SME Internationalization: A Descriptive Review of Nontraditional Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature surrounding SME internationalization is still in its infancy but growing rapidly as SMEs become prominent in global markets. This paper outlines that, although stage theories of internationalization have dominated the literature in the past, newer theories deviate from this line of thinking. Notably, theories originating from the field of entrepreneurship, such as effectuation and bricolage, have been found to be quite informative in explaining the behaviour of SMEs, yet they are greatly underrepresented in the internationalization literature. Our study critically reviews the SME internationalization literature and highlights concepts such as resource scavenging, social capital, muddling through, and dynamic experimental internationalization – all reflective of a nontraditional pattern of thinking. These approaches explain the spontaneity and improvisation that is inherent in a lot of SME internationalization. We find that ‘nontraditional’ approaches to internationalization hold great value for both academics and professionals. Our findings reveal that many of the nontraditional approaches are still within the early stages of development, and thus require greater theoretical and empirical analysis. This study forms a foundational basis upon which future researchers can build a stronger understanding of nontraditional SME internationalization. For SMEs contemplating internationalizing, this study provides key insights into the complex process of engaging with foreign markets. Nontraditional approaches introduce strategies that SMEs can employ in both foreign market selection and foreign market entry processes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".