Innovation and Productivity Research in The Last Five Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis

Yıl 2024, , 215 - 238, 05.06.2024

Derya Çelik

https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.1339814

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to reveal research trends by revealing the evaluation in this field by making a holistic analysis of academic studies that have examined the concepts of innovation and productivity in the last five decades. This analysis aims to reveal the general structure of academic studies that deal with the concepts of innovation and productivity.
Methodology: Articles searched in the ‘‘Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)’’, ‘‘Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)’’ and ‘‘Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)’’ citation index in the ‘‘Web of Science (WoS)’’ database, researching innovation and productivity together between 1980-2023. It was analysed and mapped using the VOSviewer 1.6.19 software and manual methods. Co-occurrence Keyword Analysis, Document Co-citation Analysis and manual analysis methods were used in the mapping.
Findings: This study reveals how research in innovation and productivity has developed over the last five decades and what trends it has. This information can be a valuable resource for future research and policy-making and can be used to drive innovation and productivity progress.
Originality: While the study is the first and only content analysis to reveal the combined trends in this field by examining the "innovation and productivity" studies together, it is thought that the results obtained can guide researchers and professionals.
Key Words: Innovation, Productivity, Bibliometric Analysis, VOSviewer

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovation, Productivity, Bibliometric Analysis, VOSviewer

Etik Beyan

It was declared by the author that scientific and ethical principles have been followed in this study and all the sources used have been properly cited. Yazar tarafından bu çalışmada bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğu ve yararlanılan tüm çalışmaların kaynakçada belirtildiği beyan edilmiştir.

INNOVATION AND PRODUCTIVITY RESEARCH IN THE LAST FIVE DECADES: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to reveal research trends by revealing the evaluation in this field by making a holistic analysis of academic studies that have examined the concepts of innovation and productivity in the last five decades. This analysis aims to reveal the general structure of academic studies that deal with the concepts of innovation and productivity. Methodology: Articles searched in the ‘‘Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)’’, ‘‘Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)’’ and ‘‘Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)’’ in the ‘‘Web of Science (WoS)’’ database, researching innovation and productivity together between 1980-2023. It was analysed and mapped using the VOSviewer 1.6.19 software and manual methods. Co-occurrence Keyword Analysis, Document Co-citation Analysis and manual analysis methods were used in the mapping. Findings: This study reveals how research in innovation and productivity has developed over the last five decades and what trends it has. It has been determined that the most published areas are Economy, Management and Business. The most frequently used keywords were found to be "innovation", "productivity", "research-and-development", "growth", "performance" and "impact". The most published topics on a cluster basis are "impact", "innovation and productivity", "growth", "research and development" and "performance", respectively. In the document co-citation analysis, it was determined that the publication in which all publications were linked included the study titled "Research, Innovation and Productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level", published by Crépon et al. (1998). This information can be a valuable resource for future research and policy-making and can be used to drive innovation and productivity progress. Originality: While the study is the first and only content analysis to reveal the combined trends in this field by examining the "innovation and productivity" studies together, it is thought that the results obtained can guide researchers and professionals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovation, Productivity, Bibliometric Analysis, VOSviewer

