Two decades of the Journal of Intellectual Capital: a bibliometric overview and an agenda for future research

Dabić, Marina; Vlačić, Božidar; Scuotto, Veronica; Warkentin, Merrill

doi:10.1108/jic-02-2020-0052

Cited by 55 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the effect of IC inputs (trained employees' capacities and scientific partner's capabilities) on IC outputs (innovation and technology transfer) is reinforced by collaborative behaviours within subsidized industry-university partnerships. We extended the academic debate about how public programmes through collaborative industry-university partnerships can stimulate IC dynamics in emerging economies (Roos and Ross, 1997;Das et al, 2003;Hall et al, 2016;Kianto et al, 2017;Guerrero et al, 2019a, b), as well as the role of IC dynamics in innovation processes (Ponzi, 2002;Manzari et al, 2012;Cuozzo et al, 2017;Dabi c et al, 2021). Second, opportunistic behaviours showed a stronger influence on IC outcomes than collaborative behaviours.…”

Section: Conclusion 61 Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Over the last three decades, researchers have paid great attention to intellectual capital (IC) as the primary source for sustainable competitive advantages (Roos and Ross, 1997;Dabi c et al, 2021). Specifically, extant studies have associated this complex concept with organizations' intangible components and creating wealth (Stewart, 1997a, b;Ponzi, 2002;Manzari et al, 2012;Ullberg et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does policy enhance collaborative-opportunistic behaviours? Looking into the intellectual capital dynamics of subsidized industry–university partnerships

Guerrero

Herrera

Urbano

2021

JIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeLittle is known about how subsidies enhance both collaborative and opportunistic behaviours within subsidized industry–university partnerships, and how partners' behaviours influence the intellectual capital dynamics within subsidized industry–university. Based on these theoretical foundations, this study expects to understand intellectual capital’s (IC's) contribution as a dynamic or systemic process (inputs?outputs?outcomes) within subsided university–industry partnerships. Especially to contribute to these ongoing academic debates, this paper analyses how collaborative and opportunistic behaviours within industry–university partnerships influence the intellectual capital dynamics (inputs, outputs and outcomes) of the subsidized projects.Design/methodology/approachBy combining two sources of information about 683 Mexican subsidized industry–university partnerships from 2009 to 2016, this study adopted the structural equation modelling (SEM) to analyse the effect of collaborative vs opportunistic behaviours in intellectual capital dynamics within subsidized projects.FindingsOur results show three tendencies about the bright/dark side of subsidies within the Mexican industry–university partnerships. The first tendency shows how collaborative behaviours positively influence intellectual capital dynamics within subsidized industry–university partnerships. The second tendency shows how opportunistic behaviours influence intellectual capital impacts (performance) and return to society (job creation). The third tendency shows how initial inputs of subsidized projects generate some expected socio-economic returns that pursued the subsidies (mediation effect of intellectual capital outputs).Research limitations/implicationsThis research has three limitations that provide a future research agenda. The main limitations were associated with our sources of information. The first limitation, we did not match subsidized partnerships (focus group) and non-subsidized partnerships (control group). A qualitative analysis should help understand the effect of subsidies on intellectual capital and partnerships' behaviours. The second limitation, our measures of collaborative/opportunistic behaviours as well as intellectual capital dynamics should be improved by balancing traditional and new metrics in future research. The third limitation is that in emerging economies, the quality of institutions could influence the submission/selection of subsidies and generate negative externalities. Future research should control by geographical dispersion and co-location of subsidies.Practical implicationsFor enterprise managers, this study offers insights into IC dynamics and behaviours within subsidized industry–university partnerships. The bright side of collaboration behaviours is related to IC's positive impacts on performance and socio-economic returns. The dark side is the IC appropriation behind opportunistic behaviours. Enterprise managers should recognize the relevance of IC management to capture value and reduce costs associated with opportunistic behaviours. For the university community, this study offers potential trends adopted by industry–university partnerships to reinforce universities' innovative transformation processes. Specifically, these trends are related to the legitimization of the university's role in society and contribution to regional development through industry–university partnerships' outcomes. Therefore, university managers should recognize the IC benefits/challenges behind industry–university partnerships.Social implicationsFor policymakers, the study indirectly shows the role of subsidies for generating/reinforcing intellectual capital outcomes within subsidized industry–university partnerships. The bright side allows evaluating the cost-benefit of this government intervention and the returns to priority industries. The dark side allows for understanding the need for implementing mechanisms to control opportunistic behaviours within subsidized partnerships. Accordingly, policymakers should understand the IC opportunity-costs related to industry–university partnerships for achieving the subsidies' aims.Originality/valueThis study contributes to three ongoing academic debates in innovation and management fields. The first debate about how intellectual capital dynamic is stimulated and transferred through the collaborative behaviour within industry–university partnerships in emerging economies. The second debate is about the “dark side” of partnerships stimulated by public programmes in emerging economies. The third debate is about the effectiveness of subsidies on intellectual capital activities/outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion 61 Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does policy enhance collaborative-opportunistic behaviours? Looking into the intellectual capital dynamics of subsidized industry–university partnerships

