Literature review identifies gaps in entrepreneurial growth intention research, highlighting theoretical integration and context sensitivity.
Entrepreneurial Growth Intention (EGI) as a research construct has received intense academic scrutiny in the extant literature. However, the available literature on EGI appears to be scattered and less organized, lacking a cohesive structure. This paper presents a systematic literature review on EGI, with the primary objective of systematizing and organizing contemporary knowledge in this domain and identifying avenues for future research. The analysis includes 44 papers on EGI published between 2013 and 2024, sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The analytical approach in this study comprised two key phases. First, a general overview of 44 selected articles was conducted, examining publication trends and co-occurrence patterns. Second, the TCCM framework was employed to guide a thematic analysis across four dimensions: Theories, Contexts, Characteristics, and Methodologies. The findings highlight a fragmented and predominantly single-theory use, particularly the frequent reliance on the Theory of Planned Behavior, while revealing underexplored theoretical integration. Conceptual ambiguity persists around the definition of EGI, and contextual analyses are largely limited to developed and European settings. Additionally, the review uncovers variations in growth intentions across gender, immigrant status, and firm size, while methodological approaches remain heavily skewed toward quantitative, cross-sectional designs. This review offers a structured synthesis of the EGI literature, identifies critical gaps, and provides direction for future research that is more integrative, context-sensitive, and methodologically diverse. The study also provides practically important insights for entrepreneurs, policymakers, and educators to improve strategic decision-making, support targeted interventions, and the enrichment of the current entrepreneurship curriculum.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bandara et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: