A. Zen, C. A. F. D. Santos, Diego Alex Gazaro dos Santos, Juliana Ribeiro da Rosa, Everson dos Santos Spindler
{"title":"Exploring the theoretical foundations of innovation ecosystems between 2006 and 2020: an analysis at the different approaches","authors":"A. Zen, C. A. F. D. Santos, Diego Alex Gazaro dos Santos, Juliana Ribeiro da Rosa, Everson dos Santos Spindler","doi":"10.1108/ijis-11-2022-0223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to map and assess the conceptual development of the innovation ecosystem literature.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA bibliometric analysis was performed using the VOSviewer, RStudio software, Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny packages. To accomplish this, 367 publications published between 2006 and 2020 and indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases were assessed.\n\n\nFindings\nThe results demonstrate a rise in research during 2016, with almost 30% of publications concentrated in only six journals. The co-citation analysis presented four clusters: case studies, business and innovation ecosystems (platform approach), open innovation and national and regional innovation systems (territorial approach). We proposed a theoretical framework based on two approaches in the innovation ecosystem literature based on co-citation analysis: platform, which has its roots in the literature on strategy, and territory, grounded in research on economic geography literature.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nOne of the limitations of the study is that only articles published in journals were analyzed, leaving out of the sample those published in congresses, books and other sources.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper contributes to the literature by presenting and clarifying the different conceptual trajectories of research in innovation ecosystems. We also proposed an analytical framework based on the two main approaches to innovation ecosystems – platform and territory. This framework presents the critical elements of managing innovation ecosystems from both perspectives.\n","PeriodicalId":44643,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Innovation Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Innovation Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijis-11-2022-0223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to map and assess the conceptual development of the innovation ecosystem literature.
Design/methodology/approach
A bibliometric analysis was performed using the VOSviewer, RStudio software, Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny packages. To accomplish this, 367 publications published between 2006 and 2020 and indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases were assessed.
Findings
The results demonstrate a rise in research during 2016, with almost 30% of publications concentrated in only six journals. The co-citation analysis presented four clusters: case studies, business and innovation ecosystems (platform approach), open innovation and national and regional innovation systems (territorial approach). We proposed a theoretical framework based on two approaches in the innovation ecosystem literature based on co-citation analysis: platform, which has its roots in the literature on strategy, and territory, grounded in research on economic geography literature.
Research limitations/implications
One of the limitations of the study is that only articles published in journals were analyzed, leaving out of the sample those published in congresses, books and other sources.
Originality/value
This paper contributes to the literature by presenting and clarifying the different conceptual trajectories of research in innovation ecosystems. We also proposed an analytical framework based on the two main approaches to innovation ecosystems – platform and territory. This framework presents the critical elements of managing innovation ecosystems from both perspectives.
目的对创新生态系统相关文献的概念发展进行梳理和评价。使用VOSviewer、RStudio软件、Bibliometrix和Biblioshiny软件包进行文献计量学分析。为了实现这一目标,研究人员对2006年至2020年间发表的367篇论文进行了评估,这些论文被Web of Science和Scopus数据库收录。研究结果表明,2016年的研究有所增加,近30%的出版物集中在6个期刊上。共被引分析分为四个集群:案例研究、商业和创新生态系统(平台方法)、开放式创新和国家和区域创新系统(地域方法)。基于共被引分析的创新生态系统文献中的两种方法:基于战略文献的平台和基于经济地理文献研究的领土,我们提出了一个理论框架。研究的局限性/影响本研究的局限性之一是只分析了发表在期刊上的文章,而没有分析那些发表在大会、书籍和其他来源上的文章。原创性/价值本文通过提出和澄清创新生态系统研究的不同概念轨迹,对文献有所贡献。我们还提出了一个基于创新生态系统的两种主要方法——平台和领域的分析框架。该框架从两个角度展示了管理创新生态系统的关键要素。
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Innovation Science publishes fundamental and applied research in innovation practices. As the official journal of the International Association of Innovation Professionals (IAOIP), the journal is a forum for the exchange of advanced knowledge in innovation, including emerging technologies and best practices, tools and techniques, metrics, and organization design and culture; as well as the stakeholder engagement, change management, and leadership skills required to ensure innovation succeeds. Areas of Coverage: -Innovation processes, methods, techniques- Individual''s role in Innovation- Improvements in HR, marketing, finance, or other disciplines that enable innovation- Innovation practices in specific industries or countries- Innovation centers, incubators, labs...- Regional or national economic development/policies related to innovation- Innovation competency, skills- Innovation conventions, competitions, or training- Innovation for entrepreneurs-Regional impacts on innovation- Growing innovationthrough university programs- Attracting innovative companies and entrepreneurs