Citation Download PDF

International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration

Volume 10, Issue 6, September 2024, Pages 7-18

Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Europe: Insights from a Bibliometric Analysis

DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.106.1001
URL: https://doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.106.1001 

¹ Gentian Hoxhalli, ² Gentjan Ulaj, ³ Vehap Kola

¹ Luarasi University/Armed Forces Academy, Tirana, Albania,

² Luarasi University/ Istanbul University, Tirana, Albania/ Istanbul, Turkey

³ University of New York Tirana, Tirana, Albania

Abstract: Immigrant entrepreneurs and their activities have received constantly increasing attention from academics and policymakers. While immigrant entrepreneurship is not new as an activity, with the globalization and development of technology, this field is at a different level, becoming one of the most popular avenues in entrepreneurship literature and playing a significant role in the economy, especially in a context like Europe. However, among emerging research attention, this field is becoming more diverse, complex, and confusing. Thus, literature reviews in this field are becoming critical to the overview of the field.Our study aims to provide an overview of academic research on Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Europe.  An extensive bibliometric analysis was conducted to complete this, including bibliometric performance and graphic mapping of academic contribution in this field.  A comprehensive performance analysis was carried out to pinpoint key authors, institutions, journals, and countries that are leading in shaping the landscape of research and development in this field. Furthermore, we use VOS viewer and R Biblioshiny software to graphically map the field. We do this by applying author co-citation and co-word analysis. Our research contributes to immigrant entrepreneurship literature by providing a better understanding of the phenomena in Europe and, based on the outcomes, directions for future research in the field.

Keywords: Immigrant entrepreneurship, Bibliometric analysis, Science mapping, Europe

1. Introduction and Literature Review

Migrants are defined as individuals who choose to move to a different country for a long period, more than 12 months(Dabić, Vlačić et al. 2020). Immigration entrepreneurship encompasses the entrepreneurial activities undertaken by immigrants in host nations, which involve the identification, creation, and exploitation of possibilities. (Malerba and Ferreira 2020).

The number of these individuals is constantly growing, and we observe it from the difference between the year 2000, where we have 173 million emigrants, to 10 years later, with 220 million, and lastly, in 2019, almost 272 million migrants. These numbers keep growing mostly because of globalization.(Ramos-Escobar, García-Pérez-de-Lema et al. 2022).  Main reasons for immigration increase are context-depended, for example Australia and Canada attract immigrants to complete their labor needs, in EU researchers observed that this phenomena is widespread because of ageing population, and low fertility rates (Rialp-Criado, Rialp-Criado et al. 2015). The rise in immigrant migration has resulted in a more prominent display of entrepreneurial endeavors within this population. (Akin, Bostanci et al. 2017).

There is a general consensus in the literature among researchers that immigrant entrepreneurs play a critical role in the socio-economic development of nations(Malki, Uman et al. 2020, Duan, Sandhu et al. 2021).  Researchers have observed a high level of entrepreneurship attitude in immigrants; in the OECD and EU, almost 12% of immigrants own their businesses. Immigrants in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia engage in entrepreneurial activities more than native people (Kerr and Kerr 2020, Ramos-Escobar, García-Pérez-de-Lema et al. 2022). Their study says that almost 25-40% of enterprises created in the USA are created by immigrants, or at least one co-founder is an immigrant(Kerr and Kerr 2020).

The growth of immigrant entrepreneurs has attracted the attention of not only policymakers but also scholars from many disciplines. More specifically, immigrant entrepreneurship has attracted the attention of scholars from different fields, including economy, business, entrepreneurship, sociology, and psychology (Dana 2007, Dabić, Vlačić et al. 2020).

Researchers emphasize the transformation in the attributes and extent of engagement among immigrants, which is occurring alongside their growing numbers. In the 20th century, immigrants mostly committed to entrepreneurship as a necessary alternative to wage work. However, in the 21st century, the majority of immigrants have evolved into opportunity entrepreneurs, who introduce creative company ideas and products (Dheer 2018). (Brown, Earle et al. 2019) found that immigrant-owned enterprises outperform their native peers in the USA in innovative products and services.

Researchers have noted that immigrants face discrimination in labor markets, experience high levels of unemployment, and receive relatively poor income. These circumstances often drive them towards pursuing entrepreneurship. (Doerschler 2006). This becomes particularly evident during the first phase of immigration, when their knowledge and expertise acquired in their nation of origin hold little value. (Kerr and Kerr 2020). In their study (Duan, Kotey et al. 2023) found that blocked promotion in workplace leads immigrants to start businesses.

