How Shakespeare’s works have been reinterpreted, adapted and reshaped: a bibliometric review and trend analysis of Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023

Ben Jonson once praised Shakespeare’s works as transcending the boundaries of time, belonging to all ages (Donaldson, 2007). Similarly, Samuel Johnson noted that Shakespeare’s characters exhibit universal human nature (DeMaria, 2019). Shakespeare’s plays tackle profound and universal themes such as life (Arndt et al. 2007), love (Murphy, 2015), death (Ferguson, 2014), and betrayal (Anderson, 2006). Although he wrote in language reflective of England 400 years ago, these themes remain highly relevant today. What makes Shakespeare’s works even more remarkable is the relatability of his characters (Karamat, Khalis (2023)). Modern audiences can easily see aspects of themselves in at least one character in any Shakespeare production. This relatability bridges the gap between Shakespeare’s time and our own, demonstrating his enduring insight into human nature. Moreover, Shakespeare deepens our understanding of the power of language, demonstrating how words can convey deep emotions, create vivid imagery, and express intricate ideas, leaving a lasting impact on both literature and everyday speech. His influence on language is vast, and his plays continue to offer timeless lessons about society, relationships, and the human condition (Tatipang, 2022).

Since the publication of Shakespeare’s First Folio in 1623, Shakespearean criticism has progressed through distinct stages across various literary periods: the Rationalism Era, Romanticism Era, Realism Era, Modernism Era, and Post-Theory Era (Fig. 1).

This figure traces the historical development of Shakespearean criticism across distinct literary periods: the Rationalism, Romanticism, Realism, Modernism, and Post-Theory eras. Each period represents shifts in critical approaches, from early textual preservation and canon formation to contemporary interdisciplinary and digital humanities perspectives.

Full size image

During the Rationalism Era, scholars focused on organizing and preserving Shakespeare’s texts, thereby cementing his status as a literary classic. The publication of the First Folio in 1623 represented a pivotal achievement, elevating his works to global literary recognition (West, 2007). This era in Shakespeare studies is marked by two primary focuses: textual editing and revision, as exemplified by the meticulous emendation efforts of Alexander Pope and Lewis Theobald, and the establishment of canonical status. Literary critics such as Samuel Johnson and John Dryden played a key role in this process, emphasizing Shakespeare’s profound insights into human nature. While rooted in the rationalist ideals of precision and systematic analysis, scholars during this time began to appreciate the distinct vitality and timeless appeal of Shakespeare’s works (Santor, 2009).

In the Romanticism Era, Shakespeare was celebrated as a “genius creator” for his imagination and expressive individuality. Scholars moved beyond rigid structural analysis to emphasize the emotional depth, vivid imagery, and universal themes in his works. In the Modernism Era, Shakespeare’s works were revisited through modernist aesthetics and emerging critical theories. The focus shifted to exploring their formal, structural, and thematic complexities (Brisbois, 2007). The Post-Theory Era moved away from singular theoretical frameworks, embracing diverse and interdisciplinary approaches. Scholars analyzed Shakespeare’s works through cultural studies, new materialism, and ecological criticism, highlighting their global and cross-cultural relevance (Grady, 2005). Adaptations across various media and digital platforms became central to this era. Projects like the Shakespeare Quartos Archive democratized access to his texts, while works such as Valentine Cunningham’s Reading After Theory (2002) and Terry Eagleton’s After Theory (2003) championed flexible and pragmatic approaches to Shakespeare studies.

The Post-Theory Era has introduced a wide array of academic issues in Shakespeare studies, encompassing the redefinition of the canon, cross-cultural adaptation, digital media, theoretical frameworks, real-world concerns, performance studies, commercialization, and translation (Parvini, 2014). Central to these discussions is Shakespeare’s evolving status as a cultural phenomenon (Lanier, 2006). The processes of reinterpretation, adaptation, and reshaping of Shakespeare’s works, coupled with their transformation into a cultural phenomenon in the 21st century, have emerged as some of the most prominent and contested topics in contemporary scholarship (Hadfield, 2003). This study engages with these academic debates by examining the developmental trajectory, research characteristics, and underlying patterns of Shakespeare studies in the post-theory era, utilizing digital humanities methodologies to provide a critical and innovative perspective.

The adoption of bibliometric analysis from the perspective of digital humanities introduces a paradigm shift in Shakespeare studies. Traditionally, this field has relied heavily on close reading, a method central to the humanities (Smith, 2016). Deeply rooted in the linguistic traditions of literary analysis, close reading emphasizes a text’s language, historical context, modes of dissemination, and nuanced meanings. By meticulously examining primary texts and their references, it seeks to uncover deeper layers of meaning. In contrast, distant reading, as developed within the framework of digital humanities, shifts the focus from individual texts to large textual corpora. Rather than merely digitizing traditional methods, distant reading represents an innovative approach that employs natural language processing technologies to analyze unique focused collections of texts. This method uncovers trends, patterns, and relationships that remain imperceptible through close reading alone (Khadem, 2012). Consequently, data-driven distant reading is particularly effective in examining the state of research within a specific field and in posing new questions about language use, cultural values, and innovations in literary and cultural production.

Given the extensive quantity and broad scope of Shakespeare studies, this study integrates visual bibliometric tools, such as VOSViewer and CiteSpace. By employing the TCCM (Theory, Context, Characteristic, Methodology) analytical framework, this study aims to identify and explore key topics and trends in Shakespeare studies, offering an overview of the prevailing theories, contexts, characteristics, and methodologies that shape this field. This study was driven by the following four research questions:

RQ1: What are the geographical distributions of contributing countries and institutions in Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023? What are the main academic journals publishing significant research in this field during the same period?

RQ2: What are the key research hotspots and their evolutionary trajectories in Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023?

RQ3: How have the dynamics within the TCCM framework (Theory, Context, Characteristic, Methodology) evolved in relation to changing research hotspots during this period?

RQ4: What are the current research gaps and emerging trends in Shakespeare studies? How does the field’s trajectory address contemporary challenges, and what opportunities exist for future research directions?

This paper comprises five sections: The first section provides a concise overview of the current state of Shakespeare studies, introducing the research questions and emphasizing their significance. The second section details the systematic process employed in this review, including data collection, standardization and the research methodology. The third and fourth sections present the research findings and discuss them in relation to the research questions. Finally, this study concludes with a comprehensive summary, identifies potential directions for future research in the field, and addresses the study’s limitations, highlighting areas for improvement and opportunities for further exploration.

Data source

Web of Science is a highly regarded academic database, recognized for its indexing literature that undergoes rigorous peer review and strict editorial oversight (Pranckuté, 2021). In this study, the Web of Science Core Collection was selected as the primary database for data collection, covering the research period from 2000 to 2023, with only articles and review articles included.

The use of the WoS database and the outlined screening criteria are grounded in four key considerations. First, WoS provides efficient retrieval and standardized data, significantly reducing processing time compared to other databases. For example, Meho, Kiduk (2006) demonstrated that WoS required only 100 h, whereas Scopus required 200 hours, and Google Scholar took an extensive 3000 h. Second, WoS includes most of the authoritative journals central to Shakespeare studies, such as Shakespeare Quarterly, Shakespeare Studies, Early Modern Literary Studies, and Renaissance Quarterly, ensuring comprehensive coverage of influential research. Third, focusing on articles and review articles enhances the quality and reliability of the analysis by excluding non-peer-reviewed content, such as conference papers and news items (Snyder, 2019). Finally, the retrieval process was refined to include non-English literature, while weakly related materials-such as documents with non-relevant keywords or book reviews were excluded to improve both the precision and efficiency of the analysis (Gunashekar et al. 2017). The entire process followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Fig. 2).

This figure presents the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart used to systematically refine the dataset for bibliometric analysis. It outlines the stages of identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion, ensuring a transparent and rigorous selection process.

Full size image

Data standardization

The data from bibliometric studies, recognized for their accuracy, foster the development of novel insights by enabling a deeper description, understanding, and explanation of core concepts, themes, or research domains (Walsh, Frantz (2022)). However, raw data exported from databases often contain multiple variations of the same terminology, which can introduce inconsistencies (Nguyen and Hallinger, 2020). To enhance the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the literature review, a rigorous screening process was implemented based on three key criteria. First, studies that lacked relevant keywords were excluded to ensure thematic alignment. Second, the independence of each study was maintained by excluding conference reports, calls for papers, and other non-compliant literature. Third, each paper underwent a thorough evaluation of its title, abstract, and full text, with irrelevant studies-those not focused on Shakespeare-being excluded.

