Academic Production and Technological Emergence in Finance: Bibliometric Study on FinTechs Outros Idiomas

Purpose – This paper aims to study the FinTech enterprises and the management theories related to this subject in a scientific way. Design/methodology/approach – This study is a bibliometric study on FinTech enterprises. Its origin is a survey of 1,749 papers in 6 traditional peer-reviewed academic databases (e.g. Science Direct and Scopus) and in the “gray” literature, published by other agents and not subject to double-blind peer review. In this analysis we use three approaches: academic paper or not; journal main interest, and main purpose of the paper. Findings – The first approach shows 45% of papers without blind review. The second approach shows no concentration on any journal. It represents no concentration on any kind of specific journal. And the third approach shows four kinds of contents in all researched papers: FinTech categorizations; FinTech related to theory of disruptive innovation; FinTech and theories of administration or economy; and finally, FinTech and regulatory and legislative aspects. Originality/value – The findings identified the emergence of new research strands, precedence of studies of “gray” literature to explain the phenomenon, distribution of studies in different fields of knowledge (e.g. information technology, business and law) and lack of consensus in theories to explain the matter.
Citação ABNT:
CACIATORI JUNIOR, I.; CHEROBIM, A. P. M. S. Academic Production and Technological Emergence in Finance: Bibliometric Study on FinTechs. Innovation and Management Review, v. 17, n. 2, p. 115-131, 2020.
Citação APA:
Caciatori Junior, I., & Cherobim, A. P. M. S. (2020). Academic Production and Technological Emergence in Finance: Bibliometric Study on FinTechs. Innovation and Management Review, 17(2), 115-131.
Link Permanente:
Tipo de documento:
Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive?A demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 667-688.

Alt, R.; Beck, R.; Smits, M. T. (2018). FinTech and the transformation of the financial industry. Electronic Markets, 28, 235-243.

Anagnostopoulos, I. (2018). Fintech and regtech: Impact on regulators and banks. Journal of Economics and Business, 100, 7-25.

Arner, D.; Barberis, J.; Buckley, R. (2015). The evolution of fintech: A new post-crisis paradigm? University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, 2015/047, 1-44.

Banco Central do Brasil [BACEN]. (2018). Relatorio de economia bancária, Brasília, Brazil: BACEN.

Barras, R. (1990). Interactive innovation in financial and business services: The vanguard of the service revolution. Research Policy, 19, 215-237.

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2018). Sound practices: Implications of fintech developments for banks and bank supervisors. In Bank for International Settlements.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. In Textbooks collection.

Boccardi, F., Jr, R. H.; Lozano, A.; Marzetta, T. L.; Popovski, P. (2014). Five disruptive technology directions for 5G. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52, 74-80.

Cai, C. W. (2018). Disruption of financial intermediation by FinTech: A review on crowdfunding and blockchain. Accounting & Finance, 58, 965-992.

Chiu, I. H. Y. (2016). Fintech and disruptive business models in financial products, intermediation and markets-policy implications for financial regulators. Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 21, 55-112.

Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. 1 ed. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Conole, G.; Laat, M. D.; Dillon, T.; Darby, J. (2008). “Disruptive technologies”, “pedagogical innovation”: What’s new?Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers and Education, 50, 511-524.

Creswell, J. W. (2010). Projeto de pesquisa: Métodos qualitativo, quantitativo e misto. 3 ed. São Paulo, Brazil: Artmed Editora.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590.

Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42, 693-716.

Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 246-258.

Dietz, M.; Moon, J.; Radnai, M. (2016). Fintechs can help incumbents, not just disrupt them. By McKinsey Review, p. 1-3.

Dombret, A. R. (2016). Beyond technology adequate regulation and oversight in the age of fintechs. By Financial Stability Review, p. 77-83.

Dorfleitner, G. Hornuf, L. Schmitt, M.; Weber, M. (2017). FinTech in Germany. In FinTech in Germany.

Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1120-1171.

Drasch, B. J.; Schweizer, A.; Urbach, N. (2018). Integrating the “troublemakers”: A taxonomy for cooperation between banks and fintechs. Journal of Economics and Business, 100, 26-42.

Eickhoff, M.; Muntermann, J.; Weinrich, T. (2018). What do FinTechs actually do? A taxonomy of FinTech business models. Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, South Korea 2017, 1-19.

Fagerberg, J.; Mowery, D. C.; Nelson, R. R. (2004). The oxford handbook of innovation. 1 ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Financial Stability Board [FSB]. (2017). Financial stability implications from FinTech: Supervisory and regulatory issues that merit authorities’ attention, Basel, Brazil: FSB.

Frame, W. S. Wall, L.; White, L. J. (2018). Technological change and financial innovation in banking: Some implications for fintech. In Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Working Papers.

Gai, K.; Qiu, M.; Sun, X. (2018). A survey on FinTech. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 103, 262-273. doi:

Gimpel, H.; Rau, D.; Röglinger, M. (2017). Understanding FinTech start-ups a taxonomy of consumer-oriented service offerings. Electronic Markets, 28, 1-20.

Gomber, P.; Kauffman, R. J.; Parker, C.; Weber, B. W. (2018). On the fintech revolution: Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35, 220-265.

Gomber, P.; Koch, J. A.; Siering, M. (2017). Digital finance and FinTech: Current research and future research directions. Journal of Business Economics, 87, 537-580.

Govindarajan, V.; Kopalle, P. K. (2006). Disruptiveness of innovations: Measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 189-199.

Haddaway, N. R.; Collins, A. M.; Coughlin, D.; Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One, 10, 1-17.

Harzing, A. W.; Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787-804.

He, D. Leckow, R. Haksar, V. Mancini, T. Jenkinson, N. Kashima, M.; Tourpe, H. (2017). Fintech and financial services: Initial considerations. In IMF Staff Discussion Note (No. SDN/17/05).

International Monetary Fund. (2019). Fintech: The experience so far.

International Organization of Securities Commissions [IOSCO]. (2017). IOSCO research report on financial technologies (fintech).

Jagtiani, J.; John, K. (2018). Fintech: The impact on consumers and regulatory responses. Journal of Economics and Business, 100, 1-6.

Jun, J.; Yeo, E. (2016). Entry of fintech firms and competition in the retail payments market. Asia Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 45, 159-184.

Kim, T. K.; Choi, H. R.; Lee, H. C. (2016). A study on the research trends in fintech using topic modeling. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 17, 670-681. doi:

Lagarde, C. (2018). Central banking and fintech: A brave new world. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 12, 4-8.

Larsson, A.; Teigland, R.; Shahryar, S.; Moreno, A. P.; Bogusz, C. I. (2018). The rise and development of FinTech: Accounts of disruption from Sweden and Beyond, New York, NY: Routledge.

Lawrence, A.; Houghton, J.; Thomas, J.; Weldon, P. (2014). Where is the evidence?Realising the value of grey literature for public policy & practice. Hawthorn, Australia: Swinburne Institute for Social Research. p. 28.

Li, X.; Zhou, Y.; Xue, L.; Huang, L. (2015). Integrating bibliometrics and roadmapping methods: A case of dye-sensitized solar cell technology-based industry in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 97, 205-222.

Lucas, H. C., Jr.; Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18, 46-55.

Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 19-25.

Martínez-Climent, C.; Zorio-Grima, A.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2018). Financial return crowdfunding: Literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14, 527-553.

Mittal, S.; Lloyd, J. (2016). The rise of FinTech in China. industries/financial-services/ey-the-rise-of-fintech-in-china

Morris, S.; DeYong, C.; Wu, Z.; Salman, S.; Yemenu, D. (2002). DIVA: A visualization system for exploring document databases for technology forecasting. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 43, 841-862.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2005). Manual de Oslo: diretrizes Para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação. 3 ed. Vol. 1. Paris, France: OECD.

Paap, J.; Katz, R. (2004). Anticipating disruptive innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47, 13-22.

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348-349. doi:

Puschmann, T. (2017). Fintech. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 59, 69-76.

Rowley, J.; Baregheh, A.; Sambrook, S. (2011). Towards an innovation-type mapping tool. Management Decision, 49, 73-86.

Sabatier, V.; Craig-Kennard, A.; Mangematin, V. (2012). When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 949-962.

Schmidt, G. M.; Druehl, C. T. (2008). When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 347-369.

Schueffel, P. (2016). Taming the beast: A scientific definition of fintech. Journal of Innovation Management, 4, 32-54. doi:

Schuelke-Leech, B.-A. (2018). A model for understanding the orders of magnitude of disruptive technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 261-274.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle, Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sharples, M. (2002). Disruptive devices: Mobile technology for conversational learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12, 504-520. doi:

Vieira, E. S.; Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81, 587-600.

Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2017). FinTech banking industry: A systemic approach. foresight, 19, 590-603.

Wu, P. (2017). Fintech trends relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Electronic Business, ICEB, Dubai, UAE, 99-105.

Yu, D.; Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 435-452.

Zalan, T.; Toufaily, E. (2017). The promise of finch in emerging markets: Not as disruptive. Contemporary Economics, 11, 415-430.

Zavolokina, L.; Dolata, M.; Schwabe, G. (2016). The FinTech phenomenon: Antecedents of financial innovation perceived by the popular press. Financial Innovation, 2, 1-16. doi:

Adams, R. J.; Smart, P.; Huff, A. S. (2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 432-454.