What’s in a name? Exploring the conceptual structure of emerging organizations

  • Manuel Castriotta
  • Michela Loi
  • Elona Marku
  • Luca Naitana


This study describes the conceptual structure of emerging organisations on the basis of research over the past 26 years. During this period, terms and theoretical perspectives have proliferated, creating a field that is highly fragmented and dispersed. Using a co-word analysis based on author keywords, we selected the most frequent key-terms to provide a complete overview of current studies. In particular, through cluster analysis, we highlight the labels that entrepreneurship scholars have used to investigate emerging organisations and illustrate how they are arranged in subgroups. Furthermore, we interpret the distances among terms with multidimensional scaling. Using overlay visualization, we anchor the relevance of the keywords over time. Our findings show that five possible conceptualizations of emerging organisations coexist. These range from antecedents of venture creation to innovation mechanisms. We conclude that entrepreneurial nascency is just one of several descriptive components used in academic studies.


Organizational emergence Nascent entrepreneurship Venture creation Business formation Startup Bibliometrics 


  1. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). The resource-based theory: Dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 621–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Strategic innovation, corporate entrepreneurship and matching outside-into inside-out approaches to strategy research 1. British Journal of Management, 6, S3–S16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, A., Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. Z., & Brem, A. (2015). Beyond traditional developmental models: A fresh perspective on entrepreneurial new venture creation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 7(2), 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benavides-Velasco, C. A., Quintana-García, C., & Guzmán-Parra, V. F. (2013). Trends in family business research. Small Business Economics, 40(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bird, M., & Wennberg, K. (2014). Regional influences on the prevalence of family versus non-family start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boonman, H. J., & Siddiqui, A. S. (2017). Capacity optimization under uncertainty: The impact of operational time lags. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 660–672.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Børsting, C., & Thomsen, S. (2017). Foundation ownership, reputation, and labour. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(2), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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(05), 981–1000.Google Scholar
  11. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cambrosio, A., Limoges, C., Courtial, J., & Laville, F. (1993). Historical scientometrics? Mapping over 70 years of biological safety research with coword analysis. Scientometrics, 27(2), 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castriotta, M., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2016). Disentangling the automotive technology structure: A patent co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 107(2), 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chandra, Y. (2018). Mapping the evolution of entrepreneurship as a field of research (1990–2013): A scientometric analysis. PloS ONE, 13(1), e0190228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Choi, J., & Lee, J. (2017). Repairing the R&D market failure: Public R&D subsidy and the composition of private R&D. Research Policy, 46(8), 1465–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, J. M., Quast, L. N., Jang, S., Wohkittel, J., Center, B., Edwards, K., et al. (2016). GLOBE study culture clusters: Can they be found in importance ratings of managerial competencies? European Journal of Training and Development, 40(7), 534–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cobo, M. J., Chiclana, F., Collop, A., de Ona, J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of the intelligent transportation systems research based on science mapping. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 15(2), 901–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cuccurullo, C., Aria, M., & Sarto, F. (2016). Foundations and trends in performance management. A twenty-five years bibliometric analysis in business and public administration domains. Scientometrics, 108(2), 595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davidsson, P. (2006). Nascent entrepreneurship: Empirical studies and developments. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davidsson, P. (2016). Researching entrepreneurship: Conceptualization and design (Vol. 33). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Davidsson, P., & Gordon, S. R. (2012). Panel studies of new venture creation: A methods-focused review and suggestions for future research. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 853–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davidsson, P., & Gordon, S. R. (2016). Much ado about nothing? The surprising persistence of nascent entrepreneurs through macroeconomic crisis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4), 915–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Vita, L., Mari, M., & Poggesi, S. (2014). Women entrepreneurs in and from developing countries: Evidences from the literature. European Management Journal, 32(3), 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dehdarirad, T., Villarroya, A., & Barrios, M. (2014). Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: A co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 101(1), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start ups than others. Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Di Guardo, M. C., Galvagno, M., & Cabiddu, F. (2012). Analysing the intellectual structure of e-service research. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications (IJESMA), 4(2), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Di Guardo, M. C., & Harrigan, K. R. (2012). Mapping research on strategic alliances and innovation: A co-citation analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing and Management, 37(6), 817–842.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dino, R. N. (2015). Crossing boundaries: Toward integrating creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship research through practice. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Drover, W., Busenitz, L., Matusik, S., Townsend, D., Anglin, A., & Dushnitsky, G. (2017). A review and road map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: Venture capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1820–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Engelsman, E. C., & van Raan, A. F. (1994). A patent-based cartography of technology. Research Policy, 23(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eveleens, C. P., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Niesten, E. M. (2017). How network-based incubation helps start-up performance: A systematic review against the background of management theories. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 676–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(2), 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Feng, J., Zhang, Y. Q., & Zhang, H. (2017). Improving the co-word analysis method based on semantic distance. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1521–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ferreira, A., & Teixeira, A. L. (2016). Intra-and extra-organisational foundations of innovation processes—The information and communication technology sector under the crisis in portugal. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(06), 1650056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gartner, W. B. (1993). Words lead to deeds: Towards an organizational emergence vocabulary. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gartner, W. B. (2016). Entrepreneurship as organizing: Selected papers of William B. Gartner: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gartner, W. B., Bird, B. J., & Starr, Ja. (1992). Acting as if; differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grègoire, D. A., Noel, 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
  47. Gupta, B., & Dhawan, S. (2009). Status of India in science and technology as reflected in its publication output in the Scopus international database, 1996–2006. Scientometrics, 80(2), 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hansen, E. L. (1990). Entrepreneurial networks: Their effect on new organization outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
  49. Hansen, Eric L., & Wortman, S. M. (1989). Entrepreneurial networks: The organization in vitro. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Heneberg, P. (2011). Supposed steep increase in publications on cruciate ligament and other topics. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 21(6), 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hjorth, D., Holt, R., & Steyaert, C. (2015). Entrepreneurship and process studies. International Small Business Journal, 33(6), 599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hopp, C., & Sonderegger, R. (2015). Understanding the dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship—Prestart-up experience, intentions, and entrepreneurial success. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1076–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Khasseh, A. A., Soheili, F., Moghaddam, H. S., & Chelak, A. M. (2017). Intellectual structure of knowledge in iMetrics: A co-word analysis. Information Processing and Management, 53(3), 705–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koontz, H. (1980). The management theory jungle revisited. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Krieger, A., Block, J., & Stuetzer, M. (2018). Skill variety in entrepreneurship: A literature review and research directions. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
  60. Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018). Examining the future trajectory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Schindehutte, M. (2015). Understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship through framework approaches. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Landström, H., & Harirchi, G. (2018). The social structure of entrepreneurship as a scientific field. Research Policy, 47(3), 650–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Larson, A., & Starr, J. A. (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Loi, M., Castriotta, M., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2016). The theoretical foundations of entrepreneurship education: How co-citations are shaping the field. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 948–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Long, D., Geng, L., & Shakeel, M. (2016). Antecedent factors of business planning in the new venture emergence in China. Chinese Management Studies, 10(3), 510–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Markoulli, M., Lee, C. I., Byington, E., & Felps, W. A. (2017). Mapping human resource management: Reviewing the field and charting future directions. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 367–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McMullan, W. E., & Long, W. A. (1990). Developing new ventures: The entrepreneurial option. ‎San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  72. McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512.Google Scholar
  73. Mendenhall, T., Harper, P., Stephenson, H., & Santo Haas, G. (2011). The SANTA project (Students Against Nicotine and Tobacco Addiction): Using community-based participatory research to reduce smoking in a high-risk young adult population. Action Research, 9(2), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Muñoz-Bullon, F., Sanchez-Bueno, M. J., & Vos-Saz, A. (2015). Startup team contributions and new firm creation: The role of founding team experience. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(1–2), 80–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Muñoz-Leiva, F., Porcu, L., & Barrio-García, S. D. (2015). Discovering prominent themes in integrated marketing communication research from 1991 to 2012: A co-word analytic approach. International Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 678–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Murgado-Armenteros, E. M., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Torres-Ruiz, F. J., & Cobo, M. J. (2015). Analysing the conceptual evolution of qualitative marketing research through science mapping analysis. Scientometrics, 102(1), 519–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Noyons, E. C., Moed, H. F., & Luwel, M. (1999). Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: A bibliometric study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 50(2), 115.Google Scholar
