Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 113, Issue 2, pp 1177–1197 | Cite as

How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem

  • Chao Zhang
  • Jiancheng GuanEmail author
Article
  • 863 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Metaknowledge Co-citation Network meta-analysis Innovation ecosystem Entrepreneurial ecosystem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84, 98–107.Google Scholar
  2. Adner, R. (2012). The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation (p. 2012). London: Portfolio, Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. *Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystem and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curve. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62, 777–795.Google Scholar
  6. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrios, M., Guileraa, G., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2013). Impact and structural features of meta-analytical studies, standard articles and reviews in psychology: Similarities and differences. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 478–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bengtsson, M., Kock, S., Lundgren-Henriksson, E.-L., & Näsholm, M. H. (2016). Coopetition research in theory and practice: Growing new theoretical, empirical, and methodological domains. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103, 1123–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2013). The proposal of a broadening of perspective in evaluative bibliometrics by complementing the times cited with a cited reference analysis. Journal of Informetric, 7(1), 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H.-D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. *Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56, 1849–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. *Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23, 1409–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cachon, G. P., & Zipkin, P. H. (1999). Competitive and cooperative inventory policies in a two-stage supply chain. Management Science, 45(7), 936–953.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carl, S., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Brighton: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. *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
  22. *Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2013). Platform comprtition: Strategic trade-offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1331–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Chen, C. M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chen, Y., Chen, C., Hu, Z., & Wang, X. (2014a). Principles and applications of analyzing a citation space. Beijing: Science Press.Google Scholar
  26. Chen, C., Dubin, R., & Kim, M. C. (2014b). Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: A scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 14(9), 1295–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chen, C., Dubin, R., & Kim, M. C. (2014c). Orphan drugs and rare diseases: A scientometric review (2000–2014). Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs, 2(7), 709–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chen, C., Hu, Z., Liu, S., & Tseng, H. (2012). Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opinions on Biological Therapy, 12(5), 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chen, C., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., & Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of co-citation clusters: A multiple-perspective co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43, 1164–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. *Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarri, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organizational dimensions. Research Policy, 26, 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. *Crosling, G., Nair, M., & Vaithilingam, S. (2015). A creative learning ecosystem, quality of education and innovative capacity: a perspective from higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 1147–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Estrategias para mercados bilaterales. Harvard Business Review, 84, 60–71.Google Scholar
  40. Evans, J. A., & Foster, J. G. (2011). Metaknowledge. Science, 331, 721–725.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. *Fabrizio, K. R., & Hawn, O. (2013). Enabling diffusion: How complementary inputs moderate the response to environmental policy. Research Policy, 42, 1099–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. *Frenkel, A., Israel, A., & Maital, S. (2015). The evolution of innovation networks and spin-off entrepreneurship: The case of RAD. European Planning Studies, 23, 1646–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(Winter), 28–35.Google Scholar
  44. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gawer, A., & Henderson, R. (2007). Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35, 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Guilera, G., Barrios, M., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2013). Meta-analysis in psychology: a bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 94, 943–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hall, R. E., & Woodward, S. E. (2010). The burden of the nondiversifiable risk of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 100, 1163–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H., & Rowlinson, M. (2010). Academic journal quality guide, version 4. London: Association of Business Schools.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Huang, M., & Chang, C.-P. (2015). A comparative study on detecting research fronts in the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) field using bibliographic coupling and co-citation. Scientometrics, 102, 2041–2057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004b). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–78.Google Scholar
  57. Iansiti, M., & Richards, G. L. (2006). The information technology ecosystem: Structure, health, and performance The. Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1), 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.
  59. *Jacobides, M. G., & Tae, C. J. (2015). Kingpins, bottlenecks, and value dynamics along a sector. Organization Science, 26, 889–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jenkins, A. S., Wiklund, J., & Brundin, E. (2014). Individual responses to firm failure: appraisals, grief, and the influence of prior failure experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. *Kang, J.-S., & Downing, S. (2015). Keystone effect on entry into two-sided markets: An analysis of the market entry of WiMAX. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 170–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. *Kapoor, R. (2014). Collaborating with complementors: What do firms do? Collaboration and Competition in Business Ecosystems, 11, 3–25.Google Scholar
  63. *Kapoor, R., & Furr, N. R. (2015). Complementarities and Competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants’ technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 416–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. *Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2010). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. *Khavul, S., & Deeds, D. (2016). The evolution of initial co-investment syndications in an emerging venture capital market. Journal of International Management, 22, 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kim, M. C., & Chen, C. (2015). A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in recommendation systems. Scientometrics, 104, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kleinberg, J. (2003). Data mining and knowledge discovery. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7, 373–397.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Klepper, S., & Graddy, E. (1990). The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. *Lichtenthaler, U. (Unpublished). Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective.Google Scholar
  70. Mack, E., & Mayer, H. (2016). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies, 53, 2118–2133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mäkinen, S. J., Kanniainen, J., & Peltola, I. (2014). Investigating adoption of free beta applications in a platform-based business ecosystem. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McLevey, J., & McIlroy-Young, R. (2017). Introducing metaknowledge: Software for computational research in information science, network analysis, and science of science. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 176–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mills, E. J., Thorlund, K., & Ioannidis, P. A. (2013). Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 346, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71, 75–83.Google Scholar
  76. Moore, J. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  77. Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ self-regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1071–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42, 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Bellknap Press.Google Scholar
  80. Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. PNAS, 103, 8577–8582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Oh, D.-S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. *Öner, M. A., & Kunday, Ö. (2016). A study on Schumpeterian and Kirznerian entrepreneurship in Turkey: 2006–2013. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pahnke, E. C., Katila, R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Who takes you to the dance? How partners’ institutional logics influence innovation in young firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(4), 596–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Paradkar, A., Knight, J., & Hansen, P. (2015). Innovation in start-ups: Ideas filling the void or ideas devoid of resources and capabilities? Technovation, 41–42, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Park, S. H., & Russo, M. V. (1996). When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science, 42(6), 875–890.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Peltoniemi, M. (2006). Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(1), 10–19.Google Scholar
  87. *Pierce, L. (2009). Big losses in ecosystem niches: How core firm decisions drive complementary product shakeouts. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation: Shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50(1), 278–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. *Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  91. Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53–65.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Salanti, G., Giovane, C. D., Chaimani, A., Caldwell, D. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2014). Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9, e99682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. *Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2010). Venture capital as a catalyst to commercialization. Research Policy, 39, 1348–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Shiau, W.-L., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2013). Citation and co-citation analysis to identify core and emerging knowledge in electronic commerce research. Scientometrics, 94, 1317–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23, 1759–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stam, W., Arzlanian, S., & Elfring, T. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 152–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Teece, D. J. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. *Vakili, K. (2016). Collaborative promotion of technology standards and the impact on innovation, industry structure, and organizational capabilities: Evidence from modern patent pools. Organization Science, 27(6), 1504–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. *Wei, Z., Yang, D., Sun, B., & Gu, Meng. (2014). The fit between technological innovation and business model design for firm growth: Evidence from China. R&D Management, 44, 288–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. White, I. R. (2015). Network meta-analysis. The Stata Journal, 4, 951–985.Google Scholar
  105. Witte, P., Slack, B., Keesman, M., Jugie, J.-H., & Wiegmans, B. (2017). Facilitating start-ups in port-city innovation ecosystems: A case study ofMontreal and Rotterdam. Journal of Transport Geography. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.03.006.Google Scholar
  106. Zhang, Z. (2013). Mutualism or cooperation among competitors promotes coexistence and competitive ability. Ecological Modelling, 164, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics & ManagementUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Business AdministrationSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations