4.7 Article

The status quo of research on entrepreneurial orientation: Conversational landmarks and theoretical scaffolding

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
Volume 128, Issue -, Pages 564-577

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.046

Keywords

Entrepreneurial orientation; Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Content analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Free University of Bozen-Bolzano

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to gain a deeper appreciation of where the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) conversation has gained momentum through an analysis of its key conversational landmarks and the studies providing its theoretical support. By categorizing influential landmark studies into four primary areas, the study observes Schumpeter and Barney's theories as important milestones in EO's current theoretical scaffolding.
This research aims to gain a deeper appreciation of where the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) conversation has gained momentum based upon an analysis of its key conversational landmarks and the studies which have thus far provided its principal theoretical scaffolding. Drawing upon a bibliometric analysis of 62,499 citations from all 822 publications on EO existing so far, thereby building the most comprehensive overview of EO studies collected to date, we are able to identify which studies, journals, and disciplines have offered critical landmarks within the conversation. Moreover, we categorize these influential landmark studies into four primary areas, namely Defining pieces, Methods and measurement, Contingencies, and Impact, and discuss how prominent landmarks within the EO conversation have created the current theoretical scaffolding upon which EO research is now building. Notably, our study observes Schumpeter (1934) theory of entrepreneurship and innovation as `creative destruction' as well as Barney (1991) resource-based view (RBV) as landmarks within EO's present theoretical scaffolding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available