How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem
- 878 Downloads
Identifying the trends and features of metaknowledge will help scholars track knowledge through topics. This paper designs a new methodology to make it in a certain field. The proposed novel design performs well in the interdisciplinary domain where there are plenty noisy data and conflicting findings. This study applies this research design to a typical interdisciplinary domain, i.e. innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems. To identify the scope of research and rationalize data collection process, this paper makes a definition of innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems based on previous researches. Next, we design two data filtering procedures, which can handle the noisy data and provide the datasets for sequence analyses. Then, we adopt the co-citation analysis and network meta-analysis to clarify the trends and features of multiple metaknowledges. Finally, we draw conclusions about emerging trends, mainstream and hotspots, current situation, future challenges or other features of metaknowledge. We also integrate some conflicting findings, which provide more accurate evidences for the field. Evidences show that this novel research design is an effective tool for analyzing metaknowledges and also suitable for other fields.
KeywordsMetaknowledge Co-citation Network meta-analysis Innovation ecosystem Entrepreneurial ecosystem
This study is supported by the Grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71673261 and 71373254) and from The Research Team of Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province in China (2016A030312005). The authors are very grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal Scientometrics, which significantly improved the quality of the paper.
- Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84, 98–107.Google Scholar
- Adner, R. (2012). The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation (p. 2012). London: Portfolio, Penguin.Google Scholar
- Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62, 777–795.Google Scholar
- Carl, S., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Brighton: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
- Carlin, B. P., Hong, H., Shamliyan, T. A., Sainfort, F., & Kane, R. L. (2013). Case study comparing bayesian and frequentist approaches for multiple treatment comparisons. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
- *Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012). Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: the case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, 36, 263–290.Google Scholar
- Chaimani, A., & Salanti, G. (2015). Visualizing assumptions and results in network meta-analysis: The network graphs package. The Stata Journal, 15, 905–950.Google Scholar
- Chen, C. M. (2014). The citespace manual. http://cluster.ischool.drexel.edu/~cchen/citespace/CiteSpaceManual.pdf.
- Chen, Y., Chen, C., Hu, Z., & Wang, X. (2014a). Principles and applications of analyzing a citation space. Beijing: Science Press.Google Scholar
- Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 660–679.Google Scholar
- Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Estrategias para mercados bilaterales. Harvard Business Review, 84, 60–71.Google Scholar
- Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(Winter), 28–35.Google Scholar
- Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H., & Rowlinson, M. (2010). Academic journal quality guide, version 4. London: Association of Business Schools.Google Scholar
- Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., et al. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004a). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004b). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–78.Google Scholar
- Jackson, B. D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem?, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/files/download-files/DJackson_What-is-an-Innovation-Ecosystem.pdf.
- *Kapoor, R. (2014). Collaborating with complementors: What do firms do? Collaboration and Competition in Business Ecosystems, 11, 3–25.Google Scholar
- *Lichtenthaler, U. (Unpublished). Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective.Google Scholar
- Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71, 75–83.Google Scholar
- Moore, J. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
- Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Bellknap Press.Google Scholar
- Peltoniemi, M. (2006). Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(1), 10–19.Google Scholar
- Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
- White, I. R. (2015). Network meta-analysis. The Stata Journal, 4, 951–985.Google Scholar