This article provides a panoramic view of the research undertaken so far in the field of digital natives to highlight important trends, examine the intellectual structure and provide recommendations for future research. The study uses 983 publications from the Scopus database to analyse the productivity, impact and research performance of nations, journals, authors and institutions using indicators such as impact factor, h-index and citation counts. This review study uses bibliometric and science mapping analysis to assess the most recent developments and trends in ‘digital native’ research. VOSviewer is used to conduct keyword network analysis, co-authorship analysis and reference co-citation analysis, followed by SciMAT analysis to provide an evolution map and a cluster of themes. The analysis identified key contributors to the field, high-impact papers and geographic areas where field research is concentrated. The main research gaps were then identified, indicating future research avenues. The findings of this study will provide fresh higher-level insights into the developing field of digital native research for educators, computing executives, business managers and research scholars. Such information would be useful in establishing digital native recruitment tactics by the respective industry. The research will also aid in the development of policies for digital natives.
AmanA., RafiqM.DastaneO., & SabirA. A. (2022). Green corridor: A critical perspective and development of research agenda. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.982473
2.
AmeenN., TarhiniA., ShahM., & HosanyS. (2020). Consumer interaction with cutting-edge technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(1), 37–51.
3.
BakoM. (2018). Different leadership style choices, different generations. Prizren Social Science Journal, 2(2), 127–143.
4.
BarlowD. P. (1995). Gametic imprinting in mammals. Science, 270(5242), 1610–1613.
5.
BennettS., MatonK., & KervinL. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
6.
BhattacharyyaJ., & DashM. K. (2021). What do we know about customer churn behaviour in the telecommunication industry? A bibliometric analysis of research trends, 1985–2019. FIIB Business Review. 10.1177/23197145211062687
7.
BrännbackM., NikouS., & BouwmanH. (2017). Value systems and intentions to interact in social media: The digital natives. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 365–381.
8.
BroadusR. N. (1987). Toward a definition of ‘bibliometrics’. Scientometrics, 12(5), 373–379.
9.
ChamberlainL. (2018). Gen-Z will account for 40 percent of all consumers by 2020. https://geomarketing.com/gen-z-will-account-for-40-percent-of-all-consumers-by-2020.
10.
ChildersC., & BoatwrightB. (2021). Do digital natives recognize digital influence? Generational differences and understanding of social media influencers. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 42(4), 425–442.
11.
DeasA. (2019). Mapping antecedents of the psychological contract for digital natives: A review and future research agenda. In Thriving in digital workspaces (pp. 237–252). 10.1007/978-3-030-24463-7_12
12.
DimockM. (2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and Generation Z begins. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-endand-generation-z-begins/
FedorkoR., SkerhakovaV., MarkovaS., BacikR., & FejercakL. (2021). Differences in the perceived financial risk factors between digital natives in the e-commerce. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 137–152. 10.21272/mmi.2021.4-11
15.
Gaviria-MarinM., MerigóJ. M., & Baier-FuentesH. (2019). Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 194–220.
16.
GentinaE. (2020). ‘Generation Z in Asia: A research agenda’. In GentinaE. & ParryE. (Eds.), The new Generation Z in Asia: Dynamics, differences, digitalisation (the changing context of managing people) (pp. 3–19). Emerald Publishing. 10.1108/978-1-80043-220-820201002
17.
GuD., LiJ., LiX., & LiangC. (2017). Visualizing the knowledge structure and evolution of big data research in healthcare informatics. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 98, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.11.006
18.
GunawanJ., MarzilliC., & AungsurochY. (2022). Sustaining e-caring leadership in a post-pandemic world. Belitung Nursing Journal, 8(1), 1–3.
19.
HarmsB., BijmoltT. H., & HoekstraJ. C. (2019). You don’t fool me! Consumer perceptions of digital native advertising and banner advertising. Journal of Media Business Studies, 16(4), 275–294.
20.
HoweN., & StraussW. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. Vintage.
21.
JonesChris, & HealingG. (2010). Net generation students: Agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344–356.
22.
KennedyG. E., JuddT. S., ChurchwardA., GrayK., & KrauseK. L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1). 10.14742/ajet.1233
23.
