Mapping the Last Five Decades of Entrepreneurship History Research: A Web of Science Analysis

Mapping the Last Five Decades of Entrepreneurship History Research: A Web of Science Analysis | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Mapping the Last Five Decades of Entrepreneurship History Research: A Web of Science Analysis Gokmen Durmus, Mustafa Doruk Mutlu, Mehmet Ali Turkmenoglu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8447641/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study provides a bibliometric overview of the last fifty years of entrepreneurship history, focusing on the Web of Science, a leading scholarly database. Its primary objective is to delineate the field’s structure and uncover its social, intellectual, and conceptual foundations. A total of 1,912 publications from 1980 to the present were analyzed using VOSviewer and the R Bibliometrix package. The study employed co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, co-citation, keyword, and thematic evolution analyses. Findings reveal that the field is dominated by SSCI-indexed journal articles, with Business History contributing most prominently. The year 2020 marks the peak of research productivity, and the literature has grown at an average annual rate of 5%. Core keywords include entrepreneurship, history, and entrepreneurialism, while recent research shows increasing attention to social entrepreneurship and Italy. Thematic evolution demonstrates a shift from foundational concepts such as management and models, through education and identity, to entrepreneurship and performance, and most recently toward innovation and gender. Overall, the study highlights the field’s maturity, the centrality of foundational concepts, and the dynamic evolution of research themes, providing a comprehensive roadmap for future scholarship in entrepreneurship history. JEL Classification: L26, M13, N80, B30 Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship History Business History Bibliometrics Web of Science Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Introduction Entrepreneurship, a phenomenon as old as human history, has increasingly attracted the attention of researchers and institutions over the last half century. This growing interest has been fueled by the rise in the number of successful startups and the contributions entrepreneurship makes to the economy (Welter, 2011 ). Social scientists, particularly management scholars, have conducted various studies to understand these changes. Some of these studies have examined the business start-up processes of entrepreneurs and sought the qualities of successful entrepreneurs (Javier Maqueda Lafuente et al., 2013 ). Others have used the theoretical frameworks of sociology and psychology to explain the reasons for the unsuccessful initiatives of entrepreneurs when it comes to possible opportunities (Kim & Park, 2021 ). A review of the literature reveals a significant preponderance of comparative studies structured around the axis of success and failure (Hytti, 2005 ). Although the history of entrepreneurship is a nascent discipline in the literature, the origins of studies in this field date back to the 1940s (Landström & Benner, 2010 ). In 1948, a research center on entrepreneurship history was established at Harvard University under the name "The Harvard Research Center in Entrepreneurial History and the Daimonic Entrepreneur." At this center, researchers began examining the biographies of entrepreneurs and the historical processes of their ventures, following guidelines developed by Arthur Cole. In the 1950s, they attempted to relate the nature of entrepreneurship to the economic success of countries; in later periods, they conducted research focusing on cultural factors and contextual elements. Similarly, the international literature has extensively examined the impact of various factors on entrepreneurship, such as the opportunities available to entrepreneurs, social relations, religion, sect, and minority status (Greve & Salaff, 2003 ; Mueller, 2007 ; Gursoy, Altinay & Kenebayeva, 2017 ). It has been observed that academic interest in the field of entrepreneurship history has increased over the last four decades (Thurik et al., 2023 ). Some researchers have studied the historical origins of enterprises (Casson & Casson, 2014 ), a considerable number of studies have provided state of the art reviews and future directions on entrepreneurship history (Cassis & Minoglou, 2005 ). There is a growing trend of systematic review papers and bibliometric analyses within the same domain. For instance, Xu et al. ( 2021 ) have presented an overview of the features of entrepreneurship and the crisis field. Another paper conducted by Bermeo-Giraldo et al. ( 2023 ) has revealed recent topics in business history through a bibliometric approach. Despite the growing body of literature on entrepreneurship history, there is a lack of a more comprehensive bibliometric mapping that reveals its intellectual and conceptual structure. Our research comprehensively maps the history of entrepreneurship across various parameters and analyzes it through bibliometric analysis. Our paper differs from previous studies in several ways. First, we have conducted more analyses than similar papers, from Thematic Evolution to Thematic Mapping. We have divided thematic evolution into four critical periods and examined them: globalization, digitalization, big data, and the age of artificial intelligence. Additionally, we have attempted to extract social, intellectual, and conceptual structures. Lastly, we have used two different analysis tools: R and VosViewer. As is well known, scientific research is not limited to empirical methods; the systematic compilation and analysis of academic studies in a specific field also contribute significantly to the production of scientific knowledge. In this respect, it is crucial to demonstrate the evolution of published research on the history of entrepreneurship. This study aims to address this gap by examining research published in the last 50 years, supported by VOSviewer and R Bibliometrix software, and aims to reveal scientific developments in the entrepreneurship history literature. To this end, the study aims to conduct a detailed bibliometric review of research conducted in the field of entrepreneurship, particularly in the last 50 years, within the Web of Science database. Bibliometric techniques were used in the study to enrich both the quantitative and visual dimensions through two different analysis programs (VOSviewer and R), thus increasing the validity and significance of the results. In this context, the findings of the current study are expected to contribute to understanding the field's position within the business history literature at a macro level, and to offer new insights into the interaction of entrepreneurship history with the business world and society at a micro level. The role and evolution of entrepreneurship in the historical period Entrepreneurship is an action that has existed since the beginning of humanity and has persisted throughout history. Entrepreneurs have catalysed significant societal transformations and developments by addressing deficiencies and taking risks. From this perspective, it can be posited that entrepreneurial individuals have had a significant impact on the new ideas and technologies developed in many periods before and after recorded history. Indeed, since the beginning of humanity, societies have undergone various sociological evolutions, and just as entrepreneurial individuals have played an important role in these evolutions, the characteristics of entrepreneurial individuals have changed as these changes have taken place (Dewi, 2024 ). The fundamental characteristics attributed to entrepreneurial individuals, such as risk-taking, developing innovative ideas, and seizing opportunities, can be said to have existed since the inception of entrepreneurial activities (Bozgeyik, 2005 ). However, it is also important to acknowledge that throughout history, the various social structures experienced by humanity—hunter-gatherer, agricultural, industrial, and information societies—have demanded distinct entrepreneurial characteristics. Accordingly, it can be postulated that, during the hunter-gatherer period, characteristics that addressed fundamental needs despite considerable risk came to the fore. During the agricultural period, when money was not yet widely used, opportunistic barter-based transactions gained importance. Also in this period, humans transitioned from a consumer-oriented mindset to a more proactive role in production, leading to an increase in economic transactions. This shift, exemplified by economic entrepreneurship, marked a significant development in human economic behavior (Durukan, 2006 ). Moreover, the advent of technological innovations has led to a significant shift in the geographical distribution of human settlement patterns, with the discovery of new, fertile, and resource-rich regions becoming a central focus. When it comes to industrial societies, the pervasive utilization of currency, coupled with the substantial and expeditious evolution of technology and trade, gave rise to the emergence of capitalist concepts and characteristics that were previously non-existent, including profit maximization and market dominance. In the context of rapidly evolving contemporary information societies, economies have once again undergone significant transformation, diversifying beyond a narrow industry focus. This diversification has been accompanied by a shift towards services and knowledge-based activities, reflecting a broader transition to a more advanced and sophisticated economic structure. Entrepreneurs' innovative characteristics have driven it primarily (OECD, 2021 ). Indeed, in the information age, entrepreneurs are important actors in the social and economic structure and create new ventures by producing or applying knowledge (Demirez & Cebeci, 2005 ). In other words, alongside the social dynamics fuelled by knowledge production, entrepreneurial characteristics have evolved, bringing the creation of new knowledge, innovative products, services and business models to the fore (Tekin & Çiçek, 2002 ; Bayraktaroğlu, 2005 ). The theoretical foundations and ınstitutionalization of entrepreneurship history studies The present study focuses on economic entrepreneurship and its history, which are considered a subfield of business history in the extant literature. Business history is a multidisciplinary field of research that examines the socio-economic impact of institutions, entrepreneurs, and the businesses they establish over the years. These institutions generally regulate the economy of societies or determine the economic dynamics within a particular society. The field also traces the historical development of these institutions (Seyhan et al., 2024 ). Moreover, this field involves the analysis and drawing of conclusions regarding the evolution of interactions between entrepreneurs, firms, and other economic actors throughout history. Based on this information, the history of entrepreneurship has emerged and developed as a subfield within this field of study, and has even influenced the evolution of business history studies as it developed (Keskin, 2020 ). Entrepreneurship can be defined as the process of realizing a new concept, thereby generating personal and societal benefits (Prince et al., 2021 ). It is evident that during and following the Industrial Revolution, entrepreneurs who pursued business opportunities in tandem with economic development in numerous societies were able to transform social dynamics. These entrepreneurs effectively converted their business ideas into creative and profitable ventures, thereby becoming instrumental in the acceleration of social change. Consequently, they came to be recognized as economic entrepreneurs. In line with these developments, entrepreneurship, as an umbrella concept encompassing entrepreneurs and all their activities, has attracted the attention of researchers and institutions, especially in the last half-century (Durukan, 2006 ). In subsequent periods, the rise in the number of successful ventures and the contribution of entrepreneurship to the economy further increased the importance of entrepreneurs and the study of entrepreneurship (Landström & Benner, 2010 ; Keskin, 2020 ). A multitude of studies have been conducted by social scientists, particularly those specializing in management, to comprehend these alterations. While some of these studies examined the business establishment processes of entrepreneurs and sought to answer the question "Who is a successful entrepreneur?", others addressed why unsuccessful entrepreneurs failed to capitalize on existing opportunities through the theoretical frameworks of sociology and psychology (Landström, 2020 ). A thorough examination of the extant studies reveals that those that feature substantial comparative analysis and are structured around the success-failure axis are particularly noteworthy. Since the early 1900s, academic studies have been conducted on fundamental topics, such as the critical role of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ventures in social and economic life (Jones & Wadhwani, 2006 ). One of the earliest known works approaching entrepreneurship from a historical perspective is Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In this work, Weber posits that Protestantism, in conjunction with a favorable disposition toward labor, has been instrumental in fostering entrepreneurship, thereby enabling the proliferation and evolution of capitalism (Weber, 1999 ). Another notable historical study that focused on entrepreneurship was conducted by Schumpeter in 1934. This study introduced a novel perspective on entrepreneurship, associating it with the ability to innovate. In this sense, as articulated by Schumpeter, entrepreneurship is defined as the process of introducing novelty into the economic system, thereby initiating a phenomenon of "creative destruction" through these innovations (Schumpeter, 1983 ). Building on these theoretical foundations, studies on the history of entrepreneurship began to emerge within a more institutional framework. The Center for the History of Entrepreneurship at Harvard University and a group of historians, sociologists, and economists from this institution collaborated to further Schumpeterian ideas (Keskin, 2020 ). Arthur Cole, a researcher at the aforementioned institution, developed a set of guidelines that would subsequently serve as a framework for scientific studies on entrepreneurship. Subsequently, the journal Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, which began publication in 1949, played an instrumental role in fortifying the field by featuring scientific studies conducted in the domain of entrepreneurship (Sass, 1986 ). In addition to the contributions of Cole, Jenks, and Cochran, who emphasized the impact of entrepreneurial attitudes on economic development and expanded upon the Schumpeterian concept of the "heroic entrepreneur," significant contributions were also made (Aitken, 1965 ). The authors of this study placed a particular emphasis on social, cultural, and institutional factors as determinants of entrepreneurship. They advanced the argument that entrepreneurship serves as the primary catalyst for economic development. The contributions of Jenks and Cochran have given rise to a series of studies that explore the historical evolution of entrepreneurship by comparing regional variations in historical and cultural contexts. In other words, the impact of historical and cultural dynamics in various regions on entrepreneurial behavior, in terms of the relationship between structure and actors in the structure-actor duality, has also begun to be examined through research on regional differences (Landström & Benner, 2010 ). In the early days of entrepreneurship studies, Frank Knight's 1921 work, "Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit," was a seminal piece that emphasized the role of risk-taking in entrepreneurial activities and the significance of decision-making under uncertainty. Alfred Marshall's approach, which positions the entrepreneur as a factor of production and emphasizes their role in effectively combining other factors of production to increase efficiency, holds significant importance (as cited in Hébert & Link, 2009 ). During this period, entrepreneurs such as Henry Ford were regarded as "heroic leaders" through individual success stories, influenced by Schumpeter's approach (Landström, 2020 ). Conversely, while the theories developed during this period served as the foundation for innovation and risk management studies, they also laid the groundwork for critical examinations of the individualistic and Western-centric approaches that characterized the early period in academic literature. This study aims to examine the research conducted in the field of entrepreneurship in detail from a bibliometric perspective within the context of the Web of Science index, particularly over the last 50 years following the early period. The study will identify and analyse the thematic trends, prominent authors, institutions, countries and collaboration networks that have emerged in the historical development of entrepreneurship studies research. In doing so, the study also seeks to structurally map the field's knowledge base. Methodology This study employs bibliometric research methodology to examine the body of academic scholarship on Entrepreneurship History. For this aim, the Web of Science (WoS) database was selected as the primary source of data. The decision to use WoS was informed by several considerations. Firstly, it is widely recognized as a reliable and authoritative database, and, like Scopus and PubMed. Secondly, it provides comprehensive datasets particularly suitable for bibliometric analysis. On February 28, 2025, an advanced Boolean search was conducted within WoS using the keywords “entrepreneurship history,” “history of entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneurial history,” “entrepreneur history,” “history of entrepreneur,” “entrepreneurship,” and “history,” applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords. This search yielded a total of 1,912 records. The dataset was subsequently analyzed using Bibliometrix (version 2024.12.1) in RStudio alongside VOSviewer (version 1.6.20). This study utilized multiple bibliometric techniques to map the development of entrepreneurship history research. The analyses included citation and co-authorship networks, bibliographic coupling, co-citation patterns, keyword and word cloud analyses, as well as thematic evolution and thematic mapping. Collectively, these methods highlight the field’s intellectual structure, collaborative interactions, and shifting thematic focus over the past five decades. The results of these analyses, supported by illustrative graphs and visualizations, are presented in the following sections. Findings The bibliometric analysis of 1,912 records retrieved from WoS provides several insights into the intellectual structure and development of the field of entrepreneurship history. The majority of contributions are in the form of journal articles (1,664), which demonstrates the central role of peer-reviewed journals in shaping scholarly