4IpaUJbnm

In 1997, this ‘overly constricted focus on economic growth’ was enhanced with
concentration on regions (Deas, 2013, 27). For example, although this might have positively
influenced Manchester’s inner city (Harding et al., 2010), ‘unemployment and welfare
dependence have remained stubbornly high across deprived neighbourhoods’ (Hincks,
2015:446). There was a lack of investigation of those issues, because, as Sternberg (2007,
13) highlighted, ‘entrepreneurship research largely ignores the spatial implications … on the
other hand …. regional science … barely touch on the subject of entrepreneurship’. This
paper aimed to review the literature on the phenomenon of employment creation by small
firms at a regional level (see Figure 1). It provided a systematic literature review that
answered the overall research question: how has the phenomenon been conceptualized
and addressed empirically in the past? Other objectives were to map the field, and provide a
thematic analysis of the major topics, examine its recent advancements and potential
shortcomings of the literature. To achieve aims, the paper formed methodology of the
review (1). Having done that, the centre definitions used in this study was highlighted (2).
This was followed by the discussion of the employment creation (3). Finally, the paper
expanded into the conclusions (4).
Figure 1. Hilbert's (2012) framework applied for mapping the field of this literature review.
Methodology of the review
In order to achieve the aim, this study adopted a systematic literature review (SLR) method
because it is ‘a detailed technology, that aims to minimize bias through exhaustive literature
searches of published and unpublished studies and by providing an audit trail of the
reviewers decisions, procedures and conclusions’ (Tranfield et al., 2003, 209). The SLR
methodology has been discussed in detail in the previous literature (Pittaway et al., 2004;
Tranfield et al., 2003). However, many limitations such as missing articles with poorly
written abstracts were found (Pittaway et al., 2004). Therefore, it may be reasonable to
follow Rashman et al. (2009) and regard SLR as a guide rather than a strict methodology. As
a result, the goal was to achieve that the SLR is ‘replicable, scientific and transparent’
(Tranfield et al., 2003:209), but the emphasis should be not on the quantitative analysis of
articles. It should aim to provide conceptual clarity by reviewing empirical findings and
methodologies and identifying the areas lacking investigation. In this sense, the approach
built on other literature reviews (such as Chandler and Lyon, 2001 and Ferreira et al., 2015)
260