Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship
Despite the vitality and dynamism that the field of entrepreneurship has experienced in the last decade, the issue of whether it comprises an effective network of (in)formal communication linkages among the most influential scholars within the area has yet to be examined in depth. This study follows a formal selection procedure to delimit the ‘relational environment’ of the field of entrepreneurship and to analyze the existence and characterization of (in)visible college(s) based on a theoretically well-grounded framework, thus offering a comprehensive and up-to-date empirical analysis of entrepreneurship research. Based on more than a 1,000 papers published between 2005 and 2010 in seven core entrepreneurship journals and the corresponding (85,000) citations, we found that entrepreneurship is an (increasingly) autonomous, legitimate and cohesive (in)visible college, fine tuned through the increasing visibility of certain subject specialties (e.g., family business, innovation, technology and policy). Moreover, the rather dense formal links that characterize the entrepreneurship (in)visible college are accompanied by a reasonably solid network of informal relations maintained and sustained by the mobility of ‘stars’ and highly influential scholars. The limited internationalization of the entrepreneurship community, reflected in the almost total absence of non-English-speaking authors/studies/outlets, stands as a major quest for the field.
KeywordsBibliometrics Entrepreneurship Invisible college
JEL ClassificationZ10 L26 C89
- Baumol, W. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. American Economic Review, 58(2), 64–71.Google Scholar
- Borgman, C., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3–72.Google Scholar
- Borokhovich, K. A., Bricker, R. J., & Simkins, B. J. (1994). The streams of financial research and their interrelationships: Evidence from the Social Sciences Citation Index. Financial Practice and Education, 4(2), 110–123.Google Scholar
- Cooper, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship: The past, the present, the future. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. E. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Davidsson, P. (2008). The entrepreneurship research challenge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Davidsson, P., Low, M. B., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on—Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5–15.Google Scholar
- Hagstrom, W. O. (1970). Factors related to the use of different modes of publishing research in four scientific fields. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
- Katz, J. (2003). Core publications in entrepreneurship and related fields: A guide to getting published. Version 4.1.1. http://eweb.slu.edu/booklist.htm.
- Katz, J. & Boal, K. (2006). Entrepreneurship journal rankings. Accessed April 19, 2011, from http://www.marketingtechie.com/articles/mtart20020307.pdf.
- Price, D. J. de Solla (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Price, D. J. de Solla (1971). Some remarks on elitism in information and the invisible college phenomenon in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 22, 74–75.Google Scholar
- Price, D. J. de Solla (1986). Little science, big science and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Ravallion, M., & Wagstaff, A. (2011). On measuring scholarly influence by citations. Scientometrics, online first. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0375-0.
- Rigney, D., & Barnes, D. (1980). Patterns of interdisciplinary citation in the social sciences. Social Science Quarterly, 61(1), 114–127.Google Scholar
- Romano, C., & Ratnatunga, J. (1996). A citation analysis of the impact of journals on contemporary small enterprise research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 7–21.Google Scholar
- Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.Google Scholar
- Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
- Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge management: Historical and cross-disciplinary themes. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
- Watkins, D., & Reader, D. (2004), Identifying current trends in entrepreneurship research: A new approach. Accessed April 2011, from http://www.kmu.unisg.ch/rencontres/RENC2004/Topics/Watkins_Renc_2004_Topic_A.pdf.
- Zitt, M. (2006). Scientometric indicators: A few challenges. Data mine-clearing, knowledge flows measurements, diversity issues, invited plenary talk. In Proceedings international workshop on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & seventh COLLNET meeting, Nancy (France). http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00006306/.