Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2023
Mapping the Field of Research on Entrepreneurial Success:
A Bibliometric Study and Future Research Agenda
Varda Sardana
Jaipuria Institute of Management
A-32A, Opposite IBM India, Sector 62, Noida, 201309, India
Tel: 9654435464
Email: varda.sardana@jaipuria.ac.in
Shubham Singhania
University School of Management and Entrepreneurship, Delhi Technological University
M893+JHM, Vivek Vihar Phase 2, Block E, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, 110095, India
Tel: 9711924415
Email: shubhamsinghania1@gmail.com
Abstract
Entrepreneurship has lately become a buzzword, and emphasis is being placed on ensuring the success of
entrepreneurial ventures through both financial and non-financial means. This study aims to critically review
and provide insights into the key developments in the literature on entrepreneurial success. The review employs
bibliometric methods and content analysis on 595 research articles extracted from the Scopus Database for the
period 1996 to 2021. The findings of the study highlight the growth trends of publications on entrepreneurial
success, the most impactful articles, journals, and countries working in this domain as well as the evolution of
entrepreneurial research topics over the years. Six clusters, representing major themes that have been explored
in the literature in the past 26 years, are uncovered through content analysis. Future research agendas have been
elaborated based on the emerging topics of study.
Keywords: entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial success, bibliometric analysis, literature review
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
54
1. INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship refers to the identification of opportunities in order to create new business ventures,
provide goods and services (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000), generate employment, and promote innovation. It
acts as a major force in the economic growth of a country (Van Praag and Versloot, 2007). Entrepreneurial
development not only leads to employment generation but also leads to social development and improvement in
the global competitiveness of a country (Naudé, 2013). Entrepreneurial success may be defined as the ability of
the firm to be able to survive in the market over the long term (Fisher et al., 2014). Such success can be viewed
from two angles: financial success and non-financial success (Orser and Dyke, 2009; Gorgievski et al., 2010).
Financial success can be measured with the help of organizational economic parameters such as firm survival
rate, cash flows, company sales and profits, the number of employees, and the company growth rate (Dej, 2010).
Non-financial success, on the other hand, is based on the personal attributes of the entrepreneurs, such as
personal fulfillment, societal contributions, self-realizations, and work-related social relationships (Dej, 2010).
Financial success is often argued to represent the short-term outlook, whereas non-financial or psychological
success is attributed to the long-term perspective (Simon et al., 2015). Literature suggests that the success of a
startup may hold different meanings for different entrepreneurs. While for some, it may boil down to the
achievement of the enterprise’s goals and objectives (Hyder and Lussier, 2016) or a continuous high financial
performance (Spiegel et al., 2015), for others, a startup may be successful on being acquired by another
company at a good valuation (Krejci et al., 2015).
The process of entrepreneurship involves three phases: opportunity identification phase, development and
execution phase, and survival and growth phase (Baron and Shane, 2007). The success of an entrepreneurial
venture is mostly evaluated during the second phase. Various indicators are taken into consideration while
evaluating a venture’s success. One of the most paramount indicators is financial gain (Parker, 2009), while
other indicators include sales, revenue, and market development (Rauch and Frese, 2007). It is difficult to define
entrepreneurial success based on financial gains solely because many start-ups may not be able to become
profitable initially, even when the firm enjoys increasing sales, due to high set-up costs and interest payments
(Perez and Canino, 2009). Still, it is an integral indicator as low financial gains or profitability can prove to be
dangerous for a business venture and might lead to its death (Coad, 2007). Contrary to the above, a firm may
dissolve even if it is profitable but is unable to fulfill personal goals (Green et al., 2003).
Various factors drive entrepreneurial success, which can be classified into external and internal drivers.
The external factors include economic factors and social factors, while the internal factors comprise
psychological factors and personal factors. Economic factors comprise access to financial resources (Gupta and
Mirchandani, 2018), an increase in sales and revenues, continuous development, customer acceptance and
satisfaction, and the overall economic growth of the firm (Wach et al., 2016). The social factors include 2 major
components: workplace relationships, that is, the ability to maintain healthy relationships with the stakeholder
within and outside the organization (Jayawarna et al., 2013), and societal impact, which refers to the impact of
the firm’s products and services on the environment as well as on the health and well-being of the society
(Florea et al., 2013). Psychological factors comprise components such as resilience, self-efficacy, and the
optimism of the entrepreneurs that influences their behaviors, intentions, and motivations, (Baluku et al., 2016).
Resilience is the ability of the entrepreneur to bounce back from unprecedented, adverse circumstances by
adapting to a dynamic environment and bringing positive change (Luthans et al., 2007), while self-efficacy is
the confidence of an entrepreneur to develop and build a new venture, accomplish the goals, overcome all the
challenges, and be proficient in the entrepreneurial journey (McGee et al., 2009; Newman et al., 2014).
Optimism is a psychological factor that motivates an entrepreneur by increasing the possibility of positive
outcomes (Luthans et al., 2007; Trevelyan, 2008). Lastly, the set of personal factors comprises the education
level of the entrepreneurs (Barreneche, 2014; Kolstud and Wiig, 2015), their innovativeness and creativity
(Mazzucato, 2011), and their personal initiative as well as active actions towards ensuring the survival and
growth of the venture (Frese and Gielnik, 2014).
While in the past, emphasis has been on economic as well as psychological parameters for determining the
growth and development of businesses, recent literature has focused attention on the emotional skills of the
entrepreneurs (Aly et al., 2021), which are internal in nature, as well as family-related factors (Staniewski and
Awruk, 2021), which is an external factor. Dimensions such as parental attitudes, the manner of communication
amongst the family, and the origin of the family have now been recognized as playing a crucial role in the
entrepreneurial success (Staniewski and Awruk, 2021).
Despite the growing number of studies on entrepreneurial start-ups, the literature suffers from major gaps
in quantitatively identifying the intellectual developments and evolution taking place in the domain of
entrepreneurial success. The topic of entrepreneurial success is emerging but is under-researched (Fisher et al.,
2014). Though there are fragmented studies that focus on various aspects of entrepreneurial success, such as
achievement motivation (Staniewski and Awruk, 2019), age (Zhao et al., 2021), the relevance of resilience
(Salisu et al., 2021), the literature still lacks a quantitative review to examine the growth in this domain.
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
55
The present study is an attempt to holistically fill this gap and provide valuable insights into the key
developments that have taken place in this domain and underline future themes for research. When the volume
of publications becomes sufficiently large over a period, it is not possible to review the literature qualitatively
alone and, in such cases, bibliometric analysis becomes the imperative solution. To bring continuity into the
entrepreneurial research domain and to give future directions, we address the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the spatial and geographical trends as well as the volume of publications on
entrepreneurial success?
RQ2: Which are the top journals publishing in the domain of the success of entrepreneurial ventures?
RQ3: Which are the most influential research articles in this research area?
RQ4: Who are the top authors publishing in the domain of entrepreneurial success?
RQ5: Which topics in the entrepreneurial success literature have been trending in the past and which
topics are emerging?
RQ6: What are the key themes that have been explored by researchers in the domain of entrepreneurial
success and what are the future avenues for research?
The above questions are answered by analyzing 595 peer-reviewed research articles and review papers
extracted from the Scopus Database. The review employs bibliometric methods (Boyack and Klavans, 2010)
and content analysis to discover the evolution and intellectual development in the domain of entrepreneurial
success. Previous studies in various domains such as corporate governance (Singh et al., 2021a), risk
management (Singhania et al., 2022), and deposit insurance (Sardana and Singhania, 2022) have also made use
of bibliometric analysis to answer such types of research questions.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Many small businesses and start-ups evolve every year, but more than a quarter of them dissolve within the
first year of their operation (McKenzie and Paffhausen, 2018). Out of the start-ups that survive, a small
proportion can grow and contribute to the generation of employment and the development of the economy
(Olafsen and Cook, 2016). The success rate of the start-ups is, therefore, quite low, and it is difficult to predict
which of the evolving firms will be more successful (Nanda, 2016). Entrepreneurship is a risky yet exciting
journey that requires not just ideas and funds, but ability, skills, determination, persistence, hard work, and most
importantly, patience. This package deal leads to the path toward entrepreneurial success (Woodfield et al.,
2017).
Traditionally, entrepreneurial success has been considered solely based on financial and economic
indicators (Zhou et al., 2017) such as profits, probability of survival, and size of the firm (Fried and Tauer,
2015). But the importance of non-financial indicators cannot be ignored (Razmus and Laguna, 2018). As far as
the factors driving entrepreneurial success are concerned, the skills and knowledge possessed by an entrepreneur
(Abu et al., 2014), the entrepreneur’s psychological behaviour, proficiency, ability to manage work stress, and
commitment towards a task (Gupta and Mirchandani, 2018), the internal locus of control of an entrepreneur
(Asante and Affum-Osei, 2019), entrepreneurs’ attitude, behaviour and mentality (Saptono and Najah, 2018)
have gained importance in theory as well as practice. In order to ensure the smooth functioning of the
organization and to deal with uncertain circumstances, the cultural attitudes of entrepreneurs (Yusof et al.,
2017), appreciation and strong implementation of work-life balance (Orlandi, 2017), autonomy for
communication, accepting behaviour towards challenges, proactiveness and a decision-making attitude (Toms et
al., 2019), innovativeness (Ojo et al., 2017), and the availability of a well-written and researched business plans
(Agarwal and Dahm, 2015) are also essential. Another important factor is gender (Muis et al., 2017) as different
genders possess different characteristics, and the success of the venture has varying meanings for different
genders.
2.1 Theories of Entrepreneurial Success
The concept of entrepreneurial success is built on theories taken from different disciplines. Some of the
major theories include cognitive theory, discovery theory, creation theory, Dubin’s theory, and the theory of
economic development. The cognitive theory takes into account all those internal processes that help an
individual identify the knowledge structures around them to make decisions, assessments, judgments, etc.
(Cacciolatti, et al., 2015). This theory acts as a guiding force for entrepreneurs and determines their risk-taking
behaviour, which differs significantly from non-entrepreneurs (Palich et al., 1995). Discovery theory is based on
the premise that the markets are dynamic, and this gives room for entrepreneurs to discover the existing
opportunities in the markets as well as tap them for the generation of profits (Kessler, 2013). On the other hand,
creation theory is of the view that opportunities are not readily available in the market, rather they are the
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
56
consequence of actions undertaken by entrepreneurs for the development of new and innovative products and
services (Baker and Nelson, 2005). Dubin’s theory showcases the phases or steps that can be used for theory or
concept building (Dubin, 1978). It helps in the opportunity identification process and the development of the
methodology which can help the entrepreneurs capture the prevailing opportunities in the market. The process
comprises eight phases, where the first five phases are focused on developing the structure, and the last three
phases are meant for empirical validation (Ardichvili et al, 2003). Lastly, Schumpeter's theory of economic
development considers the significant role of the entrepreneurs and the innovations conducted by them in the
process of economic development (Croitoru, 2012). It is a well-recognized fact that innovation and new
technologies are not uniformly adopted by competing entrepreneurs (Jambulingam, 2018). The theory also
accords special significance to the entrepreneur as a driver of change through constant innovation, which
overcomes the obsolescence of past products (Schumpeter, & Backhaus, 2003). These theories have been
critically analyzed in the cluster analysis section, along with highlighting other emerging yet prominent theories.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The topic of entrepreneurial success has not been subjected to a quantitative review. This study fills this
gap through a mixed-method study using a combination of bibliometric analysis, a quantitative method, and
content analysis, which is a qualitative method. Bibliometric analysis has gained wide attention in recent years
due to the ease of accessibility of open access software such as VOSviewer, R, and Gephi, as well as the cross-
pollination of the themes from one domain to the other (Dhonthu et al., 2021). Scholars use bibliometric
analysis for gaining knowledge about emerging trends, the performance of journals, clarity regarding research
patterns, core journals, countries, and influential authors as well as publications (Singh et al., 2021a; Sardana
and Singhania, 2022). This technique helps in producing a high impact on research by handling large volumes of
statistical data (Dhonthu et al., 2021). Through scientific mapping, data has been analyzed to synthesize the
existing research, giving a better clarification of the topic and field of study (Singhania et al., 2022a).
