Thirty-five years of strategic management research. A country analysis using bibliometric techniques for the 1987-2021 period

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 Internacional License institutua enpresa Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión journal homepage: http://www.ehu.eus/cuadernosdegestion/revista/es/ ISSN: 1131-6837 / e-ISSN: 1988-2157 Management Letters Cuadernos de Gestión Enpresa Institutua, UPV/EHU Conocimiento en Gestión/Management Knowledge Volume 22 / Number 2 (2022) • ISSN: 1131-6837 / e-ISSN: 1988-2157 http://www.ehu.eus/cuadernosdegestion/revista/es/ Thirty-five years of strategic management research. A country analysis using bibliometric techniques for the 1987-2021 period Treinta y cinco años de investigación en gestión estratégica. Un análisis de países utilizando técnicas bibliométricas para el período 1987-2021 Nelson A. Andrade-Valbuena*, Leslier Valenzuela-Fernández a , José M. Merigó b a Department of Administration, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Chile, Av. Diagonal Paraguay 257, 8330015 Santiago, Chile–[email protected], [email protected]–https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5817-1879 b School of Systems, Management and Leadership, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, 81 Broadway, Ultimo 2007, NSW, Australia–jo[email protected]du.au–https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4672-6961 * Corresponding author: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera 2850, 4070129, Concepción, Chile–nandra[email protected]–https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4873-8915 ARTICLE INFO Received 11 February 2021, Accepted 24 February 2022 Available online 11 May 2022 DOI: 10.5295/cdg.211441na JEL: M10, I23 ABSTRACT As a significant field of study, thirty-five years of strategic management research has accumulated a substantial amount of knowledge. This bibliometric study explores whether the unlimited flow of knowledge and the globalization of education & research in this time period, could drive away (or deter) the identification and specific interest of research in phenomena of national importance. Using bibliometric techniques and visualization of similarities (VOS) procedures of citation and co-citation analyses, this Paper explores research trends at the country level over 35years using data from the Web of Science database. The aims are to identify: 1)the most visible and prominent actors at the country, regional, and global-level; 2)the evolution of the subjects of research into strategic management at the country, global, and supra-regional level; and 3)the evolution of journals publishing strategic management research articles by location. Findings suggest that common research subjects coexist at higher levels of aggregation, establishing the “paradigm” or general agreement about the field’s boundaries. Additionally, findings show that at the country level, rather than following a global trend, there is an enduring diversification of research agendas that bow to national and supranational factors from geographically close places. Keywords: Strategic Management, Bibliometrics, Country Analysis, VOS Network Analysis. RESUMEN Como un campo de estudio importante, treinta y cinco años de investigación en gestión estratégica han acumulado una cantidad sustancial de conocimiento. Este estudio bibliométrico explora si el flujo ilimitado de conocimiento y la globalización de la educación y la investigación en este período de tiempo, podría alejar (o disuadir) la identificación y el interés específico de investigación de fenómenos de importancia nacional. Utilizando técnicas bibliométricas y procedimientos de visualización de similitudes (VOS) de análisis de citas y co-citas, este documento explora las tendencias de investigación a nivel de país durante 35años utilizando datos de la base de datos Web of Science. Los objetivos se centran en identificar: 1)los actores más visibles y destacados a nivel nacional, regional y mundial; 2)la evolución de los temas de investigación de la gestión estratégica a nivel país, global y suprarregional; y 3)la evolución de las revistas que publican artículos de investigación de gestión estratégica por ubicación. Los hallazgos sugieren que los temas de investigación comunes coexisten en niveles superiores de agregación, estableciendo el “paradigma” o acuerdo general sobre los límites de campo de estudio. Además, los hallazgos muestran que, a nivel de países, existe una diversificación persistente de agendas de investigación, que se inclinan a estudiar eventos nacionales y supranacionales de lugares geográficamente cercanos, en vez de seguir una tendencia global. Palabras clave: Gestión Estratégica, Bibliometría, Análisis de País; Análisis de red VOS. Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 8 Nelson A. Andrade-Valbuena, Leslier Valenzuela-Fernández, José M. Merigó 1. INTRODUCTION In the last thirty-five years, the number of publications on strategic management research has risen to —what is now regarded as— significant levels; leading it to become a research topic that acquires meaning whilst achieving stability (RamosRodríguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004). By means of a proper knowledge structure, with distinctive and identifiable ways of diffusion and influence, knowledge in strategic management research has flourished, as well as the globalization of management education (Bruner & Iannarelli, 2011). Yet, based on the similar demands of scientific rigor and practical utility that build strategic management research, this considerable progress may impose directional and development trends on knowledge production over time (Bruner & Iannarelli, 2011). Despite how accepted practices from the academic & practitioner perspectives have qualified said investigations as ‘relevant’ for the scientific community (Daft & Lewin, 2008), there are certain collaterals that can lead to uncovering essential knowledge gaps in the field. For instance, studies that have addressed the globalization of management research and educational issues show how the impact of some institutions on profiling can be considered a “hot topic” in the study. In addition, De Meyer (2012) shows that the drivers for globalization, in education management & research, are not an issue related to internal strategic choices within business schools, but rather are subject to the pressures that are imposed by outside institutions such