Scientometrics (2012) 92:657–674

DOI 10.1007/s11192-012-0652-6

Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling

H. Martinez • A. Jaime • J. Camacho

Received: 10 November 2011 / Published online: 10 February 2012

Ó Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Abstract This paper provides the profiling on the ‘relative absorptive capacity of
knowledge’ research to provide insights of the field based on data collected from the ISI
Web of science database during the years 2001–2010. The analysis is established in three
phases, namely, the general publication, the subject area, and the topic profiling. The study
obtains patterns, characteristics, and attributes at country, institutions, journals, author, and
core reference levels. It shows the increase of the research activity in the field, based on the
publication productivity during the years mentioned. Most of these publications are clas-
sified in the subject areas of business and economics, engineering, and operations research
and management science. We highlight the nascent interest of the computer science subject
area as a way to operationalize the different studies conducted. We found a lack of
contribution from African and Latin–American countries despite the importance of the
field for them. Our results are useful in terms of science strategy, science and technology
policy, research agendas, research alliances, and research networks according to the special
interest of specific actors at the individual, institutional, and national levels.

Keywords Relative absorptive capacity
Publication analysis
Bibliometrics

Research profiling

H. Martinez (&)
Center for Technology and Innovation Management Research—Innotec, Universidad Industrial de
Santander, La Perla, Cra 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga, Colombia
e-mail: hugo.martinez@correo.uis.edu.co

A. Jaime
Knowledge Transfer Office-UIS, Universidad Industrial de Santander,
Vicerrectorı́a de Investigaciones, Cra 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga, Colombia
e-mail: dirconocim@uis.edu.co

J. Camacho
Center for Technology and Innovation Management Research—Innotec,
Universidad Industrial de Santander, Rectorı́a, Cra 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga, Colombia
e-mail: jcamacho@uis.edu.co

123
658 H. Martinez et al.

Introduction

The absorptive capacity has been one of the most important concepts during the last two
decades (Camisón and Forés 2010). It has been studied from different theoretical per-
spectives and wide empirical studies (Volberda et al. 2010). Most of the studies have
analyzed the construct based on the definition of Cohen and Levinthal (1990), where the
firm with a level of absorptive capacity is supposed to learn equally from other firms. In
contrast, Lane and Lubatkin (1998) found that the absorptive capacity has to be analyzed
from a dyadic perspective: having into account the characteristics not only of the learning
firm, but also the characteristics of the teacher firm. In other words, the absorptive capacity
is relative.
This dyadic and relative perspective has opened important research concerned partic-
ularly to knowledge and learning: R&D spending on knowledge transfer (Mowery et al.
1996), Knowledge overlapped in knowledge transfer (Mowery et al. 1996; Schoenmakers
and Duysters 2006), and knowledge outcome of joint knowledge creation (Nooteboom
et al. 2007).
The work of Lane and Lubatkin (1998) has made an enormous advance in our under-
standing about the role on the creation, transfer and application of knowledge, especially
in alliances (Meier 2011). However, there is a lack of bibliometric studies on ‘relative
absorptive capacity’ that assesses the research productivity in a quantitative and systematic
way. Bibliometric methods, principles and techniques are used in different disciplines of
science and engineering (Keiser and Utzinger 2005), and can support practitioners and
theorists about the insights of the scientific community, allowing the creation of research
agendas, social research networks, interdisciplinary research, and research policies.
The bibliometric field emerged 50 years ago with Price (1963) and Garfield (1972). It
uses quantitative analysis based on mathematics and statistics (Hawkins 1977; Pritchard
1969) in order to quantify attributes in subject research areas using a body of literature
(Abramo et al. 2009). Bibliometrics is characterized by being non invasive, and simple to
implement (Moed et al. 1991), but particularly because it reduces the limitations and
distortion associated to subjectivity in assessments (Aksnes and Taxt 2004). Generally, the
analyses are based on the information embedded in the bibliographic fields of articles
(Palvia et al. 2004; Palvia et al. 2003), which are used to obtain patterns and trends (Li
et al. 2009), and internal and external properties of a research field (Estabrooks et al. 2004).
The use of bibliometric techniques, methods, and principles to scan contextual litera-
ture, and extend and improve the understanding of a research field from a high level
perspective, is known as ‘Research profiling’ (Porter et al. 2002). Research profiling has
been applied and used on a wide spectrum of studies in the literature: the evolution of
technology (Watts and Porter 2003), technology intelligence processes (Porter 2005),
research at the country level (Garg et al. 2006), technology opportunities (Yoon 2008),
research activities (Porter et al. 2010), specific technologies (Guo et al. 2010), scientists
(Pei and Porter 2011), standardization and innovation (Choi et al. 2011), and in mining
external R&D (Porter and Newman 2011). Basically, the research profiling supports and
enhance the typical literature review by processing high amounts of information, that were
impossible to analyze by the traditional way (Porter et al. 2002).
Despite the growth of publications on relative absorptive capacity, the assessment of the
research productivity in a quantitatively and systematic way is not found in the literature.
There is a need for a research profiling analysis that studies the ‘relative absorptive
capacity’ from a global perspective, rather than from individual studies, to allow exploring
the intellectual core and some properties of the research stream (Holsapple 2008).