Research methodology

In response to the increasing volume of academic publications in the field of Shakespeare studies, this study adopts bibliometric analysis, a quantitative research method aimed at evaluating and interpreting the scope and patterns of scientific publications within a specific domain over a designated period. As a structured and effective approach, bibliometric analysis has gained recognition and application in aggregating and synthesizing scientific literature on targeted topics (Homrich et al. 2018).

This study also incorporates the TCCM framework proposed by Paul and Rosado-Serrano (Paul, Rosado-Serrano (2019)), a comprehensive tool for analyzing and categorizing literature across four dimensions. The framework systematically evaluates existing research by examining the theories underpinning studies, the contexts in which the research is conducted, the key characteristics of the phenomena being investigated and the methodologies employed. TCCM has proven to be a powerful tool for advancing knowledge across diverse disciplines. In the TCCM framework, “Theory” refers to the theoretical foundations and conceptual models that shape and guide research in a particular field. This dimension involves identifying and discussing key theories, principles, or assumptions that shape the research landscape. In literary studies, theory is often described as an “assemblage of ideas and works” (Culler, 2017), underscoring its inherently complex and fluid nature. “Context” encompasses the specific background of the research, including geographical, social, economic, and cultural factors, as well as areas of application. In Shakespeare’s studies, the contextual background highlights the extensive and enduring influence of his works across diverse fields and cultures. “Characteristic” pertains to the specific attributes or traits of the research subject. Within literature reviews, this involves a detailed examination and analysis of the distinctive features of the research topic, requiring an in-depth understanding of its unique aspects. “Methodology” refers to the systematic approaches and tools used to conduct research within a given field.

In recent years, scholars have widely applied the TCCM framework to bibliometric analyses in fields such as management (Singh et al. 2019), psychology (Shaik, Dhir (2020)) and business (Singh et al. 2020), demonstrating its versatility and effectiveness in synthesizing and expanding disciplinary knowledge.

This study offers a comprehensive visual analysis of the overall research landscape of Shakespeare studies across multiple dimensions. These dimensions include the number of published articles and publication trends, national distribution, institutional collaboration networks, major high-impact journals publishing Shakespeare research, and keyword analyses such as clustering, timeline evolution, time-zone distribution, and burst keywords.

Distribution power (RQ1)

Analysis of trends in publications

The number of publications is a key indicator of the development of a research field, reflecting changes in academic attention and influence (Durieux and Gevenois, 2010). Figure 3 illustrates the annual and cumulative publications in Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023, revealing a general upward trend. Between 2000 and 2007, annual publications remained stable, ranging from 133 to 161 articles, followed by a gradual increase that peaked at 355 articles in 2016. In subsequent years, output stabilized at a high level, fluctuating between 300 and 356 articles annually, with 308 articles published in 2023. The cumulative number of publications reached 5,862 by 2023, demonstrating sustained academic interest in the field. Additionally, the fitting curve, modeled as a quadratic function with R² = 0.99, indicates a continued rise in publication trends, supported by reliable predictive accuracy.

This figure illustrates the annual and cumulative publication trends in Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023. The data show a consistent upward trajectory, with recent years maintaining a high level of research output. A quadratic trendline (R² = 0.99) suggests sustained academic interest in the field.

Full size image

Analysis of geographical distribution of contributing countries and institutions in Shakespeare studies from 2000–2023

Shakespeare’s studies exhibit a distinctly globalized research pattern, characterized by spatial variations in publication volume (Table 1). Figure 4 illustrates the geographical distribution of national publication output, with the USA and the United Kingdom emerging as central hubs of academic activity and leadership. The USA, leading with 1,982 publications, reflects its long-standing dominance in Shakespeare research. Notable examples include the exploration of digital humanities methods in analyzing Shakespearean texts (McNair (2023)) at institutions such as Harvard University and the University of California. Its robust collaborative ties with key contributors like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia further enhance its influence. The United Kingdom, ranking second with 1,164 publications, serves as a critical node for bridging European and global research networks. Prestigious institutions like the University of Oxford and Northumbria University focus on textual criticism and performance studies, emphasizing the historical and cultural contexts of Shakespeare’s works (Duncan, 2023; Smialkowska, 2011).

This figure maps the global distribution of Shakespeare studies publications from 2000 to 2023. The United States and the United Kingdom lead in research output, followed by Canada, Australia, Italy, and China. Contributions from Europe and Asia reflect the growing internationalization of the field.

