An important dimension of performance analysis involves identifying the journals that have served as primary platforms for disseminating research on female entrepreneurship (Cui et al. 2018). This examines the most relevant sources that provide insight into the disciplinary homes of this body of literature. This also highlights the academic venues that have consistently contributed to shaping the field. To identify core journal sources, Bradford’s Law (Bradford 1934; Garfield 1979) was applied, predicting that a small group of journals will account for most publications on a given topic. This stratification reveals the most productive sources in the field and enables an efficient mapping of key knowledge hubs (Aria & Cuccurullo 2017).

The International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship emerges as the most prolific source, publishing 47 articles that focus extensively on the intersection of gender and entrepreneurial activity. Other notable journals include the Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Sustainability, Gender in Management and the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, each contributing over 20 articles. These outlets reflect a growing scholarly interest in the role of women entrepreneurs, particularly in sustainable development and emerging markets. Additionally, journals, such as the Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Small Business Economics, Frontiers in Psychology and the Journal of Enterprising Communities, along with contributions from thematic volumes like Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), have each published over 10 articles. All top 20 journals fall within Zone 1, indicating a high concentration of relevant articles in a few core sources. The Bradford distribution visually confirms this clustering in Figure 1, where a steep drop after the first few journals reflects their disproportionate contribution to the field.

Beyond productivity, impact and influence were assessed using h-index, g-index, m-index and TC metrics. The International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship leads in publication count and scholarly impact (h-index = 18, TC = 1020), reflecting both depth and consistency. Small Business Economics and the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development also show strong influence with high citation counts and sustained publication over time. Notably, Sustainability, despite its recent entry into the field (PY start = 2019), demonstrates a rapid rise in relevance, with a high m-index (1.6) and substantial article volume, suggesting an emerging shift towards sustainability-focused perspectives in female entrepreneurship research.

This analysis reveals a robust and diverse knowledge base, anchored by journals from entrepreneurship, gender studies, management and development fields. The overlap of core sources across multiple disciplines further highlights the interdisciplinary nature of research on female entrepreneurship, supporting the integration of theoretical, practical and policy-oriented perspectives.

Figure 2 outlines the top 10 authors’ scholarly output. Each horizontal line represents an author, with dots along the line indicating the number of articles published in a given year and the size of the dots reflecting the TCpY for those articles. The leading contributors in female entrepreneurship research demonstrate consistent scholarly engagement and thematic specialisation.

Ramadani is the most prolific among the top authors, with publications from 2015 to 2023. His work shows a broad but sustained focus on women’s entrepreneurial motivations, social empowerment and business dynamics in various cultural contexts, with notable citation impact, particularly his 2019 article on beekeeping as family entrepreneurship, which has a TCpY of 7.8. Zali has contributed significantly through regionally focused research on the MENA region, with a high citation count in their 2019 article on gender inequality (TCpY 6.8). Despite fewer publications, Shastri’s work on institutional barriers and motivations in patriarchal settings has been well cited, demonstrating high relevance (e.g. TCpY 5.6).

Dana and Manolova display long-term engagement in the field, with Dana contributing across a range of topics from growth models to domestic versus international venturing, and Manolova achieving the highest impact per year (TCpY 10.2) in her 2007 study on human capital and networking. Mas-Tur has addressed gendered entrepreneurship performance and motivation across regions, with consistently cited works from 2012 to 2022.

Agarwal, Faisal, Jabeen and Adom offer valuable region-specific insights from India, the Gulf and sub-Saharan Africa. Despite a relatively lower publication count, their individual works carry strong citation performance, indicating high scholarly influence per article. Agarwal’s 2020 work on sustainable development in Indian women’s social entrepreneurship shows a TCpY of 13.25, one of the highest in the dataset. This diverse author landscape highlights global engagement with the topic of female entrepreneurship and showcases the emergence of thematic specialisation and geographic depth in recent years.

The State University System of Florida shows a gradual increase in output over time, with a notable increase from 2015 onwards. The University of London had a steady output beginning in 2005 and saw a significant increase in production in 2021 and 2022. The University of North Carolina published its first articles in 2007, with a sharp increase in 2017 and a peak in 2023. The University of Valencia began publishing in 2010, with its output rising sharply in 2012 and reaching its highest in 2023. The University of Ghana saw its first significant output in 2015 and maintained a steady pace, peaking in 2023. The Indian Institute of Technology System (IIT System) started publishing on the topic later than the others in 2017 but quickly increased its number of publications by 2023. It indicates that these institutions are key players in female entrepreneurship research. The numbers reflect the institutions’ research commitment and possibly the presence of specialised centres or faculty members dedicated to this study area.