123
Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling 659

Therefore, the objective of this study is to profile the ‘relative absorptive capacity’
research based on the publication and citation data of papers, to obtain the patterns,
quantity and spread of the literature during 2001–2010 at a global, subject category, and
core topic levels. Taking the bibliographic fields contained on the retrieved papers by using
bibliometric and text mining methods (Porter et al. 2002), this study looks for information
associated to the research of main countries, institutions, subject categories, journals,
authors, and topics.
The paper has the following outlined. First, we describe the methodology of the applied
research profiling and data. Second, we explain the results at the general publication,
subject category, and topic level. Finally, we state our conclusions, limitations, and future
research.

Data and method

The data used in this study was retrieved from publications and citations of research papers
on ‘relative absorptive capacity’ during the time frame 2001–2010. The data was obtained
from academic journals indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS), which has been used as
a research information database in different fields (Bayer and Folger 1996; Braun et al.
2000). We did not use any structured equation involving specific keywords, boolean ele-
ments, or wildcards to obtain the papers. Instead, we used all the papers citing the seminal
work of Lane and Lubatkin (1998), where the concept of ‘relative absorptive capacity’ took
relevance. We obtained 469 records that were analyzed based on their bibliographic fields.
The data was analyzed based on the research profiling method (Porter et al. 2002). This
method scans vast amounts of literature, in order to extend the understanding of research
domains, and they patterns. We used a research profiling schema similar to the used by
Choi et al. (2011).
Figure 1 shows the phases used in this paper: general publication, subject area, and
topic profiling. The general publication profiling phase shows the trend in publication of
papers by year. This phase is concerned to the general information about the principal
regions and countries, institutions, journals, and authors involved in the scientific research
at a global level. In the subject area profiling phase, each record is classified into one of the
ISI WoS subject categories, and from them, the analysis is centered on the top 5 leading
subject categories and their relations to main journals, authors, and core references.
Finally, the topic profiling phase is concerned to the predominant topics represented by the
keywords used by authors. The topic profiling include the most representative topics in the
research, the relation to the most important journals, the principal authors, subject area, and
the core references.
There are some limitations related to the above-described methodology. Firstly, it is
important to note that the ISI WoS database does not include all the records citing the
seminal work of Lane and Lubatkin (1998). Second, we focused on the most representative
elements in each profiling phase, so we did not mention some elements that although have
been less usual during these years, could be of great interest to some actors involved in the
research of ‘relative absorptive capacity’. We used ISI WoS data based on the premise that
the journals, and the records included in this database have high research quality and are a
reflection of the general research in the field. At the same time, we developed a research
profiling that described the field in general terms, focusing on the core research elements
studied during the time frame given.

123
660 H. Martinez et al.

GENERAL
PUBLICATION SUBJECT AREA
TOPIC PROFILING
PROFILING PROFILING

Journal – Topic
Country Profiling Journal - Subject Area
Profiling Profiling

Authors – Topic
Institution Profiling
Profiling
Author – Subject Area
Profiling
Subject Area – Topics
Journal Profiling
Profiling

Core References –
Subject Area Core References – Topics
Authors Profiling ProfilingCountry Profiling Profiling

Fig. 1 Phases on the research profiling process

Results and discussion

General publication profiling

We initiate by showing in Fig. 2, the productivity of the ‘relative absorptive capacity of

knowledge’ research, based on the number of papers published by year.
The number of published articles has grown from 2 in 1998 to 82 in 2010. From 2001 to
2010, the research has had an average increase of 7.1 published articles yearly, and the
scientific productivity in 2010 (83 records) exceeded in four times the productivity in 2001

90

80

70

60
# ARTICLES

50

40

30

20

10

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

YEAR

Fig. 2 Scientific productivity trend for ‘relative absorptive capacity’ research

123
Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling 661

(19 articles). This growing trend, which we believe will continue in the years to come, is a
clear indication of a rise of interest of the academic community groups in the relative
absorptive capacity research.

Country profiling

This profiling can be a reflection of the activity and academic level of the countries in the
field (Arunachalam and Jinandra 2000). The scientific productivity is distributed across
34 countries involved in the 469 published articles being analyzed. The regions highly
concerned to the research are Europe (17 countries involved with 247 articles) and
North America (2 countries involved with 246 articles) fallowed by Asia (10 countries, 106
articles) and Oceania (2 countries, 18 articles). There is a low participation from Africa (2
countries, 7 articles) and Latin–America (1 country, 1 article).
Although the region with the highest productivity is Europe, at the country level, the top
ten research publication is dominated by USA. This country participates in almost half
(46%) of the total articles published, followed by England (9%), Taiwan (7.2%), Neth-
erlands (6.8%), Spain (6.8%), Canada (6.3%), Germany (5%), Peoples R China (4.6%),
France (4.2%) and both, Denmark and Sweden (3.8%).

Institution profiling

262 institutions contributed to the 469 published articles during 2001–2010. The most
productive institutions are the Texas A&M University (13 articles), The Copenhagen
School of Economy and Business Administration (12 articles) and Uppsala University
(18 articles). From the top 12 universities with more than 5 published articles, 5 are from
USA, 4 are from Europe, and 2 are from Asia. We did not find the presence in the top 12
institutions from countries such as England, Canada, Germany, Peoples R China, and
France, which belong to the top 10 countries. This could be mainly to a more equally
distributed research over the institutions in these countries in contrast to countries like
USA, Denmark and Sweden. For example, the National University of Singapore is one of
the most significant contributors as an institution, but its related country The Republic of
Singapore does not contribute in the top 10 of countries giving the indication of a highly
concentrated and dependent research on that specific institution.

