Reviews have a critical role in knowledge accumulation in entrepreneurship. Good reviews do not just summarize the literature but provide unique contributions on theory testing, theory development, the identification of research gaps, and suggestions for future research. This editorial discusses different forms for reviews, their strengths and weaknesses, and how they best contribute to the field.
AguinisH.DaltonD. R.BoscoF. A.PierceC. A.DaltonC. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management, 37(1), 5–38.doi:10.1177/0149206310377113
2.
Andrade-ValbuenaN. A.Merigo-LindahlJ. M.Olavarrieta S.S. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of entrepreneurial orientation. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 15(1), 45–69.doi:10.1108/WJEMSD-08-2017-0048
3.
ÅstebroT.ChenJ. (2014). The entrepreneurial earnings puzzle: Mismeasurement or real?Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 88–105.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.04.003
4.
BaeT. J.QianS.MiaoC.FietJ. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.doi:10.1111/etap.12095
5.
BaronR. A.MarkmanG. D. (2004). Toward a process view of entrepreneurship: The changing impact of individual-level variables across phases of new firm development. InRahimM. A.GolembiewskiR. T.MackenzieK. D. (Eds.), Current Topics in Management (Vol. 9, pp.44–64). New Brunswick and NY: Transaction Publishers.
6.
BassB. M.AvolioB. J.GoodheimL. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world-class level. Journal of Management, 13(1), 7–19.doi:10.1177/014920638701300102
7.
BosmaN. (2013). The global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 143–248.doi:10.1561/0300000033
8.
BrinckmannJ.GrichnikD.KapsaD. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning–performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1), 24–40.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.007
9.
BrinerR. B.DenyerD. (2012). Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and Scholarship Tool the Oxford Handbook of Evidence Based Management. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.
CacciottiG.HaytonJ. C. (2015). Fear and entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 165–190.doi:10.1111/ijmr.12052
11.
CarterS. (2011). The rewards of entrepreneurship: Exploring the incomes, wealth, and economic well–being of entrepreneurial households. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 39–55.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00422.x
12.
CrayneM. P.HunterS. T. (2017). Historiometry in organizational science: Renewed attention for an established research method. Organizational Research Methods, 21(1), 6–29.
13.
De BakkerF. G. A.GroenewegenP.Den HondF. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283–317.doi:10.1177/0007650305278086
14.
DenyerD.TranfieldD. (2006). Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213–227.doi:10.1108/00251740610650201
Dixon-WoodsM.AgarwalS.YoungB.JonesD.SuttonA. (2004). Integrative Approaches to Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence. London: Health Development Agency.
17.
DuchekS. (2018). Entrepreneurial resilience: A biographical analysis of successful entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 429–455.doi:10.1007/s11365-017-0467-2
18.
GarfieldE.Welljams-DorofA. (1992). Citation data: Their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluation and policy-making. Science and Public Policy, 19(5), 321–327.
19.
HabersangS.Küberling‐JostJ.ReihlenM.SecklerC. (2019). A process perspective on organizational failure: A qualitative Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 19–56.doi:10.1111/joms.12341
20.
HeinzA. J.FreemanM. A.Harpaz-RotemI.PietrzakR. H. (2017). American military veteran entrepreneurs: A comprehensive profile of demographic, service history, and psychosocial characteristics. Military Psychology, 29(6), 513–523.doi:10.1037/mil0000195
21.
HoonC. (2013). Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 522–556.
22.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods for Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park and CA: Sage.
23.
KaminskiJ. C.HoppC. (2019). Predicting outcomes in crowdfunding campaigns with textual, visual, and linguistic signals. Small Business Economics, 39(4).doi:10.1007/s11187-019-00218-w
24.
LampeJ.KraftP. S.BauschA. (2019). Mapping the field of research on entrepreneurial organizations (1937–2016): A bibliometric analysis and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(1), 104225871985121.doi:10.1177/1042258719851217
25.
MartinB. C.McNallyJ. J.KayM. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002
26.
MillerD.FriesenP. H. (1977). Strategy-making in context: Ten empirical archetypes. Journal of Management Studies, 14(3), 253–280.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1977.tb00365.x
27.