The first step of the technique involved the identification and selection of a database for the retrieval of
documents. We used the Scopus database by Elsevier as it is known for its wide range of publications in social
sciences, especially since 1996 (Vieira and Gomes, 2009). As a second step, we framed a string of keywords
based on the literature review: “entrepreneur* success*” OR “entrepreneur* victory” OR “entrepreneur*
achieve*”. This led to the retrieval of 670 documents. Since the Scopus database is known to have a weak
coverage of pre-1996 publications in the domain of social sciences (Harzing and Alakangas, 2016), the set of
documents used for analysis was restricted to the period 1996 to 2021. As a third step, the screening of records
was undertaken, which led to the filtration and elimination of 59 documents, including conference papers, book
chapters, books, and notes to keep only journal articles in the English language (excluding articles in all other
languages). Then, the records were assessed based on the title and abstract for eligibility. This further omitted 16
documents, leaving a sample of 595 documents that were finally used for the bibliometric synthesis. Figure 1
provides an overview of these steps along with the structural flow of the paper.
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
57
Figure 1. Structural flow of the paper
Source: The authors.
4. RESEARCH ANALYSIS
The study conducts bibliometric and topographical analyses of the research articles sourced from the
Scopus database. In order to identify the pattern of development within the database, descriptive statistics are
first performed using MS Excel to construct various tables, graphs, etc. Subsequently, to determine the
relationship between the study items, VOSviewer (Van-Eck & Waltman, 2010) is employed for analysis,
network diagrams, and science mapping (Baker et al., 2021).
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
58
4.1 Volume and Growth Trend of Published Studies
Our first analysis is focused on the volume of publications on entrepreneurial success, over the past 26
years, from 1996 to 2021. The analysis of 595 articles indicates that the knowledge base of entrepreneurial
success has witnessed slow but steady growth, and there is wide potential for evolution in this area (Figure 2).
Though at first glance the number of publications might seem low compared to the extended horizon of 26
years, we must also consider that this number does not cover a fair number of documents such as books, book
chapters, conference papers, reports, etc. Figure 2 also highlights how the studies in the said domain have seen a
steep rise post-2013. This persistent growth could be attributed to the initiatives undertaken by the government
of various economies at the global level to push the start-up culture (Yin et al., 2019; Garg and Gupta, 2022).
Countries have started realizing the potential of the start-up ecosystem, and research studies in the domain of
entrepreneurial success act as game changers for boosting the initiatives taken by various government bodies.
Moreover, the recent COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a massive loss of employment, also acted as a driver
for self-employment and entrepreneurial initiatives (Dang and Nguyen, 2021).
Figure 2. Growth of research on entrepreneurial success over the past 26 years (1996-2021)
Source: Authors' creation based on Scopus database.
4.2 Publication Analysis across Countries
Table 1 presents the top 20 countries contributing to the topic of entrepreneurial success based on the
number of citations of published documents. With the highest number of documents (197) and citations (8464),
the United States of America (USA) proves to be the most productive. The authors of the documents published
in the USA have been exploring the topics of success among small and medium enterprises (Eggers, 2020),
women entrepreneurship (Bullough et al., 2022), and entrepreneurship education (Liguori and Winkler, 2020).
The second position is taken by Germany, with 74 documents and 1955 citations. The third spot is occupied by
the Netherlands while the United Kingdom (UK) assumes the fourth spot based on the number of citations. It is
also interesting to note that though Sweden is found in sixth position in terms of the number of citations, it has
the highest average citations per document (ACPD), thereby reflecting a higher impact in relative terms, vis-à-
vis other countries. The above observations follow because the economic growth of a nation is positively
correlated with the entrepreneurial activities taking place in the country (Stel et al., 2005). Factors such as
innovation, employment, and productivity growth are driven by growing entrepreneurial activity (World
Economic Forum, 2013). The USA has consistently seen upward trends, both in early-stage entrepreneurship as
well as established entrepreneurial ventures (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor [GEM], 2019). With this comes
the responsibility of research and publications across the country, which helps in innovation and development
(Distanont and Khongmalai, 2020). It is for this reason that the USA tops the list of 20 countries.
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
59
Table 1. Top 20 most influential countries based on citation analysis
Rank Country
No. of
Documents
No. of Citations ACPD Type of Economy
1
United States of America
197
8464
42.96
Developed
2
Germany
74
1955
26.42
Developed
3 Netherlands 27 1748 64.74
Developed
4 United Kingdom 52 1063 20.44
Developed
5 Spain 26 702 27
Developed
6 Sweden 8 601 75.13
Developed
7 Australia 30 570 19
Developed
8
Taiwan
11
354
32.18
Developed
9
France
22
353
16.05
Developed
10 Norway 13 348 26.77
Developed
11 Canada 15 321 21.4
Developed
12 Switzerland 13 227 17.46
Developed
13 India 36 212 5.89
Developing
14
Poland
18
196
10.89
Developed
15
Hong Kong
5
180
36
Developed
16
Austria
7
134
19.14
Developed
17 China 41 127 3.1
Developing
18 New Zealand 9 126 14
Developed
19 United Arab Emirates 10 125 12.5
Developed
20 Italy 17 121 7.12
Developed
Source: Authors' creation based on Scopus database and reviews.
Note: ACPD= Average Citation Per Document
An important aspect is that 90% of entrepreneurial research has been undertaken in developed countries
across the world. Though not a lot of developing countries engage in entrepreneurial research, countries like
India and China have been able to capture a spot in the list of top 20 countries. India stood at 13th place with an
ACPD of 5.89 and China stood at 17th place with an ACPD of 3.1. These two developing economies had the
lowest ACPD amongst the list of countries mentioned in the table. On the other hand, developed countries like
Sweden and Netherlands are found to have an ACPD of 75.31 and 64.74 respectively, which is the highest in the
table. This indicates the difference in the impact of the research among developed and developing economies.
4.3 Citation Analysis for Journals
The Scopus database comprises several journals that publish entrepreneurial research. Table 2 presents the
top 20 journals with the highest citations in the Scopus database. The Journal of Business Venturing by Elsevier,
an A* listed journal, proved to be the most influential source, with 5638 citations and an ACPD of 352.38. The
second position is Small Business Economics by Springer Nature with 793 citations and an ACPD of 66.08
followed by Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development by Emerald with 354 citations and 59
ACPD. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal and Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, earlier published by
Allied Business Academies, appear in the top 20 list, but they were delisted from Scopus in 2021 and 2019,
respectively.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
60
Table 2: Top 20 most influential journals in the domain of entrepreneurial success, based on the citation
analysis
Rank
NOD
No. of
Citations
ACPD
Cite
Score
Scopus
Coverage
ABDC
listed
Publisher
1
16
5638
352.38
14.6
1985 to Present
A*
Elsevier
2
12
793
66.08
10.7
1989 to Present
A
Springer Nature
3
6 354 59 5.4 1994 to Present C Emerald
4
6 313 52.17 13.7 2004 to Present A* Wiley-Blackwell
5
8 282 35.25 8 1989 to Present A Taylor & Francis
6
8
262
32.75
11.2
1973 to Present
A
Elsevier
7
10 245 24.5 8 1995 to Present B Emerald
8
5
183
36.6
14
1957 to Present
C
Elsevier
9
7
166
23.71
7.9
1967 to Present
B
Emerald
10
8 160 20 8.4 1996 to Present A Taylor & Francis
11
7 126 18 9.7 2006 to Present C Springer Nature
12
Entrepreneurship
8 106 13.25 5
1996 to 1998;
2000 to 2014;
2016 to Present
C Taylor & Francis
13
7 102 14.57 2 2008 to Present C World Scientific
14
11 75 6.82 1.1 2009 to 2021 N.A. Allied Business Academies
15
10 69 6.9 1.3 2004 to Present C Inderscience Publishers
16
7 61 8.71 4.6 2014 to Present N.A. Emerald
17
12
38
3.17
4
2010 to Present
N.A.
Frontiers Media S.A.
18
6 32 5.33 2.7 2009 to 2019 N.A. Allied Business Academies
19
5
11
2.2
1.9
1958 to Present
A
Taylor & Francis
20
5 8 1.6 2.6 1998 to Present C Emerald
Source: Authors' creation based on Scopus database and reviews.
Note: NOD= Number of Documents; ACPD= Average Citation Per Document
It can also be observed that business journals cover most of the entrepreneurial success research. Other
journals publishing on entrepreneurship cater to areas such as management, economics, psychology, education,
and history. The scholars working in this domain should note an interesting aspect: that despite being in the top
3 list based on the volume of publications, the Frontiers in Psychology Journal (with 12 published documents)
is performing low in terms of the ACPD. This means that though enough papers are being published, the
publications have not been able to generate substantial impact relative to publications in other journals. As
pointed out before, entrepreneurship is one of the major contributors to the development of the economy (Doran
et al., 2018). Beyond the economic factors, entrepreneurial success is influenced by psychological factors.
Psychology is the foundation that evaluates the ability of an entrepreneur to recognize business opportunities
and use them effectively to start and build a firm (Ramos-Rodrıguez et al., 2010). Similarly, different domains
have different purposes in the journey of entrepreneurship, which are represented systematically by various
journals.
4.4 Influential Authors and Articles
The study not only identifies the top countries and journals working in the field of entrepreneurship but
also gives attention to the contributors as well as the most influential articles that have been published and have
proved to be beneficial for academicians and entrepreneurs.
Table 3 lists the top 20 authors who have been contributing their efforts towards the said topic, ranked
based on citation analysis. Michael Frese has proved to be the most influential author, with 1209 citations and a
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
61
h-index of 112. Some of his research articles such as “Human Capital and Entrepreneurial Success: A Meta-
Analytical Review” and “Towards a Psychology of Entrepreneurship- An Action Theory Perspective”, have
made it to the top 10 most influential articles in this domain. The second most impactful author is Eva Schmitt-
Rodermund, with 285 citations and a h-index of 28. The citations received by Michael Frese, as well as his h-
index are more than four times those of Eva Schmitt-Rodermund. It is noteworthy that most of the top authors
belong to Germany and other parts of Europe. Though the USA topped the list of countries contributing to
research on entrepreneurial success, none of the top authors belong to the USA. This shows that the country is
providing a substantial quantity of research but lacks impactful authors working in this area, vis-a-vis countries
in Europe. Also, countries such as India and China, which stood at 13
th
and 17
th
place respectively in the list of
top 20 countries and are the only two developing countries that were able to find a spot in the list, have been
able to find a place even in the list of most influential authors. Jianxin Zhang (#12) belongs to China and Ranbir
Singh (#20) belongs to India.
Table 3: Top 20 authors publishing in the domain of entrepreneurial success, based on citation analysis
Rank
Author's Name
NOD
Citations
ACPD
Country Affiliation
Affiliation
h-index
1
Michael Frese
6
1209
201.5
Germany
University of Lueneburg
112
2
Eva Schmitt-Rodermund
3
285
95
Germany
University of Applied
Sciences Potsdam
28
3
Yu-Yu Chang
4
172
43
Taiwan
National Cheng Kung
University
12
4
Chen, Ming-Huei
4
172
43
Taiwan
National Chung Hsing
University
27
5
Rebecca Fisher
3
127
42.33
England
Coventry University
2
6
Ute Stephan
3
122
40.67
England
King's College London
34
7
Martin Obschonka
4
119
29.75
Netherlands
University of Amsterdam
41
8
Rainer K. Silbereisen
4
119
29.75
Germany
Friedrich Schiller
Universität Jena
69
9
Marcin Waldemar
Staniewski
6
101
16.83
Poland
University of Economics
and Human Sciences in
Warsaw
16
10
Katarzyna Awruk
5
58
11.6
Poland
Akademia Ekonomiczno-
Humanistyczna w
Warszawie
8
11
Josette Dijkhuizen
4
38
9.5
Netherlands
Maastricht School of
Management
N.A.
12
Jianxin Zhang
3
30
10
China
N.A.
12
13
Roy Thurik
3
27
9
France and
Netherlands
Montpellier Business
School and Erasmus School
of Economics
99
14
Alexandros Kakouris
3
24
8
Greece
University of Peloponnese
13
15
Agnieszka Kurczewska
3
13
4.33
Poland
University of Lodz
15
16
Christian Leyh
4
10
2.5
Germany
Fraunhofer Center for
International Management
and Knowledge Economy
12
17
André Krischke
3
5
1.67
Germany
Hochschule München
N.A.
18
Michał Mackiewicz
3
5
1.67
Poland
University of Lodz
11
19
Susanne Strahringer
3
5
1.67
Germany
Technische Universität
Dresden
11
20
Ranbir Singh
4
2
0.5
India
N.A.
2
Source: Authors' creation based on Scopus database and reviews.
Note: NOD= Number of Documents; ACPD= Average Citations Per Document
As for the top articles, Table 4 presents the top 10 most influential articles which have been most cited
(according to the Scopus database) and contributed significantly to the field of our study. Each of the articles has
received more than 150 citations. Out of these, the latest article was published in 2013 and underlines the
linkages between entrepreneurial success and gender diversity. These influential research articles can be
categorized into four broad domains: the role of psychological factors in entrepreneurial success; the role of
gender; the impact of family business; and other factors affecting success in entrepreneurship. Psychology is one
of the most pertinent factors with respect to entrepreneurship as most of the articles talk about the role of
psychology in entrepreneurship. Psychology is a mechanism that helps entrepreneurs in coping with difficult
and challenging situations (Zou et al., 2015). Most of these articles are published in ABDC-listed journals and
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
62
contribute significantly to the literature. Table 5 also reiterates that the Journal of Business Venturing is the top
contributing journal as 50% of the top 10 articles have been published in this journal.
Table 4: Top 10 most influential articles in the field of entrepreneurial success, based on citation analysis
Rank
Document Name
Journal Name
Citations
Year
Type of Paper
1
Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial
orientation to firm performance: The moderating
role of environment and industry life cycle
Journal of Business
Venturing
1527 2001 Empirical
2
Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers?
Journal of Business
Venturing
1435 1998 Empirical
3
Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A
meta-analytical review
Journal of Business
Venturing
832 2011 Empirical
4
Networks in entrepreneurship: The case of high-
technology firms
Small Business
Economics
491 2003 Empirical
5
Entrepreneurship and female youth: knowledge,
attitudes, gender differences, and educational
practices
Journal of Business
Venturing
245 1998 Empirical
6 Business formation: A network approach
Scandinavian Journal
of Management
213 1988 Conceptual
7
Linking family-to-business enrichment and
support to entrepreneurial success: Do female and
male entrepreneurs experience different
outcomes?
Journal of Busi
ness
Venturing
205 2013 Empirical
8
Pathways to successful entrepreneurship:
Parenting, personality, early entrepreneurial
competence, and interests
Journal of Vocational
Behavior
190 2004 Empirical
9
Towards a psychology of entrepreneurship: An
action theory perspective
Foundations and
Trends in
Entrepreneurship
181 2009 Conceptual
10
Psychological perspectives on entrepreneurship:
Cognitive and social factors in entrepreneurs'
success
Current Directions in
Psychological Science
154 2000 Conceptual
Source: Authors' creation based on Scopus database and reviews.
4.5 Keyword Analysis
We undertake a keyword analysis to identify the research themes studied predominantly in the
entrepreneurial success literature. A novel technique of quantitative analysis, keyword analysis is a subfield of
bibliometric review that has its roots in library and information science. It aims to identify repetitive words,
trending domains, and emerging topics of research (Qian et al., 2019).
Table 5: Top 10 keywords occurring for the highest number of times
Rank
Keyword
No. of Occurrences
1
Entrepreneurs
24
2
Gender
21
3
Innovation
21
4
Women entrepreneurs
16
5
Human capital
15
6
Education
14
7
Social capital
14
8
Entrepreneurship education
13
9
Sustainable development
12
10
Entrepreneurial orientation
11
Source: Authors’ compilation using Scopus database.
Table 5 shows the top keywords which have occurred in the database and these consist of topics like
Entrepreneurs, Gender, Innovation, and Women Entrepreneurs. This highlights the major dimensions that have
been studied in the past literature under the theme of entrepreneurial success. Gender-based entrepreneurship
has gained momentum in recent years owing to a larger proportion of women entrepreneurs taking the lead in
the market (Rosca et al., 2020). Similarly, innovation is the backbone of a successful entrepreneurial venture
(Iriobe, 2018), and this is evident from the frequent usage of this term in the literature. The list continues with
the terms Human capital, Education, and Social Capital. Human capital is the biggest asset of a firm, and works
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
63
as a tool for the success of a firm. It possesses a direct relationship with entrepreneurial success, both in new as
well as established businesses (Elsafty et al., 2020). Education is an integral part of entrepreneurship as well. In
the era of a changing entrepreneurial environment, education has become a need for current as well as future
entrepreneurs. Investment and efforts in entrepreneurship education have increased in the past few years and are
continuously witnessing an uprise (Bauman and Lucy, 2021). Social capital adds value by providing
entrepreneurs with the right network and direction (Xie et al., 2021). Lastly, keywords like Sustainable
Development have received attention due to climate destruction as well as pandemics (such as COVID-19) that
have been impacting the world. Moreover, the emphasis of the United Nations (UN) on sustainable development
goals has further given a necessary push to research in this domain (Singh et al., 2021b). The dimension of
Entrepreneurial Orientation has also been looked at to understand the dynamics of top management style,
organizational configuration, and new entry initiatives. The understanding of these aspects will help both the
entrepreneurs as well as researchers to plan the multilevel conceptualization on a larger scale (Wales et al.,
2020).
Additionally, keyword co-occurrence analysis has allowed us to locate emerging topics within the subject
domain (Bhattacharya and Basu, 1998). The emerging topics have been represented by the colour yellow in
Figure 4. The years after the global financial crisis witnessed the hefty usage of terms like technology (Ford et
al., 2010), profitability (Kiviluoto, 2011), and economics (Brown and Thornton, 2013), and most of the
entrepreneurial research revolved around these topics. Since entrepreneurship has gained wide popularity in
recent times, the topics of research have also evolved to focus on the themes of psychological capital (Tang,
2020; Gao et al., 2020), entrepreneurship education (Fayolle, 2018; Kyrö, 2018), women entrepreneurs (Panda,
2018; Sajjad et al., 2020) and culture (Lounsbury, 2019). The list of the most influential articles shows that most
of the top 10 articles consist of similar topics. Entrepreneurs’ behaviour and characteristics are integral factors in
evaluating the success of a venture. Gender and culture impact entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial success.
These emerging topics have a great deal of scope for future research that can be explored by scholars working in
the entrepreneurial success domain.
Figure 4: Temporal overlay on a keyword co-occurrence map for the entrepreneurial success literature
Source: Authors' creation based on Scopus database and VOS viewer.
Figure 4 also shows the network between the topics which are connected using various nodes. The
connection between these key concepts indicates the existence of a relationship between them. The relationship
among the key concepts is visible and has been discussed in the cluster analysis as well as in future research
avenues.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
64
4.6 Cluster and Content Analysis Based on Co-Citation Analysis
Co-citation analysis is often used as a method to uncover the intellectual developments taking place in a
particular field of research and identify emerging themes (Donthu et al., 2021). The method can be used to
identify the major themes which will also be useful in determining the clusters and the existing inter-relationship
(Bhaiswar et al., 2021) from the cited references.
Cluster analysis refers to the data analysis technique employed to identify the groups or segments which
naturally occur together without any pre-defined set of rules. Due to the lack of any pre-defined data points, this
method is often termed an unsupervised learning approach (Singhania et al., 2022; Peñas et al., 2023). The
cluster analysis has been conducted using the co-citation method to identify the various sets of clusters in the
domain of entrepreneurial success.
In the network map portrayed in Figure 5, the nodes are representative of the cited references, whereas the
size of the nodes depicts the number of articles in which the document has been co-cited. Out of the 34656 cited
references, 125 references meet the criterion of a minimum of 5 citations and have been included to visualize
key thematic clusters in our research domain. Content analysis has been employed to understand the 6 themes
emerging from these clusters.
Figure 5: Co-citation network based on cited references with minimum 5 citations
Source: Authors’ creation using VOSviewer.
Cluster 1: Theories underpinning entrepreneurial success
Cluster 1 (red) is the largest cluster, with references emerging as early as 1934. The studies in this cluster
discuss various theories involved in the identification and development of entrepreneurial opportunities, some of
which are ‘discovery theory’, ‘creation theory’ (Alvarez and Barney, 2007), ‘Dubin’s theory’ (Ardichvili et al.,
2003), ‘cognitive theory’ (Palich and Bagby, 1995), and the ‘theory of economic development’ (Schumpeter,
1934). These theories have been discussed in detail in the section on ‘Literature Review’. An entrepreneur's
intention and state of mind, combined with experience and action toward a business concept, gives a direction
for the organization at the inception stage, which further helps in survival, development, and growth (Bird,
1988). Some opportunities exist and some are waiting to be identified by the actions of an entrepreneur.
Strategic entrepreneurship is a unique concept that involves the opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking
behaviour of an entrepreneur, which apparently results in the better performance of the firm (Ireland et al., 2003;
Mazzei, 2018). It is stated that factors such as an entrepreneur’s passion, perception of skills, abilities, luck, and
value of the opportunity comprehended together lead to entrepreneurial effectiveness and persistence
(Gatewood, 1995; Cardon, 2009; Kakarika et al., 2022).
Apart from the major theories highlighted by this cluster, certain theories are emerging in the
entrepreneurship literature, and have the potential to affect it. These include the jack-of-all-trades theory, o-ring
theory, the theory of entrepreneurial bricolage, and the theory of effectuation. The theory of Jack-of-all-trades
was developed by Lazear (2004) and mathematically proved by Kaiser (2012). The theory is based on a
balanced skills mix and assumes that to pursue entrepreneurship as a career option individuals need to possess
sufficient skills and knowledge of a variety of fields (Wagner, 2003). Entrepreneurial success depends on the
entrepreneurs’ knowledge and experiences, which are accumulated by pursuing varied curricula. This helps in
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
65
building practical experiences and gaining insights from a range of functions that further helps in fostering
entrepreneurial skills leading to entrepreneurial success (Kurczewska and Mackiewicz, 2020). As far as o-ring
theory is concerned, it suggests the segregation of individuals according to their abilities, as different individuals
supply different sets of talents and skills. This theory, seminally developed by Kremer (1993) and theoretically
by Fabel (2004), believes in the power of teamwork and its importance in the success of a venture. The theory of
entrepreneurial bricolage is a behaviour-based theory of entrepreneurship, proposed by the anthropologist Lévi-
Strauss (1962). The theory tries to understand the behaviour of entrepreneurs to manage uncertainties, survive,
and flourish even when faced with resource constraints (Senyard et al., 2009). It explores the possibility of the
emergence of entrepreneurship with limited resources available at hand (Kickula et al., 2018). Finally, the
theory of effectuation came into existence after the seminal works of Sarasvathy et al. (1998) and Sarasvathy
(2001). According to Sarasvathy (2001), the future is unpredictable. From the logic of effectuation, it is better to
control an unpredictable situation than to predict an uncertain one. Effectuation pre-estimates the affordable
losses and lets entrepreneurs experiment with many strategies within limited means.
Cluster 2: Drivers of entrepreneurial success
This is the second largest cluster, depicted in green, with referenced documents emerging as early as 1981.
One of the most important non-financial drivers of entrepreneurial success, that is psychology, is distinguished
from the other behavioural sciences as it focuses more on the behaviour of an individual (Ajzen, 2020). In turn,
behaviour is influenced by the dynamism of the external environment and an individual’s personal choice
(Shaver and Scott, 1992). Extending this concept to entrepreneurship, an entrepreneur’s behaviour impacts
many factors, such as readiness for innovation, proactive personality, generalized self-efficacy, stress tolerance,
the need for autonomy, and locus of control, which have a significant correlation with business creation and
business success (Brandstätter, 2011; Jawabri, 2020; Kurniawan et al., 2022). Research studies in this cluster
have also studied the relationship between entrepreneurial traits and skill (passion, tenacity, and new resource
skill) and situational specific motivation (communicated vision, self-efficacy, and goals) to further venture
growth (Pathirana and Semasinghe, 2018; Rylková and Čemerková, 2020). Goals, self-efficacy, and
communicated vision have direct effects on venture growth, and these factors mediate the effects of passion,
tenacity, and new resource skill on subsequent growth (Baum and Locke, 2004). Prior knowledge of customer
problems leads to the identification of more opportunities, and it also moderates the relationship between
potential financial reward and opportunity identification (Shepherd and DeTienne, 2005).
The other important drivers of entrepreneurial success, as pointed out by cluster 2, can be categorized into
economic drivers, psychological drivers, social drivers, and personal drivers. Traditionally, the profits of the
firm have been considered solely as an indicator and driver of business performance as well as success. Though
now there are various other factors involved in the evaluation of business success, economic performance still
holds a very strong position in this evaluation (Perez and Canino, 2009). Psychological drivers comprise a)
resilience, which is a desirable characteristic required by both the entrepreneurs as well as their ventures
(Bullough et al., 2014; Baluku et al., 2016), b) self-efficacy (Goel and Karri, 2006; Baluku et al., 2016), since
entrepreneurs with high self-efficacy identify as well as exploit the available opportunities and develop positive
entrepreneurial intentions (Dimov, 2010), thereby harnessing the optimum levels of motivation and c) optimism,
as entrepreneurs can take risks because of their confidence and optimistic attitude (Hmieleski and Baron, 2009)
and it also has a significant positive relationship with the financial aspect of the firm (Baluku et al., 2016). The
social drivers consist of a) workplace relationships, since having a healthy bond with customers and clients by
providing them with loyalty and satisfaction also helps a firm in gaining long-term success (Wach et al., 2016),
and b) societal impact (Tur-Porcar et al., 2018), which takes into account the ability of the entrepreneur to
ensure that innovation and creativity are used to develop products and services with minimal and judicial
application and exploitation of resources. The last set of drivers, that is personal drivers, comprises a) education,
which is a basic level of knowledge and skills and which helps aspiring and budding entrepreneurs to identify
and exploit market opportunities for profitable ventures (Barreneche, 2014), b) innovativeness and creativity
(Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2014), both of which support the economic development of the country, work
as a catalyst for employment generation as well as wealth creation, and lead to technological advancements,
thereby creating more opportunities (Mazzucato, 2011) and c) personal aspects, including personality traits and
characteristics of self-confidence, independence, autonomy, risk-taking propensity, persistence, networking,
problem-solving ability, learning from failure, and using criticism (Rauch and Frese, 2007).
Cluster 3: Women and entrepreneurial success
Cluster 3, represented in blue, focuses on the journey of women entrepreneurs. The relationship between
gender and business performance is complex, but gender is a key determinant of success, even after controlling
for other factors (Rosa et al., 1996; Bednar et al., 2021; Olivas et al., 2022). Women entrepreneurs face
problems when they enter the business, but factors such as family support, social ties, and internal motivation
add positively and significantly to the success of women entrepreneurs (Alam et al., 2011; Panda, 2018). Work-
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
66
life balance too plays a significant role in the evaluation and success of women entrepreneurs (Davidsson, 1991;
Gorgievski et al., 2011). The entrepreneurial success of women entrepreneurs is also majorly attributed to
internal factors such as the need for achievement, risk-taking, and self-confidence (Khan et al., 2021). These
factors accord much-needed motivation to women entrepreneurs. On the other hand, factors such as the socio-
cultural status of women, difficulty in assessing the network of information, and problems in obtaining funds are
the major factors that limit the performance of firms led by women entrepreneurs (Hasaan et. al., 2017). There is
also a plethora of studies that contend that gender diversity or gender-related aspects do not impact firm
performance. In a recent study by Singh et al. (2019), it was argued that having a gender-diverse board does not
impact the performance of recently listed IPO (Initial Public Offer) firms. Similarly, another study by Singhania
et al. (2022b) identified that having gender-based aspects on various committees does not impact accounting-
based performance. Thus, this aspect as to whether gender-based elements impact performance is still debatable
and can be explored in the future (Singhania et al., 2023a; Singhania et al., 2023b; Singh et al., 2023).
Cluster 4: Entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial success
The fourth cluster is represented in yellow. The term entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has been used to
refer to the strategy-making process and the style of firms that engage in entrepreneurial activities (Lumpkin et
al., 2001). A popular model of EO suggests that it has five encompassing dimensions: autonomy,
innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness (Lumpkin et al., 1996; Al-Mamary
and Alshallaqi, 2022). Entrepreneurial orientation shows a direct correlation not only with the success and
performance of existing entrepreneurial firms but also with the survival and growth of new entrepreneurial
ventures (Rauch et al., 2008; Stam and Elfring, 2008). Business performance is also determined by the
psychological attributes of the entrepreneur such as the need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking
propensity, and tolerance of ambiguity (Ndofirepi, 2020). These are regarded as hallmarks of an entrepreneurial
personality (Begley et al., 1987).
The theme of entrepreneurial orientation has often been linked to the concept of international
entrepreneurship, which encompasses the innovativeness and risk-taking abilities that transcend national
boundaries for value creation (McDougall and Oviatt, 2000). However, the relationship is indirect, and it has
been found that international entrepreneurship mediates the role between entrepreneurial orientation and
entrepreneurial success. The firms which pivot and take advantage of international moves at the right moment
are bound to gain entrepreneurial success (Kollmann and Christofor, 2014).
Cluster 5: Resources and entrepreneurial success
This cluster (purple) has an integral role to play in the entrepreneurial journey as the documents in this
cluster throw light on the way entrepreneurs interact with the networks in their local environment during the
process of starting a new firm (Cavallo et al., 2019). It also discusses the development of entrepreneurship in a
resource-constrained environment. It has been found that an entrepreneur is not only seeking the resources of
equipment, space, and money, but also advice, information, and reassurance (Birley, 2000; Slavec and Prodan,
2012). Consequently, the help and guidance received from both the formal networks (banks, accountants,
lawyers) and the informal networks (family, friends, business contacts) will influence the nature of the firm
substantially (Birley, 1985; Watson, 2012). Network resources, networking activities, and network support are
heavily used to establish new firms (Malecki, 2018). Further, entrepreneurs who can refer to a broad and diverse
social network and who receive a great deal of support from their network tend to be more successful (Brüderl
and Preisendörfer, 1998). It has also been found that entrepreneurs in resource-poor environments are able to
render unique services by recombining the elements at hand for new purposes (Archer et al., 2022). They
believe in making do with what is at hand (Baker and Nelson, 2005). Past literature clearly documents a direct
nexus between resources, dynamic capabilities, and entrepreneurial success (Lu et al., 2010, Hitt et al., 2011).
The resources can be categorized into various types such as tangible and intangible assets, financial resources,
techniques, manpower, social networks, and goodwill (Huang, 2016). These resources act as a catalyst and with
the presence of these resources, the speed of entrepreneurial success is enhanced (Huang, 2016). Along similar
lines, dynamic capabilities are those high-level skills that integrate, reorganize, and configure the existing
resources to improve the performance of the firms leading to entrepreneurial success (Raza et al., 2018).
Cluster 6: Cognitive learning and entrepreneurial success
This cluster represents two overlapping themes (light blue and orange). It discusses the learning attitude of
an entrepreneur (Eliyana et al., 2020) and emphasizes a framework that identifies three main components in the
process of entrepreneurial learning: entrepreneurs’ career experience, the transformation process, and
entrepreneurial knowledge in terms of effectiveness in recognizing and acting on entrepreneurial opportunities
as well as coping with the liabilities of newness (Politis, 2005). An entrepreneur needs to possess a dynamic
learning potential with three distinctive but interrelated elements of entrepreneurial learning, which are dynamic
temporal phases, interrelated processes, and overarching characteristics (Cope, 2005). Apart from learning
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
67
attitude, self-efficacy, and achievement motivation are significantly correlated with both the choice of an
entrepreneurial career and entrepreneurial performance (Collins et al., 2004; Staniewski and Awruk, 2019). Self-
efficacy is the confidence of an entrepreneur that he/she is capable of various roles and tasks, which include
marketing, innovation, management, risk-taking, and financial control (Chen et al., 1998; Bakkar et al., 2021).
The entrepreneur’s behaviour, such as the need for achievement, innovativeness, stress tolerance, need for
autonomy, and proactive personality matches positively with the entrepreneur’s objective of business creation
and business success (Rauch and Frese, 2007).
The literature in this cluster also suggests that in firms led by entrepreneurs with a high degree of
absorptive capacity, the chances of entrepreneurial success get amplified (Khan et al., 2020). Absorptive
capacity refers to the firm’s ability to generate innovation and facilitate learning (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).
Similarly, learning capabilities refer to the aggregate of skills that can help firms leverage competitive
advantage in the markets through innovation (Barão et al., 2017), foster the growth of the firms, and equip them
for market survival in the long run (Chang et al., 2012). Furthermore, these skills are the core aspects that help
firms in effective management and lead to entrepreneurial success as well as improved performance (Khan et
al., 2021).
5. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH AVENUES
The current study has answered the research questions significantly using bibliometric analysis as well as
content analysis and has provided an overview of the topic of entrepreneurial success. The volume analysis has
consistently shown an upward trend (RQ
1
), starting from 6 documents in 1996 to a significant number of 91
documents in 2021. The number of documents from the year 2020 to 2021 showed the biggest jump. One of the
major reasons for this was the need to capture the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic by researchers, which
severely impacted almost every sector of the economy negatively, but had a positive impact on entrepreneurship
(Sharma et al., 2022). The growing trend of publications shows that the research in this arena has not yet been
saturated, and, therefore, future research scholars should continue to undertake studies that have implications for
policymaking as well as practice. In terms of geographical distribution, the USA tops the list with 197
documents and leads both in quantity and quality of research, followed by the European countries of Germany,
Netherlands, and the UK. These economies, being developed economies, understand the importance of
entrepreneurship, and apparently provide several benefits and incentives encouraging people to contribute
towards entrepreneurship (Distanont and Khongmalai, 2020). However, with a large number of startups and
unicorns being recognized in developing countries as well, it is high time to undertake research on various
entrepreneurial aspects through cross-country and multi-country studies that focus on emerging economies.
Considering the journals contributing towards entrepreneurship (RQ
2
), the top position lies with the
Journal of Business Venturing, which is a Scopus-listed, A* journal published by Elsevier. The high number of
citations and ACPD describes the quality as well as the impact of the research published in this journal.
Researchers in this area should gain insights from reading or publishing in such impactful journals. The most
influential authors (RQ
3
) in this domain belong to developed countries, but some developing countries like India
and China have also been able to capture a spot. Michael Frese from Germany has contributed immensely to this
field, with 6 documents and 1209 citations. The contributions of the top authors are highly valuable as they lay
down the foundation for the development of various new concepts and enable cross-country studies on
entrepreneurship. However, there is also a need for more collaboration among authors from different countries,
affiliations, and backgrounds, in order to promote the integration of ideas as well as expertise. As far as the
influential research documents are concerned (RQ
4
), the 10 most cited papers have been published within the
year range of 1988 to 2013. Two out of ten papers have been authored by Michael Frese and most of the papers
are empirical in nature, which has helped in shaping the present research. Some of these impactful research
articles build the basis for seminal work in the literature, and hence, are a must-read for academics as well as
practitioners.
The evolution of the topics of research on entrepreneurial success (RQ
5
) over the years highlights the
interest of researchers in this domain and the dynamic nature of the topics. The cluster analysis conducted with
the help of the co-citation method highlighted six prominent clusters, including the theories of entrepreneurial
success, the drivers and factors, the role of women entrepreneurs, the significance of entrepreneurial orientation,
the use of resources, and the importance of cognitive learning in the entrepreneurship literature. An insight into
each of these major themes would shape the way a country encourages, supports, and facilitates the activities of
entrepreneurial ventures.
In the early 2010s, the keywords that were frequently used were ‘profitability’, ‘learning’, ‘technology’,
and ‘marketing’. These topics still hold a relevant position in this field, both theoretically as well as practically,
but after considering the dynamism of the environment, new topics have emerged (RQ
6
), such as ‘psychological
capital’, ‘culture’, ‘entrepreneurial education’, and ‘women entrepreneurs’. Psychological capital is now being
recognized as one of the most important assets of an entrepreneur as it enables them to keep going despite
failures or rejection. Culture is another aspect that cannot be ignored by anyone who wants to innovate and run a
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
68
successful business venture, and, hence, research studies incorporating the understanding of culture in the
success of a firm will soon take center stage. With many institutions now offering a course in entrepreneurship,
and students keen on learning the requisite skills, the ability of entrepreneurial education to add relevance to the
entrepreneurial culture also needs to be tested in various contexts. Finally, given the increasing role of women in
the workforce and with them breaking the barriers, women's entrepreneurship is now becoming a separate area
of study. Ideas based on these recently trending topics can be considered by scholars to fill the void in research.
Moreover, these emerging themes will provide new dimensions for exploration in the field of entrepreneurial
success.
5.2 Future Research Avenues
Entrepreneurial research is still emerging, because of which the scope of research in this field is immense.
Some of the notable themes that could be turned into future research areas, as highlighted by the keyword
analysis and the literature review, are as follows:
1) Impact of Psychological Capital
Psychological capital helps to examine the ability of the entrepreneur to recognize as well as exploit
business opportunities (Ramos-Rodrıguez et al., 2010) and it, therefore, plays an essential role in the success of
entrepreneurship (Baluku et al., 2016). Psychological capital comprises four elements: hope, efficacy, resilience,
and optimism (Luthans et al., 2007). These factors work together inseparably and support an entrepreneur
emotionally as well as mentally during stressful and pressurizing situations, leading to entrepreneurial success.
The theme of entrepreneurship has seen dynamic changes where young college students are entering
entrepreneurial ventures. Given this context, it would be fruitful to study the impact of various other emerging
components of psychological capital, such as the role of self-efficacy (Maslakçı et al., 2022), the role of the
personality traits and entrepreneurial intentions (Vaiz, and Ekemen) and diversity brought in by gender
(Maslakçı et al., 2022), on the entrepreneurial success.
2) Studies on Entrepreneurship Education
With the rise in entrepreneurial activity, education in entrepreneurship plays an important role as the
entrepreneurship failure rate is quite high (Cantamessa et al., 2018). An entrepreneur requires a basic set of
skills and knowledge in various domains. The impact of education on entrepreneurial success is potentially
strong as it helps an entrepreneur acquire and apply the diverse skills required to compete and be successful
(Kolstad and Wiig, 2015). However, various aspects such as the role of teaching effectiveness in
entrepreneurship (Liu et al., 2022), the role of social capital in building entrepreneurship education (Putro et al.,
2022), the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial creativity (Wang et al., 2022) are themes
which require further exploration.
3) The Success of Women Entrepreneurs
Promoting women's entrepreneurship not only contributes toward economic development but the social
development of the country as well (Jamali, 2009). The rate of growth of women entrepreneurs has witnessed an
uprise and has positively impacted overall welfare and consumption (Minniti and Naudé, 2010). Earlier,
entrepreneurship was considered a man’s domain (Jennings and Brush, 2013). But now, we are moving towards
a more equitable world, with opportunities available to everyone without any discrimination among the genders.
Moreover, the motivation and challenges of being a women entrepreneur vary significantly across nations
(Rastogi et al., 2022). Nevertheless, raising finance as women entrepreneurs is another set of dynamic issues
(Shaikh et.al., 2022) which needs to be addressed to promote more and more women entrepreneurs.
4) Culture-Specific Studies
Each nation possesses a different culture, and an entrepreneur is obliged to respect and follow the country’s
culture to grow and survive. Numerous research studies have taken place concerning culture and
entrepreneurship over the years (Lounsbury et al., 2019; Audretsch, 2020). It is difficult to make generalizations
about different nations that have different cultures or levels of economic development (Siu and Lo, 2013), but at
the same time, cross-cultural innovation (Stephan, 2022) can prove to be significant from the market’s point of
view if explored in the right direction. Recent literature also points towards the importance of adequate training
in building a corporate culture (González-Tejero and Molina, 2022), which can push entrepreneurial ventures
for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Therefore, an entrepreneur needs to be aware of a country’s culture
before taking any decisions, while at the same time, policies made by a country should cater to entrepreneurial
activities with the country’s culture in mind (Uddin and Akther, 2019). There is still a lot of scope in this topic
as culture is a sensitive topic that has the feeling of society attached to it.
This study has theoretical as well as practical implications as the outcomes can be used not only by future
scholars but also by budding entrepreneurs in searching for gaps and opportunities and taking suitable actions on
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
69
the same. It will help the existing entrepreneurial ventures with better decision-making as well as provide early
access to future opportunities and the detection of threats. The literature talks about the importance of
entrepreneurial education, which is equally or even more important compared to other subjects. If taken care of,
it can lead to a rise in entrepreneurial activities, thereby enabling the economic growth of the country. Thus,
entrepreneurship, if explored effectively, can prove to be one of the most effective tools for the economic
growth and development of a nation.
6. CONCLUSION
This study has relied on bibliometric analysis, combined with content analysis, to understand the domain of
entrepreneurial success in a detailed manner and elaborate on the main trends, themes, and research trajectories
of this field of study (Gao et al., 2021).
The study highlighted the various countries leading in terms of publications on entrepreneurial success,
some of which are the USA, Germany, Netherlands, and the UK. The list consisted of both developed as well as
developing countries, but the developed countries dominated the list, with around 90% of the publications.
Subsequently, the study analyzed top journals publishing on entrepreneurship and related topics. The list
consisted of 40% journals from business domains and the rest from other disciplines like management,
economics, psychology, education, and history. As far as the author’s contributions are concerned, the most
influential authors mainly belong to Germany and parts of Europe, which sheds light on the quality of research
and research opportunities in Europe. It also shows that the Journal of Business Venturing is the top journal
publishing articles related to entrepreneurship, as 50% of the top articles were published in the same journal.
The most influential articles broadly talk about four domains, which are psychology, gender, family, and
success. The study also explored the evolution of entrepreneurial research topics over the years, followed by the
identification of 6 clusters, which were examined further through content analysis. Future research agendas are
elaborated upon based on the emerging topics and themes of study in the entrepreneurial success literature.
Although the analysis consists of all the relevant research questions required for the scholars working on
the topic, it suffers from certain limitations. The study relies on the Scopus citation database only, because of
which some studies, which are beyond the coverage of the Scopus database, might have been overlooked.
Another point to be considered is that the bibliometric analysis may favour old researchers (Wang et al., 2017),
due to its tendency to research by data rather than judgement. But it is noteworthy that a high number of
citations do not represent a high impact on scientific results (Drew et al., 2016).
