Descriptive analysis of the records found

The publication of papers related to training for agricultural entrepreneurship increased in the last years of the decade (Figure 1). While in 2010 only one paper was registered, by 2020 this figure amounted to six publications, at an average annual growth rate of 19%. For its part, the evolution of the citations showed that there is no direct relationship between the citation and the number of publications, different from what was expressed by ^{Dias et al. (2019b}). The works with the greatest impact on the subject were published in 2011.

Figure 1 Evolution of publications and citations in the period 2010-2020. 

Of the papers reviewed, Table 2 shows the ten most cited publications, making a total of 86 cumulative citations, 70% of the total. The topics addressed were related to the identification of training needs for the development of entrepreneurial skills in agriculture (^{Sandhu, 2012}) and agrotourism (^{Phelan, 2011}), to the impact of training (^{Rezai et al., 2011}), to the importance of this for the entrepreneurship of women farmers (^{Lourenço et al., 2014}) and for the identification of economic opportunities in agriculture (^{Pindado et al., 2018}).

The analysis of publications by geographical area revealed that 15 papers were made in Asia, eleven in Africa, seven in Europe, three in America and one intercontinentally (Figure 2). Asia concentrated the largest number of papers, but not of citations, as it only represented 28% of total citations. Although Europe obtained fewer papers than Asia and Africa, it reported a higher number of citations, 35%. From this, it is inferred that there is no direct relationship between the number of papers registered by continent and the number of citations received. India gathered the most papers (seven) and 11% of citations. The most cited paper was that of the United Kingdom with 24%. Mexico contributed 5% of the papers and 5% of the citations.

Figure 2 Number of papers published by geographical area. 

Regarding the methodologies used in the 37 published papers, it is observed that more than half of the studies carried out were of an empirical-quantitative type (Figure 3). In general, the analysis of numerical information for the fulfillment of the objectives predominated. Correspondingly, these types of studies also turned out to be the most cited (62% of total citations). The breakdown of the empirical-quantitative papers, according to the continent and country, revealed that 50% were made in Asia and 20% in India.

Figure 3 Methodologies used in published papers. 

For their part, although only seven papers were empirical-qualitative, their importance was relevant, since on average 3.6 citations per paper were obtained in contrast to empirical-quantitative ones, with 3.8 citations per paper. Of the studies with a mixed methodology, 67% were conducted in Asia and 50% in India. The findings of this research are similar to those reported by ^{Dias et al. (2019b}), in the sense that the methodologies most used in the papers are quantitative, qualitative and mixed in nature, in that order of relevance.

On the analysis of the papers by thematic areas, the following distribution was found: 43% of the papers and 53% of the total citations were concentrated in social sciences, the agricultural and biological sciences grouped 32% of the papers and 25% of the citations, 11% of the papers were in the engineering area; the business, management and accounting areas had 11% and the only multidisciplinary work was developed in Kazakhstan with 3%. Of the total studies in social sciences, half was conducted on the African continent and 19% in Nigeria (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Thematic areas of the papers found. 

Cluster analysis on training for agricultural entrepreneurship

Through the VOSviewer, 34 terms, 250 links and 4 thematic groups were identified based on the abstract of the 37 papers (Figure 5). Group 1 concentrated 32% of the concepts and was called training women farmers to overcome the barriers of female entrepreneurship; group 2 was formed by 24% of the concepts and was titled training farmers to develop business behavior; group 3 covered 29% of the concepts and was called training in business models for agricultural entrepreneurship, finally, group 4 included 15% of the concepts and was called training in digital technology for agricultural entrepreneurship.

Figure 5 Bibliometric map of training for agricultural entrepreneurship. 

Group 1. Training women farmers to overcome the barriers of female entrepreneurship

A barrier can be understood as a political, social, economic, technical, personal or cultural phenomenon that imposes a restriction (^{Bosworth et al., 2015}) for the entrepreneurship of women farmers. Among the main barriers, the following stand out: commercial challenges in male-dominated contexts (^{Azam Roomi and Harrison, 2010}), pressure for women to take care of family and home, difficulty accessing financing (^{Lourenço et al., 2014}), the risk of sexual harassment (^{Mustapha, 2016}) and limited access to information on agricultural entrepreneurship (^{Vivakaran, 2017}).

The challenge for women grows even more when, in addition to facing the usual challenges of entrepreneurship, they have to take care of the family and the home (^{Lourenço et al., 2014}). In sum, the scenario for the entrepreneurship of women farmers is more daunting than entrepreneurship led by male farmers. Training is an alternative for women to overcome barriers and successfully start an agricultural business (^{Lourenço et al., 2014}; ^{Bhati, 2019}; ^{Muduli, 2019}).

There is no widely accepted training proposal for the development of business skills in women farmers, but there are coincidences among researchers on the importance of training them for their liberation and empowerment (^{Bhati, 2019}; ^{Muduli et al., 2019}) and on the development of skills so that they overcome the obstacles of entrepreneurship (^{Muduli et al., 2019}). In this sense (^{Azam, 2010}) propose to train women entrepreneurs in collaborative networks, development of self-confidence, recognition of opportunities, innovation, management, planning and organization, marketing and sales.

Training in female entrepreneurship is favorable because it translates into job creation, new innovations, social welfare and economic development (^{Bhati, 2019}; ^{Muduli et al., 2019}). There is little or no difference between female and male achievements derived from entrepreneurship, so women entrepreneurs should not be considered as different or inferior to their male counterparts (^{Lourenço et al., 2014}). However, in practice this does not happen because women who venture into entrepreneurship encounter more barriers and greater risk of failure than men (^{Azam, 2010}).