Journal profiling

The data indicates that the 469 articles were written in 126 scientific journals. 25 journals
contributed with more than 5 published articles during 2001–2010. This leading 25 sci-
entific journals are equivalent to the 62% of the total of articles analyzed. The 5 topmost
prolific journals represent 25% of the total of published articles analyzed. Table 1 shows
the top 25 most productive journals.
The 469 analyzed articles cited a total of 5,295 journals from which the most repre-
sentative are: Strategic Management Journal (cited 469 times), Administrative Science
Quarterly (cited 434 times), Academy of Management Review (cited 420 times), Organi-
zation Science (cited 418 times), and Academy of Management Journal (388 times cited).
Four from the top five most prolific journals are included in the top ten of most cited
journals: Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management Studies, Academy of
Management Journal and Journal of International of Business Studies. These journals keep

123
662 H. Martinez et al.

Table 1 Top 25 of most prolific

Journal # Records
journals
Strategic Management Journal 40
International Journal of Technology Management 27
Journal of Management Studies 21
Academy of Management Journal 17
Journal of International Business Studies 16
Organization Science 15
Research Policy 15
Technovation 15
Academy of Management Review 13
IEEE Transactiona on Engineering Management 12
International Business Review 10
Journal of Business Venturing 10
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 9
International Journal of Management Review 8
Journal of Business Research 8
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 7
Journal of Management 7
R&D Management Journal 7
British Journal of Management 6
Journal of Product Innovation Management 6
Industrial and Corporate Change 5
Industrial Marketing Management 5
Journal of Marketing 5
Journal of World Business 5
Long Range Planning 5

a high standard of quantity (number of published articles) and quality (number of cited
articles).

Authors profiling

The 469 articles involve 795 authors from which 143 contributed with more than 2 papers
during 2001–2010; 60 contributed with more than three papers; 30 contributed with more
than four papers, and only 14 contributed with more than five papers. Table 2 shows the
top 25 most prolific and cited authors.
From Table 2, we see that Lane PJ, who is the author of the seminal article that is the
base to retrieve the data, occupies the 10 place of productive authors (five papers). In
addition, this author is the most cited, which is a logical observation noticing that the data
analyzed are comprised by the articles citing his influential work.
Only 2 of the top 30 most prolific authors are included in the top 30 of most cited
authors: Lane PJ, and Zahra SA. These two authors impacted the traditional view of the
absorptive capacity construct, Lane PJ making it relative, and Zahra SA proposing it as a
dynamic capability. The field is showing a small convergence supported by some prolific
authors who based their work on known and solid theories represented by the cited authors
indicated in Table 2. However, the lack of presence of the most productive authors in the

123
Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling 663

Table 2 Top 25 of most prolific

Prolific authors # Records Cited authors # Records
(left) and more cited (right)
authors
Hitt, MA 13 Lane, PJ 469
Lichtenthaler, U 9 Cohen, WM 334
Rothaermel, FT 9 Kogut, BW 250
Molina-Morales, FX 8 Grant, RM 207
Duysters, G 7 Teece, DJ 193
Lyles, MA 7 Dyer, JH 183
Andersson, U 5 Nonaka, I 172
Bierly, PE 5 Zahra, SA 168
De Clercq, D 5 Gulati, R 166
Lane, PJ 5 Powell, WW 162
Oerlemans, LAG 5 Mowery, DC 159
Reuer, JJ 5 Hamel, G 158
Sapienza, HJ 5 March, JG 145
Volberda, HW 5 Barney, JB 142
Al-Laham, A 4 Inkpen, AC 142
Amburgey, TL 4 Szulanski, G 141
Anand, J 4 Nelson, RR 132
Bjorkman, I 4 Eisenhardt, KM 125
Dimov, D 4 Ahuja, G 113
Forsgren, M 4 Simonin, BL 112
Il Park, B 4 Kale, P 111
Ireland, RD 4 Porter, ME 109
Lavie, D 4 Tsai, WP 103
Lichtenthaler, E 4 Williamson, OE 103
Martinez-Fernandez, MT 4 Hagedoorn, J 98

most cited authors would be an indication of an unbalance between quantity and quality of
the studies. Although there is a small convergence of different topics represented by their
authors, there is not yet a total commitment to keep highly efforts and deeper studies in the
field.

Subject category profiling

We found 17 WoS subject categories related to the 469 published papers. The core subject
categories of the field are represented in grey color: Business and Economics, Engineering,
Operations Research and Management Science, Public Administration, and Computer
Science. Although most of research is related to Business, Economics and Management
categories, there are some research areas such as the Environmental Science, Geography,
and Health Care that can be an interesting research point of departure for new research and
a sample towards multidisciplinarity. Main subject categories are shown in Table 3.
The average increase of published articles yearly is led by the Business and Economics
subject category (5.55 papers/year), followed by Engineering (1.11 papers/year), Public
Administration (0.77 papers/year), Operations Research and Management Science (0.55
papers/year), and Computer Science (0.55 papers/year). The propensity of growth is
highlighted in Business and Economics which overpasses the tendency when compared to

123
664 H. Martinez et al.

Table 3 Subject categories

Subject category # Records
associated to the 469 articles
analyzed
Business and Economics 421
Engineering 78
Operations Research and Management Science 58
Public Administration 32
Computer Science 22
Information Science and Library Science 14
Environmental Sciences and Ecology 8
Social Sciences–Other topics 7
Urban Studies 6
Geography 5
Science and Technology–Other topics 4
Psychology 3
Communication 2
Health Care Sciences and Services 2
Mathematics 1
Pharmacology and Pharmacy 1

the other areas. Operations Research and Management Science and Engineering, have a
slightly growth tendency from their beginning but going down in the last year (2010).
Public Administration seems to be without increase or decrease during the period of time
and Computer Science has an almost unnoticed but constant increase since 2005.

Journal-subject area profiling

Each subject area is associated to highly and specific productive journals. In Table 4, we
show the main subject areas and their top 5 of most prolific journals.
Table 4 shows that in general, some journals stand out from their relatives in each
subject area. The exception is computer science, where the most representative journals
have the same and a small number of records. This flat distribution is an indication of a
nascent interest by the subject area in the research field of relative absorptive capacity. This
can be then, the first step to try to operationalize the theory of these studies through
information and communication technologies.
On the other hand, there is almost an agreement about the more cited journal by each
one of the subject areas. For example, Business and Economics, Engineering, and Oper-
ations Research and Management Science, have the same most cited journals: Strategic
Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Review,
Organizational Science, and Academy of Management Journal. The Public Administration
area has the Research Policy journal, instead of the Academy of Management Journal.
Finally, Computer Science has the Management Science Journal, instead of the Academy
of Management Journal.
Only two subject areas have journals at both, the most productive (quantity) and cited
(quality) sides. These are Business and Economics with the Strategic Management Journal
and the Academy of Management Journal, and Public Administration with the Research
Policy Journal.

123
Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling 665

Table 4 Top five most productive journals by subject area

Subject area Top 5 journals

Business and Economics (421) Strategic Management Journal (40)

International Journal of Technology Management (27)
Journal of Management Studies (21)
Academy of Management Journal (17)
Journal of International Business Studies (16)
Engineering (78) International Journal of Technology Management (27)
Technovation (15)
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (12)
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management (9)
Journal of Product Innovation Management (6)
Operations Research and Management International Journal of Technology Management (27)
Science (58) Technovation (15)
European Journal of Operational Research (4)
Management Science (4)
Decision Support Systems (2)
Journal of Operations Management (2)
Public Administration (32) Research Policy (15)
Long Range Planning (5)
European Planning Studies (3)
Growth Change (2)
Technological Forecasting and Social Change (2)
Computer Science (22) Decision Support Systems (2)
Industrial Management and Data Systems (2)
Information Management (2)
Journal of Information Science (2)
Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce (2)
MIS Quarterly (2)

Author-subject area profiling

In Table 5, we show the most prolific authors by subject area. There is a lack of repre-
sentative authors in Operations Research and Management Science, and Computer Sci-
ence. The reason could be that the authors of these subject areas study the relative
absorptive capacity as a secondary subject in their research area, or are beginning to study
the field.
Each subject area has also authors that are most cited than others. We found in common
two influential authors: Cohen WM and Lane PJ. The Business and Economics most cited
authors besides the mentioned above are: Kogut BW, Grant RM, and Teece DJ. The
Engineering subject area most cited authors: Kogut BW, Powell WW, Hamel G, Nonaka I.
Operations Research and Management Science is represented by Kogut BW, Nonaka I,
and Mowery DC. Public Administration has: Kogut BW, Grant RM, Teece DJ. And finally
Computer Science most cited authors are: Nonaka I, Szsulanski G, and Grant RM.

123
666 H. Martinez et al.

Table 5 Most prolific authors

Subject area (# records) Author (# records)
by subject area
Business and Economics (421) Hitt, MA (13)
Lichtenthaler, U (9)
Rothaermel, FT (9)
Duysters, G (7)
Lyles, MA (7)
Engineering (78) Bierly, PE (4)
Lichtenthaler, U (3)
Covin, JG (2)
Duysters, G (2)
Gopalakrishnan, S (2)
Hitt, MA (2)
Kim, C (2)
Lichtenthaler, E (2)
Oerlemans, LAG(2);
Rothaermel, FT (2)
Santoro, MD (2)
Saparito, PA (2)
Wu, SH (2)
Operations Research and Kim, C (2)
Management Science (58) Lichtenthaler, E (2)
Song, J (2)
Wu, SH (2)
Almeida, P (1)
Public Administration (32) Molina-Morales, FX (6)
Martinez-Fernandez MT (2)
Autio, E (1)
Baden-Fuller, C (1)
Bagchi-Sen, S (1)
Computer Science (22) Albayrak, YE (1)
Antonio, N (1)
Aranda, DA (1)
Baek, C (1)
Bjorn-Andersen, N (1)

