Rapid internationalisation among entrepreneurial firms in Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The importance of networks in the internationalisation of entrepreneurial firms is widely accepted. However, while the literature tends to focus on the existing networks of firms, there is growing evidence that many rapid internationalisers have to build new networks. This cross‐national study investigates the networks of internationalising entrepreneurial firms in Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand. Design/methodology/approach A multi‐stage approach and mixed methods were employed. Online sources were used to gather information on 218 internationalising small firms, then an e‐mail instrument was administered to verify data and address information gaps, resulting in 143 usable responses (66 per cent) evenly distributed across locations. A representative sub‐sample of 53 firms was selected for further in‐depth investigation via face‐to‐face interviews with CEOs. Findings A high proportion of firms (25 per cent) actively used existing networks to develop their knowledge of international markets and improve their international competitiveness. However, an even larger number (34 per cent) had to build new networks because of the advanced nature of their offering. In‐depth interviews provided rich insights into the nature and scope of the firms' network development activities. Research limitations/implications While the sample size is relatively small, the findings are consistent across locations. They suggest that further investigation of network building activities among internationalising entrepreneurial firms is required. Practical implications The results have implications on firm strategy, in terms of the strategic nature of network building and the need for systematic approaches. They also are pertinent to public policy in support of internationalisation. In particular, there is a need for support agencies to shift their focus from providing objective knowledge to supporting experiential learning and network development. Originality/value The linkage of extant network approaches to the emerging knowledge‐based view (KBV) of internationalisation enhances and advances both perspectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".