discourse in this domain. In addition, the field includes 224 conference proceedings and 143 book chapters, indicating an ongoing diversification of publication outlets. Although relatively limited, the presence of books (8) and book reviews (42) also suggests that monographic and evaluative contributions have a place in the field, albeit a modest one. The annual growth rate of entrepreneurship history scholarship is calculated at 5%, reflecting a steady but not exponential expansion. The average age of the publications is nine years, implying that the field has an established yet still-evolving body of literature. In terms of authorship patterns, the 1,912 works were produced by 3,619 authors, who collectively contributed approximately 4,755 keywords. This indicates both a relatively high level of author participation and a broad conceptual vocabulary within the field. The corpus draws on around 550 distinct sources (journals, books, etc.), suggesting a diverse yet somewhat concentrated base of reference materials. Single-authored works (613) account for a notable share of the total output, but collaboration remains common, with an average of two authors per article. Importantly, one in five authors originates from a different country, corresponding to an internationalization rate of 26%. This highlights a meaningful, though not dominant, level of cross-national collaboration (Fig. 1 ). Finally, an examination of indexation patterns shows that the majority of works are included in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI, 1,069), followed by the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI, 486), the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI, 254), the Book Citation Index (BCI, 155), the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E, 43), and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI, 32). These figures confirm the field’s strong anchoring within the social sciences, while also pointing to its interdisciplinary connections with both the sciences and the humanities. An examination of the distribution of the 1,912 works across WoS’s citation-based microfield categories reveals that the largest share falls within the category entrepreneurship (689 works). As illustrated in Fig. 1 , other prominent thematic clusters include social movements (172), knowledge management (146), internationalization (88), academic entrepreneurship (72), corporate governance (66), anthropometric history (63), corporate social responsibility (37), agglomeration economies (36), and customer satisfaction (31). This variety demonstrates that while entrepreneurship constitutes the intellectual core of the field, scholarship on entrepreneurship history also intersects with a diverse set of adjacent domains in management, economics, and the social sciences. Citation patterns mirror these publication trends, showing a parallel rise in scholarly influence. Collectively, the 1,912 works cite more than 43,000 references and have themselves received approximately 57,000 citations. The average citation rate per work is 29, and the field’s h-index stands at 112. These metrics point to a relatively high level of impact and visibility, underscoring the field’s capacity to engage broader academic audiences while maintaining internal scholarly coherence. In terms of temporal distribution, the field experienced its peak in 2020 with 151 publications (see Fig. 2 ). Although a partial decline is observed in subsequent years, the overall publication trend suggests resilience, with forecasts indicating that the annual output will not fall below 100 publications by the end of 2025. This pattern reflects both fluctuations in scholarly attention and the sustained relevance of entrepreneurship history as a research area. Citation patterns mirror these publication trends, showing a parallel rise in scholarly influence. Collectively, the 1,912 works cite more than 43,000 references and have themselves received approximately 57,000 citations. The average citation rate per work is 29, and the field’s h-index stands at 112. These metrics point to a relatively high level of impact and visibility, underscoring the field’s capacity to engage broader academic audiences while maintaining internal scholarly coherence. Contribution to the field of entrepreneurship history This section examines the countries, institutions, and journals that have contributed to the development of entrepreneurship history as a scholarly domain. The subsequent part of the study will focus on the social structure of the field, with particular attention to co-authorship patterns and collaborative networks. Country–publication relationship An analysis of national contributions reveals that only 43 countries are represented in the dataset, highlighting the field’s relatively concentrated geographic distribution. The United States occupies a dominant position, accounting for 583 publications, thereby serving as the principal driver of research output in entrepreneurship history. The United Kingdom follows with 339 publications, while Italy (124), Canada (115), Australia (94), France (90), Sweden (89), China (88), Germany (81), and Spain (69) round out the top ten contributors. Türkiye appears in the 31st position with 16 publications, indicating a modest but visible engagement with the topic within the international scholarly landscape. This distribution emphasize both the global dimensions of the field and the continuing potential for broader participation from underrepresented countries. Citation analysis by country An examination of citation counts largely mirrors the patterns observed in publication contributions. With few exceptions, the countries most active in producing research on entrepreneurship history are also those whose works have attracted the greatest scholarly attention. Notably, Spain—although included among the top ten contributors in terms of output—ranks lower in citations, whereas the Netherlands surpasses its relative contribution level by securing a higher position in the citation rankings. The United States leads by a wide margin with approximately 20,000 citations. The United Kingdom follows with around 10,000 citations, while Canada (4,500) and Sweden (3,100) occupy the next positions. Other countries include the Netherlands (2,300), Italy (1,500), Australia (1,300), China (1,100), France (1,100), and Germany (1,100). Taken together, these results demonstrate that North American and European countries dominate the field not only in terms of publication volume but also in citation impact, underscoring their central role in shaping the global discourse on entrepreneurship history. Institution–publication relationship When examining the institutions that have made the most significant contributions to the history of entrepreneurship, the Copenhagen Business School emerges as the leading institution. (Fig. 4 ) It is followed by Harvard University, which has historically played a pioneering role in the field of business history. The analysis further indicates a predominance of British universities—such as Lancaster, Reading, Cambridge, and Liverpool—as well as prominent American institutions including Indiana University and the University of California, Berkeley. Beyond these, Bocconi University in Italy and the University of Auckland in New Zealand also rank among the top ten institutions in terms of scholarly contributions to the field. This distribution suggests that both European and North American institutions have exerted substantial influence on the development of entrepreneurship history, reflecting regional strengths in research infrastructure, academic traditions, and historical scholarship in business studies. Journal–publication relationship An analysis of the sources that have most extensively addressed the history of entrepreneurship reveals a marked prominence of SSCI-indexed journals. Among these, Business History leads the field with 119 publications (Fig. 5 ). It is followed by Small Business Economics (63 publications), Journal of Management History (57 publications), and Business History Review (50 publications). Journals with fewer than 50 publications that continue to appear in the ranking include Enterprise & Society (47), Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (43), Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (35), International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour (34), Journal of Business Venturing (33), and Management & Organizational History (27). This distribution features the central role of established, high-impact journals in shaping scholarly discourse on entrepreneurship history and suggests a concentration of influential research within a relatively small set of outlets. The social structure of entrepreneurship history To uncover the social structure of entrepreneurship history, co-authorship analyses were employed. Co-authorship analyses provide insights into the collaborative patterns within a field. Such analyses can be conducted at the level of authors, countries, or institutions. In this study, only author- and institution-based analyses are presented. Author-based co-authorship analyses An author-level co-authorship analysis was conducted to identify researchers who most frequently engage in collaborative work within the field of entrepreneurship history. According to the findings, as illustrated in Fig. 6 , a total of 26 authors were identified, forming six distinct clusters. Within the collaboration network, R. Daniel Wadhwani emerges as the most prolific co-author. Other notable researchers include Roy Suddaby, Charles Harvey, Mairi Maclean, Christina Lubinski, Matthias Kipping, Andrew Popp, and Robert Mitchell. These results highlight the existence of concentrated collaborative networks in the field, suggesting that a relatively small group of researchers plays a pivotal role in shaping the development of entrepreneurship history scholarship. Institution-based co-authorship analysis When examining inter-institutional co-authorship—using the criteria of a minimum of five publications and five citations—it was found that out of 1,285 institutions, only 87 met this threshold, and 82 of these were included in the network visualization based on connectivity. These institutions formed a total of 11 distinct clusters. Leading institutions in terms of collaboration include Harvard, Copenhagen, Lancaster, Berkeley, Reading, Bocconi, Newcastle, Vrije, and Alberta Universities (Fig. 7 ). The results of this analysis demonstrate a clear alignment with the ranking of institutions based on their overall contributions to the field, suggesting that institutional collaboration networks are closely linked to scholarly influence in the history of entrepreneurship. The intellectual structure of entrepreneurship history Bibliographic coupling analysis, which examines shared references between two works, provides insights into the intellectual structure of a research field. Co-citation analysis, on the other hand, considers the frequency with which two works are cited together by a third work, offering researchers a means to identify seminal studies, influential authors, and shifts in thematic focus over time. In this section, both bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses are employed to uncover the intellectual structure of entrepreneurship history. Bibliographic coupling of publications Bibliographic coupling at the publication level, which examines instances where two different works cite the same source, offers a window into the intellectual formation of a field. Applying a minimum threshold of one shared reference, 1,130 publications met the criterion, yet only 998 were included in the analysis based on connectivity. Within these works, eight distinct clusters were identified, comprising 62,000 links with a total link strength of 105,000. The ten publications exhibiting the highest degree of bibliographic coupling, as shown in Figs. 8 and 9 , are ranked according to citation counts: Welter ( 2011 ) with 1,642 citations, Maitlis & Christianson ( 2014 ) ( 2014 ) with 1,190, Wennekers & Thurik ( 1999 ) with 1,150, Schot & Steinmueller ( 2018 ) with 873, Shane & Stuart ( 2002 ) with 822, Chandy & Tellis ( 2000 ) with 777, Defourny & Nyssens ( 2010 ) with 678, Katz ( 2003 ) with 614, Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart ( 2016 ) with 606, and O’Shea, Allen, Chevalier, & Roche ( 2005 ) with 599 citations. These results are consistent across both VOSviewer and R-based analyses. According to the R analysis, as illustrated in Fig. 10 , the ten most frequently cited studies in entrepreneurship history are the same as those identified through bibliographic coupling. These findings indicate that scholarly influence in entrepreneurship history is concentrated in a relatively small group of key works. This suggests that the field’s development is shaped by a central body of closely connected studies. The clustering patterns also reveal shared themes and methods, showing how ongoing intellectual traditions and academic dialogue have guided the field’s evolution over time. Co-citation analysis of publications In publication-level co-citation analysis, which examines instances where a single work is cited by two different publications, a minimum threshold of 20 citations was applied. Out of 65,000 sources, only 91 met this criterion. From this subset, four distinct clusters were identified—each represented by a different color in Fig. 9 —comprising 2,716 links with a total link strength of 8,843. The five most influential publications within the field, as revealed by this analysis, are Shane ( 2000 ), DiMaggio ( 2000 ), Greenwood ( 2006 ), DiMaggio ( 1988 ), and Eisenhardt ( 1989 ). Additionally, the article by Leblebici (1991) ranks tenth within the current literature. These results show that a relatively small group of foundational works plays a central role in shaping the intellectual direction of entrepreneurship history. The clustering patterns also indicate distinct thematic groupings, reflecting the main scholarly conversations that have formed and guided the field over time. The conceptual structure of entrepreneurship history In this section, the conceptual structure of the entrepreneurship history literature is explored. To achieve this, keyword analyses were conducted using both author-provided keywords and keyword plus terms suggested by the Web of Science database. Additionally, word cloud and thematic evolution analyses were applied to uncover prevailing concepts and their development over time. Keyword analysis A first-stage analysis, applying a minimum threshold of ten occurrences per author-provided keyword, identified only 36 keywords out of a total of 3,451 that met this criterion. From these keywords, seven clusters and 182 links were calculated. The most frequently used keywords in the field include: entrepreneurship, history, entrepreneurialism, gender, innovation, entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurship, family business, women, China, and social capital (Fig. 10 ). From a historical perspective, the analysis reveals an increasing scholarly interest in recent years in topics related to gender, Italy, and social entrepreneurship. This suggests that while the foundational concepts of entrepreneurship and its historical development remain central, there is a growing focus on socially and culturally contextualized studies. The clustering patterns further point out how the conceptual landscape of entrepreneurship history is organized around both traditional and emerging thematic areas, reflecting evolving research priorities and societal concerns. Word cloud analysis A word cloud analysis, based on keyword plus terms suggested by the system, indicates that the most frequently occurring concepts are entrepreneurship and performance (Fig. 11 ). Following these, terms such as innovation , knowledge , history , and management also emerge prominently. Across both author-provided and system-generated analyses, the recurring key concepts are entrepreneurship , performance , history , knowledge , and management . This convergence draws attention to the centrality of these concepts in shaping the field and highlights the thematic consistency between author perspectives and database classifications. Thematic evolution analysis The thematic evolution analysis, based on keyword plus terms, identifies four distinct periods: 1980–2000 (Period 1), 2001–2010 (Period 2), 2011–2020 (Period 3), and 2021 to the present (Period 4) (Fig. 12 ). Period 1 (Globalization Era) : The thematic scope was relatively narrow, focusing primarily on management, models, performance, technology, and risk within commercial ventures. Period 2 (Digital Revolution) : This period exhibits the broadest thematic spectrum. Prominent topics include performance, management, education, identity, path dependence, entrepreneurs, culture, growth, R&D, corporate entrepreneurship, family business, and science. Period 3 (Big Data Era) : The thematic range narrows again. While entrepreneurship and performance remain central, there is increased attention to self-employment, gender, and economic development. Period 4 (Artificial Intelligence Era) : Recent research shows a shift toward innovation, entrepreneurship, gender, education, entrepreneurs, orientation, success, and crowd-related concepts. These findings reveal a dynamic evolution of research priorities in entrepreneurship history, reflecting both technological advances and societal concerns. Over time, the field has expanded from foundational management and performance topics to incorporate broader social, economic, and technological themes, indicating a growing interdisciplinary orientation and responsiveness to contemporary issues. Thematic mapping analysis The thematic mapping analysis illustrates the field's current intellectual structure by plotting its themes based on two key measures: centrality (importance to the overall field) and density (how well-developed the theme is). The resulting four quadrants—Basic, Motor, Niche, and Emerging/Declining—provide a clear picture of the field's conceptual landscape and how research is evolving (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ). Basic themes: entrepreneurship, history, and management Positioned in the bottom-right quadrant are the Basic Themes, distinguished by high centrality and low density. This quadrant is prominently occupied by the foundational cluster of entrepreneurship, history, and management. Their high degree of centrality confirms their role as the undisputed conceptual backbone of the discipline. Their lower density suggests that they function less as specific research topics and more as overarching, cross-cutting concepts that unify the field and provide the essential context for all other research streams. Motor themes: performance and innovation The top-right quadrant hosts the Motor Themes, characterized by both high centrality and high density. The cluster containing performance, innovation, and business is the primary occupant of this quadrant. These themes represent the most dynamic and well-developed areas of current research, acting as the engine driving the field forward. Their position indicates that contemporary scholarship in entrepreneurship history has moved beyond descriptive accounts to focus on analytical investigations into the effectiveness (performance), novelty (innovation), and operational dynamics (business) of historical enterprises. Niche themes: self-employment, mobility, and R&D The top-left quadrant is populated by Niche Themes, which are well-developed and internally coherent (high density) but are not central to the entire field (low centrality). This analysis identifies two distinct groups of niche topics. The first includes highly specific economic and strategic themes such as self-employment, mobility, and research-and-development. The second group consists of socially oriented themes like gender, women, and intentions. The existence of these themes demonstrates a robust ecosystem of specialized sub-fields where dedicated scholarly communities conduct focused research, even if these topics remain peripheral to the field's core discourse. Emerging or declining themes: universities, scientists, and economic development Finally, the bottom-left quadrant contains themes with both low centrality and low density. This quadrant signifies themes that are either emerging or declining. The presence of university and scientists may signal a nascent research trajectory focused on the historical role of academic institutions and figures in fostering entrepreneurship. Conversely, a broad and established concept like economic-development may be experiencing a decline in direct scholarly attention, perhaps becoming subsumed within the more specific and measurable motor themes of performance and innovation. In conclusion, the thematic map illustrates that the field of entrepreneurship history is mature and well-structured. It is anchored by a stable conceptual core, propelled by a dynamic research front focused on performance and innovation, and enriched by a diverse array of specialized niche topics. Discussion and Conclusion This bibliometric study provides an integrated overview of the development, structure, and dynamics of entrepreneurship history as a research field. The study aimed to examine the entrepreneurship history, which sets it apart from Seyhan et al. ( 2024 ), who examine only business history. Using bibliometric and network analyses, it maps the main themes and intellectual structure of this field. Differing from Durmuş ( 2025 ), whose analysis is historical and conceptual, and from Glinyanova et al. ( 2021 ), who focus on corporate entrepreneurship, this study adopts a broader systematic perspective to map how entrepreneurship history research has evolved and become structured. A total of 1,912 publications were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Bibliometric data indicate that the entrepreneurship history literature has expanded from just two publications in 1980 to an average of approximately 110 publications per year, reflecting a 5% annual growth rate and sustained researcher interest. The analysis of 1,912 Web of Science records shows a pattern of steady rather than exponential growth, with an annual rate of 5% and an average publication age of nine years. These indicators point to a mature yet still evolving field, in which foundational works remain influential while new topics and methods continue to emerge. The concentration of outputs in journal articles underlines the central role of peer-reviewed outlets in shaping scholarly discourse, while the presence of conference proceedings, book chapters, and a small number of books suggests a gradual diversification of publication formats (Snyder, 2010 ) The geographic distribution of contributions reveals a highly concentrated global landscape, dominated by the United States and the United Kingdom, followed by a small group of European and Commonwealth countries. Citation patterns largely mirror this distribution, indicating that North American and Western European institutions not only produce but also frame much of the field’s influential scholarship. At the institutional level, business schools and universities with strong traditions in business history and management studies—such as Copenhagen Business School, Harvard University, and several leading British universities—emerge as key hubs. These findings are consistent with those of Jonas and Wadhwani (2006), who found that the history of entrepreneurship research has been shaped by the Anglo-Saxon tradition and geography. Furthermore, the analyses reveal that, even today, research institutions based in the US and Europe continue to exert their influence in this field. One reason for this enduring orientation, established over time, may be that business and entrepreneurship history research first emerged and became institutionalised in these regions (Keskin, 2020 ). Another reason could be the regularity and accessibility of company archives. The availability of sufficient and high-quality data on business and, in particular, entrepreneurship history in the aforementioned countries and regions may have influenced the scope and prevalence of research on this subject in these regions compared to other countries (Snyder, 2010 ; Hull & Scott, 2020 ). Co-authorship analyses further show that a relatively small group of scholars and institutions plays a central role in structuring collaborative networks, reinforcing the existence of an elite core that shapes research agendas, methods, and theoretical orientations. The co-authorship network analysis reveals that collaboration has centered around prominent researchers, including R. Daniel Wadhwani, Roy Suddaby, Matthias Kipping, Mairi Maclean, and Christina Lubinski. The bibliometric methods employed in this study have revealed interactions that are not easily apparent in literature reviews. Research clusters formed by authors such as Daniel Wadhwani, Roy Suddaby, and Charles Harvey, for example, demonstrate the close intertwining of the field of entrepreneurship history research with institutional theory and business history studies. This concentrated network also reflects a field shaped by elite scholarly communities, where intellectual trajectories are often driven by a handful of institutionally interconnected researchers. Such patterns are consistent with prior observations about the organizational history and management history fields, which similarly exhibit “founder effects” and tight-knit intellectual circles (e.g., Riviezzo et al., 2015 ; Lamberg et al., 2022 ; Henrekson et al., 2024 ). The intellectual structure of the field is anchored in a limited number of highly cited works at the intersection of entrepreneurship theory, institutional theory, and organizational studies. Seminal contributions by authors such as Shane, DiMaggio, Greenwood, and Eisenhardt function as conceptual bridges between entrepreneurship history and broader debates in management and the social sciences. The relatively high h-index and citation counts observed in the dataset underscore the field’s capacity to generate work that resonates beyond narrow historical audiences and engages with cross-disciplinary concerns such as innovation, performance, institutional change, and social embeddedness (Landström & Benner, 2010 ; Devi, 2024) The conceptual and thematic analyses reveal a stable core organized around entrepreneurship, history, management, performance, and innovation, complemented by expanding research fronts in areas such as gender, social entrepreneurship, family business, and social capital. The temporal evolution of themes—from early emphases on management and performance to more recent interest in gender, education, and innovation—illustrates how the field responds to wider societal and technological shifts, including globalization, digitalization, and the rise of knowledge-intensive and science-based forms of entrepreneurship (Landström, 2020 ; Xu et al., 2021 ; Thurik et al., 2023 ). These reactions signal a transformation in the field of entrepreneurship history research, which is in line with global economic dynamics that once again reflect the significant influence of Anglo-Saxon economies. Since the turn of the millennium, themes such as identity, gender, and social entrepreneurship have emerged with a more inclusive and critical perspective, parallel to current sociological debates. The present study is an examination of the history of entrepreneurship, a subfield of business history studies, and it provides a structural map of this research area. In this respect, it elucidates the methodological, thematic, and interactional dimensions of the field through visual richness. In this respect, the study addresses a significant gap in understanding the development of the field of entrepreneurship research over the last 50 years, both for researchers and policymakers. Furthermore, the research underscores the existing lacunae in the extant literature through the analytical methods employed. In this context, it is evident that the field exhibits a pronounced Anglo-Saxon geographical concentration, resulting in a conspicuous representation imbalance. This phenomenon stands in contrast to the research conducted on comparable themes within other geographical contexts, particularly in developing countries. Noteworthy among the under-researched themes are the historical dimensions of family businesses and the historical impacts and trajectories of gender-related dynamics, to name just two examples. Clearly, these indicators offer important research areas for future researchers. In a theoretical nutshell, the present study offers a comprehensive exposition on the historical evolution of the themes that have been the focal point of the entrepreneurship field, both analytically and visually. In this respect, the study makes a significant contribution by demonstrating the theoretical expansion of entrepreneurship history studies from the past to the present. On the other hand, the research's practical contributions are evident in the signals it provides to policymakers regarding the entrepreneurship ecosystem and education. First and foremost, the study draws important conclusions regarding the historical dynamics of entrepreneurship policies. In this respect, the study is significant because it clearly reveals the Anglo-Saxon influence in the field and highlights the potential impact of institutions' advancements in archiving on the development of the research field. Additionally, it underscores the notion that the nascent development of the entrepreneurship ecosystem within the same geographical area can serve as a pivotal factor in the scientific institutionalization and performance. Indeed, these emphases offer a salient anecdote for understanding why entrepreneurship policies, especially in developing countries, persist in a state of passivity with regard to determining and influencing scientific productivity. Furthermore, the study provides significant recommendations for future research and business education policies with respect to practical contributions. In this context, the thematic maps created and the thematic evolution revealed through the analyses conducted in the study, as mentioned above, actually signal which concepts are coming to the fore in the field in the current context for future studies and research projects. From an educational perspective, the study's findings also yield important conclusions for the design of entrepreneurship courses. At this juncture, the research approaches entrepreneurship studies with in-depth analyses and comprehensive visual tools from a helicopter view, revealing that entrepreneurship encompasses more than just innovation and opportunity-based dynamics. In essence, this perspective underscores the notion that entrepreneurship, in addition to its economic and managerial facets, encompasses historical, cultural, and even political dimensions. Consequently, these aspects must be incorporated into instructional methodologies to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the subject. From a methodological perspective, the study demonstrates the value of bibliometric techniques (Vosviewer + R) in understanding long-term intellectual development. The study also provides a methodological example that is rarely used, by presenting both a statistical and visual mapping of the field with its methodological approaches. This offers a methodological model for business history research. This study offers a comprehensive overview of the intellectual, social, and conceptual structure of entrepreneurship history, yet several limitations should be acknowledged. The exclusive reliance on Web of Science may have excluded influential works outside its coverage, particularly non-English publications, books, and regional studies, while citation-based indicators inherently favor older research. Threshold choices in bibliometric techniques may also have omitted emerging but less-cited contributions. A key limitation of this study is its exclusive reliance on the WoS database. Future research could enhance the contribution to the literature by incorporating additional databases such as Scopus, PubMed, EconLit or EBSCO. Scholars may also replicate the study within a single journal—for instance, Business History Review , Enterprise and Society , or Economic History Review . Research can also extend the methodology to more specialized fields such as accounting history, marketing history, or banking history. Overall, these findings portray entrepreneurship history as a coherent, increasingly institutionalized, and intellectually vibrant field. At the same time, the limited number of contributing countries and the concentration of influence in a small set of institutions and scholarly networks highlight opportunities for greater geographic and epistemic diversity. Future research may build on these patterns by expanding empirical attention to underrepresented regions, employing new digital and computational methods, and further integrating historical analysis with contemporary theories of entrepreneurship, organizations, and institutions. Declarations No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. This research was conducted in full compliance with ethical standards set by the relevant institutional and/or national ethics committees, in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments or equivalent ethical guidelines . Author Contribution G.D. developed the research idea and performed the bibliometric analyses. G.D., M.D.M., and M.A.T. jointly wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Data Availability The data used in this study were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection, which is a proprietary database. The dataset analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to Web of Science data-sharing restrictions. References Aitken, H. G. (1965). Entrepreneurial research: The history of an intellectual innovation . In Explorations in enterprise (pp. 3–20). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674594470.c1 Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics , 11 (4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 Bayraktaroğlu, S. (2005). Girişimcilik ders notları . T.C. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi. Bermeo-Giraldo, M. C., González, D. M., López, G. A. M., & Zavala, L. R. (2023). Research trends in the area of business history: A bibliometric approach. Revista CEA , 9 (20), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.22430/24223182.2454 Bozgeyik, A. (2005). Girişimcilere yol haritası . Hayat Yayıncılık. Cassis, Y., & Minoglou, I. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship in theory and history: State of the art and new perspectives. In Entrepreneurship in theory and history (pp. 3–21). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522633_1 Casson, M., & Casson, C. (2014). The history of entrepreneurship: Medieval origins of a modern phenomenon. Business history , 56 (8), 1223–1242. Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing , 64 (3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.1.18033 Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship , 1 (1), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442053 Demirez, M., & Cebeci, R. (2005). Türkiye’de girişimciliğin tarihçesi ve girişimcilerin sosyolojik profili. KOSGEB GGM Ulusal Girişimcilik Raporu . Bölüm II. KOSGEB. Dewi, D. H. (2024). The evolution of entrepreneurship: A comparative study of perspectives past, present, and future. International Journal of Advanced Technology and Social Science , 2 , 515–524. https://doi.org/10.59890/ijatss.v2i4.1636 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields . In J. A. C. Baum & F. Dobbin (Eds.), Economics meets sociology in strategic management (pp. 143–166). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1 DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–22). Cambridge University Press. Durmuş, G. (2025). Girişimci liderlik. In K. Eryeşil & A. Aslan (Eds.), Girişimcilikte çeşitlilik ve dönüşüm: Kurumsal, sosyal, kültürel ve teknolojik yaklaşımlar . Özgür Yayınları. https://doi.org/10.58830/ozgur.pub859.c3463 Durukan, T. (2006). Dünden bugüne girişimcilik ve 21. yüzyılda girişimciliğin önemi. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi , 1 (2), 25–37. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review , 14 (4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557 Glinyanova, M., Bouncken, R. B., Tiberius, V., & Cuenca Ballester, A. C. (2021). Five decades of corporate entrepreneurship research: Measuring and mapping the field. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 17 (4), 1731–1757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00711-9 Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785498 Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 28 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00029 Gursoy, D., Altinay, L., & Kenebayeva, A. (2017). Religiosity and entrepreneurship behaviours. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 67 , 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.08.005 Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (2009). A history of entrepreneurship . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203877326 Henrekson, M., Johansson, D., & Karlsson, J. (2024). To be or not to be: The entrepreneur in Neo-Schumpeterian growth theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 48 (1), 104–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221141679 Hull, A., & Scott, P. (2020). The ‘value’ of business archives: Assessing the academic importance of corporate archival collections. Management & Organizational History , 15 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2020.1769676 Hytti, U. (2005). New meanings for entrepreneurs: from risk-taking heroes to safe‐seeking professionals. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 18 (6), 594–611. Jones, G., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2006). Entrepreneurship and business history: Renewing the research agenda. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge for Business Leaders Working Papers, 7 (7), 1–49. Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing , 18 , 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00098-8 Keskin, N. (2020). İşletme tarihinde bir araştırma alanı olarak girişimcilik kavramı: Kökenleri, evrimi, kültür ve değerler üzerindeki etkisine yönelik bir değerlendirme. Adam Academy . https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.728397 Kim, J. Y., & Park, M. J. (2021). Investigation of critical factors on corporate entrepreneurship: Rethinking the organization culture. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , 13 (1), 1–25. Lamberg, J. A., Ojala, J., & Gustafsson, J. P. (2022). Strategy and business history rejoined: How and why strategic management concepts took over business history. Business History , 64 (6), 1011–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2020.1856076 Landström, H. (2020). A history of entrepreneurship research . Routledge. Landström, H., & Benner, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship research: A history of scholarly migration. Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research . Edward Elgar. Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly , 36 (3), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393200 Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals , 8 (1), 57–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.873177 Maqueda Lafuente, F. J., Lafuente, G., Guzman-Parra, A. M., V. F., & Lafuente, G., J (2013). Key factors for entrepreneurial success. Management Decision , 51 (10), 1932–1944. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2013-0201 Mueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics , 28 (4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9035-9 OECD (2021). OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/97a5bbfe-en O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy , 34 (7), 994–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011 Prince, S., Chapman, S., & Cassey, P. (2021). The definition of entrepreneurship: Is it less complex than we think? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 27 (9), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2019-0634 Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals , 10 (1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421 Riviezzo, A., Skippari, M., & Garofano, A. (2015). Who wants to live forever: Exploring 30 years of research on business longevity. Business History , 57 (7), 970–987. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2014.993617 Sass, S. A. (1986). Entrepreneurial historians and history: Leadership and rationality in American economic historiography, 1940–1960 . Garland. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011 Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). İktisadi kalkınmanın teorisi (F. Yıldırım & O. Aydoğuş, Trans.). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. (Original work published 1934). Seyhan, M., Durmuş, G., Yaşar Uğurlu, Ö., & Bayar, Y. (2024). İşletme tarihi üzerine bibliyometrik bir çalışma: 1991–2023. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi , 17 (2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsbd.1438419 Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science , 48 (1), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.154.14280 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/10.2307/259271 Snyder, T. (Ed.). (2010). A guide to business archives for researchers . German Historical Institute. Reference Guide No. 25 http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/reference-guides/ Tekin, M., & Çiçek, E. (2002). Bilgi çağında bilgi toplumu ve bilgi ekonomisi. In 1. Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi (pp. 10–11). Thurik, A. R., Audretsch, D. B., Block, J. H., Burke, A., Carree, M. A., Dejardin, M., Rietveld, C. A., Sanders, M., Stephan, U., & Wiklund, J. (2023). The impact of entrepreneurship research on other academic fields. Small Business Economics , 62 (3), 727–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00781-3 Weber, M. (1999). Protestan ahlakı ve kapitalizmin ruhu (Z. Gürata, Trans.). Ayraç Yayınları. (Original work published 1905). Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 35 (1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics , 13 , 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008063200484 Xu, Z., Wang, X., Wang, X., & Skare, M. (2021). A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of entrepreneurship and crisis literature published from 1984 to 2020. Journal of Business Research , 135 , 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.051 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 23 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 14 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 06 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 06 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 25 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8447641","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":575959167,"identity":"d4a52cd6-2ccd-4a59-b4fe-63cca1e1eb5c","order_by":0,"name":"Gokmen Durmus","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gaziantep University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gokmen","middleName":"","lastName":"Durmus","suffix":""},{"id":575959168,"identity":"1d0b14f0-700d-4636-a20e-d2c361dc405c","order_by":1,"name":"Mustafa Doruk Mutlu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bozok Universitesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mustafa","middleName":"Doruk","lastName":"Mutlu","suffix":""},{"id":575959169,"identity":"d08a8f09-9390-44d0-b155-a93e1ebbd739","order_by":2,"name":"Mehmet Ali Turkmenoglu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Muş Alparslan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mehmet","middleName":"Ali","lastName":"Turkmenoglu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-25 08:38:51","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8447641/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8447641/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100588114,"identity":"3084929c-77bc-4781-9883-e5054c84497a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:36","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3813055,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"fulltext03.01.2026.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/065c228e40e55395eee148a9.docx"},{"id":100588131,"identity":"67f143bb-bab3-4fb4-8574-f2e9ce22020f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:50","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5065,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f77f71249c384439970dda4c06c4a030.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/8d9c379b0b85678b6e29052c.json"},{"id":100588133,"identity":"2c0465cc-b669-4ae5-bb67-6364ccb5d4db","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:53","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":136510,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f77f71249c384439970dda4c06c4a0301enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/c3dacee9f62e0d09d17252a0.xml"},{"id":100588178,"identity":"41a228a1-1cbf-4e5d-a642-60dd3afaeb4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:27","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14327,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/4273019a4ee880de7517c856.png"},{"id":100588117,"identity":"32b4cc45-341b-4be0-9940-c338e1ab34ea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:38","extension":"png","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":26625,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/191b405c88208d514cf7b188.png"},{"id":100588194,"identity":"c87993bc-a214-4dbd-acfb-21956741d42d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:25:23","extension":"png","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16550,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/508fff9a46412f211c13473f.png"},{"id":100588074,"identity":"406456a5-2bcc-4e7c-aef0-67be451009f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:08","extension":"png","order_by":19,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":45149,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/6ef36820eca200f0385525ac.png"},{"id":100588070,"identity":"9324364d-5744-4766-b9e0-61664881f8a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:22:53","extension":"png","order_by":20,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17051,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage13.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/e05988255022410f213951e9.png"},{"id":100588200,"identity":"f0e5af2a-7ff6-4954-bdab-269156b807e8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:25:35","extension":"png","order_by":21,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":33822,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/9c8220fe22c513d8ca8b9a24.png"},{"id":100588185,"identity":"75032c60-1f6b-46e9-8c58-d9312e94149a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:45","extension":"png","order_by":22,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15338,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/d32fc7546d42e51ff9c5f6f7.png"},{"id":100588179,"identity":"92526597-e6cf-45a7-865b-fec08b8c50ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:29","extension":"png","order_by":23,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17869,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/d5119834f7eb6dc47ad9b580.png"},{"id":100588176,"identity":"fdbd3f33-0d7f-4e43-a41e-fa421339785f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:21","extension":"png","order_by":24,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19697,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/9f0c06582f8ae7f949f922dc.png"},{"id":100588129,"identity":"d8e40c27-f7f7-40c9-a6b2-a16611dbaa7d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:50","extension":"png","order_by":25,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":22562,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/81b4bfe2302aed658e5c8ac6.png"},{"id":100596155,"identity":"f84bab1a-7803-40cc-8e26-1ad1d3f7d716","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 13:53:50","extension":"png","order_by":26,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":21655,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/11e9b934ab1b001103ee7b17.png"},{"id":100588077,"identity":"c0818492-54e9-4442-846c-2f55be896d08","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:13","extension":"png","order_by":27,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":66926,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/ef1eb984bad8115b6686f039.png"},{"id":100588190,"identity":"ae2afef4-8869-483d-b8b6-b76e0fd2f385","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:58","extension":"png","order_by":28,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":80432,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/327daa856e7ed0e3f59ddd92.png"},{"id":100588080,"identity":"23a0c0c9-abbd-4fbf-bb81-bea10e356b3d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:21","extension":"xml","order_by":29,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":134924,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f77f71249c384439970dda4c06c4a0301structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/ac0f569eeba5181df427f093.xml"},{"id":100588076,"identity":"9e699b98-6ce6-4336-8e4b-1bb6e118e67e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:12","extension":"html","order_by":30,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":145187,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/2911cafc07c891116c5a3df9.html"},{"id":100588177,"identity":"2093768c-a634-4a69-86c6-abf4a7d62596","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:22","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":44094,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Publications by Web of Science Citation Topic Micro-Fields\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/19cf19c9758c763f902efeff.png"},{"id":100588134,"identity":"676256f3-424f-4b85-8cb1-62b6d4da121a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:53","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":173459,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eYearly Growth and Citation Trajectories of Publications\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/fc3c223217cec86b5af1659a.jpeg"},{"id":100588180,"identity":"31364089-8e07-458a-9e7f-61e2b934c293","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:38","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43552,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAuthors’ Country Affiliations and Publication Collaboration\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/cd16bc21b97b087c1824fc55.png"},{"id":100588068,"identity":"c410883f-ed85-4ccc-ae19-0e213ae6746a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:22:46","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61328,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe 10 Institutions with the Highest Contribution\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/c0bab739b8decdf0ca740c9a.jpeg"},{"id":100588183,"identity":"c7367caf-653f-43bd-9e3a-6e1669861b29","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:40","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56605,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLeading 10 Journals by Publication Output\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/a991c3f3a3278641cadc8e3b.png"},{"id":100588115,"identity":"74fb305c-de7b-486f-ac24-120b38ec2356","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:37","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":28523,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCo-Authorship Analysis at the Author Level\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/86f68c1afce197eb94d8dfdd.jpeg"},{"id":100588081,"identity":"c8f6e1f1-b654-469c-9828-b6ffe307a649","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26145,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCo-Authorship Analysis at the Institutional Level\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/883395dd93b23a9da72aed7f.jpeg"},{"id":100588120,"identity":"ee4aacde-9beb-4d37-91c6-9381f4e3aa3e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:39","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":54992,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBibliographic Coupling Analysis at the Document Level\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/01d86182b43fa298e8d631c3.jpeg"},{"id":100588181,"identity":"b9dea7ba-a4c1-453d-8ccc-61fbfbd60c77","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:38","extension":"jpeg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66298,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCo-Citation Analysis of Publications\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage9.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/87be147aa2159d912fe9044e.jpeg"},{"id":100588128,"identity":"bade1666-337d-4d9c-915a-c2f8cd8a073d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:49","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":136980,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eKeyword Analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/96284435684db424c44b1764.png"},{"id":100588184,"identity":"9f14b024-c81d-417a-b94a-9556e610230f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:24:42","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":69195,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWord Cloud Analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/14b8d2c840de757e64d1b4e7.png"},{"id":100588132,"identity":"eef2a4e5-9e07-43a9-8cb4-d395f10f3643","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:23:52","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":160909,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThematic Evolution Analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/9e713e73901d59e90b460b33.png"},{"id":100588196,"identity":"f3e20d16-df25-4cd0-b408-fc20637d8185","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 12:25:25","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60270,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThematic Mapping Analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage13.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/6c88f535b77b8418db48ece3.png"},{"id":100598007,"identity":"c71761d7-ec56-42bb-a256-5a8a9c759c4a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:22:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1973100,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8447641/v1/1740781a-d283-469e-ac5d-62056c855fa2.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Mapping the Last Five Decades of Entrepreneurship History Research: A Web of Science Analysis","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEntrepreneurship, a phenomenon as old as human history, has increasingly attracted the attention of researchers and institutions over the last half century. This growing interest has been fueled by the rise in the number of successful startups and the contributions entrepreneurship makes to the economy (Welter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Social scientists, particularly management scholars, have conducted various studies to understand these changes. Some of these studies have examined the business start-up processes of entrepreneurs and sought the qualities of successful entrepreneurs (Javier Maqueda Lafuente et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Others have used the theoretical frameworks of sociology and psychology to explain the reasons for the unsuccessful initiatives of entrepreneurs when it comes to possible opportunities (Kim \u0026amp; Park, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A review of the literature reveals a significant preponderance of comparative studies structured around the axis of success and failure (Hytti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the history of entrepreneurship is a nascent discipline in the literature, the origins of studies in this field date back to the 1940s (Landstr\u0026ouml;m \u0026amp; Benner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). In 1948, a research center on entrepreneurship history was established at Harvard University under the name \"The Harvard Research Center in Entrepreneurial History and the Daimonic Entrepreneur.\" At this center, researchers began examining the biographies of entrepreneurs and the historical processes of their ventures, following guidelines developed by Arthur Cole. In the 1950s, they attempted to relate the nature of entrepreneurship to the economic success of countries; in later periods, they conducted research focusing on cultural factors and contextual elements. Similarly, the international literature has extensively examined the impact of various factors on entrepreneurship, such as the opportunities available to entrepreneurs, social relations, religion, sect, and minority status (Greve \u0026amp; Salaff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Mueller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Gursoy, Altinay \u0026amp; Kenebayeva, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt has been observed that academic interest in the field of entrepreneurship history has increased over the last four decades (Thurik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Some researchers have studied the historical origins of enterprises (Casson \u0026amp; Casson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), a considerable number of studies have provided state of the art reviews and future directions on entrepreneurship history (Cassis \u0026amp; Minoglou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). There is a growing trend of systematic review papers and bibliometric analyses within the same domain. For instance, Xu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) have presented an overview of the features of entrepreneurship and the crisis field. Another paper conducted by Bermeo-Giraldo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) has revealed recent topics in business history through a bibliometric approach. Despite the growing body of literature on entrepreneurship history, there is a lack of a more comprehensive bibliometric mapping that reveals its intellectual and conceptual structure. Our research comprehensively maps the history of entrepreneurship across various parameters and analyzes it through bibliometric analysis. Our paper differs from previous studies in several ways. First, we have conducted more analyses than similar papers, from Thematic Evolution to Thematic Mapping. We have divided thematic evolution into four critical periods and examined them: globalization, digitalization, big data, and the age of artificial intelligence. Additionally, we have attempted to extract social, intellectual, and conceptual structures. Lastly, we have used two different analysis tools: R and VosViewer. As is well known, scientific research is not limited to empirical methods; the systematic compilation and analysis of academic studies in a specific field also contribute significantly to the production of scientific knowledge. In this respect, it is crucial to demonstrate the evolution of published research on the history of entrepreneurship. This study aims to address this gap by examining research published in the last 50 years, supported by VOSviewer and R Bibliometrix software, and aims to reveal scientific developments in the entrepreneurship history literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo this end, the study aims to conduct a detailed bibliometric review of research conducted in the field of entrepreneurship, particularly in the last 50 years, within the Web of Science database. Bibliometric techniques were used in the study to enrich both the quantitative and visual dimensions through two different analysis programs (VOSviewer and R), thus increasing the validity and significance of the results. In this context, the findings of the current study are expected to contribute to understanding the field's position within the business history literature at a macro level, and to offer new insights into the interaction of entrepreneurship history with the business world and society at a micro level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe role and evolution of entrepreneurship in the historical period\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEntrepreneurship is an action that has existed since the beginning of humanity and has persisted throughout history. Entrepreneurs have catalysed significant societal transformations and developments by addressing deficiencies and taking risks. From this perspective, it can be posited that entrepreneurial individuals have had a significant impact on the new ideas and technologies developed in many periods before and after recorded history. Indeed, since the beginning of humanity, societies have undergone various sociological evolutions, and just as entrepreneurial individuals have played an important role in these evolutions, the characteristics of entrepreneurial individuals have changed as these changes have taken place (Dewi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fundamental characteristics attributed to entrepreneurial individuals, such as risk-taking, developing innovative ideas, and seizing opportunities, can be said to have existed since the inception of entrepreneurial activities (Bozgeyik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is also important to acknowledge that throughout history, the various social structures experienced by humanity\u0026mdash;hunter-gatherer, agricultural, industrial, and information societies\u0026mdash;have demanded distinct entrepreneurial characteristics. Accordingly, it can be postulated that, during the hunter-gatherer period, characteristics that addressed fundamental needs despite considerable risk came to the fore. During the agricultural period, when money was not yet widely used, opportunistic barter-based transactions gained importance. Also in this period, humans transitioned from a consumer-oriented mindset to a more proactive role in production, leading to an increase in economic transactions. This shift, exemplified by economic entrepreneurship, marked a significant development in human economic behavior (Durukan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the advent of technological innovations has led to a significant shift in the geographical distribution of human settlement patterns, with the discovery of new, fertile, and resource-rich regions becoming a central focus. When it comes to industrial societies, the pervasive utilization of currency, coupled with the substantial and expeditious evolution of technology and trade, gave rise to the emergence of capitalist concepts and characteristics that were previously non-existent, including profit maximization and market dominance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of rapidly evolving contemporary information societies, economies have once again undergone significant transformation, diversifying beyond a narrow industry focus. This diversification has been accompanied by a shift towards services and knowledge-based activities, reflecting a broader transition to a more advanced and sophisticated economic structure. Entrepreneurs' innovative characteristics have driven it primarily (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, in the information age, entrepreneurs are important actors in the social and economic structure and create new ventures by producing or applying knowledge (Demirez \u0026amp; Cebeci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). In other words, alongside the social dynamics fuelled by knowledge production, entrepreneurial characteristics have evolved, bringing the creation of new knowledge, innovative products, services and business models to the fore (Tekin \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;i\u0026ccedil;ek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Bayraktaroğlu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe theoretical foundations and ınstitutionalization of entrepreneurship history studies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study focuses on economic entrepreneurship and its history, which are considered a subfield of business history in the extant literature. Business history is a multidisciplinary field of research that examines the socio-economic impact of institutions, entrepreneurs, and the businesses they establish over the years. These institutions generally regulate the economy of societies or determine the economic dynamics within a particular society. The field also traces the historical development of these institutions (Seyhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, this field involves the analysis and drawing of conclusions regarding the evolution of interactions between entrepreneurs, firms, and other economic actors throughout history. Based on this information, the history of entrepreneurship has emerged and developed as a subfield within this field of study, and has even influenced the evolution of business history studies as it developed (Keskin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEntrepreneurship can be defined as the process of realizing a new concept, thereby generating personal and societal benefits (Prince et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). It is evident that during and following the Industrial Revolution, entrepreneurs who pursued business opportunities in tandem with economic development in numerous societies were able to transform social dynamics. These entrepreneurs effectively converted their business ideas into creative and profitable ventures, thereby becoming instrumental in the acceleration of social change. Consequently, they came to be recognized as economic entrepreneurs. In line with these developments, entrepreneurship, as an umbrella concept encompassing entrepreneurs and all their activities, has attracted the attention of researchers and institutions, especially in the last half-century (Durukan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In subsequent periods, the rise in the number of successful ventures and the contribution of entrepreneurship to the economy further increased the importance of entrepreneurs and the study of entrepreneurship (Landstr\u0026ouml;m \u0026amp; Benner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Keskin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). A multitude of studies have been conducted by social scientists, particularly those specializing in management, to comprehend these alterations. While some of these studies examined the business establishment processes of entrepreneurs and sought to answer the question \"Who is a successful entrepreneur?\", others addressed why unsuccessful entrepreneurs failed to capitalize on existing opportunities through the theoretical frameworks of sociology and psychology (Landstr\u0026ouml;m, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). A thorough examination of the extant studies reveals that those that feature substantial comparative analysis and are structured around the success-failure axis are particularly noteworthy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince the early 1900s, academic studies have been conducted on fundamental topics, such as the critical role of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ventures in social and economic life (Jones \u0026amp; Wadhwani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). One of the earliest known works approaching entrepreneurship from a historical perspective is Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In this work, Weber posits that Protestantism, in conjunction with a favorable disposition toward labor, has been instrumental in fostering entrepreneurship, thereby enabling the proliferation and evolution of capitalism (Weber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Another notable historical study that focused on entrepreneurship was conducted by Schumpeter in 1934. This study introduced a novel perspective on entrepreneurship, associating it with the ability to innovate. In this sense, as articulated by Schumpeter, entrepreneurship is defined as the process of introducing novelty into the economic system, thereby initiating a phenomenon of \"creative destruction\" through these innovations (Schumpeter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on these theoretical foundations, studies on the history of entrepreneurship began to emerge within a more institutional framework. The Center for the History of Entrepreneurship at Harvard University and a group of historians, sociologists, and economists from this institution collaborated to further Schumpeterian ideas (Keskin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Arthur Cole, a researcher at the aforementioned institution, developed a set of guidelines that would subsequently serve as a framework for scientific studies on entrepreneurship. Subsequently, the journal Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, which began publication in 1949, played an instrumental role in fortifying the field by featuring scientific studies conducted in the domain of entrepreneurship (Sass, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the contributions of Cole, Jenks, and Cochran, who emphasized the impact of entrepreneurial attitudes on economic development and expanded upon the Schumpeterian concept of the \"heroic entrepreneur,\" significant contributions were also made (Aitken, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1965\u003c/span\u003e). The authors of this study placed a particular emphasis on social, cultural, and institutional factors as determinants of entrepreneurship. They advanced the argument that entrepreneurship serves as the primary catalyst for economic development. The contributions of Jenks and Cochran have given rise to a series of studies that explore the historical evolution of entrepreneurship by comparing regional variations in historical and cultural contexts. In other words, the impact of historical and cultural dynamics in various regions on entrepreneurial behavior, in terms of the relationship between structure and actors in the structure-actor duality, has also begun to be examined through research on regional differences (Landstr\u0026ouml;m \u0026amp; Benner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the early days of entrepreneurship studies, Frank Knight's 1921 work, \"Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit,\" was a seminal piece that emphasized the role of risk-taking in entrepreneurial activities and the significance of decision-making under uncertainty. Alfred Marshall's approach, which positions the entrepreneur as a factor of production and emphasizes their role in effectively combining other factors of production to increase efficiency, holds significant importance (as cited in H\u0026eacute;bert \u0026amp; Link, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). During this period, entrepreneurs such as Henry Ford were regarded as \"heroic leaders\" through individual success stories, influenced by Schumpeter's approach (Landstr\u0026ouml;m, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, while the theories developed during this period served as the foundation for innovation and risk management studies, they also laid the groundwork for critical examinations of the individualistic and Western-centric approaches that characterized the early period in academic literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to examine the research conducted in the field of entrepreneurship in detail from a bibliometric perspective within the context of the Web of Science index, particularly over the last 50 years following the early period. The study will identify and analyse the thematic trends, prominent authors, institutions, countries and collaboration networks that have emerged in the historical development of entrepreneurship studies research. In doing so, the study also seeks to structurally map the field's knowledge base.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs bibliometric research methodology to examine the body of academic scholarship on Entrepreneurship History. For this aim, the Web of Science (WoS) database was selected as the primary source of data. The decision to use WoS was informed by several considerations. Firstly, it is widely recognized as a reliable and authoritative database, and, like Scopus and PubMed. Secondly, it provides comprehensive datasets particularly suitable for bibliometric analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn February 28, 2025, an advanced Boolean search was conducted within WoS using the keywords \u0026ldquo;entrepreneurship history,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;history of entrepreneurship,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;entrepreneurial history,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;entrepreneur history,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;history of entrepreneur,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;entrepreneurship,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;history,\u0026rdquo; applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords. This search yielded a total of 1,912 records. The dataset was subsequently analyzed using Bibliometrix (version 2024.12.1) in RStudio alongside VOSviewer (version 1.6.20). This study utilized multiple bibliometric techniques to map the development of entrepreneurship history research. The analyses included citation and co-authorship networks, bibliographic coupling, co-citation patterns, keyword and word cloud analyses, as well as thematic evolution and thematic mapping. Collectively, these methods highlight the field\u0026rsquo;s intellectual structure, collaborative interactions, and shifting thematic focus over the past five decades. The results of these analyses, supported by illustrative graphs and visualizations, are presented in the following sections.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe bibliometric analysis of 1,912 records retrieved from WoS provides several insights into the intellectual structure and development of the field of entrepreneurship history. The majority of contributions are in the form of journal articles (1,664), which demonstrates the central role of peer-reviewed journals in shaping scholarly discourse in this domain. In addition, the field includes 224 conference proceedings and 143 book chapters, indicating an ongoing diversification of publication outlets. Although relatively limited, the presence of books (8) and book reviews (42) also suggests that monographic and evaluative contributions have a place in the field, albeit a modest one.