Advertisement

International entrepreneurship: a bibliometric overview

  • Hugo Baier-FuentesEmail author
  • José M. Merigó
  • José Ernesto Amorós
  • Magaly Gaviria-Marín
Article

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the academic research on International Entrepreneurship (IE). To accomplish this, an exhaustive bibliometric analysis was carried out, involving a bibliometric performance analysis and a graphic mapping of the references in this field. Our analysis focuses on journals, papers, authors, institutions and countries. To perform the performance analysis, the work uses a series of bibliometric indicators such as h-index, productivity and citations. Furthermore, the VOS viewer to graphically map the bibliographic material is used. The graphical analysis uses co-citation, bibliographic coupling and co-occurrence of keywords. The results of both analyzes are consistent among them, and show that the USA is the most influential country in IE research as it houses the main authors and institutions in this research field. Moreover, is observed and expected the continued growth of the field globally. Our research plays an informative and complementary role as it presents most of the key aspects in International Entrepreneurship research.

Keywords

International entrepreneurship Bibliometric analysis H-index Mapping science VOS viewer 

References

  1. Adriaanse, L. S., & Rensleigh, C. (2013). Web of science, Scopus and Google scholar - a content comprehensiveness comparison. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 727–744.  https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2011-0174.Google Scholar
  2. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). H-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001.Google Scholar
  3. Álvarez, C., Urbano, D., & Amorós, J. E. (2014). GEM research: Achievements and challenges. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 445–465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9517-5.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. (2015). Shaker a. Zahra: Pioneering entrepreneurship scholar. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 721–725.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9651-3.Google Scholar
  5. Autio, E. (2005). Creative tension: The significance of ben Oviatt’s and Patricia McDougall’s article “toward a theory of international new ventures.”. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 9–19.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400117.Google Scholar
  6. Baier-Fuentes, H., Hormiga, E., Miravitlles, P., & Blanco-Mesa, F. (2018). International entrepreneurship: A critical review of the research field. European Journal of International Management, In press.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, B. (2015). Public R{&}D policies and private R{&}D investment: A survey of the empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(5), 917–942.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12074.Google Scholar
  8. Bjork, S., Offer, A., & Söderberg, G. (2014). Time series citation data: The Nobel prize in economics. Scientometrics, 98(1), 185–196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0989-5.Google Scholar
  9. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003.Google Scholar
  10. Cancino, C. A., Merigó, J. M., & Coronado, F. C. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of leading universities in innovation research. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(2), 106–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.03.006.Google Scholar
  11. Cantwell, J., Piepenbrink, A., & Shukla, P. (2014). Assessing the impact of JIBS as an interdisciplinary journal: A network approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(7), 787–799.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.40.Google Scholar
  12. Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. A. (2009). Born Global Firms: A New International Enterprise (first edit.). New York: Business expert press, LLC.Google Scholar
  13. Chabowski, B. R., Samiee, S., & Hult, G. T. M. (2017). Cross-national research and international business: An interdisciplinary path. International Business Review, 26(1), 89–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.05.008.Google Scholar
  14. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317.Google Scholar
  15. Chetty, S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2004). A strategic approach to internationalization: A traditional versus a “born-global” approach. Journal of International Marketing, 12(1), 57–81.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.12.1.57.25651.Google Scholar
  16. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011a). 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002.Google Scholar
  17. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011b). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525.Google Scholar
  18. Cobo, M. J., Martínez, M. A., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Fujita, H., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). 25 years at knowledge-based systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 80, 3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.12.035.Google Scholar
  19. Coviello, N., McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2011). The emergence, advance and future of international entrepreneurship research - an introduction to the special forum. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 625–631.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.07.002.Google Scholar
  20. Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1132–1153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008.Google Scholar
  21. Felzensztein, C. (2016). International entrepreneurship in and from emerging economies. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 5–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-016-0175-y.Google Scholar
  22. Ferreira, J. J. M., Ferreira, F. A. F., Fernandes, C. I. M. A. S., Jalali, M. S., Raposo, M. L., & Marques, C. S. (2016). What do we [not] know about technology entrepreneurship research? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 713–733.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0359-2.Google Scholar
  23. Ferreira, M. P., Santos, J. C., de Almeida, M. I. R., & Reis, N. R. (2014). Mergers {&} acquisitions research: A bibliometric study of top strategy and international business journals, 1980–2010. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2550–2558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.015.Google Scholar
  24. Fetscherin, M., Voss, H., & Gugler, P. (2010). 30 years of foreign direct investment to China: An interdisciplinary literature review. International Business Review, 19(3), 235–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.12.002.Google Scholar
  25. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google scholar, Scopus and the web of science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.Google Scholar
  26. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102(46), 16569–16572.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
  27. Ie-scholars.net. (2016). ie-scholars.net. http://ie-scholars.net/about/about-the-network. Accessed 19 Sept 2016.
  28. Jacsó, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using web of science. Online Information Review, 32(5), 673–688.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810914043.Google Scholar
  29. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). Internationalization process of firm - model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, M., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989-2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001.Google Scholar
  31. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103.Google Scholar
  32. Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: A review and suggestions for developing the field. Journal of Management, 35(3), 600–633.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330558.Google Scholar
  33. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1996). The born global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing, 8, 11–26.Google Scholar
  34. Laengle, S., Merigó, J. M., Miranda, J., Słowí Nski, R., Bomze, I., Borgonovo, E., et al. (2017). Forty years of the European journal of operational research: A bibliometric overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(3), 803–816.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.027.Google Scholar
  35. Luor, T., Lu, H.-P., Yu, H., & Chang, K. (2014). Trends in and contributions to entrepreneurship research: A broad review of literature from 1996 to June 2012. Scientometrics, 99(2), 353–369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1203-5.Google Scholar
  36. Martínez, M. A., Herrera, M., López-Gijón, J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2014). H-classics: Characterizing the concept of citation classics through H-index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1971–1983.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1155-9.Google Scholar
  37. McDougall, P. P. (1989). International versus domestic entrepreneurship: New venture strategic behavior and industry structure. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(6), 387–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(89)90009-8.Google Scholar
  38. McDougall, P. P., Jones, M. V., & Serapio, M. G. (2014). High-potential concepts, phenomena, and theories for the advancement of international entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12090.Google Scholar
  39. McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 902–906.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1556418.Google Scholar
  40. McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. M. (1994). Explaining the formation of international new ventures - the limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(6), 469–487.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90017-5.Google Scholar
  41. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677.Google Scholar
  42. Merigó, J. M., Cancino, C. A., Coronado, F., & Urbano, D. (2016). Academic research in innovation: A country analysis. Scientometrics, 108(2), 559–593.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1984-4.Google Scholar
  43. Merigó, J. M., Gil-Lafuente, A. M., & Yager, R. R. (2015a). An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 420–433.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.035.Google Scholar
  44. Merigó, J. M., Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2015b). A bibliometric overview of the journal of business research between 1973 and 2014. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2645–2653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.04.006.Google Scholar
  45. Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J.-B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 73, 37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004.Google Scholar
  46. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.Google Scholar
  47. Morrow, J. F. (1988). International entrepreneurship: A new growth opportunity. New Management, 3, 59–61.Google Scholar
  48. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001.Google Scholar
  49. Noyons, E. C. M., Moed, H. F., & Luwel, M. (1999). Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: A bibliometric study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 115–131.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:2<115::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-J.Google Scholar
  50. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490193.Google Scholar
  51. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 537–554.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00097.x.Google Scholar
  52. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Wiborg Schneider, J. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday (pp. 9–24). Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics.Google Scholar
  53. Peters, H. P. F., & van Raan, A. F. (1991). Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis an exercise on a university faculty level. Scientometrics, 20(1), 235–255.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018157.Google Scholar
  54. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641–720.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308319533.Google Scholar
  55. Raj, R. G., & Zainab, A. N. (2012). Relative measure index: A metric to measure the quality of journals. Scientometrics, 93(2), 305–317.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0675-z.Google Scholar
  56. Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651–1655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.033.Google Scholar
  57. Servantie, V., Cabrol, M., Guieu, G., & Boissin, J.-P. (2016). Is international entrepreneurship a field? A bibliometric analysis of the literature (1989–2015). Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 168–212.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-015-0162-8.Google Scholar
  58. Sicilia, M.-A., Sánchez-Alonso, S., & García-Barriocanal, E. (2011). Comparing impact factors from two different citation databases: The case of computer science. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 698–704.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.007.Google Scholar
  59. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406.Google Scholar
  60. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.Google Scholar
  61. Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and web of science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81(2), 587–600.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0.Google Scholar
  62. Wang, E. C. (2010). Determinants of R{&}D investment: The extreme-bounds-analysis approach applied to 26 OECD countries. Research Policy, 39(1), 103–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.010.Google Scholar
  63. Wise, J. A. (1999). The ecological approach to text visualization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(13), 1224–1233.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:13<1224::AID-ASI8>3.0.CO;2-4.Google Scholar
  64. Xi, J., Kraus, S., Filser, M., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015). Mapping the field of family business research: Past trends and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 113–132.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0286-z.Google Scholar
  65. Yu, D. & Shi, S. (2015). Researching the development of Atanassov intuitionistic fuzzy set: Using a citation network analysis. Applied Soft Computing, (32), 189-198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.027.
  66. Zahra, S. A., Newey, L. R., & Li, Y. (2014). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137–158.  https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12061.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y AdministrativasUniversidad Católica de la Santísima ConcepciónConcepciónChile
  2. 2.Department of Management Control and Information SystemsUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  3. 3.EGADE Business SchoolTecnológico de MonterreyMexico CityMexico
  4. 4.Department of Economics and Business OrganizationUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations