Performance Analysis and Science Mapping of Institutional Entrepreneurship Research

Abstract

Institutional entrepreneurship comprises the activities of agents who disrupt existing social institutions or create new ones, often to enable diffusion, especially of radical innovations, in a market. The increased interest in institutional entrepreneurship has produced a large number of scholarly publications, especially in the last five years. As a consequence, the literature landscape is somewhat complex and scattered. We aim to compile a quantitative overview of the field within business and management research by conducting bibliometric performance analyses and science mappings. We identified the most productive and influential journals, authors, and articles with the highest impact. We found that institutional entrepreneurship has stronger ties to organization studies than to entrepreneurship research. Additionally, a large body of literature at the intersection of institutions and entrepreneurship does not refer to institutional entrepreneurship theory. The science mappings revealed a distinction between theoretical and conceptual research on one hand and applied and empirical research on the other hand. Research clusters reflect the structure–agency problem by focusing on the change agent’s goals and interests, strategies, and specific implementation mechanisms, as well as the relevance of public agents for existing institutions, and a more abstract process rather than agency view.

Five decades of corporate entrepreneurship research: measuring and mapping the field

“…Therefore, both labeling clusters and forming sub-clusters are interpretive tasks. Due to this partial subjectivity, other researchers might have assigned different research themes to the (sub-)clusters (Tiberius et al 2020b). Fourth, the application of several thresholds, reduces the dataset, excluding a large part of extant research.…”

“…Bibliometric methods have received increased attention in entrepreneurship (Baier-Fuentes et al 2019;Cornelius et al 2006;Filser et al 2020;Hota et al 2019;Kraus et al 2020;Lampe et al 2019;Liñán and Fayolle 2015;Martínez-Climent et al 2018;Pellegrini et al 2020;Rey-Martí et al 2016;Schildt et al 2006;Tiberius et al 2020a;Vallaster et al 2019), innovation (Di Stefano et al 2012;Fagerberg et al 2012;Randhawa et al 2016;Tiberius et al 2020b), family business (Casillas and Acedo 2007;López-Fernández et al 2016;Xi et al 2015), strategic management (Ferreira et al 2015;Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004), and many other fields. In contrast to systematic literature reviews (Tranfield et al 2003), bibliometric methods allow the measurement of the scientific activity in the research field based on quantitative and thus more objective methods (Garfield 1979;Zupic and Čater 2015).…”

Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship—Introduction

“…This paper has tried to compile a quantitative overview of business and management research by conducting bibliometric performance analyses and science mappings. The findings of this paper provide practical and theoretical implications for institutional entrepreneurship (Tiberius et al 2020).…”

Entrepreneurial Orientation in Coworking-Spaces for Corporate Entrepreneurship and Venturing

“…The last decades showed a large rise in corporate entrepreneurship (Glinyanova et al, 2020) that pertains to intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985) and institutional entrepreneurship (Block & MacMillan, 1993;Glinyanova et al, 2020;Tiberius et al, 2020). It covers intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985), internal or intra-corporate entrepreneurship (Jones & Butler, 1992), new business venturing (Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994), venturing (Hornsby et al, 1993), strategic entrepreneurship (Ireland et al, 2003), internal or intra-corporate entrepreneurship (Jones & Butler, 1992), new business venturing (Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994), venturing (Hornsby et al, 1993), and strategic entrepreneurship (Ireland et al, 2003).…”