Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
As we have moved towards a more knowledge intensive society, innovation and industrial dynamics have grown in importance over the last 40-50 years. We are frequently using concepts such as innovation and entrepreneurship, and the way we perceive and define these concepts will to a high extent influence our way of thinking and acting. Depending on the way we define these concepts, we will tend to use different knowledge-bases when acting as policy-makers, or as researchers. Therefore, it becomes important to elaborate on the knowledge bases that we have within the fields of innovation and entrepreneurship. This study we elaborate on the question: Can innovation and entrepreneurship be seen as one or two fields of research? We will elaborate on this issue by comparing the core works in innovation and entrepreneurship studies respectively, as identified by Fagerberg et al. (Research Policy 41(7):1121–1131, 2012a) and Landström et al. (Research Policy 41(7):1154–1181, 2012), asking the questions: Who are the leading knowledge producers and the core works in the two fields? Are there overlaps in the literature used? and Can the existence or absence of overlaps tell us anything about to what extent innovation and entrepreneurship studies can be considered as two fields or parts of a single broader scientific field, sharing and contributing to the same knowledge base? The studies by Fagerberg et al. and Landström et al. are based on two unique databases consisting of all references in twelve “state-of-the-art” books in entrepreneurship studies and eleven books in innovation studies. The chapters in these “state-of-the-art” books are written by experts within the field, and it can be assumed that the most frequently cited references in these chapters represent “core knowledge” in entrepreneurship and innovation research. The study shows that we are talking about two more or less separate fields of research. Despite common roots in Schumpeter and some interrelated works, the two fields seem to have drifted apart over the last decades. However, there seems to be some elements of overlaps, for example, in the interest in the evolutionary approaches and in geographic differences in innovation and entrepreneurship, but also in an interest in topics such as innovation management (corporate entrepreneurship) and in technology-based ventures.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Åström, F. (2011). Comparing citation patterns in entrepreneurship research articles in subject handbooks and Web of Science journals. In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube, & J. Leta (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2011: The 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 89–96). Leiden & KwaDlangezwa: ISSI, Leiden University & University of Zululand.
Bhidé, A. (2000). The origin and evolution of new businesses. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bhupatiraju, S., Nomaler, Ö., Triulzi, G., & Verspagen, B. (2012). Knowledge flows–analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship, and science and technology studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1205–1218. CrossRef
Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125. CrossRef
Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur. An economic theory. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Clausen, T. H., Fagerberg, J., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2012). Mobilizing for change: a study of research units in emerging scientific fields. Research Policy, 41(7), 1249–1261. CrossRef
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152. CrossRef
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation Studies–the emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38, 218–233. CrossRef
Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012a). Innovation: exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1132–1153. CrossRef
Fagerberg, J., Landström, H., & Martin, B. (2012b). Exploring the emerging knowledge base of the knowledge society. Research Policy, 41(7), 1121–1131. CrossRef
Freeman, C. (1974). The economics of industrial innovation. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance. Lesson from Japan. London: Pinter.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is the entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11–32.
Gartner, W.B., Davidsson, P., & Zahra, S.A. (2006). Are you talking to me? The nature of community in entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, May, 321–331
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education, 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 283–300. CrossRef
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60–85.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Landström, H. (2010). Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research. New York: Springer.
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. CrossRef
Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154–1181. CrossRef
Lindholm-Dahlstrand, A., & Stevenson, L. (2007). Linking innovation and entrepreneurship policy. Stockholm: IPREG. Working Paper.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton: van Nostrand. CrossRef
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373. CrossRef
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Blackwell.
Persson, O. (2010). Networks of papers in entrepreneurship, innovation, and science & technology studies. Paper presented at the EXPLORE Workshop, CIRCLE, Lund University, December.
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillan.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saxenian, A. L. (1994). Regional advantage: culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1912/1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Organizations and social structure. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533. CrossRef
Teixeira, A. (2011). Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship. Scientometrics, 89, 1–36. CrossRef
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1993). Managing innovation: integrating technological market and organizational change. Chichester: Wiley.
Thongpapanl, N. (2012). The changing landscape of technology and innovation management: an updated ranking of journals within the field. Technovation, 32, 257–271. CrossRef
Watkins, D. (2005). Identifying trends in entrepreneurship research: textual analysis revisited. Honolulu: Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting.
Zahra, S. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship and disciplinary scholarship: return to the fountainhead. In S. A. Alvarez, R. Agarwal, & O. Sorenson (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 253–268). Springer: New York. CrossRef
- Innovation and entrepreneurship studies: one or two fields of research?
- Springer US
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
Print ISSN: 1554-7191
Elektronische ISSN: 1555-1938
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta