Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Entrepreneurship research has evolved alongside broader developments in management scholarship, reflecting shifts in theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and institutional contexts. This study maps the intellectual trajectory of entrepreneurship research within Academy of Management (AOM) journals from 1965 to 2023 through a data-driven curation of 20 influential articles. Using “bibliographic coupling”—which links studies citing a common reference—we identify four thematic clusters that capture key phases in this evolution, illustrated through a tree analogy: (1) “roots”—emergence and early growth, which legitimized entrepreneurship as a field; (2) “trunk”—foundational theories, which established integrative theoretical frameworks; (3) “branches”—adaptive and human dimensions, which expanded research into psychological and behavioral factors; and (4) “canopy”—market shaping and external influence, which examines entrepreneurship’s broader institutional and market impact. By analyzing the balance of trade in knowledge exchange, we reveal that early AOM research primarily exported theoretical insights to specialized entrepreneurship journals, while more recent work increasingly imports ideas from external disciplines. These findings clarify the Academy’s evolving role in shaping entrepreneurship scholarship and introduce a replicable framework for literature curation. We conclude by outlining future research directions, with a particular focus on artificial intelligence as a transformative force in entrepreneurship, shaping how ventures are created, scaled, sustained, and analyzed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Markman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: