, 89:1 | Cite as

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.


Bibliometrics Entrepreneurship Invisible college 

JEL Classification

Z10 L26 C89 



I’m deeply grateful for useful comments and suggestions from two referees. The encouragement and patience of the Editor, Tibor Braun, is sincerely acknowledged. I’m also indebted to João Ramos, João Américo Ramos, Marlene Grande and Paulo Pires for their help in harmonizing some data/citations.

Supplementary material

11192_2011_445_MOESM1_ESM.doc (884 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 884 kb)


  1. Albarrán, P., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). References made and citations received by scientific articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Young, S. L. (2010). Debates in entrepreneurship: Opportunity formation and implications for the field of entrepreneurship. International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship, 5(Part 1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumol, W. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. American Economic Review, 58(2), 64–71.Google Scholar
  4. Borgman, C., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3–72.Google Scholar
  5. Borgman, C. L., & Rice, R. E. (1992). The convergence of information science and communication: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Braunerhjelm, P., & Henrekson, M. (2009). Awarding entrepreneurship research: A presentation of the Global Award. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 809–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, K. (2011). Caring and daring entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casillas, J., & Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review, 20(2), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clements, K. W., & Wang, P. (2003). Who cites what? Economic Record, 79(245), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Davidsson, P. (2008). The entrepreneurship research challenge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Doreian, P., & Fararo, T. J. (1985). Structural equivalence in a journal network. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etemad, H., & Lee, Y. (2003). The knowledge network of international entrepreneurship: Theory and evidence. Small Business Economics, 20, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frey, B. (2006). How influential is economics? De Economist, 154(2), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fried, V. (2003). Defining a forum for entrepreneurship scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gamboa, E. C., & Brouthers, L. E. (2008). How international is entrepreneurship? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 551–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gartner, W. B. (2001). Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 27–39.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grégoire, D. A., Noël, M. X., Déry, R., & Béchard, J.-P. (2006). Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 333–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Henrekson, M., & Lundström, A. (2009). The Global Award for entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 32, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz, J. (2003). Core publications in entrepreneurship and related fields: A guide to getting published. Version 4.1.1.
  28. Katz, J. & Boal, K. (2006). Entrepreneurship journal rankings. Accessed April 19, 2011, from
  29. Leydesdorff, L. (2002). Indicators of structural change in the dynamics of science: Entropy statistics of the sc journal citation reports. Scientometrics, 53(1), 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leydesdorff, L. (2004). Top-down decomposition of the journal citation report of the social science citation index: Graph- and factor-analytical approaches. Scientometrics, 60(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L. (2008). The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update. Scientometrics, 76(1), 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leydesdorff, L., & Cozzens, S. E. (1993). The delineation of specialties in terms of journals using the dynamic journal set of the science citation index. Scientometrics, 26, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lievrouw, L. A. (1989). The invisible college reconsidered: Bibliometrics and the development of scientific communication theory. Communication Research, 16, 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Locke, J., & Perera, H. (2001). The intellectual structure of international accounting in the early 1990s. International Journal of Accounting, 36(2), 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyer, G. D. (2011). The reinvention of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Price, D. J. de Solla (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Price, D. J. de Solla (1986). Little science, big science and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Ratnatunga, J., & Romano, C. (1997). A citation classics’ analysis of articles in contemporary small enterprise research. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ravallion, M., & Wagstaff, A. (2011). On measuring scholarly influence by citations. Scientometrics, online first. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0375-0.
  43. Reader, D., & Watkins, D. (2006). The social and collaborative nature of entrepreneurship scholarship: A co-citation and perceptual analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 417–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rigney, D., & Barnes, D. (1980). Patterns of interdisciplinary citation in the social sciences. Social Science Quarterly, 61(1), 114–127.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.Google Scholar
  49. Silva, E. G., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2008). Surveying structural change: Seminal contributions and a bibliometric account. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 19(4), 273–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steyaert, C., Hjorth, D., & Gartner, W. B. (2011). Six memos for a curious and imaginative future scholarship in entrepreneurship studies’. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  52. Tuire, P., & Erno, P. (2001). Exploring invisible scientific communities: Studying networking relations within an educational research community: A Finnish case. Higher Education, 42, 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van den Besselaar, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (1996). Mapping change in scientific specialties: A scientometric reconstruction of the development of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(6), 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Vieira, P. C., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2010). Are finance, management, and marketing autonomous fields of scientific research? An analysis based on journal citations. Scientometrics, 85(3), 627–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge management: Historical and cross-disciplinary themes. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  57. Waller, J. H. (2006). Evaluating scholarly communication at the subdisciplinary level. Collection Management, 30(2), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watkins, D., & Reader, D. (2004), Identifying current trends in entrepreneurship research: A new approach. Accessed April 2011, from
  59. Werner, S., & Brouthers, L. E. (2002). How international is management? Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 583–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zahra, S. (2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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).
  63. Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 57(2), 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zuccala, A., & van den Besselaar, P. (2009). Mapping review networks: Exploring research community roles and contributions. Scientometrics, 81(1), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEF.UP, Faculdade de EconomiaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.INESC PortoUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.OBEGEFUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations