What do we [not] know about technology entrepreneurship research?

  • João J. M. Ferreira
  • Fernando A. F. Ferreira
  • Cristina I. M. A. S. Fernandes
  • Marjan S. Jalali
  • Mário L. Raposo
  • Carla S. Marques


This study aims to review what we do (and do not) know about technology entrepreneurship (TE) research to date. Based on a categorized bibliometric analysis resulting from a systematic review of 135 scientific articles published in refereed journals over the past 27 years (1986–2013), we identify the core domains of TE, its intellectual structure, the scientific journals with a major impact in this field of research, and the affiliation and collaboration networks within it. Specifically, through a detailed analysis of article co-citations within the TE area, this study provides co-citation networks of authors, journals, and their respective clusters, revealing their rankings in terms of contributions to the TE literature. This comprehensive analysis can be used to enhance our understanding of TE and support further research in this field.


Technology entrepreneurship (TE) Knowledge transfer Bibliometric analysis Co-citations Intellectual structure Scientific journals State of the art 


  1. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H., & Fiol, C. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. The Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.Google Scholar
  3. Antoncic, B., & Prodan, I. (2008). Alliances, corporate technological entrepreneurship and firm performance: testing a model on manufacturing firms. Technovation, 28(5), 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D., Keilbach, M., & Lehmann, E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (1995). Flexible re-cycling and high-technology entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 37(3), 62–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barr, S., Baker, T., Markham, S., & Kingon, A. (2009). Bridging the valley of death: lessons learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(3), 370–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumol, W. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 58(2), 64–71.Google Scholar
  9. Baumol, W. (1993). Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: existence and bounds. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baumol, W. (2005). Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Toward their Microeconomic Value Theory. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Baumol, W., Litan, E., & Schramm, J. (2007). Good capitalism, Bad capitalism and the economics of growth and prosperity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Beckman, C., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). Technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhide, A. (2000). The Origin and Evaluation of New Business. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bijker, W., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Braun, E., & Macdonald, S. (1982). Revolution in miniature: The history and impact of semiconductor electronics re-explored. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bruton, G., & Rubanik, Y. (2002). Resources of the firm, Russian high-technology startups, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(6), 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Totowa: Barnes & Noble Books.Google Scholar
  20. Casson, M. (1987). The firm and the market: Studies on multinational enterprise and the scope of the firm. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Casson, M. (1995). Entrepreneurship and business culture: Studies in the economics of trust. Brookfield: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Casson, M. (1997). Information and organization: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Casson, M. (2003). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. 2nd edition, Cheltenham, UK and Northanpton. MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chang, P., & Shih, H. (2004). The innovation systems of Taiwan and china: a comparative analysis. Technovation, 24(7), 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Di Guardo, M., & Harrigan, K. (2012). Mapping research on strategic alliances and innovation: a co-citation analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dodgson, M. (2009). Asia’s national innovation systems: institutional adaptability and rigidity in the face of global innovation challenges. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(3), 589–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10), 1559–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. (2005a). When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10), 947–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. (2005b). When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Research Policy, 34(5), 615–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  33. Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven, C. (1990). Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 504–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Etemad, H., & Lee, Y. (2003). The knowledge network of international entrepreneurship: theory and evidence. Small Business Economics, 20(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1988). Venture capital and high technology entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(4), 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gans, J., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gartner, W., Davidsson, P., & Zahra, S. (2006). Are you talking to me? The nature of community in entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(3), 321–331.Google Scholar
  38. Garud, R. (1997). On the distinction between know-how, know-why and know-what in technological systems. In J. Walsh & A. Huff (Eds.), Advances in strategic management (pp. 81–101). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  39. Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Garud, R., & Rappa, M. (1994). A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution. Organization Science, 5(3), 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Garud, R., & Van de Ven, A. (1987). Innovation and the emergence of industries. Proceedings of the Academy of Management National Meeting, New Orleans, (pp. 319–322).Google Scholar
  42. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Nayyar, P. (1998). Real options or fool’s gold: perspective makes the difference. Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 212–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gilsing, V., van Burg, E., & Romme, A. (2010). Policy principles for the creation and success of corporate and academic spin-offs. Technovation, 30(1), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harper, D. (1996). Entrepreneurship and the market process. London: Routlidge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hébert, R., & Link, A. (1982). The entrepreneur. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  46. Hébert, R., & Link, A. (2009). A history of entrepreneurship. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Karnøe, P. (1993). Approaches to innovation in modern wind energy technology: Technology policies, science, engineers and craft traditions. Stanford: Center for Economic Policy Research Publication, Publication 334.Google Scholar
  48. Kassicieh, S., Radosevich, H., & Banbury, C. (1997). Using attitudinal, situational, and personal characteristics variables to predict future entrepreneurs from national laboratory inventors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(3), 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.Google Scholar
