The temporal trend of international scientific production related to entrepreneurial action indicated that studies in this area began to be published in 1993 according to the Scopus data. It was observed that until the mid-2000s, publications were scarce in both databases, with few articles published, and in certain periods, no publications at all.

The pioneering studies indexed in the investigated databases, in summary, sought to define alternatives for a theory of entrepreneurial action emergence (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Klein, 2008; Watson, 2013; Spedale & Watson, 2014). Other studies converged by attempting to differentiate entrepreneurial action from intention, which allowed for the inference of the asymmetry between administrative actions and entrepreneurial actions (Sarasvathy, 2001; Teece, 2012; Mathias et al., 2015; Mocelin & Azambuja, 2017; Townsend et al., 2018; Wiklund et al., 2018; Dimov & Pistrui, 2020; Rapp & Olbrich, 2020; Wood et al., 2021).

Other works also sought to discern entrepreneurial action in social ventures (Meek et al., 2010; Weerakoon et al., 2019; Alonso et al., 2020; García-Morales et al., 2020; Nsereko, 2021; Kimmitt et al., 2022) and the influence of time on the emergence of entrepreneurial action (McKelvie et al., 2011; Greenman, 2013; Morales et al., 2019; Dimov & Pistrui, 2020; Wood et al., 2021).

Furthermore, a significant portion of these studies emphasized the role of opportunity in the entrepreneurial process. Opportunity could be understood as one of the central elements of entrepreneurship, as found in numerous studies (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Sarasvathy, 2001; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Klein, 2008; Boszczowski & Teixeira, 2012; Mocelin & Azambuja, 2017; Scheaf et al. 2019). However, despite all the efforts, no study was found that could validate the antecedents or even suggest a solid, consistent, and accurate theory of entrepreneurial action.

Regarding the countries that published the most on the subject, it was noted that the United States was the country that initiated publications on entrepreneurial action, followed by England. It was understood that the prominent countries have been studying entrepreneurship beyond a strictly individualistic approach, seeking evidence that contributes to understanding the entrepreneurial process with an emphasis on actions, practices, and results achieved by enterprises (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Sarasvathy, 2001; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Klein, 2008; Frese, 2009; Watson, 2013; Dimov & Pistrui, 2020; Lacerda & Andrade, 2021; Wood et al., 2021). Consequently, the concentration of publications in these countries demonstrated the dominance of the English language in 97.4% of publications.

Although not evident in the mapping of countries that published the most on the subject of entrepreneurial action, this study demonstrated an interesting result when considering a decolonial perspective. In this sense, three studies from Brazilian journals were indexed in the Web of Science database. The study by Lacerda and Andrade (2021) addressed entrepreneurial action in the context of public administration, identifying the emergence of the phenomenon in a post-purchase sector in a higher education institution.

De Sordi et al. (2021) sought to investigate how professors who teach entrepreneurship courses in postgraduate programs at Brazilian universities explored both favorable and unfavorable aspects of entrepreneurial action in Brazil. This is because the authors identified that the repercussions of entrepreneurial actions in emerging countries are not as positive as in developed countries. It is worth noting that the same article was also found in the Scopus database.

The study by Cassano et al. (2021) identified how entrepreneurial action contributes to the acceleration and internationalization process of Brazilian business incubators. Entrepreneurial action played a fundamental role in increasing exports, and the joint action of various institutions contributed significantly to the integration of various actors in seeking effective actions and greater participation in the internationalization process of incubators.

In the Scopus database, Brazil also appeared with three registered publications. The first one was in 2017 with the article “Empreendedorismo intensivo em conhecimento: elementos para uma agenda de pesquisas sobre a ação empreendedora no Brasil” ("Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: outline for a research agenda on entrepreneurial action in Brazil"), authored by Mocelin and Azambuja (2017). The authors associated certain conceptual advances in entrepreneurial action with empirical phenomena analyzed by the behavior of entrepreneurial individuals. The article pointed out that the theory of entrepreneurial action encompasses relevant aspects of opportunity exploitation by agents, indicating a path of possible alternatives to achieving organizational objectives.

The second publication, by De Sordi et al. (2021), was also indexed in WOS, as mentioned earlier. Finally, the third Brazilian publication was made in 2022 by the same authors with the article "Dark, down, and destructive side of entrepreneurship: Unveiling negative aspects of unsuccessful entrepreneurial action". De Sordi et al. (2022) sought to investigate and classify the variety of negative approaches resulting from entrepreneurial actions. The results of the study indicate that entrepreneurial actions do not always yield entirely positive results, as they can have detrimental effects on the entrepreneur both objectively and subjectively.