Full size image

European countries including Germany, Italy, France, and Spain form a significant research cluster, with publication volumes ranging from 119 to 131. Germany’s contributions include philosophical and linguistic analyses of Shakespeare’s texts, often influenced by Goethe’s literary tradition (Steppat and Jansohn, 2007). In Italy, post-2015 growth has been driven by studies on Shakespearean adaptations in Italian theater and literature (Gatti, 2014) with notable publications from the University of Bologna. Similarly, Spain’s research focuses on translations and localized performances, with significant contributions from the University of Barcelona. France continues its legacy in textual criticism and cultural analysis (Ellison, 2007), as reflected in the works produced by institutions such as the Sorbonne.

In Asia, China, ranking sixth with 126 publications, highlights the region’s increasing involvement in Shakespeare studies. Key examples include interdisciplinary research at Peking University, integrating cultural materialism and performance studies (Gan, 2023). China’s expanding scholarly output is accompanied by emerging collaborative relationships with Western hubs like the USA and the UK, though regional partnerships within Asia remain limited. Japan, with 80 publications, contributes significantly, focusing on cultural translations and the integration of Shakespearean themes into traditional Japanese theater (Hui (2022)) such as Noh and Kabuki (Kobayashi, 2006). Australia, with 207 publications, stands out as a prominent hub in the Southern Hemisphere. Contributions from the Global South, particularly Brazil and South Africa, remain modest but noteworthy. Brazil’s research often explores postcolonial interpretations of Shakespeare (Santos, 2021), while South Africa examines his works in the context of race and social justice (Weissbourd, 2023), reflecting local cultural and political dynamics.

The institutional collaboration network in a bibliometric study identifies key research institutions, reveals patterns of academic cooperation, and highlights the strength and scope of partnerships within a specific field. Figure 5 and Table 2 highlight key research hubs in Shakespeare studies, with the University of London at its center. This institution produces the highest volume of publications and maintains strong collaborative ties with the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and King’s College London, forming a core network of UK-based scholarship. In the United States, leading institutions such as the University of California System and the University System of Ohio play pivotal roles, establishing strong connections with Harvard University and other prominent research centers. Similarly, the University of Toronto emerges as a significant contributor in Canada, maintaining notable collaborations with both UK and US institutions, underscoring Canada’s growing influence in the field. Further illustrating the global reach of Shakespearean scholarship, institutions such as the University of Sydney in Australia and the University of Cape Town in South Africa contribute to the expanding international network. These collaborations reflect the strengthening ties between traditional research hubs in the UK and US and emerging institutions worldwide, showcasing an increasingly diverse and interconnected research landscape. Overall, Shakespeare’s studies have evolved from a Europe-centered approach to a more globalized field of inquiry.

This figure visualizes institutional collaborations in Shakespeare studies. The University of London emerges as a central hub, with strong connections to the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, and King’s College London. In the United States, key contributors include the University of California System and the University System of Ohio, fostering extensive cross-institutional research.

Full size image

Analysis of the main academic journals in Shakespeare studies from 2000–2023

Dual-map overlay analysis visualizes the distribution of academic publications across disciplines and identifies citation trajectories between subject areas, uncovering the flow of knowledge and research influence within a field (Chen and Leydesdorff, 2014). This analysis underscores the multidisciplinary nature of Shakespeare’s research, with journals spanning literary studies, cultural studies, and performance analysis, reflecting diverse scholarly engagement and cross-disciplinary influence.

Figure 6 and Table 3, using journals as weighted indicators, present the top ten journals in Shakespeare studies, revealing a relatively dispersed publication landscape. Shakespeare leads with 343 publications, reflecting its dominance in the field, while Shakespeare Quarterly stands out for its significant academic influence, evidenced by the highest citation count (1,893). When combined with Fig. 7 (co-citation analysis), the clustering of journal contributions reveals distinct thematic connections. For example, journals like Critical Survey and Multicultural Shakespeare focus on global adaptations and performance studies, whereas Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 and Review of English Studies cluster around historical and textual scholarship. This diverse journal landscape underscores the interdisciplinary and evolving nature of Shakespeare’s research, which spans traditional textual studies, global performance, and translation-focused scholarship.

This figure presents a dual-map overlay of academic publications, highlighting research distribution across disciplines and citation patterns between subject areas. The analysis underscores the multidisciplinary nature of Shakespeare studies, spanning literary criticism, cultural analysis, and performance studies.

Full size image

This figure maps the citation network among major academic journals in Shakespeare studies. Shakespeare Quarterly and Renaissance Quarterly exhibit the highest citation impact, while specialized journals such as Multicultural Shakespeare focus on adaptation and global performance studies.

Full size image

Key research hotspots and their evolutionary trajectories (RQ2)

Analysis of key research hotspots in Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023

Based on the Top 10 journals in terms of publications, this study incorporates publication quality as a weighting factor in data processing. This approach ensures that important studies are distinguished from less significant ones, enabling more meaningful insights to be derived from the statistics. The keyword co-occurrence analysis of high-quality journals identifies key research themes and hotspots in Shakespeare studies by examining the frequency and significance of recurring keywords (Sedighi, 2016). Figures 8 and 9 highlights central concepts such as “time”, “history”, “tragedy”, “text”, “language” and “performance” which frequently appear and serve as foundational pillars of the field. Integrating the keyword heatmap and co-citation analysis reveals five main research clusters (Table 4):

1. (1)

   Canonical works and historical context: This cluster explores Shakespeare’s key texts, such as King Lear and Macbeth, within historical, cultural, and religious frameworks. Prominent topics include authorship, textual attribution (Aasand, 2005), and political resonance (Naum, 2021), which together reinforce Shakespeare’s status as a literary icon.

2. (2)

   Gender and performance: This cluster explores the representation of identity and power dynamics (Naum, 2021) in Shakespeare’s plays. Approaches such as psychoanalytic criticism and performance studies are central (Kidnie, 2000), with The Tempest serving as a notable case study for gender and colonial narratives (Loehlin, 2015).

3. (3)

   Ethics and philosophy: This cluster explores the themes of ethics (Zittoun and Stenner, 2021), philosophy (Crosbie, 2022), and education (Fallon, 2021). This cluster also highlights Shakespeare’s engagement with moral dilemmas and Renaissance intellectual currents. Scholars emphasize ideas of human nature, justice (Loewenstein, 2018), and metaphor, reflecting Shakespeare’s contributions to ethical and philosophical discourse.

4. (4)

   Politics and power relations: This cluster explores power structures (Dutton, 2005), identity formation, and socio-political (Pangallo, 2022) issues in Shakespeare’s works (Kuzner and Gil, 2015). Tragedies are central to this analysis, particularly those that explore revenge, conflict, and legal systems.

5. (5)

   Adaptation and reinterpretation: This cluster explores the modern adaptations and global reinterpretations of Shakespeare’s works across various mediums, including theater, film, and digital platforms. Keywords like race, translation, and digital humanities underscore the relevance of plays such as Hamlet (Shore, 2015) and Othello (Irish, 2022) in addressing contemporary issues like racial tensions, globalization (Starks, 2008), and technological evolution.

This figure highlights thematic clusters identified through keyword co-occurrence analysis. Major research areas include canonical texts and historical context, gender and performance, ethics and philosophy, politics and power, and adaptation and reinterpretation.

Full size image

This figure presents a heatmap of keyword frequency from 2000 to 2023. High-density areas indicate central research themes such as textual analysis, adaptation, and digital humanities, reflecting key focal points within the field.

Full size image

Analysis of the evolutionary trajectories of key research hotspots in Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023

To gain a deeper understanding of the evolutionary trends in research hotspots within the field of Shakespeare studies (Slocum et al. 2004), CiteSpace was used to generate a timeline visualization (Fig. 10) and a time-zone evolution mapping (Fig. 11). These visualizations provide a comprehensive view of how key research themes have emerged and evolved over time, offering valuable insights into the dynamic development of Shakespeare studies. Burst keywords (Fig. 12) serve as a powerful tool for identifying and monitoring the leading edges of research, offering insights into the latest directional shifts in academic fields and enabling scholars to forecast the progression of research domains (Alaeddini et al. 2023). Based on the analysis of keywords timeline mapping, time-zone evolution mapping, and burst keywords mapping, the development of Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023 can be categorized into four distinct phases: Initial phase (2000–2005), Transition phase (2005–2010), Mature phase (2010–2019) and Post-pandemic phase (2019–2023):

1. (1)

   Initial phase (2000–2005): Between 2000 and 2005, Shakespeare’s studies entered a phase of theoretical critique and reflection, characterized by a departure from the dominance of “high theory”. Scholars revisited foundational themes, placing renewed emphasis on historical textual analysis, authorship attribution (Wilson, 2005), and the cultural contexts of Shakespeare’s works. During this period, key tragedies like King Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth remained central to scholarship, as researchers critically examined early texts, including the First Quarto editions (Boyd and Vickers, 2003). Additionally, debates over authorship attribution-such as controversies surrounding Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe-gained prominence, spotlighting concerns about textual integrity and historical authorship (Gretchen, Derek (2005)). This phase, therefore, laid the groundwork for reestablishing the reliability of Shakespeare’s texts and reaffirming their historical and literary importance.