  50. Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: the social construction of automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37(4), 763–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Knight, F. (2002). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  52. Landström, H. (2005). Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Landström, H., & Benner, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship research: A history of scholarly migration. In H. Landström & F. Lohrke (Eds.), Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research (pp. 15–45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Lievrouw, L. (1989). The invisible college reconsidered: bibliometrics and the development of scientific communication theory. Communication Research, 16(5), 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maine, E., & Garnsey, E. (2006). Commercializing generic technology: the case of advanced materials ventures. Research Policy, 35(3), 375–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McMillan, S. (2008). Mapping the invisible colleges of R&D management. R&D Management, 38(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Melkers, J., Bulger, D., & Bozeman, L. (1993). Technology transfer and economic development. In R. Bingham & R. Mier (Eds.), Theories of local economic development. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Mises, L. (1978). Planning for freedom. South Holland: Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
  60. Morris, A., & Lowder, S. (1992). Flexible specialization: the application of theory in a poor country context: Leon, Mexico. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 16(2), 190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nacu, C., & Avasilcăi, S. (2014). Environmental factors influencing technological entrepreneurship: research framework and results. Procedia – Social and Behavioral, 109, 1309–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Neck, H., Meyer, G., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. (2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business, 42(2), 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nelson, R. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Parker, S. (2005). The economics of entrepreneurship: what we know and what we don’t. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Phan, P., & Foo, M. (2004). Technological entrepreneurship in emerging regions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73–93.Google Scholar
  69. Powell, W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Price, S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Price, S. (1971). Some remarks on elitism in information and the invisible college phenomenon in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 22(2), 74–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. Retrieved from November 2013.
  74. Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schramm, J. (2006). The entrepreneurial imperative: How America’s economic miracle will reshape the world (and change your life). New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  76. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  77. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy. New York: Row.Google Scholar
  78. Segal, N. (1986). Universities and technological entrepreneurship in Britain: some implications of the Cambridge phenomenon. Technovation, 4(3), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–227.Google Scholar
  82. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smilor, R., & Feeser, H. (1991). Chaos and the entrepreneurial process: patterns and policy implications for technology entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(3), 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Smith, L. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83–106.Google Scholar
  86. Song, M., & Podoynitsyna, K. (2008). Success factors in new ventures: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Spencer, J., Murtha, T., & Lenway, S. (2005). How governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Spulber, D. (2009). The theory of the firm: Microeconomics with endogenous entrepreneurs, firms, markets and organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Spulber, D. (2011). The innovator’s decision: Entrepreneurship versus technology transfer. In D. Audretsch, O. Falk, S. Heblich, & A. Lederer (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  90. Storper, M. (1995). The resurgence of regional economics, ten years later: the region as a nexus of untreated interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(3), 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stuart, T., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 315–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Swedberg, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship. The social science view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Tan, J., Fischer, E., Mitchell, R., & Phan, P. (2009). At the center of the action: Innovation and technology strategy research in the small business setting. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Teece, D. (1987). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. In D. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (pp. 185–219). Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  96. Teece, D. (1998). Research directions for knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Teixeira, A. (2011). Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship. Scientometrics, 89(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Thomsom, R. (2008). Using Bibliometrics: A Guide to Evaluating Research Performance with Citation Data, Retrieved from January 2014.
  100. Tierney, R., Hermina, W., & Walsh, S. (2013). The pharmaceutical technology landscape: a new form of technology road mapping. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tomes, A., Erol, R., & Armstrong, P. (2000). Technological entrepreneurship: integrating technological and product innovation. Technovation, 20(3), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Tripsas, M. (2001). Understanding the timing of technological transitions: the role of user preference discontinuities. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meetings, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  103. Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Usher, A. (1954). A history of mechanical inventions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize concurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey VOSviewer: a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. Katz & J. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (pp. 119–138). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  108. Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology - I: the multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Walsh, T., & Kirchhoff, A. (2002). Technology transfer from government labs to entrepreneurs. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 10(2), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N., & Noyons, E. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. White, H., & McCain, K. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.Google Scholar
  114. Wong, P. (2003). Global and national factors affecting e-commerce diffusion in Singapore. The Information Society, 19(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3/4), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wright, M., Hmieleski, K., Siegel, D., & Ensley, M. (2007). The role of human capital in technological entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(6), 791–806.Google Scholar
  117. Yanez, M., Khalil, T., & Walsh, S. (2010). IAMOT and education: defining a technology and innovation management (TIM) body-of-knowledge (BoK) for graduate education (TIM BoK). Technovation, 30(7/8), 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1994). Development of a method for detection and trend analysis of research fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis. Scientometrics, 30(1), 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Brewer, M. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • João J. M. Ferreira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fernando A. F. Ferreira
    • 3
    • 4
  • Cristina I. M. A. S. Fernandes
    • 2
    • 5
  • Marjan S. Jalali
    • 3
  • Mário L. Raposo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carla S. Marques
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Beira InteriorCovilhãPortugal
  2. 2.NECE Research UnitCovilhãPortugal
  3. 3.ISCTE Business School, BRU-IULUniversity Institute of LisbonLisboaPortugal
  4. 4.Fogelman College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  5. 5.Polytechnic Institute of Castelo BrancoCastelo BrancoPortugal
  6. 6.Department of Economics, Sociology and ManagementUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto DouroVila RealPortugal
  7. 7.CETRAD Research UnitVila RealPortugal

Personalised recommendations