Additionally, there are reasons that motivate immigrants to establish enterprises. Firstly, immigrants are often perceived as being more likely to take risks compared to native people, given that they have willingly left their familiar safe environment in pursuit of a better life (Doerschler 2006).  An important part of immigration happens because these individuals seek opportunities and have the ability to deal with uncertainty and risk in different countries (Kerr and Kerr 2020). Education, family, and social networks increase the probability of entrepreneurship (Duan, Kotey et al. 2023) In their literature review (Duan and Sandhu 2022) concludes  that pull factors have more impact than push factors in immigrants to start a new venture.

Host-country environment can play an important role as a facilitator or obstacle for immigrants to pursue their business dreams. Institutional support, access to finance and markets, and infrastructure can play a positive role, on the other hand, cultural differences and institutional voids are negative(Duan, Kotey et al. 2023). Researchers also underline the role of the home country, confirming that immigrants from developed countries are more likely to engage in opportunity-driven entrepreneurship than their colleagues from developing countries (García-Cabrera, Lucía-Casademunt et al. 2020).

Immigrants have the opportunity to pursue several pathways in business, however two avenues are easily identifiable. An approach to immigrant entrepreneurship is the enclave strategy, which involves catering to the specific demands of their ethnic community. In addition, IE has a tendency to prioritize underdeveloped niche parts of the market(Shinnar and Zamantılı Nayır 2019). While these techniques may offer limited development potential, it is not always the case, since immigrants may effectively build their enterprises even in large markets by employing break-out strategies. (Basu 2011).

Europe is well recognized as a significant center for international migration, with much study conducted on immigrant entrepreneurship and fragmentation (Dabić, Vlačić et al. 2020). In this study, our objective is to provide an overview of the academic contribution to immigrant entrepreneurship in Europe, considering the significance of these occurrences. (Shinnar and Zamantılı Nayır 2019, Duan and Sandhu 2022). This is crucial because the majority of studies in this particular topic have been conducted in Europe.  In literature there are some papers focused in Europe (Bilir, Güngör et al. 2020), but at the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that approach immigrant entrepreneurship in this way.

In this paper we amin to give an answer to following research questions:

1-What is the annual scientific production in immigrant entrepreneurship topic in Europe?

2-Which are leading authors, institutions, and countries in this topic?

3-What is the intellectual structure of immigrant entrepreneurship in Europe

4-Which word and sub-topics are most researched in Europe?

5-What are the recent trends in immigrant entrepreneurship?

The structure of this paper is as follows. In the next section, we outline the method we employed to carry out the study. The third part of our study is devoted to presenting the results, while the fourth section provides a summary of our conclusions. The final part outlines the constraints and provides suggestions for further study.

2. Methodology

Bibliometric approach involves the utilization of quantitative tools, such as citation analysis, on bibliometric data, including citations and authors. (Broadus 1987). Meta-analysis and bibliometric analysis have a quantitative aspect, which can lead to confusion among researchers. However, their fundamental distinction lies in their purpose: meta-analysis aims to summarize results in a specific subject, whereas bibliometric analysis is employed to map the intellectual structure.(Combs, Ketchen et al. 2011). The rising popularity of publications incorporating bibliometrics can be attributed to two primary factors. The growing number of publications that include bibliometrics can be linked to two main causes. To begin with, the rapid and significant increase in the amount of data that is accessible allows for the comprehensive and detailed mapping of many academic disciplines. Furthermore, a variety of software tools enhances the analytical process, rendering it more accessible and efficient(Donthu, Kumar et al. 2021, Öztürk, Kocaman et al. 2024). Bibliometric approaches may be categorized into two primary streams: performance analysis and scientific mapping. The primary goal of performance analysis is to assess the performance of countries, organizations, and writers in a particular field (Zupic and Čater 2015), while science mapping is widely used to inform about the dynamics and social structure of a research stream(Van Eck and Waltman 2010). In their recent review that (Zupic and Čater 2015) conducted aiming to find most used bibliometric analysis in management research, they found that most preferred bibliometric analysis is co-citation analysis.