REFERENCES
Abu, F., Yunus, A. R., Majid, I. A., Jabar, J., Aris, A., Sakidin, H., & Ahmad, A. (2014). Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM): Empowering smart customer to participate in electricity supply system. Journal
of Technology Management and Technopreneurship (JTMT), 2(1). Retrieved from
https://jtmt.utem.edu.my/jtmt/article/view/59
Agarwal, R., & Dahm, M. J. (2015). Success factors in independent ethnic restaurants. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, 18(1), 20-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2015.995749
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging
Technologies, 2(4), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
Alam, S. S., Jani, M. F. M., & Omar, N. A. (2011). An empirical study of success factors of women
entrepreneurs in southern region in Malaysia. International Journal of economics and Finance, 3(2), 166-
175. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.832.6751&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Al-Mamary, Y. H., & Alshallaqi, M. (2022). Impact of autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness,
and competitive aggressiveness on students’ intention to start a new venture. Journal of Innovation &
Knowledge, 7(4), 100239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100239
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial
action. Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 1(1‐2), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4
Aly, M., Audretsch, D.B. & Grimm, H. Emotional skills for entrepreneurial success: the promise of
entrepreneurship education and policy. J Technol Transf 46, 1611–1629 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09866-1
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
70
Archer, G., Arndt, F., & Robinson, F. (2022). Value Creation through Environmental Entrepreneurship.
In WORLD SCIENTIFIC ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY, ETHICS AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP (pp. 157-173). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811248863_0006
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and
development. Journal of Business venturing, 18(1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-
9026(01)00068-4
Asante, E. A., & Affum-Osei, E. (2019). Entrepreneurship as a career choice: The impact of locus of control on
aspiring entrepreneurs' opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Research, 98, 227-235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.006
Audretsch, D. B. (2020). Entrepreneurship and culture. Eurasian Economic Review, 10(1), 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-019-00132-2
Baker, H., Kumar, S. & Pandey, N. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of managerial finance: A retrospective.
Managerial Finance, 46(11), 1495-1517.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
https://doi.org/10.2189%2Fasqu.2005.50.3.329
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
https://doi.org/10.2189%2Fasqu.2005.50.3.329
Bakkar, B. S., Mohammad, A. L., Shayeb, M. A., Suhail, A. Z., & Shendi, Y. A. A. (2021). THE
PSYCHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OMANI ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-EFFICACY
SCALE. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 24, 1-12.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/7a47f22e198bae0846b8a45d065e7137/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=28224
Baluku, M. M., Kikooma, J. F., & Kibanja, G. M. (2016). Psychological capital and the startup capital–
entrepreneurial success relationship. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 28(1), 27-54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2015.1132512
Barão, A., de Vasconcelos, J. B., Rocha, Á., & Pereira, R. (2017). A knowledge management approach to
capture organizational learning networks. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 735-
740.
Baron, R. A., & Shane, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship: A process perspective. The psychology of
entrepreneurship, 19-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091326
Barreneche García, A. (2014). Analyzing the determinants of entrepreneurship in European cities. Small
Business Economics, 42(1), 77-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9462-8
Barreneche García, A. (2014). Analyzing the determinants of entrepreneurship in European cities. Small
Business Economics, 42(1), 77-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9462-8
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The Relationship of Entrepreneurial Traits, Skill, and Motivation to
Subsequent Venture Growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–
598. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.587
Bauman, A., & Lucy, C. (2021). Enhancing entrepreneurial education: Developing competencies for
success. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(1), 100293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.03.005
Bednar, S., Gicheva, D., & Link, A. N. (2021). Innovative activity and gender dynamics. Small Business
Economics, 56(4), 1591-1599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00282-2
Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performence in
entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of business venturing, 2(1), 79-93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90020-6
Bhaiswar, R., Meenakshi, N., & Chawla, D. (2021). Evolution of Electronic Word of Mouth: A Systematic
Literature Review Using Bibliometric Analysis of 20 Years (2000–2020). FIIB Business Review, 10(3),
215-231.
Bhattacharya, S., & Basu, P.K. (1998). Mapping a research area at the micro level using co-word analysis.
Scientometrics, 43, 359–372.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of management
Review, 13(3), 442-453. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306970
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
71
Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of business venturing, 1(1), 107-
117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(85)90010-2
Birley, S. (2000). The Role of Networks in the Entrepreneurial. Small Business: Critical Perspectives on
Business and Management, 4, 1495.
https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8kNx95ta7NoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1495&dq=an+entrepren
eur+is+seeking+the+resources+of+equipment,+space,+money,+advice,+information,+and+reassurance+&
ots=rFX0UjTK7t&sig=_T5cLTxmhX9-Jn-
3jegOlo2nR9E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=an%20entrepreneur%20is%20seeking%20the%20resources%
20of%20equipment%2C%20space%2C%20money%2C%20advice%2C%20information%2C%20and%20r
eassurance&f=false
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419
Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and
individual differences, 51(3), 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
Brown, C., & Thornton, M. (2013). How entrepreneurship theory created economics. Quarterly Journal of
Austrian Economics, 16(4). Accessed on 1st Aug,2022:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.430.9684&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Brüderl, J., & Preisendörfer, P. (1998). Network support and the success of newly founded business. Small
business economics, 10(3), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007997102930
Bullough, A., Guelich, U., Manolova, T. S., & Schjoedt, L. (2022). Women’s entrepreneurship and culture:
gender role expectations and identities, societal culture, and the entrepreneurial environment. Small
Business Economics, 58(2), 985-996.
Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience and
self–efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3), 473-499.
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12006
Cacciolatti, L., Lee, S.H. (2015). Entrepreneurial Cognition and Learning. In: Entrepreneurial Marketing for
SMEs. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137532589_4
Cantamessa, M., Gatteschi, V., Perboli, G., & Rosano, M. (2018). Startups’ roads to failure. Sustainability,
10(7), 2346.
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial
passion. Academy of management Review, 34(3), 511-532. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40633190
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Present debates and future
directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1291-1321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3
Chang, Y. C., Chang, H. T., Chi, H. R., Chen, M. H., & Deng, L. L. (2012). How do established firms improve
radical innovation performance? The organizational capabilities view. Technovation, 32(7-8), 441-451.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs
from managers?. Journal of business venturing, 13(4), 295-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-
9026(97)00029-3
Coad, A. (2007). Firm growth: a survey. Max Planck Institute of Economics. Available from:
http://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/halshs-00155762
Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of achievement motivation to
entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human performance, 17(1), 95-117.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1701_5
Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and
practice, 29(4), 373-397. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1540-6520.2005.00090.x
Croitoru, A. (2012). Schumpeter, JA, 1934 (2008), The theory of economic development: An inquiry into
profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Journal of comparative research in anthropology and
sociology, 3(02), 137-148.
Dang, H. A. H., & Nguyen, C. V. (2021). Gender inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Income,
expenditure, savings, and job loss. World Development, 140, 105296.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
72
Davidsson, P. (1991). Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm
growth. Journal of business venturing, 6(6), 405-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90028-C
Dej, D. (2010). Defining and measuring entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurship: A psychological approach,
89-102.
Dimov, D. (2010). Nascent entrepreneurs and venture emergence: Opportunity confidence, human capital, and
early planning. Journal of management studies, 47(6), 1123-1153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2009.00874.x
Ding, Y., & Cronin, B. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information
processing & management, 47(1), 80-96.
Distanont, A., & Khongmalai, O. (2020). The role of innovation in creating a competitive advantage. Kasetsart
Journal of Social Sciences, 41(1), 15-21.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric
analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
Doran, J., McCarthy, N., & O’Connor, M. (2018). The role of entrepreneurship in stimulating economic growth
in developed and developing countries. Cogent Economics & Finance, 6(1), 1442093.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2018.1442093
Drew, C. H., Pettibone, K. G., Finch, F. O., Giles, D., & Jordan, P. (2016). Automated research impact
assessment: A new bibliometrics approach. Scientometrics, 106(3), 987–1005.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1828-7
Dubin, R., 1978. Theory Building, second ed. Free Press, New York.
Economic Survey 2021-2022. https://www.ibef.org/economy/economic-survey-2021-
22#:~:text=Current%20State%20of%20the%20Economy,8.5%25%20in%202022%2D23.
Eggers, F. (2020). Masters of disasters? Challenges and opportunities for SMEs in times of crisis. Journal of
business Research, 116, 199-208.
Eliyana, A., Rohmatul, S., Rohmatul, S., Sridadi, A. R., Razaq, A., & Gunawan, D. R. (2020). The role of
motivation on attitudes and entrepreneur achievement. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(8), 335-343.
https://www.sysrevpharm.org/articles/the-role-of-motivation-on-attitudes-and-entrepreneur-
achievement.pdf
Elsafty, A., Abadir, D., & Shaarawy, A. (2020). How does the entrepreneurs’ financial, human, social and
psychological capitals impact entrepreneur’s success. Business and Management Studies, 6(3), 55-71.
https://doi.org/10.11114/bms.v6i3.4980
Fabel, O. (2004). Spin-Offs of Entrepreneurial Firms: An O-Ring Approach. Journal of Institutional and
Theoretical Economics, 160, 416–438. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40752470
Fayolle, A. (2018). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. In A research agenda for
entrepreneurship education. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C., Martín-Guerrero, J.D., Florencio, L.L(2023) Clustering analysis reveals different
profiles associating long-term post-COVID symptoms, COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission and
previous medical co-morbidities in previously hospitalized COVID-19 survivors. Infection 51, 61–69
Fisher, R., Maritz, A., & Lobo, A. (2014). Evaluating entrepreneurs’ perception of success: Development of a
measurement scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 20(5), 478-492.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2013-0157
Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational
sustainability. Journal of business ethics, 114(3), 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1355-x
Ford, S., Garnsey, E., & Probert, D. (2010). Evolving corporate entrepreneurship strategy: technology
incubation at Philips. R&d Management, 40(1), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00580.x
Frese, M., & Gielnik, M. M. (2014). The psychology of entrepreneurship. Annual review of organizational
psychology and organizational behavior, 1(1), 413-438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-
091326
Fried, H. O., & Tauer, L. W. (2015). An entrepreneur performance index. Journal of Productivity
Analysis, 44(1), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-015-0436-0
Gao, Q., Wu, C., Wang, L., & Zhao, X. (2020). The entrepreneur’s psychological capital, creative innovation
behavior, and enterprise performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1651.
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
73
Gao, S., Meng, F., Gu, Z., Liu, Z., & Farrukh, M. (2021). Mapping and clustering analysis on environmental,
social and governance field a bibliometric analysis using Scopus. Sustainability, 13(13), 7304.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137304
Garg, M., & Gupta, S. (2022). Start-ups and the growing entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights (JIPR), 26(1), 31-38.
Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing
start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of business venturing, 10(5), 371-391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(95)00035-7
Goel, S., & Karri, R. (2006). Entrepreneurs, Effectual Logic, and Over Trust. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 30 (4), 477-493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00131.x
González-Tejero, C.B. and Molina, C.M. (2022), "Training, corporate culture and organizational work models
for the development of corporate entrepreneurship in SMEs", Journal of Enterprising Communities: People
and Places in the Global Economy,16, 168-188. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-12-2021-0178
Gorgievski, M. J., Ascalon, M. E., & Stephan, U. (2011). Small business owners' success criteria, a values
approach to personal differences. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 207-232.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2011.00322.x
Green, S. G., Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2003). Advocacy, performance, and threshold influences on
decisions to terminate new product development. Academy of management journal, 46(4), 419-434.
https://doi.org/10.5465/30040636
Gupta, N., & Mirchandani, A. (2018). Investigating entrepreneurial success factors of women-owned SMEs in
UAE. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2017-0411
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016), Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and
cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787-804.