The bar chart in Figure 3 illustrates the number of documents on female entrepreneurship from various countries, differentiated by the type of publication: single-country publications (SCPs) and multiple-country publications (MCPs). Single-country publication refers to research conducted within one country, whereas MCP indicates international collaboration between researchers from multiple countries. Most countries focus on their domestic data and produce more SCP, except France, which focuses more on MCP. Australia, while having fewer articles (31), shows a higher ratio of MCP (15), indicating a strong inclination towards international research partnerships. The USA leads with the highest number of articles (153) and a substantial mix of SCP (109) and MCP (44), suggesting a strong focus on domestic research and international collaboration. India followed with 77 articles, predominantly SCP (70), showing a stronger focus on domestic research. The United Kingdom has 43 SCP and 29 MCP out of 72 articles. Spain and China both showed a sizeable number of articles. Nigeria, South Africa and Ghana (SCP: 17, 14 and 10, respectively) are the African countries in the top 20 continuously publishing on the drivers of female entrepreneurship. This number shows their consistent effort to understand these drivers to enhance the role of women in these countries’ economy.

Table 1 provides the citation metrics of top-performing articles. The most globally cited documents range from 1995 to 2020. The titles of the documents suggest their compatibility with bibliometric analysis. Total citation represents the number of times an article has been cited in other articles. Total citation per year shows the average number of citations an article has received per year since publication. The normalised TC is a metric that compares an article’s citation count to a benchmark or average in the field, adjusted for factors such as publication age or discipline-specific citation behaviours.

The article by Langowitz and Minniti (2007) has the highest TC count (564) and an annual citation rate (33.18). It has been highly influential and consistently cited since its publication. The normalised citation count is also high (7.31), which indicates that it performs better than a standard measure. The article’s sustained citation trajectory underscores its foundational role in shaping gender-aware entrepreneurial intention models. Cliff (1998) holds substantial TCs (414), TCpY (15.92) and normalised TC (2.49). Buttner and Moore (1997) have been cited 352 times, with 13.04 TCpY and a normalised TC of 1.23.

While older works reflect sustained foundational influence, recent publications like Fairlie (2020) demonstrate rapid and high-impact entry into the scholarly conversation. Despite being a relatively new article, it has achieved an annual citation rate of 56.75 and a normalised TC of 16.39, the highest among all listed works. This suggests that newer research, especially when aligned with current policy or data trends, can quickly gain traction and reshape the research agenda.

Lerner, Brush and Hisrich (1997) and Cooper and Artz (1995) discuss the factors affecting women’s entrepreneurial performance and the determinants of their satisfaction. Their normalised citation counts are also at the modest end reflecting either time-adjusted decline or more focused reach. Kirkwood (2009), Minniti and Naudé (2010) and Shelton (2006) discuss the motivational factors and determinants of female entrepreneurship. Overall, the table allows for assessing the impact and relevance of academic articles in the field, with TCs indicating the overall influence.

Intellectual structure establishes how the work of documents influences a given scientific community. The intellectual structure of the knowledge involves co-citation network analysis (Small 1973) and historiographic mapping (Garfield 2004). The co-citation network visualises the most influential studies by examining how often other works jointly cite articles (Small 1973). In other words, it focuses on the co-citation of two documents jointly cited by a third document. This technique is particularly beneficial for business scholars aiming to identify foundational knowledge and seminal work in their fields (Donthu et al. 2021). Figure 4 shows two significant clusters that emerged based on betweenness centrality and a high PageRank score. These two distinct intellectual clusters represent diverging but complementary paradigms in studying female entrepreneurship. These clusters are structurally identifiable in the network and epistemologically distinct in their theoretical orientations and research foci.

The first cluster, led by Langowitz and Minniti (2007), reflects a behavioural economics perspective rooted in cognitive and decision-making frameworks. This body of work extends traditional models of entrepreneurship by incorporating cognitive limitations, subjective perceptions and social embeddedness into the analysis of entrepreneurial behaviour. Langowitz and Minniti’s contribution is particularly influential in this regard. Drawing on data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, their study tests multiple hypotheses related to social and human capital, risk perception, self-efficacy and the role of entrepreneurial networks while paying specific attention to gendered differences in opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial motivation (Nkwei, Rambe & Simba 2023). By doing so, they challenge the rational actor assumptions of neoclassical economics and provide a nuanced framework that explains how entrepreneurship is not merely an outcome of economic utility maximisation but also shaped by subjective and socially constructed perceptions. Their work links closely to others in this cluster, who collectively explore entrepreneurial intention, psychological traits and the importance of social context.

The second cluster, with Ahl (2006) as its intellectual anchor, represents a critical feminist approach to female entrepreneurship. This line of scholarship interrogates the discursive, structural and institutional dimensions that shape and constrain women’s entrepreneurial experiences. Ahl’s work offers a significant theoretical intervention by critiquing the individualistic, essentialist and gender-neutral assumptions prevalent in much of the mainstream entrepreneurship literature. It calls for a constructionist and interdisciplinary perspective, grounded in feminist theory. She reframes entrepreneurship research in a way that highlights power dynamics, social inequalities and the structural reproduction of gender norms. The influence of her critique is clearly visible in the co-citation cluster (Brush et al. 2009; De Bruin, Brush & Welter 2006; Jennings & Brush 2013). These studies contribute to the global women’s entrepreneurship policy (GWEP) discourse and advocate for gender-aware entrepreneurship ecosystems. These scholars push the field beyond traditional performance metrics and encourage a broader understanding of entrepreneurial success that incorporates social value creation and institutional change.

The network structure and cumulative degree distribution further substantiate the centrality of these clusters. The red cluster (Langowitz & Minniti 2007) demonstrates dense intracluster co-citation patterns, indicating a cohesive intellectual tradition focused on entrepreneurial cognition and behaviour. The blue cluster (Ahl 2006) similarly exhibits strong internal ties, highlighting the consolidation of critical feminist thought within the domain. The bridging links between these clusters suggest some theoretical convergence, particularly in recent studies that integrate psychological insights with socio-structural critiques.

This dual-cluster structure highlights a thematic bifurcation in female entrepreneurship research. One stream advances psychological and behavioural models that explore individual-level drivers. The other advocates feminist and institutional approaches that interrogate structural constraints and propose transformative agendas. The coexistence of these paradigms reflects the field’s growing theoretical pluralism and underscores the need for continued interdisciplinary integration.

Historiographic mapping is a bibliometric technique used to reconstruct the evolutionary trajectory of a research field by identifying key documents that have influenced subsequent scholarship. Developed by Garfield (2004) and later integrated into bibliometric software such as Bibliometrix (Aria & Cuccurullo 2017), this method visualises a direct citation network in which nodes represent documents and edges represent citation links. The temporal dimension is embedded on the horizontal axis, allowing researchers to trace the progression of theoretical development and influence over time (Tay 2022).

As illustrated in Figure 5, the historiographic map of female entrepreneurship research reveals a chronologically coherent citation path that connects landmark contributions over the past four decades. The map begins with Cromie (1987), one of the earliest empirical explorations into gender differences in entrepreneurial motivation. Cromie’s study served as an intellectual precursor to subsequent waves of research, particularly in highlighting non-economic and personal factors in female entrepreneurial activity.

A decade later, Cliff (1998) emerges as another pivotal node. This work challenges the dominant growth-centric paradigm in entrepreneurship by demonstrating that many female entrepreneurs intentionally choose smaller-scale ventures. This idea marked a conceptual shift towards recognising alternative success metrics and questioning the assumptions of ‘one-size-fits-all’ business models (Dzomonda & Neneh 2023).

The historiographic trajectory continues with a pronounced citation convergence around Langowitz and Minniti (2007), whose behavioural economics framework examines the cognitive and perceptual filters that shape women’s entrepreneurial intentions. This study plays a central bridging role in the citation network, connecting earlier work on motivation and intention with emerging scholarship on opportunity recognition and gendered entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Building upon this foundation, Manolova et al. (2012) further enrich the discourse by introducing cross-cultural perspectives and exploring how gendered differences in human capital and networking influence growth expectancies. These contributions are critical in shifting the analytical lens from the individual to the relational and structural dimensions of entrepreneurship.

More recent nodes in the map (Minniti & Naudé 2010) address broader determinants, including policy environments, institutional frameworks and the complex interplay between work–family balance and entrepreneurial engagement. These studies indicate a growing recognition of the intersectional challenges women face, particularly in emerging and culturally specific contexts.