In this paper we strictly follow the recommendations of (Donthu, Kumar et al. 2021) to design the bibliometric analysis procedure in four steps. In the first step, we define the aim and scope of the study. Our aim is to evaluate the current state of research in immigrant entrepreneurship field in Europe. We also aim to discover the intellectual structure of the field and also identify the current research trends.

The second step (Donthu, Kumar et al. 2021) is to choose the techniques that we will apply in our study. We started by applying performance analysis of the field including most relevant authors, most important institutions, publications over time and similar measures used previously in other studies(García-Lillo, Claver-Cortés et al. 2017, Mukherjee, Kumar et al. 2022). Then we identified trend topics in the field and later we perform a co-word analysis to identify the themes researched and co-citation analysis to map the intellectual structure of the immigrant entrepreneurship in Europe(Nerur, Rasheed et al. 2008).

The next step is to collect data from Scoups database and selecting articles. Scospus and Web of Science are main databases used in social science  bibliometric research (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017, Öztürk, Kocaman et al. 2024), but we select database from Scopus considering it more suitable to map small research areas consistent with previous research(Bilir, Güngör et al. 2020, Bretas and Alon 2021). We searched in the Title, Abstract or Keyword section for words like: ‘migrant’ OR ‘diaspora’ OR ‘ethnic’ OR ‘minority’ OR ‘disadvantage’ AND ‘entrepreneur’ OR ‘self-employment’ and found 4549 documents. Then, we limit our sample to Business, Management and Accounting, and the English Language. Later, we filter the document type to Article, and in the country section, we select European countries similar to (Bilir, Güngör et al. 2020) leaving us with 620 documents, a suitable number to conduct a bibliometric analysis (Bilir, Güngör et al. 2020).

The final step of the procedure is to conduct an analysis and present the findings. To do so, we use different tools that facilitate analysis, such as WOviewer(Van Eck and Waltman 2010) and bibliometrix with the R package (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017).

3. Results

3.1. General Results

The publication of papers in Europe about immigrant entrepreneurs began in 1964. Since then, a total of 620 documents have been found and evaluated up to 2022. The mean citation count per document is around 31, with an annual growth rate of 11.4%. This indicates that immigrant entrepreneurship is a rising subject in the literature.

Figure 1: Annual Scientific Production

Publications in Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Europe are growing constantly, but we observe that after the year 2000, the growth is more aggressive (Figure 1), especially after 2008. In 2020, we have a decline in yearly published academic work, probably from the COVID-19, uncertainty associated with it, and limitations in collecting data. Additionally, we have identified the most productive countries, and the UK is the leading country with 448 publications, followed by Sweden with 105, but a massive gap is present. The presence of big economies like Germany, Italy, and Spain is not surprising. The presence of USA which is not European country, in our results it is a confirmation of their dominance in the immigrant entrepreneurship literature(Duan, Kotey et al. 2023).

Table 1: Country Scientific Production

Ranking	Country	Number of publications
1	UK	448
2	SWEDEN	105
3	GERMANY	101
4	NETHERLANDS	101
5	ITALY	87
6	SPAIN	68
7	USA	67
8	FRANCE	45
9	DENMARK	41
10	POLAND	35

3.2. Leading Journals

Our comprehensive research reveals that there are a total of 620 articles distributed over 202 journals. The majority of these journals have published less than 10 papers. However, despite the relatively small amount of publications, their combined existence enhances the overall variety within the discipline. The International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research is the most prominent journal in our database, including 50 articles. It is followed by Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, which has 7.5% of the articles, and Small Business Economics, which has 7.54% of the articles. (table 2)

Ranking	Journal Name	Number of Articles
1	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR AND RESEARCH	50
2	ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT	46
3	SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMICS	41
4	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SMALL BUSINESS	30
5	JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT	20
6	INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MANAGEMENT JOURNAL	17
7	JOURNAL OF ENTERPRISING COMMUNITIES	17
8	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANPOWER	14
9	ENTREPRENEURSHIP: THEORY AND PRACTICE	10
10	JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP	10

 

Table 2: Most Productive Journals

3.3. Most Productive Authors

Leo Paul Dana is the leading author according to number of published articles (13) in our database. His work is concentrated in minorities mainly (Dana 2007).  He is followed by Caroline Essers and Aki Harima with 10 articles (Table 3). Caroline Essers work is mainly focused in female immigrant entrepreneurs (Essers and Benschop 2007) while Aki Harima studies are focused in transnational entrepreneurs(Harima, Harima et al. 2021) . When we compare the authors by their citations, we observe that these three authors remain most important, with the difference that Essers is the most cited author. Table 3 present 10 most productive authors in terms of number published articles with their total citations, h-index and g-index. Another notable author, not listed in this table because the criteria is number of publication, is Robert C. Kloosterman, recognized for his influential mixed embeddedness approach(Kloosterman, Van Der Leun et al. 1999) for the study of immigrant entrepreneurship.