For a greater economic, political and social effect (^{Muduli et al., 2019}), training should be accompanied by initiatives that raise men’s awareness of the role of female entrepreneurship (^{Lourenço et al., 2014}) and the recognition of families about the success of women entrepreneurs (^{Mustapha and Subramaniam, 2016}). As ^{Lourenço et al. (2014)} point out, gender equality in agriculture and business training, in addition to being relevant, is socially beneficial.

Group 2. Training farmers to develop business behavior

According to ^{Shirur et al. (2017}), business behavior is defined as the combination of sociopsychological, cognitive, affective and ability attributes to operate companies successfully and obtain economic returns. From the perspective of ^{Pongsiri et al. (2019}), business behavior is a prerequisite to the establishment of a new company and is shaped by personal, emotional, social and experiential factors. For ^{Muchira (2018}), the origin of business behavior lies in business education, mentoring in entrepreneurship and previous business experience.

Business behavior comes from intention, and derives from the interrelationship of planned behavior, attitude, and social norms (^{Yaseen, 2018}). When institutions, social norms and the cultural environment support entrepreneurship, individuals are more likely to increase their business intention. Training is a factor that positively and significantly influences farmers’ business behavior (^{Shirur et al., 2017}; ^{Pongsiri et al., 2019}).

As has already been pointed out, several authors agree on the need to develop skills for entrepreneurship and although there is no consensus in all, they highlight the importance of identifying opportunities (^{Pindado et al., 2018}), organizational and administrative capacity (^{Landini et al., 2017}), the creation of relationships (^{Opolot et al., 2018}), the formulation of business plans and the entry into new markets (^{Pongsiri et al., 2019}).

Most farmers receive training in good agronomic practices (^{Landini et al., 2017}; ^{Opolot et al., 2018}). However, for comprehensive business behavior, in addition to having technical knowledge of production, it is important to develop managerial and business skills in farmers (^{Babu et al., 2016}). In fact, farmers have already expressed the need for training in topics such as marketing, organizational skills, networking and negotiation (^{Phelan, 2011}).

While networking allows the identification of agricultural opportunities (^{Pindado et al., 2018}), organizational management makes it possible to access economies of scale and negotiate prices in the market (^{Landini et al., 2017}). Few studies have studied the effect of training on farmers’ business behavior (^{Pongsiri et al., 2019}; ^{Shirur et al., 2017}; ^{Yaseen et al., 2018}). In this sense, it is considered pertinent to study how training influences the knowledge and cognition of farmers to put it into practice.

Group 3. Training in business models for agricultural entrepreneurship

Strategy and innovation are concepts closely related to agricultural entrepreneurship; likewise, the business model is important because it allows the farmer to define the scheme of value creation for the client and the obtaining of profits (^{Teklehaimanot et al., 2017}; ^{AtuahJan, 2019}). The ability to capture value in the business model depends on the knowledge that the farmer has of the market, and in turn, the development of market knowledge depends on marketing training (^{Teklehaimanot et al., 2017}).

Most farmers are not trained in strategic business models, so attention is required in this aspect. A good model includes long-term strategies and considers in its design the ambitions and skills of the entrepreneur, the structure, the design of the company and the environment (^{Beldman, 2014}). It also requires the definition of the value proposition, of a strategy to create a business that is difficult to imitate and innovation so that the model impacts the market. An example is the company Farmcrowdy which uses digital technologies (^{Atuahene, 2019}) that offer various advantages as noted in Grupo 4.

Group 4. Training in digital technology for agricultural entrepreneurship

Technological training is important in agricultural entrepreneurship because it allows access to information (^{Makau et al., 2018}). Through technology it is possible to access innovations (^{Martinho, 2020}), new opportunities, agricultural prices, demand volumes, characteristics of buyers and consumers, among others (^{Anwarudin et al., 2019}). Therefore, the more training in technology, the greater the access to information for the development of business capacity (^{Anwarudin et al., 2019}).

It has been observed that training in technology, such as the use of applications and internet browsing (^{Anwarudin et al., 2019}), increases the business capacity of farmers, as they access more resources (^{Pennisi et al., 2020}). Among the main resources are e-books, tutorials, virtual classes and collaborative social networks (Pennisi et al., 2020) that help share not only information, but also innovations (^{Makau et al., 2018}). The ICTs that farmers use most for access to information are: short messages, WhatsApp, telephone and internet browsing (^{Anwarudin et al., 2019}).

Other entrepreneurs use Viber, Skype, Facebook Messenger and more complex platforms for access to information and electronic cooperation (^{Osmani, 2020}). Unlike non-agricultural entrepreneurs, farmers turn to more basic technologies, perhaps because their skills in this area are less developed. But young farmers are more inclined to use new technologies in contrast to older farmers (^{Anwarudin et al., 2019}). Although older farmers have accumulated experience in agricultural dynamics, they may be more reluctant to use technology, innovation and entrepreneurship (^{Martinho, 2020}).

As ^{Makau et al. (2018}) point out, technology training can improve farmers’ access to information and productivity, but they are not the only variables influencing profits, as other factors, such as the quality and reliability of information, perceived opportunity, farmers’ skills and knowledge, as well as institutional policies and regulations, must be considered.