvol14no2.pdf
  » https://www.abacademies.org/articles/asmjvol14no2.pdf
• Rumrill, P. D., Fitzgerald, S. M., & Merchant, W. R. (2010). Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Speaking of Research, 35(3), 399-404. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-2010-0998
  » https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-2010-0998
• Santos, G., Marques, C. S., & Ferreira, J. J. (2018). A look back over the past 40 years of female entrepreneurship: Mapping knowledge networks. Scientometrics, 115(2), 953-987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2705-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2705-y
• Santos, E. M. M. N., & Ferreira, J. J. (2017). Analysing informal entrepreneurship: A bibliometric survey. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 22(04), 1750022. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946717500224
  » https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946717500224
• Sarango-Lalangui, P., Santos, J. L. S., & Hormiga, E. (2018). The development of sustainable entrepreneurship research field. Sustainability, 10(6), 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062005
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062005
• Sassmannshausen, S. P., & Volkmann, C. (2016). The scientometrics of social entrepreneurship and its establishment as an academic field. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(2), 251-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12254
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12254
• Schriber, S. (2016). Nordic strategy research - Topics, theories, and trends. Scandinavian. Journal of Management, 32(4), 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2016.10.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2016.10.001
• Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x
• Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 369-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0401-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0401-z
• Serra, F. R., Ferreira, M. P., & Almeida, M. I. R. (2013). Organizational decline: A yet largely neglected topic in organizational studies. Management Research, 11(2), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-Mar-2012-0476
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-Mar-2012-0476
• Servantie, V., Cabrol, M., Guieu, G., & Boissin, J.-P. (2016). Is international entrepreneurship a field? A bibliometric analysis of the literature (1989-2015). Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14, 168-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-015-0162-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-015-0162-8
• Shane, S. (2002). The foundations of entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1) 10-20. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0078
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0078
• Shim, J., Bliemel, M., & Choi, M. (2017). Modeling complex entrepreneurial processes: A bibliometric method for designing agent-based simulation models. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(6), 1052-1070. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0374
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0374
• Short, J. C., Ketchen, J. G. Jr, Combs, J. G., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Research methods in entrepreneurship: Opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109342448
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109342448
• Shum, V., Park, A., Maine, E., & Pitt, L. F. (2019). A bibliometric study of research-technology management, 1998-2017. Research-Technology Management, 62(1), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2019.1541728
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2019.1541728
• Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Fox, B. C., (2017). (Meta-)framing strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Organization, 15(4), 504-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017711720
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017711720
• Silveira, F. F., & Zilber, S. N. (2017). Is social innovation about innovation? A bibliometric study identifying the main authors, citations, and co-citations over 20 years. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 21(6), 459-484. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2017.086936
  » https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2017.086936
• Stuart, T., & Sorenson, O. (2008). Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3-4), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.18
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.18
• Stewart, A. (2018). Can family business loosen the grips of accounting, economics, and finance? Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(3), 153-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.06.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.06.001
• Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Schuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
• Teixeira, A. A. C. (2011). Mapping the (in)visible college(s)in the field of entrepreneurship. Scientometrics, 89, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0445-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0445-3
• Teixeira, A. A. C., & Mota, L. (2012). A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university-industry links. Scientometrics, 93, 719-743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0823-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0823-5
• Tenca, F., Croce, A., & Ughetto, E. (2018). Business angels research in entrepreneurial finance: A literature review and a research agenda. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(5), 1384-1413. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12224
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12224
• Van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923-1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.010
• Venkataraman, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Strategy and entrepreneurship: Outlines of an untold story. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, J. S. Harrison (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of strategic management (pp. 650-668). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2012). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426-446. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12000
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12000
• Volery, T., & Mazzarol, T. (2015). The evolution of the small business and entrepreneurship field: A bibliometric investigation of articles published in the International Small Business Journal. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 33(4), 374-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613516139
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613516139
• Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 97(5), 261-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x
• Webb, J. W., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2014). Toward a greater understanding of entrepreneurship and strategy in the informal economy. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1176
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1176
• Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
• White, G. O., Guldiken, O., Hemphill, T. A., He, W., & Khoobdeh, M. S. (2016). Trends in international strategic management research from 2000 to 2013: Text mining and bibliometric analyses. Management International Review, 56(1), 35-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0260-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0260-9
• Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., Devinney, T. M., & Lavie, D. (2018). Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation? Strategic Organization, 16(3), 352-369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018765031
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018765031
• Zhao, E. Y., Ishihara, M., & Jennings, P. D. (2020). Strategic entrepreneurship's dynamic tensions: Converging (diverging) effects of experience and networks on market entry timing and entrant performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2), 105933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.04.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.04.001
• Zhang, Y., Huang, Y., Porter, A. L., Zhang, G., & Lu, J. (2019). Discovering and forecasting interactions in big data research: A learning-enhanced bibliometric study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 795-807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.007
• Zupic., I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
• Zoogah, D. B., & Rigg, J. S. (2014). Bibliographic analysis and strategic management research in Africa. In D. B. Zoogah (Ed.), Advancing research methodology in the African context: Techniques, methods, and designs (Vol. 10, pp. 189-213). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-838720140000010009
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-838720140000010009

• JEL Codes:

  M1; M2; M31; M41; M5

• This content was evaluated using the double-blind peer review process. The disclosure of the reviewers' information on the first page is made only after concluding the evaluation process, and with the voluntary consent of the respective reviewers.

Edited by

Editors-in-Chief:

Carlo Gabriel Porto Bellini (Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Brazil); Ivan Lapuente Garrido (Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brazil)

Associate Editors:

Adriana Roseli Wunsch Takahashi (Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil); Dennys Eduardo Rossetto (SKEMA Business School, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil; Université Côte d’Azur, GREDEG, Valbonne, France)

Edited by

Editorial assistants:

Kler Godoy and Simone Rafael (ANPAD, Maringá, PR, Brazil)

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  10 Sept 2021
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  11 May 2020
• Accepted
  03 Aug 2021
• Published
  13 Aug 2021