Core references-subject area profiling

In the top five list of most cited references for the 5 major subject areas, we found two
common records The first, is the work of Peter J. Lane and Michael Lubatkin titled
‘‘Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning’’ (1996). And the second is
the work of Wesley M. Cohen and Daniel A. Levinthal titled ‘‘Absorptive Capacity: A New
Perspective on learning and Innovation’’ (1990).
This is an obvious result knowing that the present analysis is based on the research made
by the former, which at the same time is a dyadic view of the later.
The subject areas of Business and Economics, Engineering, Operations Research and
Management Science, and Public Administration, share the work of David C. Mowery,

123
Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling 667

Joanne E. Oxley, and Brian S. Silverman titled ‘‘Strategic Alliances and Interfirm
Knowledge Transfer’’ (1996). In this work, the absorptive capacity is used to explain the
technological capability transfer in alliance participation.
The subject areas of Business and Economics, Engineering, and Public Administration
share the work of Walter W. Powell, Keneth W. Koput, and Laurel Smith-Doerr titled
‘‘Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in
Biotechnology’’ (1996). The authors explain how the distributed expertise of an industry
makes that innovation matters were more easily to find in collaborative networks of
learning than on individual firms.
Business and Economics and Public Administration subject areas have in common
the work of Jeffrey Dyer and Singh titled ‘‘The relational view: cooperative strategy and
sources of interorganizational competitive advantage’’ (1998) which focused on the
interrelationships between firms and how critical resources would be embedded in the
inter-firm relations and routines.
Engineering and Operations Research and Management Science have in common the
study of Gary Hamel titled ‘‘Competition for competence and interpartner learning within
international strategic alliances’’ (1991) which describes how collaboration can be an
opportunity to improve the position of a partner in an alliance.
The Public Administration cited a paper, that is not common to any other subject area,
authored by Wesley M. Cohen and Daniel A. Levinthal titled ‘‘Innovation and Learning:
The two faces of R&D’’ (1989) which is a precedent work of their seminal paper of the
1990s. In this work, they study how R&D activities not only help to generate information,
but to assimilate and exploit the information already exist.
Operations Research and Management Science has two records in its top five most cited
references that are not shared for any other subject area. The first is the work of Bruce
Kogut and Udo Zander titled ‘‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology’’ (1992). In this study the authors focused the attention on how
knowledge of individuals and groups is transferred and shared in firms. The second is the
work of Shaker A. Zahra and Gerard George titled ‘‘Absorptive Capacity: A Review,
Reconceptualization, and Extension’’ (2002) which is focused in a new conceptualization
of the construct based on the dynamic capability view of the firm.
Finally, the Computer Science does not have any shared most cited references, except
for the two seminal papers mentioned above that were common to the five subject areas. In
the top 5 most cited references, we found three records besides the two common: The first
is the book written by Ikujiro Nonaka and Irotaka Takeuchi titled ‘‘The Knowledge Cre-
ating Company’’ (1995) which describes how organizations acquire knowledge, giving
significance to the fact that creating knowledge is as important as processing it. The second
is the seminal work of Robert M. Grant titled ‘‘Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the
Firm’’ (1996) where the firms are viewed as institutions that integrate knowledge. In this
way he explored the mechanisms used by firms to integrate the knowledge of their
members. The third work was written by Gabriel Szulanski and was titled ‘‘Exploring
Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm’’ (1996)
which describes the difficulty to imitate internally the best practices of a firm and its role in
the knowledge transfer process.

Topic profiling

Topic profiling is based on the keywords used by the authors in their papers. The analysis
of keywords offers information about the research patterns as viewed by researchers

123
668 H. Martinez et al.

Table 6 Author’s keywords

# Papers Keywords
appearing eight or more times in
the 469 analyzed articles
51 Absorptive capacity
41 Innovation
30 Knowledge transfer
25 Strategic alliance
21 Organizational learning
20 Alliance
20 Knowledge management
16 Knowledge
16 Learning
14 Dynamic capability
14 Network
13 Social capital
11 Performance
9 International joint venture
9 Knowledge acquisition
9 Knowledge sharing
9 Trust
8 Biotechnology
8 New product development

(Garfield 1990), and the intellectual structures of knowledge domains (Culnan 1987).
Topic profiling is based on the nature of words, which are the fundamental element of
knowledge, ideas, and scientific concepts (Callon et al. 1991).
In the 469 articles, we found 883 author’s keywords. Table 6 shows the main keywords
used by authors. These keywords could partially describe how the focus of the relative
absorptive capacity research has been based not in the absolute view of the firm but on a
relational view having two or more actors exchanging knowledge and learning from each
other. Besides, there is a strong theoretical focus related to the absorptive capacity topic
(51 papers), and some other such as dynamic capability, social capital, organizational
learning and innovation. Something to highlight is the use of the biotechnology sector in
the research field. This could be because of the tendency in this sector to create and use
collaborative practices via strategic alliances, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions in
order to innovate or to obtain competitive advantages.