Table 3: Most Productive Authors

Ranking	Authors Name	h-Index	g-Index	Total Citations	# of publications
1	DANA L-P	11	13	717	13
2	RAM M	9	9	621	9
3	ESSERS C	8	10	935	10
4	HARIMA A	7	10	172	10
5	MARLOW S	7	7	712	7
6	BRZOZOWSKI J	6	7	165	7
7	ELO M	6	9	206	9
8	JONES T	6	6	271	6
9	NIJKAMP P	6	9	318	9
10	SCHØTT T	6	6	94	6

 

3.4. Most Productive Institutions

The 11 most prominent institutions had a substantial impact, accounting for over 20% of the 620 publications reviewed. Among the various domains of immigrant entrepreneurship in Europe, the University of South Denmark has demonstrated exceptional productivity, with a total of 18 publications. The University of Bremen in Germany has 14 publications, which is a significant number. Other developed economies like the UK, Netherlands, and Italy are present with universities like Birmingham University, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and Bologna, respectively.

Table 4: Institutional Research Output Ranking

Ranking	Affiliation	Articles
1	UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK	18
2	UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN	14
3	DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY	13
4	VU UNIVERSITY	13
5	JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY	11
6	CRACOW UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS	10
7	NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY	10
8	RADBOUD UNIVERSITY	10
9	UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM	10
10	UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA	10
11	UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE	10

3.5. Author Co-Citation Analysis

Additionally, to performance analysis, we also conducted an author co-citation analysis to map the intellectual structure of the Immigrant Entrepreneurship field in Europe. We did this by using WOSviewer and three main clusters emerged. First cluster (blue color)  is dominated by Monder Ram and Robert C. Kloosterman.  First author research is focused in ethnic and immigrant woman entrepreneurship(Ram, Jones et al. 2017) while Klosterman is well-know for mixed embeddedness approach(Kloosterman, Van Der Leun et al. 1999). Second emerged cluster (red color) is dominated by Matthew Wright focused in immigration policy and social topics (Wright and Bloemraad 2012)associated with immigrant entrepreneurship. Also, we observe the presence of two famous authors Kathleen M. Eisenhardt  and Robert K. Yin in this cluster, confirming that case-study methodology(Eisenhardt 1989, Yin 2009) is wide applicated in immigrant entrepreneurship. The cluster in yellow is our third cluster dominated by previously mentioned high publishing author like Caroline Essers, highly focused in female entrepreneurs(Pio and Essers 2014) and institutional theory.

Figure 2: Co-Citation Network

3.6. Co-Word Analysis

We performed co-word analysis using WOSviewer, as shown in Figure 3. This technique is employed to identify the most significant keywords utilized by the authors and the interrelationships between these words. It is unsurprising that the primary keywords center on immigrant entrepreneurship and related concepts such as transnational entrepreneurship, minority entrepreneurship, diaspora entrepreneurship, and ethnic entrepreneurs. Regarding the nations mentioned in the keywords, we have recognized the following countries: UK, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Greece, and Sweden. The majority of immigrant firms that are studied are classified as small and medium-sized enterprises. Literature has a distinct focus on the social capital, education, and human capital of immigrant entrepreneurs, which suggests that their entrepreneurship is mostly driven by opportunities rather than need. We have also noticed a decline in the significance of the discrimination topic in European immigrant study. Themes such as refugee entrepreneurship and family enterprise are gaining momentum.

Figure 3: Co-word Analysis

3.7. Trends Over Time

We conducted an investigation on the prevailing themes in immigrant entrepreneurship in Europe over the past decade (Figure 4). What we are witnessing is a transition from the informal economic role of immigrants to a more opportunity-driven style of entrepreneurship that emphasizes social capital and networks. The internationalization of immigrant entrepreneurs is currently a prominent subject of discussion. However, it is worth noting that studies related to the impact of COVID-19 on this issue may have a limited duration. Europe has encountered several obstacles during the Arab Spring, including the issue of refugees, a distinct form of immigration. It is noteworthy that refugee entrepreneurship has emerged as a prominent and popular subject of discussion.

Figure 4: Trend Topics

4. Conclusion

The objective of this study is to gain greater knowledge of the state of immigrant entrepreneurship in Europe. In order to do this, we carried out a comprehensive evaluation of performance and conducted a bibliometric study on 620 articles published by European scholars up to 2022. The findings of our performance study demonstrate a consistent upward trend in publications within this subject. The United Kingdom is the first country in terms of its contributions to papers in Europe followed by Sweden and Germany. These results are similar to existing (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013). The International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research is the most favored journal for publishing articles. Leo Paul Dana is the most prolific author based on the number of published articles. The University of Southern Denmark is the European institution with the highest number of publications. These outcomes are in line with previous research in immigrant entrepreneurship literature (Ramos-Escobar, García-Pérez-de-Lema et al. 2022).  In addition, we performed bibliometric analysis techniques such as author co-citation and keyword co-occurrence. Our examination of co-citations by the author reveals the presence of three primary clusters. The first study focuses on female entrepreneurship and  mixed embeddedness method. The second study examines immigration policy and the societal aspects of immigrant entrepreneurship. Most of the research in this field are undertaken as case studies, which is supported by the existence of Yin and Eisenhardt in the third cluster. The main finding of our study is the significant change in studies on immigrant entrepreneurship in Europe, commonly referred to as a paradigm shift. In the past, immigrants were often perceived as being motivated to move owing to a lack of skills or experiencing prejudice. However, in recent years, there has been a shift towards studying immigration from an opportunity-driven perspective. This approach focuses on factors such as human capital, innovation, and social capital, which have gained popularity and this is the result of last analysis that we conducted. Also we noted the importance of ethnic entrepreneurship in this field, similar to previous research(Akin, Bostanci et al. 2017). In our analysis, we have noticed a gradual rise in several subjects that are directly linked to the challenges that Europe is currently dealing with, specifically migrants and Covid-19. We anticipate that the upward trend of these topics will soon come to an end.

5. Limitations and Research Opportunities

There are certain constraints to our study. At first, our work was solely done utilizing the Scopus database. In order to improve the thoroughness of future research, we recommend integrating several scientific databases. Another constraint arises from the study’s exclusive emphasis on Europe. Investigating more continents would provide interesting perspectives on potential parallels and distinctions. In addition, it may be advisable for future researchers to limit their analysis to the top 50 papers or publications from highly esteemed journals.
Research should also focus on developing subjects in this sector, such as refugee entrepreneurship and the globalization of immigrant entrepreneurship.