The structure of the historiographic map reflects a thematic maturation in the field. It moves from early explorations of motivation and gender comparison towards more sophisticated inquiries into cognition, social capital, institutional barriers and feminist critique. This evolution underscores how foundational works inform contemporary debates and how new research agendas are built upon historically rooted theoretical shifts. Historiographic mapping in this study has allowed us to trace the intellectual lineage of female entrepreneurship research. It reveals a field characterised by increasing theoretical diversity, cross-disciplinary engagement and a growing emphasis on context-sensitive inquiry.

The lower right quadrant (basic and transversal themes) includes themes that are not densely developed but are central, often foundational concepts integral to many other themes. This quadrant included self-efficacy, self-employment, access, aspirations and gender. The self-efficacy cluster emerged as a central and cohesive theme, as indicated by its high centrality and density scores. This finding suggests that self-efficacy is a core driver of female entrepreneurship, with a substantial amount of interconnected literature. Haus et al. (2013) found that women’s attitudes towards starting a new venture and perceived behavioural control lead to entrepreneurial orientation. Another study found that subjective perceptual variables have a crucial influence on women’s entrepreneurial propensity (Langowitz & Minniti 2007). The female cluster is notable for its high frequency and density. Studies have shown that women’s personal factors, network affiliation, motivation, human capital and environmental factors affect their entrepreneurial performance (Groza, Groza & Barral 2020; Kuschel et al. 2017; Lerner et al. 1997).

Self-employment is another significant theme that emerged as a primary driver of entrepreneurship among women. Women who are good at managing their family conflicts properly and match their strategies with their needs and resources are better able to grow their venture (Manolova et al. 2012; Mari, Poggesi & De Vita 2016; Shelton 2006). Another study found that conducive and encouraging contributions to increased family income led to the launch of new ventures (Ge et al. 2022). While not central, access is supported by a closely related set of studies, as shown by its high density. This implies that while access is not a dominant theme, the research within it is well integrated. Access includes many factors, including access to the market, finance, credit and policy, which suggests that access to these factors can serve as an indicator of female entrepreneurship (Campopiano et al. 2017; Gunewardena & Seck 2020; Minniti & Naudé 2010). Gender stands out as a frequent and dense cluster with a lower centrality. This suggests that gender-related themes such as gender stereotypes, gender roles, family conflicts and opportunities for recognition motivate women to launch ventures to prove themselves in society (Cliff 1998; Langowitz & Minniti 2007; Santos & Neumeyer 2021). It has developed into a distinct area of research that may not intersect widely with other themes.

The upper left quadrant (niche themes) includes the themes that developed well internally but are yet to gain vital importance in the broader research landscape. With their low centrality yet high density, aspirations seem to be a niche area, indicating a more focused but less widespread research activity within the field. These studies have focused on the different aspirations of female entrepreneurs (Patrick, Stephens & Weinstein 2016). Dawson and Henley (2012) found that 80% of women cited independence as their primary motivation for entrepreneurship. The theme of overconfidence in the literature (Yordanova & Alexandrova-Boshnakova 2011) potentially indicates a specialised topic of interest. Consumption, showing no centrality and the lowest density rank, is likely a niche with a very focused yet isolated body of research. These themes are well developed within their niches but have less centrality. The theme focuses on women’s consumption behaviour, with a special focus on technology in financial management (Gichuki & Mulu-Mutuku 2018). These studies could be seen as well established within a specific context but not as influential across the broader field of female entrepreneurship research.

Motor themes, typically characterised by high centrality and density, are crucial, as they often represent well-established and influential areas within a field. Participation is balanced with moderate centrality and high density, signifying its relative importance and a tight network of existing research depicted in the upper right quadrant (motor themes). The participation of family and children in terms of psychological and financial support and good health leads to successful ventures (Fairlie 2020; Pal & Gupta 2023).

Sector, governance, empowerment and labour clusters, with their low centrality and moderate density in the lower left quadrant (emerging or declining themes), indicate peripheral themes with a degree of internal cohesion but are not core to the field. These themes focus on adoption, immigration, governance, power and related variables as the motivation for women to engage in entrepreneurship for the women (Joshi et al. 2019; Karki & Xheneti 2018; Yeoh & Willis 2005). More research is needed in these research areas.

Personal drivers are the most emphasised in the literature. This includes a range of psychological, cognitive and experiential attributes. These drivers include self-efficacy, confidence, resilience, risk-taking propensity, motivation, decision-making ability and individual agency. These attributes reflect an internal locus of control and are often framed as essential prerequisites for entrepreneurial entry and persistence. These factors are in women’s control, and their interplay leads them towards entrepreneurial ventures. While this focus has yielded valuable insights, it also reflects a bias towards individual-level attribution models, which may unintentionally place the burden of entrepreneurial success (or failure) solely on women’s internal characteristics. As a result, the literature often underplays how systemic barriers such as structural discrimination or legal constraints interact with these personal traits.

Studies have consistently highlighted the importance of perceived behavioural control and entrepreneurial attitudes in predicting women’s intentions to pursue entrepreneurial careers (Haus et al. 2013; Langowitz & Minniti 2007). However, the predominance of this focus has also drawn criticism for reproducing a heroic individualist narrative, which can inadvertently decontextualise women’s entrepreneurship from the structural and environmental conditions in which it occurs. Moreover, the role of self-efficacy and internal motivation is well supported. However, there is limited inquiry into how these personal factors are themselves shaped by systemic barriers or enablers such as socialisation, access to education, prior work experience or mentorship opportunities. A more nuanced and critical strand of literature (Kirkwood 2009; Kuschel et al. 2017) suggests that personal drivers are not static traits but are dynamically influenced by a woman’s social, cultural and institutional context.

Financial drivers primarily revolve around access to credit, capital and funding mechanisms. They emerge as central but underdeveloped in terms of theoretical rigour. Access to financial resources is frequently cited as both a facilitator and a barrier, particularly for women in developing or transitional economies. The literature highlights persistent gender gaps in financial inclusion, often driven by a lack of collateral, legal restrictions or discriminatory lending practices.

Recent studies (Fitouri & Zouaoui 2024; Pal & Gupta 2023) emphasise the importance of microfinance institutions, informal lending systems and the increasing role of digital financial tools in enabling female entrepreneurship. However, bibliometric analysis reveals that much of this work remains fragmented and highly context specific, focusing heavily on micro-level interventions in low-income countries. At the same time, macroeconomic or policy-level explorations are limited.

Additionally, financial drivers are often analysed in isolation from other categories. A few studies investigate how access to finance intersects with cultural expectations or family dynamics or how their personal agency or business experience shapes women’s financial confidence. As such, while financial factors are widely acknowledged as critical, their complex interaction with other domains is insufficiently theorised.

Socio-cultural drivers represent a broad and diverse category, including family support, gender norms, community expectations, citizenship status, social capital and broader institutional structures. These factors are especially salient in non-Western and developing contexts, where traditional gender roles, collectivist cultural values and patriarchal systems often shape the opportunities and constraints faced by women entrepreneurs.

The literature captures both enabling and constraining aspects of socio-cultural environments. Family can be a source of both support (through labour, networks or emotional encouragement) and conflict (because of gender role expectations or time pressures) (Manolova et al. 2012; Shelton 2006). Similarly, some cultures view women entrepreneurs as agents of modernisation and progress, while others perceive them as transgressing established norms.

Despite the importance of these factors, the bibliometric findings suggest a lack of conceptual coherence in how socio-cultural drivers are treated. There is also a gap in comparative cross-cultural analyses, which limits the generalisability of insights. Furthermore, feminist and intersectional theoretical perspectives, which could help interrogate power structures and structural inequities, are largely absent or underused in this strand of literature (Ahl 2006; Santos & Neumeyer 2021).

Together, these three categories offer a useful heuristic for organising the literature on the drivers of female entrepreneurship. However, the analysis reveals a field that is still evolving, with notable imbalances. Personal drivers dominate the discourse, often at the expense of deeper explorations into systemic barriers. Financial drivers, while widely discussed, require more nuanced, context-sensitive and intersectional analyses. Socio-cultural factors, although rich in qualitative insight, lack theoretical unification and robust cross-national comparisons. Additionally, the interplay among these categories is often overlooked. For instance, a woman’s financial access might depend on cultural norms regarding inheritance or male guardianship, affecting her self-confidence and entrepreneurial intent.

These critical reflections on the literature illuminate the current state of knowledge and highlight clear areas in need of further inquiry. In the subsequent section, we build on these insights to propose a future research agenda that addresses thematic gaps, theoretical underdevelopment and emerging trends in the field of female entrepreneurship.