Hassan, H., Mahdee, J., Rahman, M. S., & Sade, A. B. (2017). Key success factors and challenges in harnessing
the power of women entrepreneurs. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development, 13(4), 450-467.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs' optimism and new venture performance: A social
cognitive perspective. Academy of management Journal, 52(3), 473-488.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41330755
Huang, H. C. (2016). Entrepreneurial resources and speed of entrepreneurial success in an emerging market: the
moderating effect of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12, 1-26.
Hyder, S. and Lussier, R. (2016) ‘Why businesses succeed or fail: A study on small businesses in Pakistan’,
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economics, 8, 82–100.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its
dimensions. Journal of management, 29(6), 963-989. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00086-2
Iriobe, O. (2018). Entrepreneurial Ventures and Its Components. Entrepreneurship Development: Principles &
Practice, Princeton & Associates Publishing Co. Ltd (2018). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4163901
Jamali, D. (2009), “Constraints and opportunities facing women entrepreneurs in developing countries: a
relational perspective”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24, 232-251.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17542410910961532
Jambulingam, T., Joshi, M. P., & Kathuria, R. (2018). Competitive Analysis of CRM Strategies Using Analytic
Hierarchy Process. Management Dynamics, 18(1), 1-22.
Jawabri, A. (2020). The impact of big-5 model leadership traits on team entrepreneurship: An empirical study of
small businesses in the UAE. Management Science Letters, 10(3), 497-506.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.9.031
Jayawarna, D., Rouse, J., & Kitching, J. (2013). Entrepreneur motivations and life course. International small
business journal, 31(1), 34-56. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0266242611401444
Jennings, J.E. and Brush, C.G. (2013), “Research on women entrepreneurs: challenges to (and from) the broader
entrepreneurship literature?”, The Academy of Management Annals, 7 (1), 663-715.
Kaiser, U. (2008). A primer in Entrepreneurship. University of Zurich-Institute for Strategy and Business
Economics Ders Notları, 1-17. https://www.business.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-39c4-f61f-0000-
000063375948/Kap5primerentrepreneur2010.pdf
Kakarika, M., Biniari, M., Guillén, L., & Mayo, M. (2022). Where does the heart lie? A multistage process
model of entrepreneurial passion and role identity management. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2605
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
74
Kessler, E. (Ed.) (2013). Encyclopedia of management theory. (Vols. 1-2). SAGE Publications, Ltd.,
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452276090
Khan, R. U., Salamzadeh, Y., Shah, S. Z. A., & Hussain, M. (2021). Factors affecting women entrepreneurs’
success: a study of small-and medium-sized enterprises in emerging market of Pakistan. Journal of
innovation and entrepreneurship, 10(1), 1-21.
Khan, S. H., Majid, A., Yasir, M., & Javed, A. (2021). Social capital and business model innovation in SMEs:
do organizational learning capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation really matter?. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 24(1), 191-212.
Khan, S., Bhatti, S., Zaman, U., & Hussain, M. (2020). Breaking down the success barrier: The mediating role
of absorptive capacity in linking entrepreneurial orientation to IT project success. Pakistan Journal of
Commerce and Social Science, 14(2), 529-550.
Kickula, J., Griffiths, M., Bacq, S., & Garud, N. (2018). Catalyzing social innovation: is entrepreneurial
bricolage always good?. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 407-420.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1413771
Kiviluoto, N. (2011). Rediscovering profitability in entrepreneurship: Evidence from Finnish high-technology
start-ups. Accessed on 1st Aug,2022 http://bibbild.abo.fi/ediss/2011/kiviluoto_niklas.pdf
Kollmann, T., & Christofor, J. (2014). International entrepreneurship in the network economy:
Internationalization propensity and the role of entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of international
entrepreneurship, 12, 43-66.
Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2015). Education and entrepreneurial success. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 783-
796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9621-1
Kremer, M. (1993). The O-Ring theory of economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3),
551–575. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118400
Kurczewska, A., & Mackiewicz, M. (2020). Are jacks-of-all-trades successful entrepreneurs? Revisiting
Lazear's theory of entrepreneurship. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(3), 411-430.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1746-5265.htm
Kurniawan, R. Y., Prakoso, A. F., & Soesatyo, Y. (2022). Is Entrepreneurial Intention A Major Factor in The
Success of An Entrepreneur?.
https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PIOAEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA242&dq=an+entrepre
neur%E2%80%99s+behavior+impacts+many+factors,+such+as+readiness+for+innovation,+proactive+per
sonality,+generalized+self-
efficacy,+stress+tolerance,+need+for+autonomy,+and+locus+of+control,+which+have+a+significant+corr
elation+with+business+creation+an&ots=X4bLIFOJFv&sig=r8dzbSc1ugeqPobsgXm9Q4QBlQQ&redir_e
sc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kyrö, P. (2018). The conceptual contribution of education to research on entrepreneurship education. In A
research agenda for entrepreneurship education (pp. 164-186). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lazear, E. P. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 208–211.
https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041301425
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). La pensée sauvage. https://monoskop.org/images/f/f6/Levi-
Strauss_Claude_La_Pensee_sauvage_1962.pdf
Li, Y., & Ahlstrom, D. (2020). Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture
decision. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(3), 899-933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9631-7
Liguori, E., & Winkler, C. (2020). From offline to online: Challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurship
education following the COVID-19 pandemic. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(4), 346-351.
Liu, M., Gorgievski, M. J., Qi, J., & Paas, F. (2022). Increasing teaching effectiveness in entrepreneurship
education: Course characteristics and student needs differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 96,
102147.
Lounsbury, M., Cornelissen, J., Granqvist, N., & Grodal, S. (2019). Culture, innovation and
entrepreneurship. Innovation, 21(1), 1-12.
Lu, Y., Zhou, L., Bruton, G., & Li, W. (2010). Capabilities as a mediator linking resources and the international
performance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies,
41(3), 419-436.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to
performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
75
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm
performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of business
venturing, 16(5), 429-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00048-3
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Investing and developing
positive organizational behaviour. Positive organizational behaviour, 1(2), 9-24.
Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurs, networks, and economic development: A review of recent
research. Reflections and extensions on key papers of the first twenty-five years of advances.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1074-754020180000020010
Maslakçı, A., Sürücü, L., & Şeşen, H. (2022). Positive psychological capital and university students’
entrepreneurial intentions: does gender make a difference?. International Journal for Educational and
Vocational Guidance, 1-26.
Maslakçı, A., Sürücü, L., & Şeşen, H. (2022). Relationship between positive psychological capital and
entrepreneurial intentions of university students: the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. World
J Entrep Manag Sustain Dev, 18, 305-319.
Mazzei, M. J. (2018). Strategic entrepreneurship: Content, process, context, and outcomes. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), 657-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0512-9
Mazzucato, M. (2011). The Entrepreneurial State:‘‘The state has not just fixed markets, but actively created
them…”. Demos: London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1024529416678084
McGee, J. E. M., & Peterson, S. L. Mueller, & JM Sequeira. 2009. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: Refining the
measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1540-
6520.2009.00304.x
McKenzie, D., & Paffhausen, A. L. (2019). Small firm death in developing countries. Review of economics and
statistics, 101(4), 645-657. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00798
Minniti, M. and Naudé, W. (2010), “What do we know about the patterns and determinants of female
entrepreneurship across countries?”, The European Journal of Development Research, 22 (3) 277-293.
Muis, I., Suleeman, J., & Riyanti, B. P. D. (2017, September). " Why do women have less opportunity for
entrepreneurial success compared to men?"(Case study: Indonesian entrepreneurship). In 2nd International
Conference on Education, Science, and Technology (ICEST 2017) (pp. 49-51). Atlantis Press.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/icest-17.2017.17
Mumu, J. R., Saona, P., Haque, M. S., & Azad, M. A. K. (2021). Gender diversity in corporate governance: a
bibliometric analysis and research agenda. Gender in Management: An International Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2021-0029
Nanda, R. (2016). Financing high-potential entrepreneurship. IZA World of Labor.
https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.252
Naudé, W. (2013). Entrepreneurship and economic development: Theory, evidence and policy. Evidence and
Policy. IZA Discussion Paper, (7507). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2314802
Ndofirepi, T. M. (2020). Relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial goal intentions:
psychological traits as mediators. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-0115-x
Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F. E. I., & Hirst, G. (2014). Psychological capital: A review and synthesis.
Journal of organizational behavior, 35(S1), S120-S138. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1916
Ojo, O. D., Petrescu, M., Petrescu, A. G., & Bîlcan, F. R. (2017). Impact of innovation on the entrepreneurial
success: Evidence from Nigeria. African Journal of Business Management, 11(12), 261-265.
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM2017.8277
Olafsen, E., & Cook, P. A. (2016). Growth entrepreneurship in developing countries: A preliminary literature
review. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/zh/587331562049723102/pdf/Growth-
Entrepreneurship-in-Developing-Countries-A-Preliminary-Literature-Review.pdf
Olivas, D., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Frankwick, G. L. (2022). Effects of ethnicity and gender on ethically driven
small business performance. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, (ahead-of-print).
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-09-2021-0383
Orlandi, L. B. (2017). Am I an entrepreneur? Identity struggle in the contemporary women entrepreneurship
discourse. Contemporary Economics, 11(4), 487-499.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/195507/1/102921915X.pdf
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
76
Orser, D & Dyke, L. (2009, June 22). The influence of gender and occupational-role on entrepreneurs’and
corporate managers’ success criteria. The Free Library. [Html- Dokument]. Available under:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging
conventional wisdom. Journal of business venturing, 10(6), 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-
9026(95)00082-J
Panda, S. (2018). Constraints faced by women entrepreneurs in developing countries: review and
ranking. Gender in Management: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-01-2017-0003
Parker, S. C. (2018). The economics of entrepreneurship. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316756706
Pathirana, K. P. J. M., & Semasinghe, D. M. (2018). Entrepreneurial traits and venture growth in Sri Lanka.
http://192.248.73.38/bitstream/handle/94ousl/1685/Vistas%20Dec-18_edited01082019-103-
126.pdf?sequence=1
Perez, E. H., & Canino, R. M. B. (2009). The importance of the entrepreneur’s perception of “success”. Review
of International Comparative Management, 10(5), 990-1010.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.861.8978&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship theory
and practice, 29(4), 399-424. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1540-6520.2005.00091.x
Qian, J., Law, R., & Wei, J. (2019). Knowledge mapping in travel website studies: A scientometric
review. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 19(2), 192-209.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2018.1526113
Ramos-Rodriguez, A. R., Medina-Garrido, J. A., Lorenzo-Gómez, J. D., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2010). What
you know or who you know? The role of intellectual and social capital in opportunity
recognition. International small business journal, 28(6), 566-582.