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe annual growth rate of entrepreneurship history scholarship is calculated at 5%, reflecting a steady but not exponential expansion. The average age of the publications is nine years, implying that the field has an established yet still-evolving body of literature. In terms of authorship patterns, the 1,912 works were produced by 3,619 authors, who collectively contributed approximately 4,755 keywords. This indicates both a relatively high level of author participation and a broad conceptual vocabulary within the field. The corpus draws on around 550 distinct sources (journals, books, etc.), suggesting a diverse yet somewhat concentrated base of reference materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingle-authored works (613) account for a notable share of the total output, but collaboration remains common, with an average of two authors per article. Importantly, one in five authors originates from a different country, corresponding to an internationalization rate of 26%. This highlights a meaningful, though not dominant, level of cross-national collaboration (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, an examination of indexation patterns shows that the majority of works are included in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI, 1,069), followed by the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI, 486), the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI, 254), the Book Citation Index (BCI, 155), the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E, 43), and the Arts \u0026amp; Humanities Citation Index (AHCI, 32). These figures confirm the field\u0026rsquo;s strong anchoring within the social sciences, while also pointing to its interdisciplinary connections with both the sciences and the humanities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn examination of the distribution of the 1,912 works across WoS\u0026rsquo;s citation-based microfield categories reveals that the largest share falls within the category entrepreneurship (689 works). As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, other prominent thematic clusters include social movements (172), knowledge management (146), internationalization (88), academic entrepreneurship (72), corporate governance (66), anthropometric history (63), corporate social responsibility (37), agglomeration economies (36), and customer satisfaction (31). This variety demonstrates that while entrepreneurship constitutes the intellectual core of the field, scholarship on entrepreneurship history also intersects with a diverse set of adjacent domains in management, economics, and the social sciences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCitation patterns mirror these publication trends, showing a parallel rise in scholarly influence. Collectively, the 1,912 works cite more than 43,000 references and have themselves received approximately 57,000 citations. The average citation rate per work is 29, and the field\u0026rsquo;s h-index stands at 112. These metrics point to a relatively high level of impact and visibility, underscoring the field\u0026rsquo;s capacity to engage broader academic audiences while maintaining internal scholarly coherence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of temporal distribution, the field experienced its peak in 2020 with 151 publications (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Although a partial decline is observed in subsequent years, the overall publication trend suggests resilience, with forecasts indicating that the annual output will not fall below 100 publications by the end of 2025. This pattern reflects both fluctuations in scholarly attention and the sustained relevance of entrepreneurship history as a research area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCitation patterns mirror these publication trends, showing a parallel rise in scholarly influence. Collectively, the 1,912 works cite more than 43,000 references and have themselves received approximately 57,000 citations. The average citation rate per work is 29, and the field\u0026rsquo;s h-index stands at 112. These metrics point to a relatively high level of impact and visibility, underscoring the field\u0026rsquo;s capacity to engage broader academic audiences while maintaining internal scholarly coherence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eContribution to the field of entrepreneurship history\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis section examines the countries, institutions, and journals that have contributed to the development of entrepreneurship history as a scholarly domain. The subsequent part of the study will focus on the social structure of the field, with particular attention to co-authorship patterns and collaborative networks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCountry–publication relationship\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of national contributions reveals that only 43 countries are represented in the dataset, highlighting the field\u0026rsquo;s relatively concentrated geographic distribution. The United States occupies a dominant position, accounting for 583 publications, thereby serving as the principal driver of research output in entrepreneurship history. The United Kingdom follows with 339 publications, while Italy (124), Canada (115), Australia (94), France (90), Sweden (89), China (88), Germany (81), and Spain (69) round out the top ten contributors. T\u0026uuml;rkiye appears in the 31st position with 16 publications, indicating a modest but visible engagement with the topic within the international scholarly landscape. This distribution emphasize both the global dimensions of the field and the continuing potential for broader participation from underrepresented countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCitation analysis by country\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn examination of citation counts largely mirrors the patterns observed in publication contributions. With few exceptions, the countries most active in producing research on entrepreneurship history are also those whose works have attracted the greatest scholarly attention. Notably, Spain\u0026mdash;although included among the top ten contributors in terms of output\u0026mdash;ranks lower in citations, whereas the Netherlands surpasses its relative contribution level by securing a higher position in the citation rankings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe United States leads by a wide margin with approximately 20,000 citations. The United Kingdom follows with around 10,000 citations, while Canada (4,500) and Sweden (3,100) occupy the next positions. Other countries include the Netherlands (2,300), Italy (1,500), Australia (1,300), China (1,100), France (1,100), and Germany (1,100).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, these results demonstrate that North American and European countries dominate the field not only in terms of publication volume but also in citation impact, underscoring their central role in shaping the global discourse on entrepreneurship history.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstitution–publication relationship\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen examining the institutions that have made the most significant contributions to the history of entrepreneurship, the Copenhagen Business School emerges as the leading institution. (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) It is followed by Harvard University, which has historically played a pioneering role in the field of business history. The analysis further indicates a predominance of British universities\u0026mdash;such as Lancaster, Reading, Cambridge, and Liverpool\u0026mdash;as well as prominent American institutions including Indiana University and the University of California, Berkeley. Beyond these, Bocconi University in Italy and the University of Auckland in New Zealand also rank among the top ten institutions in terms of scholarly contributions to the field. This distribution suggests that both European and North American institutions have exerted substantial influence on the development of entrepreneurship history, reflecting regional strengths in research infrastructure, academic traditions, and historical scholarship in business studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eJournal–publication relationship\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of the sources that have most extensively addressed the history of entrepreneurship reveals a marked prominence of SSCI-indexed journals. Among these, \u003cem\u003eBusiness History\u003c/em\u003e leads the field with 119 publications (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). It is followed by \u003cem\u003eSmall Business Economics\u003c/em\u003e (63 publications), \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management History\u003c/em\u003e (57 publications), and \u003cem\u003eBusiness History Review\u003c/em\u003e (50 publications). Journals with fewer than 50 publications that continue to appear in the ranking include \u003cem\u003eEnterprise \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e (47), \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship and Regional Development\u003c/em\u003e (43), \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e (35), \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour\u003c/em\u003e (34), \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing\u003c/em\u003e (33), and \u003cem\u003eManagement \u0026amp; Organizational History\u003c/em\u003e (27). This distribution features the central role of established, high-impact journals in shaping scholarly discourse on entrepreneurship history and suggests a concentration of influential research within a relatively small set of outlets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe social structure of entrepreneurship history\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo uncover the social structure of entrepreneurship history, co-authorship analyses were employed. Co-authorship analyses provide insights into the collaborative patterns within a field. Such analyses can be conducted at the level of authors, countries, or institutions. In this study, only author- and institution-based analyses are presented.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAuthor-based co-authorship analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn author-level co-authorship analysis was conducted to identify researchers who most frequently engage in collaborative work within the field of entrepreneurship history. According to the findings, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, a total of 26 authors were identified, forming six distinct clusters. Within the collaboration network, R. Daniel Wadhwani emerges as the most prolific co-author. Other notable researchers include Roy Suddaby, Charles Harvey, Mairi Maclean, Christina Lubinski, Matthias Kipping, Andrew Popp, and Robert Mitchell. These results highlight the existence of concentrated collaborative networks in the field, suggesting that a relatively small group of researchers plays a pivotal role in shaping the development of entrepreneurship history scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInstitution-based co-authorship analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen examining inter-institutional co-authorship\u0026mdash;using the criteria of a minimum of five publications and five citations\u0026mdash;it was found that out of 1,285 institutions, only 87 met this threshold, and 82 of these were included in the network visualization based on connectivity. These institutions formed a total of 11 distinct clusters. Leading institutions in terms of collaboration include Harvard, Copenhagen, Lancaster, Berkeley, Reading, Bocconi, Newcastle, Vrije, and Alberta Universities (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). The results of this analysis demonstrate a clear alignment with the ranking of institutions based on their overall contributions to the field, suggesting that institutional collaboration networks are closely linked to scholarly influence in the history of entrepreneurship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe intellectual structure of entrepreneurship history\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBibliographic coupling analysis, which examines shared references between two works, provides insights into the intellectual structure of a research field. Co-citation analysis, on the other hand, considers the frequency with which two works are cited together by a third work, offering researchers a means to identify seminal studies, influential authors, and shifts in thematic focus over time. In this section, both bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses are employed to uncover the intellectual structure of entrepreneurship history.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBibliographic coupling of publications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBibliographic coupling at the publication level, which examines instances where two different works cite the same source, offers a window into the intellectual formation of a field. Applying a minimum threshold of one shared reference, 1,130 publications met the criterion, yet only 998 were included in the analysis based on connectivity. Within these works, eight distinct clusters were identified, comprising 62,000 links with a total link strength of 105,000.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ten publications exhibiting the highest degree of bibliographic coupling, as shown in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, are ranked according to citation counts: Welter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) with 1,642 citations, Maitlis \u0026amp; Christianson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) with 1,190, Wennekers \u0026amp; Thurik (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) with 1,150, Schot \u0026amp; Steinmueller (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) with 873, Shane \u0026amp; Stuart (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) with 822, Chandy \u0026amp; Tellis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) with 777, Defourny \u0026amp; Nyssens (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) with 678, Katz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) with 614, Putnam, Fairhurst, \u0026amp; Banghart (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) with 606, and O\u0026rsquo;Shea, Allen, Chevalier, \u0026amp; Roche (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) with 599 citations. These results are consistent across both VOSviewer and R-based analyses. According to the R analysis, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, the ten most frequently cited studies in entrepreneurship history are the same as those identified through bibliographic coupling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings indicate that scholarly influence in entrepreneurship history is concentrated in a relatively small group of key works. This suggests that the field\u0026rsquo;s development is shaped by a central body of closely connected studies. The clustering patterns also reveal shared themes and methods, showing how ongoing intellectual traditions and academic dialogue have guided the field\u0026rsquo;s evolution over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCo-citation analysis of publications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn publication-level co-citation analysis, which examines instances where a single work is cited by two different publications, a minimum threshold of 20 citations was applied. Out of 65,000 sources, only 91 met this criterion. From this subset, four distinct clusters were identified\u0026mdash;each represented by a different color in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026mdash;comprising 2,716 links with a total link strength of 8,843.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe five most influential publications within the field, as revealed by this analysis, are Shane (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), DiMaggio (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), Greenwood (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), DiMaggio (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), and Eisenhardt (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the article by Leblebici (1991) ranks tenth within the current literature. These results show that a relatively small group of foundational works plays a central role in shaping the intellectual direction of entrepreneurship history. The clustering patterns also indicate distinct thematic groupings, reflecting the main scholarly conversations that have formed and guided the field over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe conceptual structure of entrepreneurship history\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this section, the conceptual structure of the entrepreneurship history literature is explored. To achieve this, keyword analyses were conducted using both author-provided keywords and \u003cem\u003ekeyword plus\u003c/em\u003e terms suggested by the Web of Science database. Additionally, word cloud and thematic evolution analyses were applied to uncover prevailing concepts and their development over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eKeyword analysis\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA first-stage analysis, applying a minimum threshold of ten occurrences per author-provided keyword, identified only 36 keywords out of a total of 3,451 that met this criterion. From these keywords, seven clusters and 182 links were calculated. The most frequently used keywords in the field include: entrepreneurship, history, entrepreneurialism, gender, innovation, entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurship, family business, women, China, and social capital (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a historical perspective, the analysis reveals an increasing scholarly interest in recent years in topics related to gender, Italy, and social entrepreneurship. This suggests that while the foundational concepts of entrepreneurship and its historical development remain central, there is a growing focus on socially and culturally contextualized studies. The clustering patterns further point out how the conceptual landscape of entrepreneurship history is organized around both traditional and emerging thematic areas, reflecting evolving research priorities and societal concerns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWord cloud analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA word cloud analysis, based on \u003cem\u003ekeyword plus\u003c/em\u003e terms suggested by the system, indicates that the most frequently occurring concepts are \u003cem\u003eentrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eperformance\u003c/em\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig11\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). Following these, terms such as \u003cem\u003einnovation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eknowledge\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ehistory\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003emanagement\u003c/em\u003e also emerge prominently. Across both author-provided and system-generated analyses, the recurring key concepts are \u003cem\u003eentrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eperformance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ehistory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eknowledge\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003emanagement\u003c/em\u003e. This convergence draws attention to the centrality of these concepts in shaping the field and highlights the thematic consistency between author perspectives and database classifications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThematic evolution analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe thematic evolution analysis, based on \u003cem\u003ekeyword plus\u003c/em\u003e terms, identifies four distinct periods: 1980\u0026ndash;2000 (Period 1), 2001\u0026ndash;2010 (Period 2), 2011\u0026ndash;2020 (Period 3), and 2021 to the present (Period 4) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig12\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePeriod 1 (Globalization Era)\u003c/b\u003e: The thematic scope was relatively narrow, focusing primarily on management, models, performance, technology, and risk within commercial ventures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePeriod 2 (Digital Revolution)\u003c/b\u003e: This period exhibits the broadest thematic spectrum. Prominent topics include performance, management, education, identity, path dependence, entrepreneurs, culture, growth, R\u0026amp;D, corporate entrepreneurship, family business, and science.