  79. Nsanzineza, R., O’Connell, M., Brinkman, G., & Milford, J. B. (2017). Emissions implications of downscaled electricity generation scenarios for the western United States. Energy Policy, 109, 601–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Perkmann, M., & Spicer, A. (2014). How emerging organizations take form: The role of imprinting and values in organizational bricolage. Organization Science, 25(6), 1785–1806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Qin, X., Wang, Z., Zhao, H., & Kaspersen, L. B. (2016). The focus and frontier of corporate social responsibility: A co-word analysis of articles in SSCI, 2001–2014. Nankai Business Review International, 7(2), 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ravikumar, S., Agrahari, A., & Singh, S. N. (2015). Mapping the intellectual structure of scientometrics: A co-word analysis of the journal Scientometrics (2005–2010). Scientometrics, 102(1), 929–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Reynolds, P. D. (2001). National panel study of US business startups: Background and methodology. In J. Katz & A. C. Corbett (Eds.), Databases for the study of entrepreneurship (pp. 153–227). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  84. Reynolds, P. D. (2007). New firm creation in the United States a PSED I overview. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 1–150.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Reynolds, P. D. (2017). When is a firm born? Alternative criteria and consequences. Business Economics, 52(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Reynolds, P. D., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Reynolds, P. D., & White, S. B. (1997). The entrepreneurial process. In Economic growth, men, women, and minorities. Westport: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  88. Reynolds, P., & Miller, B. (1992). New firm gestation: Conception, birth, and implications for research. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Romo-Fernández, L. M., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Co-word based thematic analysis of renewable energy (1990–2010). Scientometrics, 97(3), 743–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martin, L. (2012). Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962–2008: A co-word analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 33(2), 162–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Salamzadeh, A. (2015). New venture creation: Controversial perspectives and theories. Economic Analysis, 48(3/4), 101–109.Google Scholar
  92. Salamzadeh, A., & Kirby, D. A. (2017). New venture creation: How start-ups grow? AD-minister, 30, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Salamzadeh, A., & Markovic, M. R. (2018). Shortening the learning curve of media start-ups in accelerators: Case of a developing country. In A. Gyamfi & I. Williams (Eds.), Evaluating media richness in organizational learning (pp. 36–48). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  94. Sedighi, M. (2016). Application of word co-occurrence analysis method in mapping of the scientific fields (case study: The field of Informetrics). Library Review, 65(1/2), 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sedighi, M., & Jalalimanesh, A. (2017). Mapping research trends in the field of knowledge management. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 19(1), 71–85.Google Scholar
  96. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  97. Shiau, W. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Tsai, C. H. (2015). Supply chain management: Exploring the intellectual structure. Scientometrics, 105(1), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29(3), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(9), 799–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Su, H. N., & Lee, P. C. (2010). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in technology foresight. Scientometrics, 85(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  102. Tornikoski, E. T., & Newbert, S. L. (2007). Exploring the determinants of organizational emergence: A legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Tuazon, G., Bellavitis, C., & Filatotchev, I. (2018). Nascent entrepreneurship: Current research directions and controversies. Available at SSRN: or Access September 04, 2018.
  105. Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L., & Poole, M. S. (1989). Research on the management of innovation. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  106. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. In Advances in data analysis (pp. 299–306). Berlin: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  107. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2018). VOSviewer manual. Erişim adresi: http://www.vosviewer. com/download/f-z2w2.pdf.Google Scholar
  110. Vesper, K. H. (1990). New venture strategies (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  111. 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, 33(4), 374–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wagner, J. (2007). Nascent entrepreneurs. In S. Parker (Ed.), The Life Cycle of Entrepreneurial Ventures (pp. 15–37). Springer, Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  113. Wallmeroth, J., Wirtz, P., & Groh, A. P. (2018). Venture capital, angel financing, and crowdfunding of entrepreneurial ventures: A literature review. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 1–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday entrepreneurship—A call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Whetten, D. A. (1987). Organizational growth and decline processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Xie, P. (2015). Study of international anticancer research trends via co-word and document co-citation visualization analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1), 611–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Yan, B. N., Lee, T. S., & Lee, T. P. (2015). Mapping the intellectual structure of the Internet of Things (IoT) field (2000–2014): A co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1285–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Yang, S., Han, R., Wolfram, D., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 132–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Yue, H. (2012). Mapping the intellectual structure by co-word: A case of international management science. In F. L. Wang, J. Lei, Z. Gong, & X. Luo (Eds.), Web information systems and mining (pp. 621–628). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Zapkau, F. B., Schwens, C., & Kabst, R. (2017). The role of prior entrepreneurial exposure in the entrepreneurial process: A review and future research implications. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 56–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Zhang, J., Xie, J., Hou, W., Tu, X., Xu, J., Song, F., et al. (2012). Mapping the knowledge structure of research on patient adherence: Knowledge domain visualization based co-word analysis and social network analysis. PLoS ONE, 7(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
  123. Zhang, W., Zhang, Q., Yu, B., & Zhao, L. (2015). Knowledge map of creativity research based on keywords network and co-word analysis, 1992–2011. Quality & Quantity, 49(3), 1023–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and BusinessUniversity of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations