Up to now, the review of international innovation research is based on the micro knowledge-based research of multi-disciplinary, focusing on a research branch in the field of innovation management（such as business model）, or the evolution of the field of international innovation management in a certain period of time. In view of this, based on the bibliometric perspective, this paper selects 43 828 pieces of literature data during 1962-2019 from a general view, and uses the CiteSpace bibliometric analysis software qualitative method of literature reviews to analyze core journals, core authors, core regions, keyword co-occurrence, research hotspots in the past 180 days and cited knowledge map of literature from a broader longitudinal perspective. It is found that core journals in the field of innovation management have different emphases on theories, methods, policies, applications, etc.; China and Chinese institutions have the highest amount of paper publications, while Chinese scholars have a high amount of paper publications, but the international academic influence needs to be improved; Absorption capacity is still the international research hotspot in the field. In the past decade, research hotspots have shifted from organizational ambidexterity and business model innovation to platform, ecological innovation, digital innovation, etc.; International innovation management can be divided into eight major mainstream research fields, namely, open innovation, knowledge management, capability, project management, ambidexterity, business model innovation, ecosystem, dominant design and coopetition. In this way, this paper expounds the knowledge evolution and development frontier in the field of international innovation management in a unified way, which provides reference for the research of innovation management in China. To sum up, the direction of domestic financial support and journal topic selection will incline to the research of innovation management under the background of digital economy. Platform, ecological innovation and digital innovation will become the research hotspot in the future, and the research method and the dynamic perspective of business model innovation, ecosystem and competition need to be further expanded.
International Research Hotspots of Innovation Management and Their Evolution: Based on Visual Analysis
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 41, Issue 12, pp. 186 - 199 (2019) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2019.12.009
 Chen Yue, Chen Chaomei, Liu Zeyang, et al. The methodology function of CiteSpace mapping knowledge domains [J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2015, (2): 242-253.
 Jin Yuran, Ji Shoufeng, Yu, Jiangnan. A visual analysis of hot spots and their evolution of business model innovation [J]. Science Research Management, 2018, (7): 50-58.
 Qu Jiaan, Liu Fei. Hotspot and trend visualization analysis of international innovation and entrepreneurship research：A quantitative study of CiteSpace Patterns based on 2007-2016 top four international leading entrepreneurial journals [J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2018, (12): 154-160.
 Zhang Lu, Bai Lu, Su Jingqin, et al. The research trend and research frontiers of international innovation theory [J]. Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 2016, (9): 16-15.
 Abernathy W J, Utterback J M. Patterns of industrial innovation[J]. Technology Review, 1978, 80(7): 40-47.
 Adner R. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2006, 84(4): 98-107.
 Adner R, Kapoor R. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2010, 31(3): 306-333.
 Ali A, Krapfel Jr R, LaBahn D. Product innovativeness and entry strategy: Impact on cycle time and break‐even time[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1995, 12(1): 54-69.
 Amit R, Zott C. Value creation in E‐business[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, 22(6-7): 493-520.
 Anderson P, Tushman M L. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(4): 604-633.
 Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage[J]. Journal of Management, 1991, 17(1): 99-120.
 Bengtsson M, Kock S. Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in business networks[J]. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 1999, 14(3): 178-194.
 Cheng C C J, Yang C L, Sheu C. Effects of open innovation and knowledge-based dynamic capabilities on radical innovation: An empirical study[J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2016, 41: 79-91.
 Chesbrough H. Open innovation[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.
 Christensen C M. The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail[J]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.
 Cohen W M, Levinthal D A. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R & D[J]. The Economic Journal, 1989, 99(397): 569-596.
 Cohen W M, Levinthal D A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1): 128-152.
 Cozzolino A, Rothaermel F T. Discontinuities, competition, and cooperation: Coopetitive dynamics between incumbents and entrants[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2018, 39(12): 3053-3085.
 Cui V, Yang H B, Vertinsky I. Attacking your partners: Strategic alliances and competition between partners in product markets[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2018, 39(12): 3116-3139.
 Dahlander L, Gann D M. How open is innovation?[J]. Research Policy, 2010, 39(6): 699-709.
 Eisenhardt K M. Building theories from case study research[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14(4): 532-550.
 Eisenhardt K M, Martin J A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they?[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(10-11): 1105-1121.
 Fagerberg J, Verspagen B. Innovation studies—the emerging structure of a new scientific field[J]. Research Policy, 2009, 38(2): 218-233.
 Fagerberg J, Fosaas M, Sapprasert K. Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base[J]. Research Policy, 2012, 41(7): 1132-1153.
 Frankort H T W. Open innovation norms and knowledge transfer in interfirm technology alliances: Evidence from information technology, 1980-1999[J]. Advances in Strategic Management, 2014, 30: 239-282.
 Gnyawali D R, He J, Madhavan R. Co-Opetition: Promises and challenges[A]. Wankel C. 21st century management: A reference handbook[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008.
 Grant R M. Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(S2): 109-122.
 Griffin A. Metrics for measuring product development cycle time[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1993, 10(2): 112-125.
 Grigoriou K, Rothaermel F T. Organizing for knowledge generation: Internal knowledge networks and the contingent effect of external knowledge sourcing[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2017, 38(2): 395-414.
 Gupta A K, Smith K G, Shalley C E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49(4): 693-706.
 Henderson R M, Clark K B. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1): 9-30.
 Huizingh E K R E. Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives[J]. Technovation, 2011, 31(1): 2-9.
 Kapoor R, Lee J M. Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2013, 34(3): 274-296.
 Kessler E H, Bierly P E, Gopalakrishnan S. Internal vs. external learning in new product development: Effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage[J]. R&D Management, 2000, 30(3): 213-224.
 Kogut B, Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology[J]. Organization Science, 1992, 3(3): 383-397.
 Laursen K, Salter A. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 27(2): 131-150.
 March J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[J]. Organization Science, 1991, 2(1): 71-87.
 Nagle F, Teodoridis F. Jack of all trades and master of knowledge: The role of diversification in new distant knowledge integration[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2019, doi: 10.1002/smj.3091.
 Nelson R R. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
 Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation[J]. Organization Science, 1994, 5(1): 14-37.
 Park W Y, Ro Y K, Kim N. Architectural innovation and the emergence of a dominant design: The effects of strategic sourcing on performance[J]. Research Policy, 2018, 47(1): 326-341.
 Peteraf M, Di Stefano G, Verona G. The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2013, 34(12): 1389-1410.
 Podsakoff P M, Organ D W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects[J]. Journal of Management, 1986, 12(4): 531-544.
 Powell W W, Koput K W, Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996, 41(1): 116-145.
 Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, et al. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance[J]. Organization Science, 2009, 20(4): 685-695.
 Robert K Y. Case study research: Design and methods[J]. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1994.
 Rogers E M. Diffusion of innovations[M]. 4th ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.
 Suarez F F, Grodal S, Gotsopoulos A. Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2015, 36(3): 437-448.
 Teece D J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy[J]. Research Policy, 1986, 15(6): 285-305.
 Teece D J. Business models, business strategy and innovation[J]. Long Range Planning, 2010, 43(2-3): 172-194.
 Teece D J, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997, 18(7): 509-533.
 Tushman M L, O'Reilly III C A. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change[J]. California Management Review, 1996, 38(4): 8-29.
 Utterback J M, Suárez F F. Patterns of industrial evolution, dominant designs, and firms' survival[R]. Sloan WP#3600-93, 1993.
 Von Hippel E. Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation[J]. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 2005, 55(1): 63-78.
 West J, Wood D. Evolving an open ecosystem: The rise and fall of the Symbian platform[J]. Advances in Strategic Management, 2014, 30: 27-67.
 Zahra S A, George G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2002, 27(2): 185-203.
 Zhu X X, Xiao Z X, Dong M C, et al. The fit between firms’ open innovation and business model for new product development speed: A contingent perspective[J]. Technovation, 2019, 86-87: 75-85.
 Zobel A K. Benefiting from open innovation: A multidimensional model of absorptive capacity[J]. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2017, 34(3): 269-288.
 Zott C, Amit R, Massa L. The business model: Recent developments and future research[J]. Journal of Management, 2011, 37(4): 1019-1042.
Cite this article
Wu Xiaobo, Fu Yanan. International Research Hotspots of Innovation Management and Their Evolution: Based on Visual Analysis[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2019, 41(12): 186-199.
Previous: Career Competencies, Job Crafting and Innovation Behavior: Insights from Yin-Yang Harmony Cognition