Regarding the productivity of the journals, the results demonstrated the academic community's effort to debate the practices highlighted by the entrepreneurial process, shifting the focus of studies that centralize the entrepreneurial individual and the creation of new ventures to entrepreneurial action (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Klein, 2008; Watson, 2013; Spedale & Watson, 2014; Mocelin & Azambuja, 2017; Lacerda & Andrade, 2021). Thus, the intensity of publications related to entrepreneurial action was evident in recent years, possibly due to the need emphasized by the contemporary approach to understanding entrepreneurship as a process derived from actions (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Sarasvathy, 2001; Frese, 2009; Watson, 2013; Mocelin & Azambuja, 2017).

Therefore, it was found that the term "entrepreneurial action" is still recent, considering that in the extensive number of journals, there is only one publication on the subject. Thus, it is clear that the works were directed towards the facets of entrepreneurship and its implications for the entrepreneurial individual. Despite this, researchers have made efforts to publish in the area, although a broader movement is still needed to consolidate the field.

In the analysis of citations and authorship and co-authorship networks of the selected articles, the most cited works in both databases, that is, the article "Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur" by MCMullen and Shepherd (2006) was one of the pioneering studies on the subject. The authors proposed that entrepreneurial action can occur in two main stages.

According to the authors, the first stage involves the identification of an opportunity as possible for someone or for a group of actors, and the second stage occurs when the opportunity is exploited and seen as potential for a single individual or several individuals operating together. Thus, McMullen and Shepherd (2006) emphasized that entrepreneurial action is driven by the identification of an opportunity weighed by the actors involved in this process.

The second most cited study, although only indexed in Web of Science, was "Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action" by Alvarez and Barney (2007), also being considered one of the pioneering studies in the field, contributing to subsequent research on the theory of entrepreneurial action. Starting from the question of whether opportunities for entrepreneurship exist independently of entrepreneurs' perceptions or if opportunities can be created and explored, the authors proposed an analysis of the theory of discovery and the theory of creation to understand and propose a theoretical model for entrepreneurial action. The authors questioned whether opportunities are indeed waiting for someone to discover and explore them at all times, as they believed that opportunities arise from individuals' actions and their dedication to achieving a purpose.

In Scopus, the second most cited study was by Dean and McMullen (2007), which was also the third most cited according to WOS. The work addresses an understanding of how entrepreneurship assists in addressing environmental demands related to global socioeconomic systems. Additionally, it presented definitions of environmental and sustainable entrepreneurship and investigated the proposed theory, which aims to extend beyond the environmental context and generate insights for the growth of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial action studies.

Finally, the fourth most cited work in both databases is authored by Shepherd and Patzelt (2015). The authors presented a definition supported by the literature on sustainable entrepreneurship. In seeking new paths, they presented a research agenda supported by psychological, institutional, and economic perspectives. The research questions proposed sought to support "what should be developed" and "what should be sustained" when it comes to research related to sustainable entrepreneurship.

Among the four most cited articles, it was observed that two studies were associated with the authors McMullen and Shepherd, respectively, highlighting their importance in the field of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial action. Furthermore, two studies addressed the topic of sustainable entrepreneurship and its peculiarities with entrepreneurial action, suggesting the consistency of the theory and promising developments in subsequent studies.

In this context, it is worth mentioning the identification of the situational nature of entrepreneurial action (Greenman, 2013; Morales et al., 2019; Dimov & Pistrui, 2020; McKelvie et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2021); its manifestation in different contexts(Dean & McMullen, 2007; Weerakoon et al., 2019; Alonso et al., 2020; García-Morales et al., 2020; Nsereko, 2021; Lacerda & Andrade, 2021) and the adoption of the phenomenon as part of the social environment and present in our daily lives (Sarasvathy, 2001; Watson, 2013; Spedale & Watson, 2014).

Despite the identification of seminal authors dedicated to studies on entrepreneurial action, the productivity of the field is still incipient. The present study revealed that 86.07% (WOS) and 89.26% (Scopus) of authors dedicated to research on entrepreneurial action published only one paper, while 13.93% (WOS) and 10.74% (Scopus) published more than two papers. It was inferred that the more publications there are on a specific topic, the more productive that field will be. However, this relationship is inverse, as most authors typically only focus on one publication on the subject, as presented in the results.

In addition to the authors who were presented earlier, many of them were not indexed in the investigated databases but appeared prominently in bibliographic coupling. This analysis demonstrated that, in addition to the works already highlighted, there are other works present in bibliographic coupling that contributed to the development of the field because they are cited in the references of the articles but are not indexed in the databases used in the present study.

This means that there are works cited by the authors of the articles compiled in WOS and Scopus that deserve recognition in the field but are not necessarily from journals present in the processed databases.

Among the articles, the work of Shane and Venkataraman (2000) is one of the first studies to introduce the concept of action-based entrepreneurship. For the authors, entrepreneurial action occurs through the emergence of a potential opportunity. In this regard, the authors identified a conceptual framework for entrepreneurial opportunities by individuals themselves, influencing the course of action in a particular venture through key factors such as values, beliefs, information channels, cognitive properties, the nature of the opportunity, and individual differences among those involved in this process.

In this sense, the work of Sarasvathy (2001) stood out as it initiated discussions on the effectuation process. The author sought to understand how entrepreneurial actions emerge, proposing two effects for this occurrence: the effectuation process and the causation process.

Sarasvathy (2001) defined causation as the result of a logic of prediction, while the effectuation process was related to a logic of control. In the entrepreneurial process, individuals will guide actions based on these two logics, with the difference being that in causation, individuals will plan actions based on a predefined goal, choosing the most convincing and coherent alternatives for their venture. On the other hand, in the effectuation process, individuals will propose strategies based on the resources (human, financial, physical, technological, etc.) they have available. Thus, from an action, individuals will seek the means and alternatives to make it effective and real.

According to the author, effectuators are the actors congruent with the logic of entrepreneurship, as in the effectuation process, the individual plays the role of the decision-maker. For Sarasvathy (2001), the entrepreneurial process occurs through contingent interactions between the actions and the creativity of effectuators and the aspirations of their partners in this process, be they customers, investors, suppliers, or other types of strategic alliances. In this sense, it was understood that the logic of effectuation contributes by showing that entrepreneurial action often does not follow a predefined path based on logical and causal reasoning but rather through the connection between causal reasoning and the intrinsic logic of human action.

The popularization of many studies or simply the "fad" of designating personalities as entrepreneurs and, consequently, the emergence of new businesses, revealed the empirical fragility and conceptual limitations of entrepreneurship theories (Lacerda & Andrade, 2021). Any achievement or opening of a new business is considered "entrepreneurial." Thus, entrepreneurial action emerged as a promising field open to theoretical and empirical possibilities for a more precise understanding of the entrepreneurial process.

It is important to emphasize the importance of co-citation analysis for the field of entrepreneurial action since, in addition to directing the documents of more established authors, these studies are developed in the literature with important information that can be used by other researchers. This does not mean that previous approaches are not relevant; on the contrary, the intention was to demonstrate that studies on entrepreneurial action tend to complement the theories already worked on regarding entrepreneurship, opening up new possibilities for discussion. In this sense, the developments confirm how an emergent act in an organizational environment can indeed be considered entrepreneurial not only based on the presence of a heroic personality that generates economic profit in a particular venture but also through the evidence of the creation of a new business.

It was observed that studies on entrepreneurial action were directly related to case studies that reported the emergence of entrepreneurial actions in organizations, emphasizing the concentration of studies in the fields of management and business. However, the extensive use of this methodology contributed to the conceptual fragility of the field, reporting only the achievements and actions at the expense of the antecedents and variables present in the entrepreneurial journey.

According to the analysis of thematic categories and the mapping of keywords that appeared most prominently in the analyzed works in the databases, it was emphasized that the terms "entrepreneurship" and "entrepreneurial action" are complementary themes, as addressed in the studies. Specifically, studies on entrepreneurial action enabled the delineation of research focused on aspects of the entrepreneurial process, such as entrepreneurial orientation, opportunity, creativity, innovation, institutional logics, and the effectuation process. These were keywords that repeatedly appeared in the analysis.

In this regard, it was observed that the field of entrepreneurship presented broad perspectives and differentiated approaches that sought to bring conceptual, theoretical, and empirical contributions to this area. However, it is necessary to evaluate the main results found in this study, the interrelationships between the highlighted categories, and the main possibilities for the field of entrepreneurial action, proposing a synthesis matrix for a better understanding of the phenomenon.

This section emphasizes contemporary studies that understood entrepreneurship as a process (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Klein, 2008; Teece, 2012; Watson, 2013; Spedale & Watson, 2014; Dimov & Pistrui, 2020; Lacerda & Andrade, 2021; Rapp & Olbrich, 2021). It was found that this approach focuses on the practices resulting from the entrepreneurial process, as opposed to economic and behavioral perspectives that sought to outline the profile of individuals considered entrepreneurs and those businesses that succeeded, meaning they achieved good economic results for the entrepreneurs.

Considering the seminal works, it can be seen that action is the necessary means for entrepreneurship to happen in practice (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Klein, 2008; Frese, 2009; Greenman, 2013; Townsend et al., 2018; Dimov & Pistrui, 2020; Rapp & Olbrich, 2021), which is supported by the increase in publications involving the entrepreneurial action theme in the last four years.

From the mapping of keywords, it was identified that these studies worked with theoretical and empirical aspects involving entrepreneurial actions and their relationships with organizational performance, effectuation and causation processes, innovation, and issues related to uncertainty, opportunity creation, and opportunity discovery.

It was found that opportunity is a variable present in a large part of the studies on entrepreneurial action. Most discussions converged on discovered opportunities, as can be seen in the keyword mapping. However, pioneering studies emphasized that opportunities can be created or discovered (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). Nevertheless, no matrix was found in the studies in the investigated database that could differentiate how opportunities arise in the entrepreneurial process.

Through an exchange between the early theories developed and the new developments in the field in the last four years, it was found that Sarasvathy's (2001) causation and effectuation theory provided findings that were reconciled with the theory of entrepreneurial action in emerging research. By differentiating between a created opportunity and a discovered opportunity, it was inferred through this study that entrepreneurial actions are more compliant with the theory of creation and, consequently, with the effectuation process. We dare say that entrepreneurial action can be understood through the proposed synthesis matrix, illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7
Synthesis matrix of entrepreneurial action
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

The main contribution of the presented synthesis matrix is in differentiating entrepreneurship as a practice, whether it is focused on understanding the experiences and performance of organizations in pursuit of economic profit or on identifying who the entrepreneurial individuals are, in contrast to understanding entrepreneurship as a process, emphasizing actions and results generated by the entrepreneurial process. In this sense, in addition to what has been explained, the proposed matrix also offered findings that can contribute to the differentiation between entrepreneurial action and administrative action.

It was found that, from a discovered opportunity, individuals take on a risk-taking role, as there are known and structured means to outline alternatives to achieve the expected results for their businesses (Sarasvathy, 2001; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Klein, 2008). Thus, it was inferred that the action is taken based on a rational choice, concerning the goals which are already known by the organization. As such, we risk saying that the action in this scenario will have an administrative origin, as it is already embedded in organizational strategies and objectives, resulting from a causation process in which individuals act according to a logic of prediction and control.

What was observed is that discovered opportunities can, to some extent, lead to entrepreneurial actions as they propose the start of something new or the entry of a business into the market (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Townsend et al., 2018; O’Shea et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2021; Angus et al., 2022). This is because, in the context of discovery, opportunities precede actions (Sarasvathy, 2001). However, it was inferred that when these actions become habitual and routine, they tend to become administrative actions, as they aim to generate gains for entrepreneurs, being compliant with well-structured and static contexts.

On the other hand, the theory of creation considers that action precedes the exploitation of an opportunity (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). Opportunity is centered on uncertainty; individuals operate in an uncertain and unstructured environment, and they must use the means available to achieve unpredictable results for the situation at hand (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Townsend et al., 2018; O’Shea et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2021).

In this scenario, decision-makers operate through rational and planned action, not just choice. This idea is related to the effectuation process, in which the available means must be suitable for facing a dynamic, uncertain, and often poorly structured environment (Sarasvathy, 2001). The entrepreneurial journey cannot be predefined because effectuators do not have a predefined objective; they create opportunities (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Klein, 2008). Effectuators have contingent and vague aspirations because it is not possible to measure the desired effects of their actions (Sarasvathy, 2001). In this perspective, it is inferred that entrepreneurship can be an integral part of other practices beyond creating new businesses, such as reformulating procedures, creating strategies, managing projects, and other achievements.

Therefore, to contribute to the development of a conceptual framework for entrepreneurship, researchers need to understand the entire entrepreneurial process so that entrepreneurial actions can be genuinely identified as the sufficient and necessary means for entrepreneurship to actually happen. In this perspective, this finding can contribute to a more robust conceptual development of the subject, as it allows for the intertwining of theory and practice as evidenced in publications.

Corresponding author: camila_assis16@hotmail.com