KerawallaL., & CrookC. (2002). Children’s computer use at home and at school: Context and continuity. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 751–771.
24.
KesharwaniA. (2020). Do (how) digital natives adopt a new technology differently than digital immigrants? A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 57(2). 10.1016/j.im.2019.103170
25.
KobulM. K. (2022). Socioeconomic status influences Turkish digital natives’ internet use habitus. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–19. 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2034970
26.
KushwahaB. P. (2021). Paradigm shift in traditional lifestyle to digital lifestyle in Gen Z: A conception of consumer behaviour in the virtual business world. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 17(4), 305–320.
27.
KumarV., RamachandranD., & KumarB. (2021). Influence of new-age technologies on marketing: A research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 125, 864–877.
28.
KwiatekP., PapakonstantinidisS., & BaltezarevicR. (2021). Digital natives’ entrepreneurial mindset: A comparative study in emerging markets. In The Emerald Handbook of Women and Entrepreneurship in Developing Economies (pp. 295–315). Emerald Publishing.
29.
LiH., WangH., HuangY., & GaoJ. (2016). Evolutionary features of academic articles co-keyword network and keywords co-occurrence network: Based on two-mode affiliation network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 450(10), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.01.017
30.
LimW. M., GuptaS., AggarwalA., PaulJ., & SadhnaP. (2021). How do digital natives perceive and react toward online advertising? Implications for SMEs. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1–35. 10.1080/0965254X.2021.1941204
31.
LivingstoneS., & HelsperE. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696.
32.
MainiR., SehgalS., & AgrawalG. (2021). Todays’ digital natives: An exploratory study on students’ engagement and satisfaction towards virtual classes amid COVID-19 pandemic. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38(5), 454–472.
33.
MatthewsK. (2016). Students as partners as the future of student engagement. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 1(1). https://sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/380
34.
MatsonM. (2016). Marketing fraternity/sorority to Generation Z. Innova Marketing. Retrieved March8, 2022, from https://inovagreek.com/?p=1728
35.
OliverB., & GoerkeV. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the net generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2). 10.14742/ajet.1263
36.
PalfreyJ., & GasserU. (2008). Opening universities in a digital era. New England Journal of Higher Education, 23(1), 22–24.
37.
PapertS. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Agents of change. The Washington Post Education Review, 27. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1996/10/27/computers-in-the-classroom/bf761bfd-de59-4b4b-86b4-91a8aea9a731/
38.
Perianes-RodriguezA., WaltmanL., & Van EckN. J. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1178–1195.
39.
PrenskyM. (2001). The games generations: How learners have changed. Digital Game-Based Learning, 1(1), 1–26.
40.
PriporasC. V., StylosN., & FotiadisA. K. (2017). Generation Z consumers’ expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 374–381.
41.
RanaS. (2021). Digitalization as a vehicle to balance new vs old practices of consumers and organizations. FIIB Business Review, 10(3), 193–195.
42.
SeemillerC., & GraceM. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. John Wiley & Sons.
43.
SelwynN. (2003). Apart from technology: Understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society, 25(1), 99–116.
44.
SmithE. (2012). The Digital native debate in higher education: A comparative analysis of recent literature/Le débat sur les natifs du numérique dans l’enseignement supérieur: une analyse comparative de la littérature récente. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(3). 10.21432/T2F302
45.
TapscottD. (1999). Educating the net generation. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 6–11.
46.
ThiteM. (2022). Digital human resource development: Where are we? Where should we go and how do we go there?Human Resource Development International, 25(1), 87–103.
47.
United Nations. (2020). The sustainable development goals. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved March 21 2022.
48.
Van EckN., & WaltmanL. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
49.
VeloutsouC., & MafeC. R. (2020). Brands as relationship builders in the virtual world: A bibliometric analysis. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 39. https://e-tarjome.com/storage/panel/fileuploads/2020-02-03/1580718466_E14302-e-tarjome.pdf
50.
WilliamsR. J., VolbergR. A., & StevensR. M. (2012). The population prevalence of problem gambling: Methodological influences, standardized rates, jurisdictional differences, and worldwide trends. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
51.
ZanjirchiS. M., JalilianN., & MehrjardiM. S. (2019). Open innovation: From technology exploitation to creation of superior performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 326–340.