MintzbergH.RaisinghaniD.ThéorêtA. (1976). The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246–275.doi:10.2307/2392045
NewmanA.ObschonkaM.SchwarzS.CohenM.NielsenI. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403–419.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012
30.
NicksonD. (1997). Research: “Colorful stories” or historical insight? – A review of the auto/biographies of Charles Forte, Conrad Hilton, J.W. Marriott and Kemmons Wilson. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 179–192.doi:10.1177/109634809702100112
31.
O’Mara-EvesA.ThomasJ.McNaughtJ.MiwaM.AnaniadouS. (2015). Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: A systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 5.doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-5
32.
PandeyS.PandeyS. K. (2019). Applying natural language processing capabilities in computerized textual analysis to measure organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 765–797.doi:10.1177/1094428117745648
33.
PatersonB. L. (2012). It looks great but how do I know if it fits?”: An introduction to meta-synthesis research. InHannesK.LockwoodC. (Eds.), Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
34.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P.BachrachD. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641–720.doi:10.1177/0149206308319533
35.
RauchA.FreseM. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385.doi:10.1080/13594320701595438
36.
RauchA.FreseM. (2006). Meta-analysis as a tool for developing entrepreneurship research and theory. InWiklundJ.DimovD. P.KatzJ. A.ShepherdD. (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth (Vol. 9, pp.29–52). London: Elsevier.
37.
RauchA.van DoornR.HulsinkW. (2014). A qualitative approach to evidence-based entrepreneurship: Theoretical considerations and an example involving business clusters. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 333–368.doi:10.1111/etap.12093
38.
RauchA.WiklundJ.LumpkinG. T.FreseM. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: Cumulative empirical evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–788.
39.
ReveleyJ. (2010). Using autobiographies in business history: A narratological analysis of Jules Joubert's shavings and scrapers. Australian Economic History Review, 50(3), 284–305.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8446.2010.00306.x
40.
SaeedS.YousafzaiS. Y.EngelenA. (2014). On cultural and macroeconomic contingencies of the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 255–290.doi:10.1111/etap.12097
41.
SchlaegelC.KoenigM. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 291–332.doi:10.1111/etap.12087
42.
SchmidtF. L. (2017). Statistical and measurement pitfalls in the use of meta-regression in meta-analysis. Career Development International, 22(5), 469–476.doi:10.1108/CDI-08-2017-0136
43.
SchoenbergerE. (2001). Corporate autobiographies: The narrative strategies of corporate strategists. Journal of Economic Geography, 1(3), 277–298.doi:10.1093/jeg/1.3.277
44.
ShepherdD. A.WennbergK.SuddabyR.WiklundJ. (2019). What are we explaining? A review and agenda on initiating, engaging, performing, and contextualizing entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 45(1), 159–196.doi:10.1177/0149206318799443
45.
ShortJ. C.BrobergJ. C.CogliserC. C.BrighamK. H. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA): An illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347.
46.
SimontonD. K. (1977). Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(11), 791–804.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.11.791
47.
SmethR. (2005). The fabrication of entrepreneurial fable: A biographical analysis. The Journal of Private Equity, 8(4), 8–19.
48.
StephanU. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(3), 290–322.doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0001
TedeschiR. G.CalhounL. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01
51.
TranfieldD.DenyerD.SmartP. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375
52.
UngerJ. M.RauchA.FreseM.RosenbuschN. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341–358.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.004
53.
VilletteM.VuillermotC. (2009). From Predators to Icons: Exposing the Myth of the Business Hero. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
54.
ViswesvaranC.OnesD. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 865–885.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x
55.
von BlohJ.BroekelT.ÖzgunB.SternbergR. (2019). New(s) data for entrepreneurship research? An innovative approach to use Big Data on media coverage. Small Business Economics, 25(3).doi:10.1007/s11187-019-00209-x
56.
WelterF. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship - Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35(1), 165–184.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
57.
XiJ.KrausS.FilserM.KellermannsF. W. (2015). Mapping the field of family business research: Past trends and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 113–132.doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0286-z
58.
ZahraS. A.SapienzaH. J.DavidssonP. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x
