Revealing the research potential for the field of cross-cultural entrepreneurship: lessons from an integrative literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture plays an important role for the study of entrepreneurship. However, whereas cross-cultural research in management (CCM) has strongly evolved in the last three decades and identified different paradigms, paradigmatically diversified research is still lacking in cross-cultural entrepreneurship. To fill this gap, this study suggests an integrative literature review with two objectives: 1) provide an overview of cross-cultural entrepreneurship research with an attention to national culture, different paradigms, and research themes, and 2) point towards possibilities to enrich such research. Through an integrative literature review, 147 studies of cross-cultural entrepreneurship research were identified and regrouped according to two main paradigms in CCM research: positivism and interpretivism. The analysis of all papers led to the emergence of five research themes according to which the papers were regrouped. Based on this matrix of paradigms and research themes, all texts were categorized into 10 areas. Findings show the dominance of cross-cultural entrepreneurship studies based on the positivist paradigm of culture, whereas research rooted in the interpretive paradigm is rather unexplored and offers great potential for future research. Based on these findings, we argue that particularly rich qualitative research designs offer interesting opportunities for developing the field of cross-cultural entrepreneurship.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it