Ramos-Rodrıguez, Antonio-Rafael, Jose-Aurelio Medina-Garrido, Jose-Daniel Lorenzo-Gomez, and Jose Ruiz-
Navarro. 2010. “What You Know or Who You Know? The Role of Intellectual and Social Capital in
Opportunity Recognition.” International Small Business Journal 28 (6): 566582.
doi:10.1177/0266242610369753.
Rastogi, M., Baral, R. and Banu, J. (2022), "What does it take to be a woman entrepreneur? Explorations from
India", Industrial and Commercial Training, 54, 333-356. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-03-2021-0022
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the
relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal
of work and organizational psychology, 16(4), 353-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701595438
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance: Cumulative empirical evidence. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
Raza, S., Minai, M. S., Abrar ul Haq, M., & Zain, A. Y. M. (2018). Entrepreneurial network towards small firm
performance through dynamic capabilities: the conceptual perspective. Academy of Entrepreneurship
Journal, 24(4), 1-9.
Razmus, W., & Laguna, M. (2018). Dimensions of entrepreneurial success: A multilevel study on stakeholders
of micro-enterprises. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 791. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00791
Red Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). Informe Gem España 2018–2019.
https://www.cise.es/pdf/informe-gem-2018-19.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2021).
Rosa, P., Carter, S., & Hamilton, D. (1996). Gender as a determinant of small business performance: Insights
from a British study. Small business economics, 8(6), 463-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00390031
Rosca, E., Agarwal, N., & Brem, A. (2020). Women entrepreneurs as agents of change: A comparative analysis
of social entrepreneurship processes in emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 157, 120067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120067
Rylková, Ž., & Čemerková, Š. (2020). Personality Assumptions and Attitudes Towards Business. In Developing
Entrepreneurial Competencies for Start-Ups and Small Business (pp. 59-72). IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2714-6.ch004
Saes, AM, & Marcovitch, J. (2020). Entrepreneurial education: recent trajectory and challenges. Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 9 (1), 1-9.
Sajjad, M., Kaleem, N., Chani, M. I., & Ahmed, M. (2020). Worldwide role of women entrepreneurs in
economic development. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 151-160.
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
77
Salisu, I., Hashim, N., Mashi, M. S., & Aliyu, H. G. (2020). Perseverance of effort and consistency of interest
for entrepreneurial career success: Does resilience matter?. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies, 12(2), 279-304.
Saptono, A., & Najah, S. (2018). Development of an assessment instrument of affective domain for
entrepreneurship in senior high school. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(4), 1-12.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/ea316265d08a847b645834ae05c9dc5d/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=28224 .
Sarasvathy, S. D., Simon, H. A., & Lave, L. (1998). Perceiving and managing business risks: Differences
between entrepreneurs and bankers. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 33, 207–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00092-9
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to
entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26, 243–263.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378020
Sardana, V. & Singhania, S (2022). Fifty Years of Research in Deposit Insurance: A Bibliometric Analysis and
Review, FIIB Business Review, Volume ahead of Print, Issue ahead of print.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development Cambridge Mass. First published in German
in 1911SchumpeterThe theory of economic development1934. http://compaso.eu/wpd/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/Compaso2012-32-Croitoru.pdf
Schumpeter, J., & Backhaus, U. (2003). The theory of economic development (pp. 61-116). Springer US.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Entrepreneurial bricolage: Towards systematic empirical
testing. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(5), 5.
http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol29/iss5/5
Shaikh, E., Tunio, M. N., & Qureshi, F. (2022). Finance and women's entrepreneurship in DETEs: A literature
review. Entrepreneurial Finance, Innovation and Development, 191-209.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
management review, 25(1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
Sharma, G. D., Kraus, S., Liguori, E., Bamel, U. K., & Chopra, R. (2022). Entrepreneurial Challenges of
COVID-19: Re-thinking entrepreneurship after the crisis. Journal of Small Business Management, 1-23.
Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1992). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture
creation. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 16(2), 23-46.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F104225879201600204
Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity
identification. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1540-
6520.2005.00071.x
Simon, A., Bartle, C., Stockport, G., Smith, B., Klobas, J. E., & Sohal, A. (2015). Business leaders’ views on
the importance of strategic and dynamic capabilities for successful financial and non-financial business
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(7), 908-931.
Singh, A. K., Kota, H. B., Sardana, V., & Singhania, S. (2021b). Does gender diversity on board promote
corporate social responsibility? An empirical analysis of sustainable development goals. Australasian
Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 15(5), 22-40.
Singh, A. K., Singhania, S., & Sardana, V. (2019). Do women on boards affect firm's financial performance?
Evidence from Indian IPO firms. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 13(2), 53-68.
Singh, J., Singhania, S., & Aggrawal, D. (2021a). Gender diversity on corporate boards: Review and future
research agenda through bibliometric mapping. Corporate Governance & Sustainability Review, 5(3), 57-
72.
Singh, J., Singhania, S., & Aggrawal, D. (2023). Does board gender diversity impact financial performance?
Evidence from the Indian IT sector. Society and Business Review, 18(1), 51-70.
Singhania, S., Singh, J. and Aggrawal, D., (2022a). Board committees and financial performance: Exploring the
effects of gender diversity in the emerging economy of India. International Journal of Emerging Markets,
Volume ahead of Print, Issue ahead of print.
Singhania, S., Singh, J., & Aggrawal, D. (2023a). Gender diversity on board and corporate sustainability: a
quantitative review based on bibliometric mapping. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering
and Management, 14(1), 267-286.
Singhania, S., Singh, J., Aggrawal, D., & Rana, S. (2023b). Board gender diversity and sustainability reporting
quality: a generalized ordered logit approach. Kybernetes, Volume ahead of Print, Issue ahead of print.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
78
Singhania, S., Singh, R. K., Singh, A. K., & Sardana, V. (2022a). Corporate governance and risk management:
A bibliometric mapping for future research agenda. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 15(2), 223-
255.
Siu, W. S., & Lo, E. S. (2013). Cultural contingency in the cognitive model of entrepreneurial
intention. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(2), 147–173.
Slavec, A., & Prodan, I. (2012). The influence of entrepreneur's characteristics on small manufacturing firm
debt financing. Journal for East European Management Studies, 104-130.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23281745
Somsuk, N., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2014). A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic
management of university business incubators: Resource-based view. Technological forecasting and social
change, 85, 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.007
Spiegel, O., Abbassi, P., Zylka, M. P., Schlagwein, D., Fischbach, K., & Schoder, D. (2016). Business model
development, founders' social capital and the success of early stage internet start‐ups: a mixed‐method
study. Information Systems Journal, 26(5), 421-449.
Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role
of intra-and extraindustry social capital. Academy of management journal, 51(1), 97-111.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.30744031
Staniewski, M. W., & Awruk, K. (2019). Entrepreneurial success and achievement motivation–A preliminary
report on a validation study of the questionnaire of entrepreneurial success. Journal of Business
Research, 101, 433-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.073
Staniewski, M. W., & Awruk, K. (2021). Parental attitudes and entrepreneurial success. Journal of Business
Research, 123, 538-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.039
Stel, A. V., Carree, M., & Thurik, R. (2005). The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic
growth. Small business economics, 24, 311-321.
Stephan, U. (2022). Cross-cultural innovation and entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 277-308.
Strielkowski, W., Krejcí, M., & Čabelková, I. (2015). Factors that influence the success of small and medium
enterprises in ICT: a case study from the Czech Republic. Business: Theory and Practice, 16(3), 304-315.
Tang, J. J. (2020). Psychological capital and entrepreneurship sustainability. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 866.
Toms, S., Wilson, N., & Wright, M. (2020). Innovation, intermediation, and the nature of entrepreneurship: A
historical perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1310
Trevelyan, R. (2008). Optimism, overconfidence and entrepreneurial activity. Management Decision, 46(7),
986-1001. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810890177
Tur-Porcar, A., Roig-Tierno, N., & Llorca Mestre, A. (2018). Factors affecting entrepreneurship and business
sustainability. Sustainability, 10(2), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020452
Uddin, M. K., & Akther, S. (2019). Contributions of Social Entrepreneurs: A Study from the Perspective of the
Society, Culture, and Environment of Bangladesh. Management Dynamics, 19(1), 1-18.
Vaiz, T., & Ekemen, M. A. (2022). The Role of Positive Psychological Capital and Personality Traits on the
Relationship of Conscious Awareness and Entrepreneurial Intention. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie
Sociala, 78.
Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent
research. Small business economics, 29(4), 351-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x
Van-Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric
mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538.
Vieira, E.S. & Gomes, J.A. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university.
Scientometrics, 81, 587.
Wach, D., Stephan, U., & Gorgievski, M. (2016). More than money: Developing an integrative multi-factorial
measure of entrepreneurial success. International Small Business Journal, 34(8), 1098-1121.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0266242615608469
Wagner, J. (2003). Testing Lazear's jack-of-all-trades view of entrepreneurship with German micro
data. Applied Economics Letters, 10(11), 687-689. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485032000133273
Wales, W. J., Covin, J. G., & Monsen, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel
conceptualization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 639-660.
Varda Sardana and Shubham Singhania
79
Wang, C., Mundorf, N., & Salzarulo-McGuigan, A. (2022). Entrepreneurship education enhances
entrepreneurial creativity: The mediating role of entrepreneurial inspiration. The International Journal of
Management Education, 20(2), 100570.
Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of
bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8), 1416–1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006
Watson, J. (2012). Networking: Gender differences and the association with firm performance. International
Small Business Journal, 30(5), 536-558. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0266242610384888
Woodfield, P. J., Shepherd, D., & Woods, C. (2017). How can family winegrowing businesses be sustained
across generations? International Journal of Wine Business Research, 29(2), 122-139.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-12-2015-0052
World Economic Forum (2013) https://reports.weforum.org/new-models-for-entrepreneurship/executive-
summary.
Xie, G. H., Wang, L. P., & Lee, B. F. (2021). Understanding the impact of social capital on entrepreneurship
performance: the moderation effects of opportunity recognition and operational competency. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12, 687205.
Yin, W., Moon, H. C., & Lee, Y. W. (2019). The success factors of Korean global start-ups in the digital sectors
through internationalization. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 14(1), 42-53.
Yusof, S. W. M., Jabar, J., Murad, M. A., & Ortega, R. T. (2017). Exploring the cultural determinants of
entrepreneurial success: The case of Malaysia. International journal of advanced and applied
sciences, 4(12), 287-297. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.012.048
Zhao, H., O'Connor, G., Wu, J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2021). Age and entrepreneurial career success: A review
and a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(1), 106007.
Zhou, M., Zhou, Y., Zhang, J., Obschonka, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2019). Person–city personality fit and
entrepreneurial success: An explorative study in China. International journal of psychology, 54(2), 155-
163. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12451
Zou, Huan, Xiaoyun Chen, Long Wai Rico Lam, and Xiaohui Liu. 2015. “Psychological Capital and Conflict
Management in the Entrepreneur Venture Capitalist Relationship in China: The Entrepreneur Perspective.”
International Small Business Journal. Online publication ahead of print; 122.
doi:10.1177/0266242614563418.
Zupic, I. and Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organisational Research
Methods, 18, 429–472.