as: accreditation organizations, alumni, and recruiters, among others. This leads to a sizable gap between what these institutions require and where research needs to concentrate on (Bruner & Iannarelli, 2011; Reed, 2002). Although global trends support similar perspectives regarding research topics, there are some associated problems. For instance, the “world is flat” view proposes that a web-enabled arena has powered collaborative research work without geographical or temporal limits to address relevant global aspects, thus overcoming language and cultural barriers (Friedman, 2005). However, Ghemawat (2008, p.396) highlights two concerns associated with cross-border business and management research —attributed to institutional pressures— that can generate bias on investigation outcomes:1) preference for documenting generalizable global “one-size-fits-all” theories and hypotheses, and 2)a US-dominated editorial control of the top journals, which steers research towards home-related markets. With regard to the aforementioned, this research henceforth seeks to explore whether the unlimited flow of knowledge, and the globalization of education & research in strategic management, has driven away (or deterred) the identification and specific interest of research in phenomena of local importance. Thus, through the application of bibliometric techniques, this study aims to provide an overview of strategic management research by answering the following research questions: RQ1. What are the most visible and prominent country, supra-regional, and global-level actors in strategic management research in the WoS during the last thirty-five years? RQ2. How has the national, supra-regional, and global research subjects in strategic management in the WoS evolved during the last thirty-five years? RQ3. How has been the evolution of publications in journals by location —considering the research outcomes in strategy— in the WoS during the last thirty-five years? Consequently, this document is organized in the following manner: Section2 presents the different bibliometric analysis perspectives and bibliometric methods used in preparing this study; Section3 presents the results grouped into three sub-themes, each answering a research question; Section4 discusses the main findings and conclusions of this work; and Section5 explains the limitations of the study while offering future suggestions for research. 2. CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK Different bibliometric studies have used different levels of analysis in management research. This can be seen from authors (Cancino etal., 2017), Journals (Schriber, 2016; Valenzuela-Fernández etal., 2017), Universities (Andrade-Valbuena etal., 2019) and countries (Valenzuela-Fernández etal., 2018). These analyses help evaluate the influence & relevance of academic products in the scientific community. Additionally, similar efforts using bibliometric techniques have been used to analyze topics of investigation in strategic management research, which include mergers & acquisitions (Ferreira et al., 2014), dynamic capabilities (Vogel & Güttel, 2013), competitive intelligence (Calof & Wright, 2008), and specific subjects/concepts such as Entrepreneurial Orientation (Andrade-Valbuena etal., 2019) or New Product Development (Andrade-Valbuena & Merigó, 2018). When discussing the intellectual structure of strategic management research, different authors have addressed this through bibliometrics by analyzing the Strategic Management Journal publications. For instance, applying citation and co-citation analyses, Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro (2004) discovered that there has been a rising trend in replacing books for Papers as a source of academic publications —in terms of strategy— and the prominence of the Resource-Based View theory of the firm as a foundation for upcoming developments. Nerur etal. (2008) complements their findings by utilizing authors as the units of analysis, and by tracing the evolution of the intellectual structure of the strategic management field during the 1980-2000 period. Other works of Furrer etal. (2008) integrate the results from other well-known journals (Strategic Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review and Administrative Science Quarterly) by studying the relationships between the subfields of strategic management. These show the more important lines & topics of research, and a trend involving the integration between the different academic influences on the field of strategic management. In contrast, Guerras-Martin etal. (2014) discuss the existence of two pendulums that reflect the tensions between the focus on internal firm factors and external environmental attributes respectively, as well as between a more macro-level analysis which leads to different research focuses over time. 2.1. Bibliometric Techniques Bibliometrics is one of the most widely used quantitative methods that has been used as a technique to comprehensively Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 Thirty-five years of strategic management research. A country analysis using bibliometric techniques for the 1987-2021 period 9 explain the mobility and interaction of knowledge (Aman, 2018; Zhang etal., 2018). By collecting relevant information found in databases such as Journals, citations, authors, institutions, countries, and keywords, valuable insights that help us understand the growth in research in a specific field —and the importance of the topics that are addressed— can be obtained (Van Raan, 2005). Furthermore, bibliometric techniques have become powerful tools that allow for the creation of quantitative and comparative studies in both scientific and technological publications. This in great part is due to the techniques’ main objectives being the quantification of citations and the analysis of content (Basurto-Flores etal., 2017). In this regard, citation analysis can be a general indicator of the use and utility of a resource by citing the Journals, articles, institutions, web pages, and specific research groups that have been widely used to assess the impact that the writings generate in the literature (Tomaszewski, 2018). Additionally, bibliometric analysis is constructed by using purely quantitative approaches on citations, which are a reliable and valid indicator of scientific interactions, thus providing a representative and informative perspective of the data (Podsakoff etal., 2008). Therefore, they are used to determine the relevance and impact of any actor at different levels of analysis, such as authors, institutions, countries, and the structure of the field (Small, 1980; Xi etal., 2015). Furthermore, the use of bibliometric techniques can reduce the tendency of authors to translate their perceptions into their writings, allowing for a more systematic and objective approach (Sassmannshausen, 2018). 2.2. Data Collection This study first focuses on determining the scopes and boundaries of the search parameters of the existing literature. Thus, to establish the delimitation of this exploration of strategic management research, the investigation not only includes SMJ (as suggested in previous systematic revisions), but also incorporates other Journals as sources of publications (e.g., Koseoglu, 2016; Ramos‐Rodríguez & Ruíz‐Navarro, 2004). Although SMJ represents a solid foundation to get a general overview of the field (Ronda-Pupo & Guerras-Martin, 2010), its use as the only source of information may lead to a biased perspective on strategic management research. Hence, by considering the increasing number of new & specialized Journals in the network, and the existence of strategy as a subject in the scope of publications in other widely respected journals, this investigation’s search results were followingly complemented and validated by three different experts. This ensures that no relevant work was omitted, as the three experts (whom have each a minimum of seven years researching and teaching in field-related courses) collected more than 30articles with an H-Index above7, found in the WoS database in Business & Management research, The results include the following journals: Advances in Strategic Management: A Research Annual; Business Strategy and the Environment; Global Strategy Journal; International Journal of Strategic Property Management; Journal of Family Business Strategy; Journal of Strategic Information Systems; Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal; Strategic Management Journal; Strategic Organization; and Technology Analysis & Strategic Management (see Table5). As suggested by the experts, the decision to include these journals ensures content validity to the corpus of analyzed research. The next phase is to identify the keywords in this literature search. With the experts’ recommendations, whilst considering the inclusion of most of the Papers related to strategic management, the following keywords were obtained: “strategy*” OR “SWOT” OR “competitive advantage*”. Wildcards (truncations) are automatically included in the search in their plural or singular variations of each word. All data utilized in this study is available in the Core Collection of the Web of Science (WoS) database, which is currently owned by Clarivate. Consequently, the selected journals are indexed in the WoS; the reason this database was chosen is due to the wide recognition that Journals indexed in the WoS represent the academic and scientific community, which —incidentally— characterizes a key quality criterion in a revision process when exploring a specific field of knowledge (Torraco, 2005). To highlight, at the moment this investigation was developed, the WoS covers approximately 151areas of research, grouping more than 12,000journals, 50million articles, and other scientific publication products (such as notes and investigations). Moreover, this database gathers Journals —that are forums of publications— of different specialized fields such as strategy (Nerur etal., 2016), thus enhancing the reliability and pertinence of the results. A primary topic search was undertaken in the Business and Management category on the WoS, delimiting the language to English written documents. This type of search looks for records —including specific words in the title and/or abstract—, the author/s, and suggested keywords within each document. By applying citations and co-citations to articles published in the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ), Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruiz-Navarro (2004), and Nerur etal. (2008) found that the trend in using articles as the source of publications was gaining more and more acceptance in place of books —which had the strongest influence on strategic management up until the year 2000—. Hence, this study follows Merigó etal.’s (2015) procedure, which only considers articles(91,944), letters(232), reviews(4,128), and notes(165). From these, a total of 96,496 publications were included in the database to be analyzed, with each document averaging 27citations per Paper for the 1987-2021 period —as seen in Figure1—. 2.3. Data Analysis Two main complementary perspectives are used in this study to analyze the information at the country level: a bibliometric analysis based on the procedures proposed by Merigó et al. (2015), and a network analysis based on the Visualization of Similarities technique supported on the VOS-Viewer software (version1.6.6), developed by Van Eck and Waltman (2010). In the bibliometric analysis, the number of publications and the number of citations that a scientific work receives are among the most usual dimensions addressed to capture academic productivity (Trieschmann etal., 2000). Since each indicator gets a different dimension of productivity and impact of academic research, choosing between one or the other can misrepresent the field (Laengle etal., 2017). In this sense, Hirsh (2005) proposes an arrangement where both indicators are merged into one single measurement unit: the H-Index, which can show a Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 10 Nelson A. Andrade-Valbuena, Leslier Valenzuela-Fernández, José M. Merigó broader perspective of the data that the number of publications and citations cannot do by themselves. Hence, this measurement summarizes the number of studies that have received at least the same number of citations (Hirsh, 2005). Based on the bibliometric procedure proposed by Merigó etal. (2015), the investigation considered single and composed indicators to present different results from the same variable. Therefore, the number of citations, publications, H-Index, and thresholds —ranking the number of documents above a number of citations— are the bibliometric measurements that fit the most to the objectives of this investigation (Laengle etal., 2018; Martínez-López etal., 2018). The Visualization of Similarities technique, supported on the VOS-Viewer software, allows for the analysis of different actors (nodes) and their relationships (links between nodes) through a mapping and clustering network exploration. The distance between two nodes in such maps represent the strength of the relation between them (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). The size of the nodes in the network, represent the most prominent countries regarding citations, co-authorship or bibliographic-coupled variables, depending on the type of analysis that is performed. There are three different approaches to measure: citations, co-authorship relations, and bibliographic coupling. Citation analysis seeks to identify the relevance of actors based on the number of times they are cited (Voeth etal., 2006). Whereas co-authorship relations and bibliographic coupling provide information on the internal structure of the field, quantifying the similarity of the content of the analyzed publications (Kraus etal., 2012) and the number of times they both/all cite the same reference (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). Such analyses restrict both, examining the distance and clustering among countries. Moreover, an essential feature of this method is that it uses a fractional counting technique that assigns the same proportion of the authorship to each author, this reduces the multiple affiliation effect. 3. RESULTS To answer the proposed research questions, the results are grouped to find: 1)the most visible and prominent actors at a country, regional, and global-level (RQ1), 2)the country, global, and supra-regional evolution of subjects of research into strategic management (RQ2), and 3)the evolution of publications in strategy journals by location (RQ3). The product of the network analysis is based on the number of citations, co-citations, and bibliographic couplings present in the global production of academic research into strategic management and the subjects of study. These results are presented in the following manner: 1)The first three 10-year periods, 2)One last 5-year period. This is done to visualize the evolution of the collaborative structure of the leading countries and research content over time. 3.1. Results based on the evolution of publications on strategy by countries - 1987 to 2021 3.1.1. Analysis of supra-national regions As suggested by Zacca-González etal. (2014), and to appreciate the evolution of publications, this study considers eight regions of supra-national territories: Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Oceania, East Asia, Western Europe, and North America. Many regions have conducted important research into strategic management throughout the world. Figure1 shows the annual number of articles on strategic management research published by each supra-national territory in thirty-five years of academic production (1987-2021). Since 1987, the most productive region has been North America, which led the field until 2016 when Western Europe became a relevant producer, thus breaking the North American hegemony in number of academic publications. Similarly, East Asia also surpassed the number of papers published when compared North America in 2021, making the region also a highly productive group. This reveals important trends in the regions, which raises expectations as the number of papers published, and the impact that said scientific production, will have in the future. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 Africa Eastern Europe Latinamerica Middle East Oceanía East Asia Western Europe Northamerica Figure 1 Annual number of articles in strategy research published by each supranational region (1987-2021) Source: Own elaboration. Another essential dimension of the academic publication measurements is said publications’ impact during the last thirty-five years of research. In this regard, Table1 shows the total number of papers published in strategic management research (TPS), the total number of citations received by these academic products (TCS), the H-Index based on strategy investigations (THS), and four citation thresholds: 500, 250, 100 and 50, at a supra-national territory level categorization (this classification shows the citation structure in the field between 1987 and 2021). As observed, the most influential region has been North America, with an H-index value of 595; this means that 595papers published in strategic management research have received at least 595citations. Another important aspect of Table1 is the relative closeness of Western Europe and Oceania in the number of citations received per published Paper. Similar patterns are followed by Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America. This highlights that although the quantity in articles published is dissimilar between these regions, the impact they have on the field is comparable. Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 Thirty-five years of strategic management research. A country analysis using bibliometric techniques for the 1987-2021 period 11 Table 1 Strategy research citation structure in the WoS by each supranational region (1987-2021) REGIONS TPS TCS THS aTCS/TPS >500 >250 >100 >50 North America 37583 2676866 595 71.23 798 2186 6159 11052 Western Europe 29385 1106026 355 37.64 201 612 2363 5373 East Asia 17283 439595 221 25.44 58 172 859 2123 Oceania 6711 221285 182 32.97 26 102 434 1087 Middle East 4083 69861 104 17.11 3 18 116 331 Latin America 4088 45194 86 11.06 4 16 70 187 Eastern Europe 3822 46279 85 12.11 5 14 65 164 Africa 2149 23119 61 10.76 1 5 28 78 Abbreviations: TPS and TCS=Total number of publications and citations, based on strategy research only. THS is the H-Index based on strategy investigations. ≥500, ≥250, ≥100 and ≥50 is the number of papers that have reached that number of citations. a The list is ordered top down considering the THS-index as the first classification item. The second classification item is the TPS, the third classification item is the TCS. Source: Own elaboration. 3.1.2. Leading countries in strategic management research This section centers the analysis on countries based on their geopolitical definition. In this sense, some changes throughout this period are considered (such as those that affected the old Soviet Union in the 90s), assigning authorship of research to its actual geopolitical reference. Moreover, by assigning authorship of the Papers to the nationality of the institution rather than the authors’ nationality —at the time of this research— the investigation can avoid the issue where some researchers in one country may have different nationalities. Table2 presents the Top50 most influential countries in strategic management research in thirty-five years of academic investigation (between 1987-2021). The degree of influence is based on three criteria: 1)the H-index, which measurement for this research is based on publications on strategy. Furthermore, this index is an essential bibliometric instrument that is widely accepted for quantifying the impact of academic products based on individual results (Alonso etal., 2009; Hirsch, 2005); 2) The total number of papers published in strategic management research; and 3)the total number of citations received by each product. These bibliometric techniques allocate one unit to each country, represented in its authorship. Although this assignation can signify some divergence caused by the dissimilar presence of institutions in the same paper, the number of researchers by country can minimize this effect. Therefore, marginal deviations are expected for this kind of assignation. As seen, the most prominent and productive country in strategic management research is the USA. This is expected due to specific characteristics and milestones in the history of this field, as highlighted by Nerur etal. (2008) which states: Firstly, That the preeminent influence of publications of classic works such as Chandler (1962), Ansoff (1965), and Porter (1980; 1985) (among others), have been crucial. And these are affiliated to research institutions and organizations located in the US. Secondly, the launching of the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) in USA, which is the most specialized journal worldwide in this field. Thirdly, The introduction of the strategy division of the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), as well as the inclusion of strategy as the scope of publication among other distinguished journals located in said country. Finally, the presence of US universities that are highly respected throughout the world. This historical evidence is confirmed in the citation structure as demonstrated by the different citation thresholds in Table2 —which shows that the US has come to be seen as a leader of the field—, thus building foundations for the construction of future knowledge —including in other fields— such as biology or physics. Note that Canada also shows remarkable outcomes related to the number of citations per published Paper. This highlights the importance of its academic production to strategic management research. Regardless, four other very important countries —in this topic— that must be mentioned are the UK, the Netherlands, France, and China. In the course of this investigation, interesting results arose when contrasting the number of publications and citations received, after applying control by country population (as evidenced in the last three columns in Table2). This analysis per capita takes on added relevance in the case of highly productive countries whose results —because of their size— are not significant on a global scale. In this sense, there are five influential countries in the field: Liechtenstein, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, and Singapore. Special note must be taken when considering the difference in population when compared to powerhouses such as the US and China. Although small, these countries have high production, which further demonstrates the remarkable results that prove the relevance of strategic management research in said countries. In this regard, the case of the Netherlands is highly noteworthy if the number of citations received per capita is being considered, which places this nation in the Top5 most prominent countries in strategic management research. Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 12 Nelson A. Andrade-Valbuena, Leslier Valenzuela-Fernández, José M. Merigó Table 2 Most influential countries in strategy research (1987-2021) R COUNTRY TPS TCS THS aTCS/TPS >500 >250 >100 >50 Pop. (2021) b(TPS/Pop) X 100.000 (TCS/Pop) X 100.000 1 USA 33719 2473335 582 73.35 749 2032 5697 10130 329484.12 102.34 750.67 2 UK 13311 541599 268 40.69 83 301 1159 2678 67215.29 198.04 805.77 3 Canada 5493 317491 246 57.80 76 242 746 1434 38005.24 144.53 835.39 4 Netherlands 3636 182412 191 50.17 45 126 415 875 17441.14 208.47 1045.87 5 France 3745 158252 180 42.26 45 110 344 677 67391.58 55.57 234.82 6 China 8282 213900 177 25.83 32 88 416 1039 1419060.50 5.84 15.07 7 Australia 5695 188930 170 33.17 22 89 374 927 25687.04 221.71 735.51 8 Germany 4437 150234 160 33.86 19 68 340 793 83240.52 53.30 180.48 9 Spain 4835 146797 155 30.36 20 71 293 721 47351.57 102.11 310.02 10 Italy 3731 102424 131 27.45 8 38 210 534 59544.02 62.66 172.01 11 Sweden 2251 84716 131 37.63 20 55 184 401 10353.44 217.42 818.24 12 Switzerland 1478 66705 126 45.13 12 40 173 327 8636.90 171.13 772.33 13 Finland 1999 64824 117 32.43 4 25 149 344 5530.72 361.44 1172.07 14 Denmark 1666 64333 116 38.62 11 34 149 323 5831.40 285.69 1103.22 15 Belgium 1171 59081 114 50.45 16 37 130 291 11556.00 101.33 511.26 16 South Korea 2400 70430 112 29.35 9 31 144 317 51780.58 46.35 136.02 17 Singapore 1300 55968 111 43.05 6 24 139 310 5685.81 228.64 984.35 18 Taiwan 2881 72173 109 25.05 6 20 138 387 23886.05 120.61 302.16 19 Norway 1166 39055 97 33.49 5 21 93 189 5379.48 216.75 726.00 20 New Zealand 1245 38199 88 30.68 4 15 69 190 5084.30 244.87 751.31 21 Israel 728 27833 84 38.23 5 15 76 145 9216.90 78.99 301.98 22 Austria 912 30547 83 33.49 3 15 65 149 8917.20 102.27 342.56 23 India 3166 38706 79 12.23 1 9 49 165 1380004.39 2.29 2.80 24 Japan 931 27928 78 30.00 7 15 57 115 125836.02 7.40 22.19 25 Ireland 720 20718 73 28.78 3 10 43 108 4994.72 144.15 414.80 26 Portugal 1190 26026 69 21.87 5 6 44 116 10305.56 115.47 252.54 27 Turkey 1002 19847 66 19.81 0 4 35 108 84339.07 11.88 23.53 28 Greece 636 18577 65 29.21 3 6 32 98 10715.55 59.35 173.36 29 Brazil 2311 20463 57 8.85 3 5 27 71 212559.41 10.87 9.63 30 North Ireland 226 9648 53 42.69 1 5 24 58 1895.51 119.23 508.99 31 Malaysia 1196 15680 51 13.11 2 3 17 55 32366.00 36.95 48.45 32 Cyprus 236 9716 47 41.17 1 7 25 47 1207.36 195.47 804.73 33 South Africa 1092 11411 46 10.45 0 3 15 41 59308.69 18.41 19.24 34 U. Arab. Emirates 666 8931 45 13.41 0 1 13 35 9890.40 67.34 90.30 35 Chile 418 8122 43 19.43 0 4 15 40 19116.21 21.87 42.49 36 Mexico 454 6827 42 15.04 0 3 11 35 128932.75 3.52 5.30 37 Iran 783 8665 40 11.07 1 3 11 29 83992.95 9.32 10.32 38 Russia 