References

• Akin, N., et al. (2017). “Examining of immigrant entrepreneurship studies in international literature by using social network analysis.” Problems and perspectives in management(15, Iss. 2 (cont. 3)): 500-508. CrossRef
• Aliaga-Isla, R. and A. Rialp (2013). “Systematic review of immigrant entrepreneurship literature: previous findings and ways forward.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 25(9-10): 819-844. CrossRef
• Aria, M. and C. Cuccurullo (2017). “bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis.” Journal of informetrics 11(4): 959-975. CrossRef
• Basu, A. (2011). “From’break out’to’breakthrough’: successful market strategies of immigrant entrepreneurs in the UK.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship 15: 1.
• Bilir, C., et al. (2020). “Operations research/management science research in Europe: A bibliometric overview.” Advances in Operations Research 2020: 1-14. CrossRef
• Bretas, V. P. and I. Alon (2021). “Franchising research on emerging markets: Bibliometric and content analyses.” Journal of Business Research 133: 51-65. CrossRef
• Broadus, R. N. (1987). “Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”.” Scientometrics 12: 373-379. CrossRef
• Brown, J. D., et al. (2019). Immigrant entrepreneurs and innovation in the US high-tech sector. The Roles of Immigrants and Foreign Students in US Science, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press: 149-171. CrossRef
• Combs, J. G., et al. (2011). “Assessing cumulative evidence within ‘macro’research: Why meta‐analysis should be preferred over vote counting.” Journal of Management Studies 48(1): 178-197. CrossRef
• Dabić, M., et al. (2020). “Immigrant entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda.” Journal of Business Research 113: 25-38. CrossRef
• Dana, L. P. (2007). Handbook of research on ethnic minority entrepreneurship: A co-evolutionary view on resource management, Edward Elgar Publishing. CrossRef
• Dheer, R. J. (2018). “Entrepreneurship by immigrants: a review of existing literature and directions for future research.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14: 555-614.CrossRef
• Doerschler, P. (2006). “Push‐pull factors and immigrant political integration in Germany.” Social Science Quarterly 87(5): 1100-1116. CrossRef
• Donthu, N., et al. (2021). “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines.” Journal of Business Research 133: 285-296. CrossRef
• Duan, C., et al. (2023). “A systematic literature review of determinants of immigrant entrepreneurship motivations.” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 35(4): 599-631. CrossRef
• Duan, C. and K. Sandhu (2022). “Immigrant entrepreneurship motivation-scientific production, field development, thematic antecedents, measurement elements and research agenda.” Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 16(5): 722-755. CrossRef
• Duan, C., et al. (2021). “Understanding immigrant entrepreneurship: a home-country entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective.” New England Journal of Entrepreneurship 24(1): 2-20. CrossRef
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Building theories from case study research.” Academy of management review 14(4): 532-550. CrossRef
• Essers, C. and Y. Benschop (2007). “Enterprising identities: Female entrepreneurs of Moroccan or Turkish origin in the Netherlands.” Organization studies 28(1): 49-66. CrossRef
• García-Cabrera, A. M., et al. (2020). “Immigrants’ entrepreneurial motivation in Europe: liabilities and assets.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26(8): 1707-1737. CrossRef
• García-Lillo, F., et al. (2017). “Exploring the intellectual structure of research on ‘born globals’ and INVs: A literature review using bibliometric methods.” Journal of International Entrepreneurship: 1-29. CrossRef
• Harima, A., et al. (2021). The injection of resources by transnational entrepreneurs: Towards a model of the early evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, Routledge: 102-129. CrossRef
• Kerr, S. P. and W. Kerr (2020). “Immigrant entrepreneurship in America: Evidence from the survey of business owners 2007 & 2012.” Research Policy 49(3): 103918. CrossRef
• Kloosterman, R., et al. (1999). “Mixed embeddedness:(in) formal economic activities and immigrant businesses in the Netherlands.” International journal of urban and regional research 23(2): 252-266. CrossRef
• Malerba, R. C. and J. J. Ferreira (2020). “Immigrant entrepreneurship and strategy: a systematic literature review.” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 33(2): 183-217. CrossRef
• Malki, B., et al. (2020). “The entrepreneurial financing of the immigrant entrepreneurs: a literature review.” Small Business Economics: 1-29. CrossRef
• Mukherjee, D., et al. (2022). “Mapping five decades of international business and management research on India: A bibliometric analysis and future directions.” Journal of Business Research 145: 864-891.CrossRef
• Nerur, S. P., et al. (2008). “The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co‐citation analysis.” Strategic management journal 29(3): 319-336. CrossRef
• Öztürk, O., et al. (2024). “How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal.” Review of managerial science: 1-29. CrossRef
• Pio, E. and C. Essers (2014). “Professional migrant women decentring otherness: A transnational perspective.” British Journal of Management 25(2): 252-265.CrossRef
• Ram, M., et al. (2017). “Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice.” International Small Business Journal 35(1): 3-18. CrossRef
• Ramos-Escobar, E. A., et al. (2022). “Immigrant entrepreneurs: A review of the literature and an agenda for future investigations.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 91: 170-190. CrossRef
• Rialp-Criado, A., et al. (2015). Conceptual Frameworks on Foreign Entry Modes: A Review and Comparison of the Contemporary Literature. Creating and Delivering Value in Marketing, Springer: 269-277. CrossRef
• Shinnar, R. S. and D. Zamantılı Nayır (2019). “Immigrant entrepreneurship in an emerging economy: The case of Turkey.” Journal of Small Business Management 57(2): 559-575.CrossRef
• Van Eck, N. and L. Waltman (2010). “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping.” Scientometrics 84(2): 523-538. CrossRef
• Wright, M. and I. Bloemraad (2012). “Is there a trade-off between multiculturalism and socio-political integration? Policy regimes and immigrant incorporation in comparative perspective.” Perspectives on Politics 10(1): 77-95. CrossRef
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods, sage.
• Zupic, I. and T. Čater (2015). “Bibliometric methods in management and organization.” Organizational research methods 18(3): 429-472. CrossRef