Guerrero

Herrera

Urbano

2021

JIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, recent calls in academic journals (e.g. Dabi c et al, 2020;Marinova and Bogueva, 2021) and world forums (e.g. OECD, 2020;World Economic Forum, 2018) are drawing attention to the need for more holistic, open and collaborative practices in the food industry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, recent calls in academic journals (e.g. Dabić et al. , 2020; Marinova and Bogueva, 2021) and world forums (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the food value chain using open innovation: a bibliometric review of the literature

Misra¹,

Mention²

2021

BFJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper reviews the literature, foundational works and current trends related to the adoption of open innovation (OI) practices in the food industry, with a particular focus on the food value chain, using a bibliometric and content analysis approach.Design/methodology/approachThis study is based on 84 published documents in the field of food OI obtained using the Scopus database. First, a bibliometric analysis was conducted using a bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis approach to understand the common themes and key clusters of food OI research. It further highlighted authors, countries, journals, years of publication and subject areas to comprehend the scope of the established literature. Second, a content analysis was undertaken to examine the titles and abstracts of the documents to explore the intersection of OI and the food value chain.FindingsThis study provides an integrated framework of the intersection of OI and the food value chain, including information about under-researched and emerging areas in the field of food innovation. It also highlights the critical challenges associated with OI food research and practices.Practical implicationsPractitioners can use the findings to uncover areas with limited open innovation adoption in the food value chain. They can identify extended research areas to explore the food value chain using an open innovation perspective, in different contexts within the food and beverage (F&B) industry. The framework can also be used for conducting comparative studies of current food innovation trends across different contexts within the F&B industry.Originality/valueBy adopting a multi-step approach involving a computer-assisted bibliometric examination complemented by a manual review undertaken through the lens of the food value chain, this literature review provides fresh and unique insights into past and present research on OI in the food industry and paves the way for future studies by laying out specific research avenues.

show abstract

“…Intellectual capital has traditionally been measured through human, relational and structural factors (Buenechea-Elberdin, 2017;Teece, 2000;Dabi c et al, 2019Dabi c et al, , 2020. However, with the increased digitalization of the economy, there has been a shift in how intellectual assets are defined and conceptualized (Chesbrough et al, 2018;Cortinovis et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guest editorial

Dabić

Kiessling

Ratten

2021

JIC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhancing policies and measurements of intellectual capital: macro, meso or micro analysis Knowledge is a major source of competitive advantage with intangible assets being more important than tangible ones. As innovative disruptions occur in all industries (e.g. manufacturing, technological, Industry 4.0, pharmaceutical, medical, etc.), intellectual capital is a primary creator of value (Obradovi c et al., 2021). Intellectual capital has many foci units of analysis varying from the individual, organizational and interorganizational to the constellation of networks of firms developing competitive advantage. Intellectual capital can be embedded within an individual as tacit knowledge or developed both through organization and interorganizational processes and through established strategic partnerships and alliances (Lee et al., 2017). Leveraging these knowledge drivers has been shown to differentiate successful firms from those that are left behind (Kianto et al., 2017;Bellucci et al., 2020).A human-level or micro-level approach to research into intellectual capital suggests that human expertise is superior to financial and physical assets, and expenditures on education and training are necessary. The micro-level focuses on both the broad interconnectedness of a workforce and individual competencies such as knowledge, skills and attributes of the employees. The intellectual capital is often tacit and is mobile as it can leave a firm. Although a source of strategic innovation, the difficult nature of tacit knowledge can be difficult to measure, assess or utilize (Saint-Onge, 1996;Konno and Schillaci, 2021). Research suggests that even if an individual may have valuable intellectual capital as tacit knowledge, they may not be willing to share their knowledge as it is a source of their power base within the firm.Firm-level or meso-level research into intellectual capital has been described as knowledge, information, intellectual property and experience utilized by a firm for a competitive advantage and resulted in innovation with a focus on value-added (Li et al., 2021). There are three components of meso-level intellectual capital research: human capital, structural capital and relational capital. The human capital is each individual in the workforce and their training and expertise, structural capital is the routines and explicit knowledge such as handbooks and databases, and relational capital focuses on the firm and all the relationships developed with customers, competitors, suppliers, trade associations or government bodies. Measurements of meso-level intellectual capital are: (1) direct (monetary value of intangible assets), (2) scorecard (using indicators or indices), (3) market capitalization (difference between a firm market capitalization and stockholder's equity) and (4) return on assets (ROA) (pre-tax earnings divided by average tangible assets).National level or macro-level research focusing on intellectual capital has been defined as all intangible resources available to a country, particularly all the...

show abstract

Two decades of the Journal of Intellectual Capital: a bibliometric overview and an agenda for future research

Cited by 55 publications

References 68 publications

Does policy enhance collaborative-opportunistic behaviours? Looking into the intellectual capital dynamics of subsidized industry–university partnerships

Does policy enhance collaborative-opportunistic behaviours? Looking into the intellectual capital dynamics of subsidized industry–university partnerships

Exploring the food value chain using open innovation: a bibliometric review of the literature

Guest editorial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About