625 7152 39 11.44 0 1 15 32 144104.08 4.34 4.96 39 Thailand 456 5760 36 12.63 1 1 5 20 69799.98 6.53 8.25 40 Slovenia 249 7022 36 28.20 3 4 10 25 2100.13 118.56 334.36 41 Saudi Arabia 397 4588 34 11.56 0 0 5 16 34813.87 11.40 13.18 42 Poland 690 5277 33 7.65 0 0 3 13 37950.80 18.18 13.90 43 Lithuania 340 4130 30 12.15 0 0 3 15 2794.70 121.66 147.78 44 Colombia 448 4622 29 10.32 1 3 6 11 50882.88 8.80 9.08 45 Lebanon 137 2962 28 21.62 0 0 5 18 6825.44 20.07 43.40 46 Liechtenstein 62 2731 28 44.05 0 0 7 16 38.35 1616.69 7121.25 47 Romania 461 3362 25 7.29 1 1 1 4 19705.30 23.39 17.06 48 Argentina 132 2004 23 15.18 0 0 2 12 45376.76 2.91 4.42 49 Czech Republic 310 2102 21 6.78 0 0 1 2 10561.63 29.35 19.90 50 Hungary 178 2277 20 12.79 0 1 5 8 9749.76 18.26 23.35 Abbreviations: TPS and TCS=Total number of publications and citations, based on strategy research only. THS is the H-Index passed on strategy investigations. ≥500, ≥250, ≥100 and ≥50 is the number of papers that have reached that number of citations. Pop: Population in thousands of people. a The list is ordered top down considering the THS-index as the first classification item. The second classification item is the TPS, the third classification item is the TCS. b According to World Bank (2021) database. Source: Own elaboration. Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 Thirty-five years of strategic management research. A country analysis using bibliometric techniques for the 1987-2021 period 13 3.1.3. Temporal analysis of the leading countries A critical analysis based on the country rankings is employed to observe their evolution over time. For example, Table3 shows the most influential countries in strategic management research by quinquennials. On average, the H-Index based on strategic management research is 37, meaning that 37papers received at least 37citations each five years. It is also important to mention the increasing production of published Papers, which raises from 1,627 in the first quinquennial to 52,633 in the last five years, representing an average increase in production of 184% every five years. This increase in productivity is leveraged by the similarly growing number of Journals that are specialized in the field, and others that have included strategy in the scope of their publications. The data clearly demonstrates the leadership of the US during these thirty-five years, as its productivity and number of citations received in each period are outstanding. However, it must be noted that the gap in terms of the H-index between other countries has decreased over time (from 116 in the first quinquennial to 22 in the last quinquennial, particularly for the runner-up country). In this case, Denmark, China, and the Netherlands have had a growing impact on strategic management research over the time period, raising themselves in the rankings over the seven quinquennials not only in their H-index, but also in the increasing number of Papers published and citations received. This highlights the cumulative levels of specialization in strategy. In lieu, Israel and Japan are losing relevance in the field, which shows that their investigative interests and efforts are being directed towards other disciplines. With respect to the number of citations per Paper received, Canada, France, the Netherlands, the UK, and Belgium are relevant countries, ranking in the Top10 in this index in almost all the quinquennials. Table3 collects the evolution of influence rankings by quinquennials. Considering the first two periods: 1987-1991 and 1992-1996, the US comes out as the most prominent and prolific in the field. With an academic production that comprises 65% of all the Top 30 countries combined, the US also received almost 75% of citations during the decade. Yet, Spain, France, Sweden, and Canada have received more than 100 citations per Paper in these two time periods, which is more than what was received by the US per Paper. This shows the considerable commonalities of its works with other investigations. The second two-stages of research correspond to the 19972001 and 2002-2006 time periods (see Table3). Based on the number of citations received per Paper, the relevance of this decade in the construction of knowledge learning in the field must be highlighted. This period shows an increasing relevance of countries such as the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and France in the academic discussion on the subject. In both quinquennials, Belgium received the most significant number of citations per Paper, which shows the relatively broad acceptance of its academic production, putting it within the Top4 in this index worldwide (as displayed in Table2). The third two-stages of research correspond to the 20072011 and 2012-2016 time periods. Table3 shows that, overall, results are relatively comparable to the previous decades, taking into account that in the latter, there are more Journals indexed in the WoS database. Thus, the volume of academic production published here is even more remarkable, which corroborates with the general assumption that strategic management research is increasing worldwide. Furthermore, some trends are consolidated in this period, such as the relevance that certain countries besides the US are gaining in the field. Note: from 2012-2016, 75% and 73% of the number of Papers and the number of citations received —respectively— were received by countries other than the US. This is an opposite scenario to the previous situation, and it is evidenced in the first five years of strategic management research. Additionally, the Top5 countries receiving the most citations per Paper in the last quinquennial are Switzerland, the UK, the Netherlands, Austria, and Canada, which heralds a wide —and varied— range of new prominent actors representing different themes and specialties in strategic management research. Yet even with all these advancements, the US is still by far the most prominent and prolific county in the field. However, these results showcase the degree of maturity and consolidation of the area, as more groups get involved. In the last period (2017-2021), a consolidation stage from the top three influential actors in the field can be observed. This group is led by the US, which published almost 19% of all the top 30countries combined and gathered almost 22% of all the citations received in this quinquennial. Furthermore, the US, UK, China, Italy, and Germany —together— concentrate almost half of the published Papers (48%) and citations received (52%) worldwide in this quinquennial. Interestingly, despite this time period being subject to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the trends in publication and citations (as evidenced in the three previous decades) remain. Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 14 Nelson A. Andrade-Valbuena, Leslier Valenzuela-Fernández, José M. Merigó Table 3 Most influential countries in strategy research by quinquennials. Periods 1987-1991 and 2017-2021  1987-1991 1992-1996 1997-2001 2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 2017-2021 R CTRY TPS TCS THS TCS /TPS CTRY TPS TCS THS TCS /TPS CTRY TPS TCS THS TCS /TPS CTRY TPS TCS THS TCS /TPS CTRY TPS TCS THS TCS /TPS CTRY TPS TCS THS TCS /TPS CTRY TPS TCS THS TCS /TPS 1 USA 1139 106748 154 93.72 USA 2789 259756 243 93.14 USA 3329 314583 267 94.50 USA 4011 292321 239 72.88 USA 5992 211094 165 35.23 USA 7093 59930 68 8.45 USA 10228 123562 109 12.08 2Canada 95 10408 38 109.56 UK 599 26558 77 44.34 UK 1006 58416 113 58.07 UK 1249 69801 124 55.89 UK 2140 70757 112 33.06 UK 3382 35684 63 10.55 UK 5360 69106 87 12.89 3UK 168 7576 30 45.10 Canada 318 24397 70 76.72 Canada 378 31854 89 84.27 Canada 562 34818 101 61.95 Canada 1016 32445 84 31.93 Canada 1240 10799 44 8.71 China 5231 48159 71 9.21 4France 29 5288 21 182.34 France 109 9567 45 87.77 Netherlands 218 13360 58 61.28 Netherlands 319 19699 75 61.75 Netherlands 688 23950 74 34.81 Netherlands 1017 9669 39 9.51 Italy 2211 26998 62 12.21 5Israel 18 750 13 41.67 Netherlands 108 7976 35 73.85 France 163 13223 58 81.12 France 238 15405 70 64.73 China 821 23361 70 28.45 China 1900 12765 38 6.72 Germany 2159 25467 61 11.80 6Australia 19 531 11 27.95 Singapore 34 746 34 21.94 China 179 11447 53 63.95 Australia 376 17554 69 46.69 Spain 931 20358 68 21.87 Germany 1363 11023 38 8.09 Australia 2722 28961 59 10.64 7 Germany 16 502 9 31.38 Australia 95 6654 30 70.04 Australia 229 8911 48 38.91 China 272 14725 68 54.14 Germany 657 19726 67 30.02 Spain 1450 8947 36 6.17 France 1935 21805 59 11.27 8Netherlands 25 424 9 16.96 China 61 2960 23 48.52 Germany 110 6176 40 56.15 Spain 290 12625 57 43.53 Australia 886 21117 66 23.83 Australia 1546 10475 35 6.78 Canada 2012 22444 57 11.16 9Japan 18 653 8 36.28 Israel 49 2753 22 56.18 Singapore 79 4664 35 59.04 Germany 215 10531 56 48.98 France 456 14693 58 32.22 Italy 939 6735 34 7.17 Netherlands 1373 19440 57 14.16 10 Spain 6 1130 6 188.33 Sweden 41 4038 18 98.49 Sweden 68 5143 33 75.63 Singapore 146 9003 50 61.66 Italy 402 11359 55 28.26 France 926 6354 32 6.86 Spain 2275 23581 55 10.37 11 Switzerland 11 1021 6 92.82 Italy 51 1527 18 29.94 Italy 89 3487 33 39.18 South Korea 149 10010 47 67.18 Switzerland 278 10709 54 38.52 Finland 624 5038 32 8.07 Sweden 1081 12708 52 11.76 12 South Korea 7 354 6 50.57 Belgium 25 2418 17 96.72 South Korea 70 5426 31 77.51 Italy 145 5386 44 37.14 Sweden 340 9739 49 28.64 Switzerland 470 4981 32 10.60 India 2605 18509 48 7.11 13 Sweden 6 115 5 19.17 Germany 63 939 17 14.90 Israel 73 2964 31 40.60 Taiwan 216 6446 43 29.84 Taiwan 791 12860 48 16.26 Sweden 656 4411 30 6.72 Finland 979 11681 45 11.93 14 New Zealand 9 126 4 14.00 South Korea 26 1249 16 48.04 Belgium 57 6054 30 106.21 Sweden 138 7128 43 51.65 Finland 301 8022 47 26.65 Denmark 471 3835 30 8.14 Switzerland 618 9488 44 15.35 15 Singapore 8 97 3 12.13 Japan 47 1659 15 35.30 Spain 69 3178 27 46.06 Denmark 98 6677 40 68.13 Denmark 242 6696 47 27.67 Taiwan 905 4673 27 5.16 Denmark 836 9726 42 11.63 16 South Africa 3 53 3 17.67 Taiwan 26 756 13 29.08 Japan 58 4747 26 81.84 Belgium 88 6608 39 75.09 Belgium 208 6861 44 32.99 Singapore 359 2518 25 7.01 South Korea 1166 9697 40 8.32 17 Finland 7 44 3 6.29 Switzerland 28 1124 12 40.14 New Zealand 66 3701 25 56.08 Finland 99 4046 37 40.87 Singapore 230 6142 44 26.7 South Korea 688 3329 24 4.84 New Zealand 610 6306 39 10.34 18 Norway 4 39 3 9.75 Denmark 19 942 12 49.58 Denmark 51 3558 22 69.76 New Zealand 92 4224 37 45.91 South Korea 348 6991 43 20.09 Norway 295 2410 24 8.17 Norway 606 7447 39 12.29 19 India 7 19 3 2.71 Spain 22 609 12 27.68 Taiwan 52 1153 21 22.17 Switzerland 94 4434 36 47.17 Norway 184 4943 39 26.86 Austria 271 2400 24 8.86 Taiwan 979 8879 37 9.07 20 Chile 3 194 2 64.67 Finland 25 522 12 20.88 Ireland 35 1156 19 33.03 Norway 73 3897 31 53.38 Japan 143 3476 30 24.31 Belgium 362 2742 23 7.57 Portugal 761 7094 36 9.32 21 China 3 152 2 50.67 New Zealand 42 959 11 22.83 Finland 44 2814 17 63.95 Israel 67 2478 28 36.99 Turkey 165 3146 30 19.07 New Zealand 304 1951 21 6.42 Austria 471 6592 35 14.00 22 Portugal 2 38 2 19.00 Austria 15 465 10 31.00 Norway 31 1452 16 46.84 Japan 97 2900 26 29.90 Israel 137 3277 29 23.92 India 416 1456 18 3.50 Singapore 468 5215 35 11.14 23 Italy 6 20 2 3.33 India 28 421 10 15.04 India 42 978 16 23.29 Greece 56 2330 26 41.61 India 155 3114 29 20.09 Portugal 292 1647 17 5.64 Malaysia 919 6830 34 7.43 24 Greece 2 17 2 8.50 Ireland 16 831 9 51.94 Switzerland 35 1798 14 51.37 Austria 54 2520 25 46.67 Portugal 131 3451 28 26.34 Ireland 172 1113 17 6.47 Belgium 477 5558 34 11.65 25 Austria 4 16 2 4.00 Norway 13 481 8 37.00 Austria 28 975 14 34.82 India 49 1243 21 25.37 New Zealand 166 3158 28 19.02 Japan 207 957 16 4.62 Brazil 1802 6559 32 3.64 26 Brazil 2 11 2 5.50 Brazil 11 224 5 20.36 Turkey 24 722 14 30.08 Turkey 48 1211 21 25.23 Austria 110 2559 27 23.26 Greece 158 922 16 5.84 Turkey 564 4420 32 7.84 27 Poland 2 4 2 2.00 Portugal 6 162 5 27.00 Greece 17 929 12 54.65 Portugal 37 1511 19 40.84 Ireland 101 101 27 1.00 Israel 166 1047 15 6.31 Pakistan 582 3957 30 6.80 28 Nigeria 3 235 1 78.33 Cyprus 4 933 4 233.25 Brazil 22 847 11 38.50 Ireland 40 1071 16 26.78 Greece 123 2205 25 17.93 Malaysia 236 791 14 3.35 U Arab Emirates 519 4193 30 8.08 29 Denmark 2 68 1 34.00 South Africa 10 59 4 5.90 Cyprus 13 615 10 47.31 Brazil 32 1355 14 42.34 Brazil 160 1934 25 12.09 Brazil 478 901 13 1.88 Ireland 385 3554 28 9.23 30 Saudi Arabia 3 23 1 7.67 Hungary 9 52 3 5.78 South Africa 22 451 10 20.50 South Africa 26 843 14 32.42 Malaysia 101 1737 22 17.20 Turkey 215 846 13 3.93 South Africa 699 3634 25 5.20 Source: Own elaboration. Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 Thirty-five years of strategic management research. A country analysis using bibliometric techniques for the 1987-2021 period 15 3.1.4. Network analysis of the Global academic production The previous analysis presents certain general results based on bibliometric techniques; however, it is also interesting to observe that the academic material can be mapped from a broader perspective to identify central and peripheral actors based on citation connections between countries. Figure2 shows a network based on citation analysis with a threshold of 100citations, and 100 of the most representative citing links. Following the distinction of the WoS database, this software maps the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland based on its constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. A similar case is viewed regarding China and Hong Kong. Additionally, this closeness between nodes within the network also follows geographical and/ or cultural related trends. The US is the most cited country and has the broadest network, followed by England, China, Canada, Spain, and Germany, which shows the interrelation that their areas of research share with other countries. Moreover, the centrality (position-wise) in the graph of the most representative countries based on citation analysis confirms the results of Table2, which were obtained by bibliometric techniques, where the US and the UK are highlighted as central actors in strategic management research. As can also be observed, most of the links accumulate in the middle of the graph, which also confirms the leadership of some countries on citation structure, as shown by the different thresholds at the level of supra-national and individual countries in Table1 and Table2, respectively. It is also important to mention that most of the links have been developed within countries that represent the Western European supra-national region, which reveals similar academic interests in strategic management research themes. Figure 2 Bibliographic data Map, based on citation analysis from leading countries (1987–2021). Size variation-network visualization. Thresholds: 100 Countries and 50 citation links Source: Own elaboration with VOS-Viewer software (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010). Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22 22 Nelson A. Andrade-Valbuena, Leslier Valenzuela-Fernández, José M. Merigó Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competition. New York. Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York. Free Press. Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 351-376. Ramos‐Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz‐Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic management journal, 25(10), 981-1004. Reed, D. (2002). Management education in an age of globalization: The need for critical perspectives. In C. Wankel & R. De Fillippi (Eds.), Rethinking Management Education for the 21st century, (pp.209236). IAP. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L. Á. (2010). Dynamics of the scientific community network within the strategic management field through the Strategic Management Journal 1980-2009: the role of cooperation. Scientometrics, 85(3), 821-848. Samiee, S., & Chabowski, B. R. (2012). Knowledge structure in international marketing: a multi-method bibliometric analysis.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(2), 364-386. Sassmannshausen, S. P., & Volkmann, C. (2018). The Scientometrics of Social Entrepreneurship and Its Establishment as an Academic Field.Journal of Small Business Management, 56(2), 251-273. Schriber, S. (2016). Nordic strategic management research -Topics, theories, and trends.Scandinavian Journal of Management, 32(4), 220230. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Small, H. (1980). Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. Journal of Documentation, 36(3), 183-196. Tomaszewski, R. (2018). A comparative study of citations to chemical encyclopedias in scholarly articles: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology and Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Scientometrics, 117(1), 175-189. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., & Nieme, A. W. (2000). Serving constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1130-1141. Tur-Porcar, A., Mas-Tur, A., Merigó, J. M., Roig-Tierno, N., & Watt, J. (2018). A bibliometric history of the Journal of Psychology between 1936 and 2015. Journal of Psychology, 152(4), 199-225. Valenzuela-Fernández, L., Nicolas, C., Merigó, J. M., & Arroyo-Cañada, F. J. (2018). Industrial marketing research. A bibliometric analysis (1990-2015). Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(3), 550560. Valenzuela-Fernández L., Merigó J., & Nicolas, C. (2017). Universidades influyentes en investigación sobre Orientación al Mercado: una visión general entre 1990 a 2014. Estudios Gerenciales, 33(144), 221-227. Valenzuela-Fernández, L., Merigó, J., Johnston, W., Nicolas, C., & Jaramillo, J. (2017). Thirty years of the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(1), 1-17. Valenzuela-Fernández, L., Merigó, J. M., & Nicolas, C. (2018). The most influential countries in Market Orientation: A bibliometric analysis between 1990 and 2016. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 10(1), 1-9. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. van Eck N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In: Ding Y., Rousseau R., Wolfram D. (eds) Measuring Scholarly Impact. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-103778_13 van Raan, A. F. (2005). For your citations only? Hot topics in bibliometric analysis. Measurement: interdisciplinary research and perspectives, 3(1), 50-62. Voeth, M., Gawantka, A., & Chatzopoulou, G. (2006). Impact auf die deutschsprachige Marketingforschung. Marketing ZFP, 28(1), 7-20. Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426-446. World Bank (2021). World databank. Population, Total. http://data. worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL Xi, J., Kraus, S., Filser, M. & Kellermanns, F. (2015). Mapping the field of family business research: past trends and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 113-132. Zacca-González, G., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of regional Latin America’s scientific output in public health through SCImago journal & country rank. BMC public health, 14(1), 1-11. Zhang, L., Sun, B., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Chen, L., & Huang, Y. (2018). Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: on the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists. Scientometrics, 117(1), 271-291. Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión 22/2 (2022) 7-22