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePeriod 3 (Big Data Era)\u003c/b\u003e: The thematic range narrows again. While entrepreneurship and performance remain central, there is increased attention to self-employment, gender, and economic development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePeriod 4 (Artificial Intelligence Era)\u003c/b\u003e: Recent research shows a shift toward innovation, entrepreneurship, gender, education, entrepreneurs, orientation, success, and crowd-related concepts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings reveal a dynamic evolution of research priorities in entrepreneurship history, reflecting both technological advances and societal concerns. Over time, the field has expanded from foundational management and performance topics to incorporate broader social, economic, and technological themes, indicating a growing interdisciplinary orientation and responsiveness to contemporary issues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThematic mapping analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe thematic mapping analysis illustrates the field's current intellectual structure by plotting its themes based on two key measures: centrality (importance to the overall field) and density (how well-developed the theme is). The resulting four quadrants\u0026mdash;Basic, Motor, Niche, and Emerging/Declining\u0026mdash;provide a clear picture of the field's conceptual landscape and how research is evolving (Aria \u0026amp; Cuccurullo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBasic themes: entrepreneurship, history, and management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositioned in the bottom-right quadrant are the Basic Themes, distinguished by high centrality and low density. This quadrant is prominently occupied by the foundational cluster of entrepreneurship, history, and management. Their high degree of centrality confirms their role as the undisputed conceptual backbone of the discipline. Their lower density suggests that they function less as specific research topics and more as overarching, cross-cutting concepts that unify the field and provide the essential context for all other research streams.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMotor themes: performance and innovation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe top-right quadrant hosts the Motor Themes, characterized by both high centrality and high density. The cluster containing performance, innovation, and business is the primary occupant of this quadrant. These themes represent the most dynamic and well-developed areas of current research, acting as the engine driving the field forward. Their position indicates that contemporary scholarship in entrepreneurship history has moved beyond descriptive accounts to focus on analytical investigations into the effectiveness (performance), novelty (innovation), and operational dynamics (business) of historical enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNiche themes: self-employment, mobility, and R\u0026amp;D\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe top-left quadrant is populated by Niche Themes, which are well-developed and internally coherent (high density) but are not central to the entire field (low centrality). This analysis identifies two distinct groups of niche topics. The first includes highly specific economic and strategic themes such as self-employment, mobility, and research-and-development. The second group consists of socially oriented themes like gender, women, and intentions. The existence of these themes demonstrates a robust ecosystem of specialized sub-fields where dedicated scholarly communities conduct focused research, even if these topics remain peripheral to the field's core discourse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEmerging or declining themes: universities, scientists, and economic development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the bottom-left quadrant contains themes with both low centrality and low density. This quadrant signifies themes that are either emerging or declining. The presence of university and scientists may signal a nascent research trajectory focused on the historical role of academic institutions and figures in fostering entrepreneurship. Conversely, a broad and established concept like economic-development may be experiencing a decline in direct scholarly attention, perhaps becoming subsumed within the more specific and measurable motor themes of performance and innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the thematic map illustrates that the field of entrepreneurship history is mature and well-structured. It is anchored by a stable conceptual core, propelled by a dynamic research front focused on performance and innovation, and enriched by a diverse array of specialized niche topics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion and Conclusion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis bibliometric study provides an integrated overview of the development, structure, and dynamics of entrepreneurship history as a research field. The study aimed to examine the entrepreneurship history, which sets it apart from Seyhan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), who examine only business history. Using bibliometric and network analyses, it maps the main themes and intellectual structure of this field. Differing from Durmuş (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), whose analysis is historical and conceptual, and from Glinyanova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), who focus on corporate entrepreneurship, this study adopts a broader systematic perspective to map how entrepreneurship history research has evolved and become structured.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 1,912 publications were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Bibliometric data indicate that the entrepreneurship history literature has expanded from just two publications in 1980 to an average of approximately 110 publications per year, reflecting a 5% annual growth rate and sustained researcher interest. The analysis of 1,912 Web of Science records shows a pattern of steady rather than exponential growth, with an annual rate of 5% and an average publication age of nine years. These indicators point to a mature yet still evolving field, in which foundational works remain influential while new topics and methods continue to emerge. The concentration of outputs in journal articles underlines the central role of peer-reviewed outlets in shaping scholarly discourse, while the presence of conference proceedings, book chapters, and a small number of books suggests a gradual diversification of publication formats (Snyder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geographic distribution of contributions reveals a highly concentrated global landscape, dominated by the United States and the United Kingdom, followed by a small group of European and Commonwealth countries. Citation patterns largely mirror this distribution, indicating that North American and Western European institutions not only produce but also frame much of the field\u0026rsquo;s influential scholarship. At the institutional level, business schools and universities with strong traditions in business history and management studies\u0026mdash;such as Copenhagen Business School, Harvard University, and several leading British universities\u0026mdash;emerge as key hubs. These findings are consistent with those of Jonas and Wadhwani (2006), who found that the history of entrepreneurship research has been shaped by the Anglo-Saxon tradition and geography. Furthermore, the analyses reveal that, even today, research institutions based in the US and Europe continue to exert their influence in this field. One reason for this enduring orientation, established over time, may be that business and entrepreneurship history research first emerged and became institutionalised in these regions (Keskin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Another reason could be the regularity and accessibility of company archives. The availability of sufficient and high-quality data on business and, in particular, entrepreneurship history in the aforementioned countries and regions may have influenced the scope and prevalence of research on this subject in these regions compared to other countries (Snyder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Hull \u0026amp; Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCo-authorship analyses further show that a relatively small group of scholars and institutions plays a central role in structuring collaborative networks, reinforcing the existence of an elite core that shapes research agendas, methods, and theoretical orientations. The co-authorship network analysis reveals that collaboration has centered around prominent researchers, including R. Daniel Wadhwani, Roy Suddaby, Matthias Kipping, Mairi Maclean, and Christina Lubinski. The bibliometric methods employed in this study have revealed interactions that are not easily apparent in literature reviews. Research clusters formed by authors such as Daniel Wadhwani, Roy Suddaby, and Charles Harvey, for example, demonstrate the close intertwining of the field of entrepreneurship history research with institutional theory and business history studies. This concentrated network also reflects a field shaped by elite scholarly communities, where intellectual trajectories are often driven by a handful of institutionally interconnected researchers. Such patterns are consistent with prior observations about the organizational history and management history fields, which similarly exhibit \u0026ldquo;founder effects\u0026rdquo; and tight-knit intellectual circles (e.g., Riviezzo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Lamberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Henrekson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intellectual structure of the field is anchored in a limited number of highly cited works at the intersection of entrepreneurship theory, institutional theory, and organizational studies. Seminal contributions by authors such as Shane, DiMaggio, Greenwood, and Eisenhardt function as conceptual bridges between entrepreneurship history and broader debates in management and the social sciences. The relatively high h-index and citation counts observed in the dataset underscore the field\u0026rsquo;s capacity to generate work that resonates beyond narrow historical audiences and engages with cross-disciplinary concerns such as innovation, performance, institutional change, and social embeddedness (Landstr\u0026ouml;m \u0026amp; Benner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Devi, 2024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conceptual and thematic analyses reveal a stable core organized around entrepreneurship, history, management, performance, and innovation, complemented by expanding research fronts in areas such as gender, social entrepreneurship, family business, and social capital. The temporal evolution of themes\u0026mdash;from early emphases on management and performance to more recent interest in gender, education, and innovation\u0026mdash;illustrates how the field responds to wider societal and technological shifts, including globalization, digitalization, and the rise of knowledge-intensive and science-based forms of entrepreneurship (Landstr\u0026ouml;m, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Xu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Thurik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These reactions signal a transformation in the field of entrepreneurship history research, which is in line with global economic dynamics that once again reflect the significant influence of Anglo-Saxon economies. Since the turn of the millennium, themes such as identity, gender, and social entrepreneurship have emerged with a more inclusive and critical perspective, parallel to current sociological debates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study is an examination of the history of entrepreneurship, a subfield of business history studies, and it provides a structural map of this research area. In this respect, it elucidates the methodological, thematic, and interactional dimensions of the field through visual richness. In this respect, the study addresses a significant gap in understanding the development of the field of entrepreneurship research over the last 50 years, both for researchers and policymakers. Furthermore, the research underscores the existing lacunae in the extant literature through the analytical methods employed. In this context, it is evident that the field exhibits a pronounced Anglo-Saxon geographical concentration, resulting in a conspicuous representation imbalance. This phenomenon stands in contrast to the research conducted on comparable themes within other geographical contexts, particularly in developing countries. Noteworthy among the under-researched themes are the historical dimensions of family businesses and the historical impacts and trajectories of gender-related dynamics, to name just two examples. Clearly, these indicators offer important research areas for future researchers. In a theoretical nutshell, the present study offers a comprehensive exposition on the historical evolution of the themes that have been the focal point of the entrepreneurship field, both analytically and visually. In this respect, the study makes a significant contribution by demonstrating the theoretical expansion of entrepreneurship history studies from the past to the present.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the research's practical contributions are evident in the signals it provides to policymakers regarding the entrepreneurship ecosystem and education. First and foremost, the study draws important conclusions regarding the historical dynamics of entrepreneurship policies. In this respect, the study is significant because it clearly reveals the Anglo-Saxon influence in the field and highlights the potential impact of institutions' advancements in archiving on the development of the research field. Additionally, it underscores the notion that the nascent development of the entrepreneurship ecosystem within the same geographical area can serve as a pivotal factor in the scientific institutionalization and performance. Indeed, these emphases offer a salient anecdote for understanding why entrepreneurship policies, especially in developing countries, persist in a state of passivity with regard to determining and influencing scientific productivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the study provides significant recommendations for future research and business education policies with respect to practical contributions. In this context, the thematic maps created and the thematic evolution revealed through the analyses conducted in the study, as mentioned above, actually signal which concepts are coming to the fore in the field in the current context for future studies and research projects. From an educational perspective, the study's findings also yield important conclusions for the design of entrepreneurship courses. At this juncture, the research approaches entrepreneurship studies with in-depth analyses and comprehensive visual tools from a helicopter view, revealing that entrepreneurship encompasses more than just innovation and opportunity-based dynamics. In essence, this perspective underscores the notion that entrepreneurship, in addition to its economic and managerial facets, encompasses historical, cultural, and even political dimensions. Consequently, these aspects must be incorporated into instructional methodologies to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the subject.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a methodological perspective, the study demonstrates the value of bibliometric techniques (Vosviewer\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;R) in understanding long-term intellectual development. The study also provides a methodological example that is rarely used, by presenting both a statistical and visual mapping of the field with its methodological approaches. This offers a methodological model for business history research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study offers a comprehensive overview of the intellectual, social, and conceptual structure of entrepreneurship history, yet several limitations should be acknowledged. The exclusive reliance on Web of Science may have excluded influential works outside its coverage, particularly non-English publications, books, and regional studies, while citation-based indicators inherently favor older research. Threshold choices in bibliometric techniques may also have omitted emerging but less-cited contributions. A key limitation of this study is its exclusive reliance on the WoS database. Future research could enhance the contribution to the literature by incorporating additional databases such as Scopus, PubMed, EconLit or EBSCO. Scholars may also replicate the study within a single journal\u0026mdash;for instance, \u003cem\u003eBusiness History Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEnterprise and Society\u003c/em\u003e, or \u003cem\u003eEconomic History Review\u003c/em\u003e. Research can also extend the methodology to more specialized fields such as accounting history, marketing history, or banking history.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, these findings portray entrepreneurship history as a coherent, increasingly institutionalized, and intellectually vibrant field. At the same time, the limited number of contributing countries and the concentration of influence in a small set of institutions and scholarly networks highlight opportunities for greater geographic and epistemic diversity. Future research may build on these patterns by expanding empirical attention to underrepresented regions, employing new digital and computational methods, and further integrating historical analysis with contemporary theories of entrepreneurship, organizations, and institutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was conducted in full compliance with ethical standards set by the relevant institutional and/or national ethics committees, in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments or equivalent ethical guidelines\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eG.D. developed the research idea and performed the bibliometric analyses. G.D., M.D.M., and M.A.T. jointly wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data used in this study were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection, which is a proprietary database. The dataset analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to Web of Science data-sharing restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAitken, H. G. (1965). \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurial research: The history of an intellectual innovation\u003c/em\u003e. In \u003cem\u003eExplorations in enterprise\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 3\u0026ndash;20). Harvard University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674594470.c1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4159/harvard.9780674594470.c1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAria, M., \u0026amp; Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Informetrics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 959\u0026ndash;975. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBayraktaroğlu, S. (2005). \u003cem\u003eGirişimcilik ders notları\u003c/em\u003e. T.C. Sakarya \u0026Uuml;niversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBermeo-Giraldo, M. C., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, D. M., L\u0026oacute;pez, G. A. M., \u0026amp; Zavala, L. R. (2023). Research trends in the area of business history: A bibliometric approach. \u003cem\u003eRevista CEA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(20), 1\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22430/24223182.2454\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22430/24223182.2454\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBozgeyik, A. (2005). \u003cem\u003eGirişimcilere yol haritası\u003c/em\u003e. Hayat Yayıncılık.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCassis, Y., \u0026amp; Minoglou, I. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship in theory and history: State of the art and new perspectives. In \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship in theory and history\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 3\u0026ndash;21). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522633_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/9780230522633_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCasson, M., \u0026amp; Casson, C. (2014). The history of entrepreneurship: Medieval origins of a modern phenomenon. \u003cem\u003eBusiness history\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1223\u0026ndash;1242.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChandy, R. K., \u0026amp; Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent\u0026rsquo;s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.1.18033\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1509/jmkg.64.3.1.18033\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDefourny, J., \u0026amp; Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442053\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/19420670903442053\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemirez, M., \u0026amp; Cebeci, R. (2005). T\u0026uuml;rkiye\u0026rsquo;de girişimciliğin tarih\u0026ccedil;esi ve girişimcilerin sosyolojik profili. \u003cem\u003eKOSGEB GGM Ulusal Girişimcilik Raporu\u003c/em\u003e. B\u0026ouml;l\u0026uuml;m II. KOSGEB.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDewi, D. H. (2024). The evolution of entrepreneurship: A comparative study of perspectives past, present, and future. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Advanced Technology and Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 515\u0026ndash;524. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.59890/ijatss.v2i4.1636\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.59890/ijatss.v2i4.1636\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiMaggio, P. J., \u0026amp; Powell, W. W. (2000). \u003cem\u003eThe iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields\u003c/em\u003e. In J. A. C. Baum \u0026amp; F. Dobbin (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eEconomics meets sociology in strategic management\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 143\u0026ndash;166). Emerald Group Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eInstitutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 3\u0026ndash;22). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDurmuş, G. (2025). Girişimci liderlik. In K. Eryeşil \u0026amp; A. Aslan (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eGirişimcilikte \u0026ccedil;eşitlilik ve d\u0026ouml;n\u0026uuml;ş\u0026uuml;m: Kurumsal, sosyal, k\u0026uuml;lt\u0026uuml;rel ve teknolojik yaklaşımlar\u003c/em\u003e. \u0026Ouml;zg\u0026uuml;r Yayınları. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.58830/ozgur.pub859.c3463\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.58830/ozgur.pub859.c3463\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDurukan, T. (2006). D\u0026uuml;nden bug\u0026uuml;ne girişimcilik ve 21. y\u0026uuml;zyılda girişimciliğin \u0026ouml;nemi. \u003cem\u003eGirişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 25\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 532\u0026ndash;550. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/258557\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/258557\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlinyanova, M., Bouncken, R. B., Tiberius, V., \u0026amp; Cuenca Ballester, A. C. (2021). Five decades of corporate entrepreneurship research: Measuring and mapping the field. \u003cem\u003eInternational Entrepreneurship and Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1731\u0026ndash;1757. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00711-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11365-020-00711-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenwood, R., \u0026amp; Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785498\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785498\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreve, A., \u0026amp; Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00029\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1540-8520.00029\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGursoy, D., Altinay, L., \u0026amp; Kenebayeva, A. (2017). Religiosity and entrepreneurship behaviours. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Hospitality Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e, 87\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.08.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.08.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eH\u0026eacute;bert, R. F., \u0026amp; Link, A. N. (2009). \u003cem\u003eA history of entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203877326\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780203877326\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenrekson, M., Johansson, D., \u0026amp; Karlsson, J. (2024). To be or not to be: The entrepreneur in Neo-Schumpeterian growth theory. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(1), 104\u0026ndash;140. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221141679\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/10422587221141679\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHull, A., \u0026amp; Scott, P. (2020). The \u0026lsquo;value\u0026rsquo; of business archives: Assessing the academic importance of corporate archival collections. \u003cem\u003eManagement \u0026amp; Organizational History\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2020.1769676\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17449359.2020.1769676\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHytti, U. (2005). New meanings for entrepreneurs: from risk-taking heroes to safe‐seeking professionals. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Change Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(6), 594\u0026ndash;611.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones, G., \u0026amp; Wadhwani, R. D. (2006). Entrepreneurship and business history: Renewing the research agenda. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Business School Working Knowledge for Business Leaders Working Papers, 7\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKatz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876\u0026ndash;1999. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e, 283\u0026ndash;300. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00098-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00098-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeskin, N. (2020). İşletme tarihinde bir araştırma alanı olarak girişimcilik kavramı: K\u0026ouml;kenleri, evrimi, k\u0026uuml;lt\u0026uuml;r ve değerler \u0026uuml;zerindeki etkisine y\u0026ouml;nelik bir değerlendirme. \u003cem\u003eAdam Academy\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.728397\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31679/adamakademi.728397\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, J. Y., \u0026amp; Park, M. J. (2021). Investigation of critical factors on corporate entrepreneurship: Rethinking the organization culture. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLamberg, J. A., Ojala, J., \u0026amp; Gustafsson, J. P. (2022). Strategy and business history rejoined: How and why strategic management concepts took over business history. \u003cem\u003eBusiness History\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1011\u0026ndash;1039. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2020.1856076\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00076791.2020.1856076\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLandstr\u0026ouml;m, H. (2020). \u003cem\u003eA history of entrepreneurship research\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLandstr\u0026ouml;m, H., \u0026amp; Benner, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship research: A history of scholarly migration. \u003cem\u003eHistorical foundations of entrepreneurship research\u003c/em\u003e. Edward Elgar.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., \u0026amp; King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 333\u0026ndash;363. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2393200\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/2393200\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaitlis, S., \u0026amp; Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 57\u0026ndash;125. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.873177\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/19416520.2014.873177\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaqueda Lafuente, F. J., Lafuente, G., Guzman-Parra, A. M., V. F., \u0026amp; Lafuente, G., J (2013). Key factors for entrepreneurial success. \u003cem\u003eManagement Decision\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1932\u0026ndash;1944. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2013-0201\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/MD-04-2013-0201\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. \u003cem\u003eSmall Business Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 355\u0026ndash;362. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9035-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11187-006-9035-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2021). OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/97a5bbfe-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/97a5bbfe-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., \u0026amp; Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. \u003cem\u003eResearch Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(7), 994\u0026ndash;1009. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrince, S., Chapman, S., \u0026amp; Cassey, P. (2021). The definition of entrepreneurship: Is it less complex than we think? \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior \u0026amp; Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(9), 26\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2019-0634\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJEBR-11-2019-0634\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., \u0026amp; Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 65\u0026ndash;171. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiviezzo, A., Skippari, M., \u0026amp; Garofano, A. (2015). Who wants to live forever: Exploring 30 years of research on business longevity. \u003cem\u003eBusiness History\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(7), 970\u0026ndash;987. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2014.993617\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00076791.2014.993617\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSass, S. A. (1986). \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurial historians and history: Leadership and rationality in American economic historiography, 1940\u0026ndash;1960\u003c/em\u003e. Garland.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchot, J., \u0026amp; Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R\u0026amp;D, systems of innovation and transformative change. \u003cem\u003eResearch Policy\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchumpeter, J. A. (1983). \u003cem\u003eİktisadi kalkınmanın teorisi\u003c/em\u003e (F. Yıldırım \u0026amp; O. Aydoğuş, Trans.). İstanbul Bilgi \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Yayınları. (Original work published 1934).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeyhan, M., Durmuş, G., Yaşar Uğurlu, \u0026Ouml;., \u0026amp; Bayar, Y. (2024). İşletme tarihi \u0026uuml;zerine bibliyometrik bir \u0026ccedil;alışma: 1991\u0026ndash;2023. \u003cem\u003eHitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 243\u0026ndash;258. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17218/hititsbd.1438419\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17218/hititsbd.1438419\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShane, S., \u0026amp; Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. \u003cem\u003eManagement Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(1), 154\u0026ndash;170. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.154.14280\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1287/mnsc.48.1.154.14280\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShane, S., \u0026amp; Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 217\u0026ndash;226. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/259271\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/259271\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSnyder, T. (Ed.). (2010). \u003cem\u003eA guide to business archives for researchers\u003c/em\u003e. German Historical Institute. Reference Guide No. 25\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/reference-guides/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/reference-guides/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTekin, M., \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;i\u0026ccedil;ek, E. (2002). Bilgi \u0026ccedil;ağında bilgi toplumu ve bilgi ekonomisi. In \u003cem\u003e1. Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Y\u0026ouml;netim Kongresi\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 10\u0026ndash;11).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThurik, A. R., Audretsch, D. B., Block, J. H., Burke, A., Carree, M. A., Dejardin, M., Rietveld, C. A., Sanders, M., Stephan, U., \u0026amp; Wiklund, J. (2023). The impact of entrepreneurship research on other academic fields. \u003cem\u003eSmall Business Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(3), 727\u0026ndash;751. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00781-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11187-023-00781-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeber, M. (1999). \u003cem\u003eProtestan ahlakı ve kapitalizmin ruhu\u003c/em\u003e (Z. G\u0026uuml;rata, Trans.). Ayra\u0026ccedil; Yayınları. (Original work published 1905).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWelter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and ways forward. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 165\u0026ndash;184. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWennekers, S., \u0026amp; Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. \u003cem\u003eSmall Business Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 27\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008063200484\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1008063200484\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu, Z., Wang, X., Wang, X., \u0026amp; Skare, M. (2021). A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of entrepreneurship and crisis literature published from 1984 to 2020. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e135\u003c/em\u003e, 304\u0026ndash;318. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.051\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.051\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-global-entrepreneurship-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research](https://link.springer.com/journal/40497)","snPcode":"40497","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40497/3","title":"Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship History, Business History, Bibliometrics, Web of Science","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8447641/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8447641/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides a bibliometric overview of the last fifty years of entrepreneurship history, focusing on the Web of Science, a leading scholarly database. Its primary objective is to delineate the field’s structure and uncover its social, intellectual, and conceptual foundations. A total of 1,912 publications from 1980 to the present were analyzed using VOSviewer and the R Bibliometrix package. The study employed co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, co-citation, keyword, and thematic evolution analyses. Findings reveal that the field is dominated by SSCI-indexed journal articles, with Business History contributing most prominently. The year 2020 marks the peak of research productivity, and the literature has grown at an average annual rate of 5%. Core keywords include entrepreneurship, history, and entrepreneurialism, while recent research shows increasing attention to social entrepreneurship and Italy. Thematic evolution demonstrates a shift from foundational concepts such as management and models, through education and identity, to entrepreneurship and performance, and most recently toward innovation and gender. Overall, the study highlights the field’s maturity, the centrality of foundational concepts, and the dynamic evolution of research themes, providing a comprehensive roadmap for future scholarship in entrepreneurship history.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJEL Classification: \u003c/strong\u003eL26, M13, N80, B30\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Mapping the Last Five Decades of Entrepreneurship History Research: A Web of Science Analysis","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-19 12:13:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8447641/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-23T08:55:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"208617247523315187401623828015556456357","date":"2026-01-17T07:42:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-15T00:13:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-06T10:19:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-06T10:16:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research","date":"2025-12-25T08:23:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-global-entrepreneurship-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research](https://link.springer.com/journal/40497)","snPcode":"40497","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40497/3","title":"Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"31c5bca6-14b3-471c-a910-24031e05f92c","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-19T12:13:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-19 12:13:33","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8447641","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8447641","identity":"rs-8447641","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}