Journals–topics profiling

The top five prolific journals are focused on some particular topics. The Strategic Man-
agement Journal studies are principally related to innovation, alliances (including the
strategic alliances) and theoretical aspects of absorptive capacity and dynamic capabilities.
The International Journal of Technology Management most used topics are theory based,
such as absorptive capacity and dynamic capabilities, and other topics such as learning
(including organizational learning) and knowledge. The Journal of Management Studies
most studied topics are absorptive capacity, strategic alliances, competitive advantages,
and international joint ventures. The Academy of Management Journal studies are focused
on absorptive capacity, competitive advantages, product development, innovation, and

123
Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling 669

R&D. Finally, the Journal of International Business Studies focused on international joint
venture, knowledge transfer, multinationals, cultural differences and absorptive capacity.
Besides the most prolific journals, other representative journals have also special topics
of study. The Organizational Science Journal focused on knowledge flow, organizational
learning, innovation, alliance, and networks. The Research Policy Journal studies are
related specially to absorptive capacity, innovation, collaborative networks, knowledge
spillover, and strategic alliances. The Technovation Journal is focused on absorptive
capacity, innovation, alliance, biotechnology, and co-opetition. The Academy of Man-
agement Review is centered on absorptive capacity, competitive advantage, performance,
organization, and strategic alliances. The IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
studies are specially related to knowledge transfer and product development.

Authors–topics profiling

Table 7 shows the main topics and their representative authors. This information can be
used for alliance formation, to make contact in order to obtain mobility grants or schol-
arships, and to get information regarding explicit matters about the research. At the
institutional and country level, this information can be useful to broaden research networks
on specific topics and as a screening work in order to obtain information about some
special topics in the field.
The most prolific authors have specific topics of study. Hitt MA is concerned principally
with innovation, resource-based view, and strategic alliances; however, he studies some
other topics such as dynamic capability, emerging economies, and growth strategies.
Lichtenthaler U has studied the open innovation, external knowledge and technology, and
alliances. Roathermel FT has focused on dynamic capabilities, new-product development,
strategic alliances, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, vertical integration,
and technological discontinuity. Molina-Morales FX has focused on topics such as
industrial districts, innovation, knowledge, social and relational capital, and resource
sharing. Duysters G studies are related to alliances and interfirm collaboration, governance
modes, and external uncertainty and sourcing. And Lyles MA has study, international joint
ventures, knowledge management, and theoretical bases for the absorptive capacity.

Subject area–topics profiling

Table 8 shows the main topics by subject area that have been used two or more times in the
analyzed literature. This information revealed that all the subject areas put the absorptive
capacity concept, and knowledge matters as central facts in the research. Four of five
subject areas are focused on alliances except for Computer Science, which is centered in
information systems.

Core references–topics profiling

The top 5 most cited references for the 5 leading topics has the same two common
references founded in the subject area analysis we made already. These papers are the work
of Peter J. Lane and Michael Lubatkin titled ‘‘Relative absorptive capacity and interor-
ganizational learning’’ (1996), and the work of Wesley M. Cohen and Daniel A. Levinthal
titled ‘‘Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on learning and Innovation’’ (1990). The
topics of absorptive capacity, innovation, and knowledge transfer share the work of David

123
670 H. Martinez et al.

Table 7 Top 10 most used research topics and their representative authors
1. Keywords/topics Authors 2. Keywords/topics Authors

Absorptive capacity Giuliani, E Alliance Zahra, SA

Hayton, JC Hayton, JC
Il Park, B Kim, C
Lyles, MA Lavie, D
Sofka, W Oxley, JE
Zahra, SA Sampson, RC
Innovation Hitt, MA Knowledge management Navas-Lopez, JE
Lane, PJ Alguezaui, S
Makri, M Assudani, RH
Martinez-Fernandez, MT Azeroual, B
Matusik, SF Bierly, PE
Molina-Morales, FX
Oerlemans, LAG
Rothaermel, FT
Knowledge transfer Anand, J Knowledge Martinez-Fernandez, MT
Bjorkman, I
Li, L Molina-Morales, FX
Oerlemans, LAG Adenfelt, M
Park, HJ Ahuja, G
Santoro, MD Al-Laham, A
Saparito, P A
Strategic alliance Jiang, X Learning Tjosvold, D
Rothaermel, FT Amara, N
Deeds, DL Beldona, S
Hitt, MA Belkhodja, O
Li, Y Carcaba, A
Nielsen, BB
Reuer, JJ
Zollo, M
Organizational learning Holmqvist, M Dynamic capability Rothaermel, FT
Argyres, NS Bierly, PE
Azadegan, A Daly, PS
Bapuji, H Danneels, E
Bercovitz, JEL Deeds, DL

C. Mowery, Joanne E. Oxley, and Brian S. Silverman titled ‘‘Strategic Alliances and
Interfirm Knowledge Transfer’’ (1996). The topics of absorptive capacity and knowledge
transfer have in common the work of Gabriel Szulanski ‘‘Exploring Internal Stickiness:
Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm’’ (1996). Innovation and
organizational learning topics share the study of James G. March titled ‘‘Exploration and
Exploitation in Organizational Learning’’ (1991) which describes the new possibilities
(exploration) and old certainties (exploitation) and the resources used by them in organi-
zational learning.

123
Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling 671

Table 8 Top 10 of keywords by subject category

Subject category Topics (keywords)

Business & Economics (421)
Egineering (78)
Operations Research and
Management Science (58)
Public Administration (32)
Computer Science (22)
Absorptive capacity (46); innovation (38); Knowledge transfer (26);
Strategic alliance (24); alliance (20); organizational learning (18);
knowledge (15); knowledge management (15); learning (14);
dynamic capability (13); network (13)
Absorptive capacity (12); Knowledge transfer (11); innovation (9);
alliance (5); dynamic capability (5); knowledge (4); learning (4);
knowledge management (3); network (3); open innovation (3);
organisational learning (3); R&D consortia (3)
Absorptive capacity (12); innovation (7); Knowledge transfer (6);
alliance (5); dynamic capability (4); learning (4); knowledge
(3);knowledge management (3); organisational learning (3); R&D
consortia (3)
Absorptive capacity (8); innovation (4); knowledge (3); Collaborative
network (2); industrial district (2); Interfirm collaboration (2);
Knowledge spillover (2); Knowledge transfer (2); organizational
learning (2); performance (2); Strategic alliance (2); Technology
transfer (2)
Knowledge transfer (5); Absorptive capacity (4); Knowledge sharing
(4); knowledge management (3); information systems development
(2); offshore (2)

The absorptive capacity topic includes also the study of Shaker A. Zahra and Gerard
George titled ‘‘Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension’’
(2002). The topic of Innovation include: first, the work of Walter W. Powell, Keneth W.
Koput, and Laurel Smith-Doerr titled ‘‘Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of
Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology’’ (1996); second, the work of Gautam
Ahuja titled ‘‘Collaborations Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal
Study’’ (Ahuja 2000) that study the effects of firms networks of relations on innovations;
and third, the book of Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter titled ‘‘An Evolutionary
Theory of Economic Change’’ (1982). The knowledge transfer topic embraces the paper
written by Udo Zander and Bruce Kogut titled ‘‘Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer
and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test’’ (1995) that studies how
the codification and how the capabilities taught, have an influence on the speed of transfer.
The strategic alliance topic has 3 more references: the first is the work of Gary Hamel titled
‘‘Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic
alliances’’ (Hamel 1991); the second is the study of Jeffrey H. Dyer and Harbir Singh titled
‘‘The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive
advantage’’ (1998); and the third is the work of Tarun Khanna, Ranjay Gulati, and Nitin
Nohria titled ‘‘The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative
scope’’ (1998) which study how the balance between cooperation and competition has an
impact on learning alliances. Finally, the organizational learning topic has 2 more highly
cited papers: the first is the paper of Daniel A. Levinthal and James G. March titled ‘‘The
Myopia of Learning’’ (Levinthal and March 1993) that describes how firms approach
exploration and exploitation and how this contributes to the tendency to overlook times,
places, and failures; and the second is the work of Barbara Levitt and James G. March
titled ‘‘Organizational Learning’’ (Levitt and March 1988) which is a literature review on
organizational learning.

123
672 H. Martinez et al.

Conclusions

In this paper, we profile the ‘relative absorptive capacity of knowledge’ research in order to
explore characteristics and properties of the field. The research profiling is based on 469
papers retrieved from the ISI WoS database during the years 2001–2010. The analysis
shows the growth on the research activity (number of publications) in the field during the
time frame above mentioned. This reflects the increasing interest by the academic com-
munity in the relative absorptive capacity research, which seems to be the tendency in the
near years to come.
The research is mostly concentrated on Europe, North America and Asia, and there is a
lack of contribution from African and Latin–American countries. The latter two regions
could play a major role noticing the importance that the research can bring in terms of
alliances, knowledge complementarity, and knowledge resources among actors. In order to
do it, some strategies can be developed, as the design or reconfiguration of research
agendas, and development and practice of research policies.
Although there are some differences among institutes or universities in terms of pub-
lication productivity, the gaps are not prominent, and most of the research is almost equally
distributed over the different actors. This can be an indication that at institutional level, the
relative absorptive capacity supports and complements other research areas, or could be a
secondary research field of interest.
The data analyzed revealed that most of the research in the field is published in five
subject areas: Business and Economics, Engineering, Operations Research and Manage-
ment Sciences, Public Administration, and Computer Science. This can be an indication of
the multidisciplinarity in the field. The largest subject area is the Business and Economics
with 89% from the total of articles analyzed. The most prolific journals and authors are
associated to the Business and Economics subject area, and are related to management and
business research matters. We encourage the research from dimensions and point of views
related to the other of subject areas. For example, although the Computer Science has a
timid participation, it has started to get involved stronger in the research field, which could
show the interest by some researchers to operationalize the work and studies made during
the 10 years.
From data, we conclude that much of the research has been focused on theoretical views
of the concept. The studies are centered on topics such as innovation, learning, knowledge
management, and knowledge transfer. The most-used unit of analysis has been the alliance.
We encourage using multilevel analysis involving individuals, groups, units, firms, alli-
ances, sectors, industries, countries. Furthermore, some important forms of learning and
interactions such as communities of practice, and informal alliances should be included.
At the same time, although the biotechnology sector has special characteristics and
properties to make studies related to the relative absorptive capacity, we propose to study
other sectors in order to extend the spectrum of the research in the field.
This research profiling can have some limitations because it could simplify more
complex structures derived from detailed analysis at the different levels, namely at global,
subject area, and topics. The study would need further research narrowing the data to
specialized areas or specific topics from the general profiling, which could be useful to
knowledge discovery, and to understand the potential multidisciplinarity involving other
concepts and constructs. However, this holistic view of the field, is a first approach to
understand the research of ‘‘what, how, and who’’ to understand in a better way the relative
absorptive capacity of knowledge; and it serves as an asset to be used when policy makers
take strategic research decisions from the Academy or productive sector.

123
Relative absorptive capacity: a research profiling 673

Aknowledgments We thanked Luis E. Becerra, Piedad Arenas, and Edna Bravo for their review and
valuable feedback. We thanked to the Universidad Industrial de Santander for it support in the use of
specialized analytic tools included in the Strategic Areas Project.

References

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). Allocative efficiency in public research funding: can
bibliometrics help? Research Policy, 38(1), 206–215.
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455.
Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peers reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at
Norwegian University. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33–41.
Arunachalam, S., & Jinandra, D. M. (2000). Mapping international collaboration in science in Asia through
coauthorship analysis. Current Science, 79(5), 621–628.
Bayer, A. E., & Folger, J. (1996). Some correlates of a citation measure of productivity in science. Sociology
of Education, 39(4), 381–390.
Braun, T., Schubert, A. P., & Kostoff, R. N. (2000). Growth and trends of fullerene research as reflected in
its journal literature. Chemical Reviews, 100(1), 23–38.
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of
interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics,
22(1), 155–205.
Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: new insights for its conceptualization and
measurement. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 707–715.
Choi, D. G., Lee, H., & Sung, T. (2011). Research profiling for ‘‘standardization and innovation’’.
Scientometrics, 88(1), 259–278.
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 inno-
vation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980–1985: a co-citation analysis. Man-
agement Information Systems Quarterly, 11(3), 341.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational
competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
Estabrooks, C. A., Winther, C., & Derksen, L. (2004). Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the
research utilization literature in nursing. Nursing Research, 53, 293–303.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.
Garfield, E. (1990). Keywords plus-ISIS breakthrough retrieval method. 1. Expanding your searching power
on current-contents on diskette. Current Contents, 32, 5–9.
Garg, K. C., Kumar, S., & Lal, K. (2006). Scientometric profile of Indian agricultural research as seen
through science citation index expanded. Scientometrics, 68(1), 151–166.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,
109–122.
Guo, Y., Huang, L., & Porter, A. (2010). Research profiling method applied to nano-enhanced, thin film
solar cells. R&D Management, 40(2), 195–208.
Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic
alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), 83–103.
Hawkins, D. T. (1977). Unconventional uses of on-line information retrieval systems: on-line bibliometric
studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28, 13–18.
Holsapple, C. W. (2008). The pulse of multiparticipant systems. Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 333–343.
Keiser, J., & Utzinger, J. (2005). Trends in the core literature on tropical medicine: a bibliometric analysis
from 1952–2002. Scientometrics, 62(3), 351–365.
Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation,
and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193–210.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Lane, P., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic
Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477.

123
674 H. Martinez et al.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14,
95–112.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14, 319–340.
Li, L. L., Ding, G., Feng, N., Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2009). Global stem cell research trend: bibliometric
analysis as a tool for mapping of trends from 1991 to 2006. Scientometrics, 80(1), 39–58.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1),
71–87.
Meier, M. (2011). Knowledge management in strategic alliances: a review of empirical evidence. Inter-
national Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 1–23.
Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., Nederhof, A. J., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (1991). International scientific co-
operation and awareness within the European community: problems and perspectives. Scientometrics,
21, 291–311.
Mowery, D., Oxley, J., & Silverman, B. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer.
Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77–91.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the
dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Vandenoord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive
distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), 1016–1034.
Palvia, P., Leary, D., Mao, E., Midha, V., Pinjani, P., & Salam, A. F. (2004). Research methodologies in
MIS: an update. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 14, 526–542.
Palvia, P., Mao, E., Salam, A. F., & Soliman, K. S. (2003). Management information systems research:
what’s there in a methodology? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11,
289–309.
Pei, R., & Porter, A. L. (2011). Profiling Leading Scientists in nanobiomedical Science: interdisciplinarity
and potential leading indicators of research directions. R&D Management, 41(3), 288–306.
Porter, A. L. (2005). QTIP: Quick technology intelligence processes. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 72(9), 1070–1081.
Porter, A. L., Kongthon, A., & Lu, J.-C. (2002). Research profiling: improving the literature review.
Scientometrics, 53(3), 351–370.
Porter, A. L., & Newman, N. C. (2011). Mining external R&D. Technovation, 31(4), 171–176.
Porter, A. L., Schoeneck, D. J., Roessner, D., & Garner, J. (2010). Practical research proposal and publi-
cation profiling. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 29–44.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational and the collaboration locus of
innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.
Price, D. J. de Solla (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.
Schoenmakers, W., & Duysters, G. (2006). Learning in strategic technology alliances. Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 18(2), 245–264. 4.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the
firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
Volberda, H., Foss, N., & Lyles, M. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: how to realize its
potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.
Watts, R., & Porter, L. (2003). R&D cluster quality measures and technology maturity. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 70(8), 735–758.
Yoon, B. (2008). On the development of a technology intelligence tool for identifying technology oppor-
tunity. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(1–2), 124–135.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension.
Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational
capabilities: an empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76–92.

123