Kaynakça

• Agapito, D. (2020). The senses in tourism design: A bibliometric review. Annals of Tourism Research, 83(2020), 102934.
• Akbari, M., Khodayari, M., Khaleghi, A., Danesh, M., & Padash, H. (2021). Technological innovation research in the last six decades: a bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(5), 1806-1831.
• Arruda, H., Silva, E. R., Lessa, M., Proença Jr, D., & Bartholo, R. (2022). VOSviewer and bibliometrix. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 110(3), 392.
• Atkinson, R. D. (2013). Competitiveness, innovation and productivity. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, 2013(August), 2-7.
• Aydın, S. (2018). “İşletmelerde Üretim Stratejisi ve Verimlilik”, Üretim Yönetimi (Editör: Kağnıcıoğlu, C.H.), Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, Eskişehir, 32-55.
• Barutçugil, İ. (2020)., Stratejik İnovasyon Yönetimi, Kariyer Yayıncılık (1), İstanbul
• Benavente, M. J. (2006). The role of research and innovation in promoting productivity in Chile. Economics of innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), 301-315.
• Benckendorff, P., & Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 121-149.
• Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389-2404.
• Bretas, V. P., & Alon, I. (2021). Franchising research on emerging markets: Bibliometric and content analyses. Journal of Business Research, 133, 51-65.
• Chudnovsky, D., López, A., & Pupato, G. (2006). Innovation and productivity in developing countries: A study of Argentine manufacturing firms’ behavior (1992–2001). Research Policy, 35(2), 266-288.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569-596.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128-152.
• Crépon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairessec, J. (1998). Research, innovation and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and new Technology, 7(2), 115-158.
• Crespi, G., & Zuniga, P. (2012). Innovation and productivity: evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development, 40(2), 273-290.
• Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: A co-citation analysis. Mis Quarterly, 341-353.
• Çalık, E. (2021). Türkiye’deki İmalat İşletmelerinin Sürdürülebilir İnovasyon Faaliyetleri. Verimlilik Dergisi, (3), 185-201.
• Doğan, T. G. B., Doğan, S., & Aykan, E. (2021). Liderlik tarzlarının bibliyometrik analizi. Erciyes Akademi, 35(1), 161-189.
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
• Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics, 105, 1809-1831.
• Estabrooks, C. A., Winther, C., & Derksen, L. (2004). Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the research utilization literature in nursing. Nursing Research, 53(5), 293-303.
• Gökmenoğlu, M., & Yavuz, İ. S. (2022). Kamu Harcamaları ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisine Yönelik Çalışmaların Bibliyometrik Ağ Analizi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (52), 231-252.
• Griffith, R., Huergo, E., Mairesse, J., & Peters, B. (2006). Innovation and productivity across four European countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4), 483-498.
• Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. The Bell Journal of Economics, 92-116.
• Hall, B. H., Lotti, F., & Mairesse, J. (2009). Innovation and productivity in SMEs: empirical evidence for Italy. Small Business Economics, 33, 13-33.
• Jefferson, G. H., Huamao, B., Xiaojing, G., & Xiaoyun, Y. (2006). R&D performance in Chinese industry. Economics of innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), 345-366.
• Karabulut, K. & Karamızrak B. (2020). ‘‘Rekabet Piyasasında İnovasyonun Rolü’’, İnovasyon üzerine araştırmalar (Editör: Keser E. ), (2020)., Ekin Yayınları, Ankara, 2020, 61-82.
• Khan, M. A., Pattnaik, D., Ashraf, R., Ali, I., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2021). Value of special issues in the Journal of Business Research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 125, 295–313.
• Kovacs, A., Van Looy, B., Cassiman, B. (2015), “Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research”, Scientometrics, 104(3), 951-983.
• Koseoglu, M. A., Rahimi, R., Okumus, F., & Liu, J. (2016). Bibliometric studies in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 180-198.
• Krajewski, L. J., Ritzman, L. P., & Malhotra, M. K. (2010). Operations management: Processes and supply chains (12th Edition). Pearson, New Jersey.
• Krugman, P. (1994). Defining and measuring productivity. The Age of Diminishing Expectations.
• Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 317-341.
• Lindvall, M., Muthig, D., Dagnino, A., Wallin, C., Stupperich, M., Kiefer, D., & Kahkonen, T. (2004). Agile software development in large organizations. Computer, 37(12), 26-34.
• Lööf, H., & Heshmati, A. (2002). Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity:: A firm-level innovation study. International Journal of Production Economics, 76(1), 61-85.
• Lööf, H., & Heshmati, A. (2006). On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), 317-344.
• Miotti, L. Raffo, J., & Lhuillery, S., (2008). Northern and southern innovativity: a comparison across European and Latin American countries. The European Journal of Development Research, 20, 219-239.
• Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: An update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47-65.
• Okafor, B. E. (2013). Analysis of Impact of Labour and Input Material on Productivity. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 3(3), 245-257.
• Okubo, Y. (1997). Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: Methods and examples. STI Working Papers Paris: OECD.
• Olley, S., & Pakes, A. (1992). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry., National Bureau of Economic Research, 64(6), 1263-1297.
• OECD & EUROSTAT (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement of Scientic and Technological Activities, Paris.
• OECD & EUROSTAT (2018), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientic and Technological Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg.
• Özçınar, H. (2015). Mapping teacher education domain: A document co-citation analysis from 1992 to 2012. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 42-61.
• Özer, M. A. (2017). Örgütsel Verimlilik Yolunda “Mükemmelliği” Arayan İşletmeler. Verimlilik Dergisi, (3), 7-28. Parisi, M. L., Schiantarelli, F., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Productivity, innovation and R&D: Micro evidence for Italy. European Economic Review, 50(8), 2037-2061.
• Pece, A. M., Simona, O. E. O., & Salisteanu, F. (2015). Innovation and economic growth: An empirical analysis for CEE countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 461-467.
• Phusavat, K. (2013). Productivity management in an organization: measurement and analysis. To Know Press Monographs. ToKnowPress, 978-961-6914-05-5.
• Roblek, V., Dimovski, V., Mesko, M., & Peterlin, J. (2022). Evolution of organisational agility: a bibliometric study. Kybernetes, 51(13), 119-137.
• Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037. Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, with a new introduction by: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Transaction Publishers, 0878556982.
• Sinkovics, N. (2016). Enhancing the foundations for theorising through bibliometric mapping. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 327-350.
• Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
• Suiçmez, H. (2002). Verimlilik ve Etkinlik Terimleri (Tarihsel Bakış). Mülkiye Dergisi, 26 (234), 169-183.
• Tangen, S. (2002). Understanding the concept of productivity. In Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference, Taipei, 18-20.
• Van Eck N. J. and Waltman L. (2020). “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2023). VOSviewer manual. Manual for VOSviewer version 1.6.19. Univeristeit Leiden.
• Vural, H. (2022). Pazarlama ve İnovasyon. Balkan & Near Eastern Journal of Social Sciences (BNEJSS), 08 (Special Issue), 308-316.
• Zan, B. U. (2019). Doğrudan atıf, ortak atıf ve bibliyografik eşleşme yaklaşımlarına dayalı olarak araştırma alanlarının değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(2), 501-516.