2. (2)

   Transition phase (2005–2010): Between 2005 and 2010, Shakespeare’s studies transitioned into a phase of theoretical integration and multidisciplinary exploration. This period witnessed the incorporation of cultural studies (Grace et al. 2010) and gender theory (Pamela and Michelle, 2010). And performance studies into Shakespearean scholarship, reflecting a growing openness to diverse theoretical frameworks. The global adaptation of Shakespeare’s works, particularly in non-Western contexts, marked a key development, signaling the field’s expanding interest in cross-cultural interpretations and the worldwide dissemination of Shakespeare’s legacy (Billings and Li, 2006; Osborne, French (2009)).

3. (3)

   Mature phase (2010–2019): This phase positioned Shakespeare’s works as cultural artifacts capable of addressing contemporary ethical and social challenges, demonstrating their enduring relevance in critically examining issues of justice, identity, and inequality. Shakespeare’s studies reached a mature phase, characterized by an intensified focus on real-world issues and ethical dimensions. Scholars critically engaged with contemporary societal problems (Frazer, 2013; Fielitz, 2013), addressing themes such as race, gender (Shi, 2013), and censorship through Shakespeare’s works. The rise of digital humanities during this period transformed research methodologies, allowing scholars to analyze Shakespearean texts using digital tools (Stephen, 2015), archival resources (Aebischer and Hodgdon, 2016), and multimedia adaptations (Murray, 2013).

4. (4)

   Post-pandemic phase (2019–2023): This phase highlights Shakespeare’s enduring relevance as a global literary figure, demonstrating how his works continue to evolve in response to pressing contemporary challenges while fostering a dialog across cultures and disciplines. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital platforms for studying and performing Shakespeare (Yates, 2023). Additionally, cross-cultural adaptation has gained significant traction, with scholars examining how Shakespeare’s texts are reimagined in diverse cultural contexts across Asia (Cho, 2021; Gan, 2023), Africa (Weissbourd, 2023) and Latin America (Santos, 2021).

This figure tracks the chronological development of key research themes in Shakespeare’s studies, illustrating their emergence and transformation. Four distinct phases are identified: the Initial Phase (2000–2005), focusing on textual authenticity; the Transition Phase (2005–2010), incorporating cultural and gender studies; the Mature Phase (2010–2019), engaging with ethics and environmental humanities; and the Post-Pandemic Phase (2019–2023), emphasizing globalization and environmental concerns.

Full size image

This figure visualizes the evolution of research priorities over time. Early studies emphasized textual authenticity and literary interpretation, while more recent research explores digital humanities, global adaptations, and environmental perspectives, reflecting the field’s shifting focus.

Full size image

This figure identifies keywords with notable increases in frequency, signaling emerging research directions. Key trends include digital humanities, cross-cultural adaptation, and environmental humanities, underscoring the evolving priorities within Shakespeare studies.

Full size image

Discussion on research trend and research power (RQ1)

While the annual number of publications in Shakespeare studies has declined in recent years (2019–2023), the average annual output remains above the historical average at approximately 244.5 articles. This suggests that, despite the recent decrease, academic interest in the field remains robust. Moreover, since the beginning of the 21st century, Shakespeare’s research has expanded beyond its traditional literary focus to embrace interdisciplinary fields such as psychology, education, and cultural studies. Adaptations of Shakespeare’s works continue to be performed in countries such as the United States, China, and Japan, demonstrating their ongoing relevance to contemporary intellectual and cultural demands. Within the broader context of classical literary studies, this sustained attention is particularly significant. It underscores the enduring vitality of Shakespeare’s works as canonical texts, which continue to evolve and acquire renewed significance alongside global academic and cultural developments.

This study examines the leading countries and core institutions to uncover the global research landscape and distribution of strengths in Shakespeare studies. While the field reflects a globalized research pattern, the distribution remains uneven, with leading nations driving major advancements and emerging contributors, such as USA and UK, introducing diversity and innovative perspectives. The USA leads in publication output, supported by robust institutional networks and interdisciplinary approaches, while the UK excels in fostering extensive global collaborations. In Europe, countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, and France make significant contributions, each with a unique focus. Similarly, the Asia-Pacific region, spearheaded by Australia, showcases strong academic engagement, emphasizing the field’s expanding global footprint. Among developing countries, China has emerged as a key player, actively engaging in cross-cultural research with the USA and UK. However, its relatively limited regional partnerships within Asia suggest opportunities for further collaboration.

Discussion on research hotspots and evolutionary trends (RQ2)

Shakespeare studies can be divided into five main hotspots: canonical texts, gender and performance, ethics and philosophy, politics and power, and adaptation and reinterpretation, as summarized in Table 2. Core keywords such as “authorship”, “performance” and “adaptation” underscore the focus on Shakespeare’s texts, their reinterpretations, and enduring relevance. Early research primarily emphasized textual authenticity and authorship within historical contexts. More recent trends incorporate digital humanities and globalization, reflecting Shakespeare’s evolving impact in a digitally connected, post-pandemic world. Meanwhile, emerging areas like digital humanities and cross-cultural adaptations present new opportunities for scholarly exploration. This evolution demonstrates a dynamic shift from traditional textual studies to interdisciplinary approaches, affirming Shakespeare’s continued resonance across historical, cultural, and technological dimensions.

Discussion on the TCCM results of Shakespeare studies from 2000–2023 (RQ3)

Through the analysis of keyword evolution in Shakespeare studies from 2000 to 2023, the field’s progression through four distinct phases becomes evident, showcasing its dynamic and adaptive nature. This evolution underscores Shakespeare’s enduring relevance across historical, cultural, and technological dimensions. Within the TCCM framework, these phases-defined by theoretical shifts, expanding contextual focus, and methodological innovations-offer a nuanced perspective on the academic priorities, evolving methodologies, and interdisciplinary approaches that have shaped the study of Shakespeare’s works during this period.

1. (1)

   Initial phase (2000–2005): theoretical critique and reflection

   Theory: During this phase, scholars critiqued the dominance of “high theory” frameworks, such as post-structuralism and postcolonialism (Harris and Zabus, 2004), for their abstraction and detachment from the texts. The focus shifted back to intrinsic textual analysis, emphasizing Shakespeare’s literary value, textual authenticity, and historical significance. Context: Research during this phase was primarily concentrated in Western academia, reflecting the early stages of globalization. Scholars revisited foundational Shakespearean themes, including authorship debates and textual variants (Best, 2005). Characteristics: This phase prioritized close readings and historical contextualization, aiming to reestablish Shakespeare’s canonical status (Boyd and Vickers, 2003) while addressing the over-theorization of preceding decades. Methodology: Central to this phase were textual studies and the use of historical documentation, providing grounded, evidence-based analyses.

2. (2)

   Transition phase (2005–2010): theoretical integration and multidisciplinary exploration

   Theory: This phase integrated cultural studies, gender theory, and emerging frameworks such as ecocriticism (O’Dair, 2008), reflecting an openness to interdisciplinary approaches. Shakespearean texts were reexamined through lenses of identity, race, and power dynamics, with works like Othello and Twelfth Night serving as key focal points. Context: Accelerated globalization and cultural exchange facilitated the study of Shakespeare’s works in cross-cultural contexts. Localized adaptations and global performances highlighted the universality and adaptability of Shakespeare’s themes. Characteristics: Diversity became a defining feature of this phase, with increased attention to themes such as gender, popular culture (Brown, 2009), and cultural adaptations. Shakespearean theater gained prominence as scholars analyzed its performative aspects and sociopolitical relevance. Methodology: A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches emerged during this phase. Case studies on cultural adaptations and identity politics were supported by interdisciplinary tools, including sociology and cultural theory (Rutter, 2008).

3. (3)

   Mature phase (2010–2019): focus on real-world issues and ethical dimensions

   Theory: Theoretical applications expanded to include ethics, postcolonialism, and environmental humanities. Scholars emphasized real-world issues, such as justice, marginalization (Hawkes and Novy, 2016), and environmental challenges (Gaby, 2011), as reflected in Shakespeare’s works. Context: The rise of digital humanities revolutionized research methodologies, enabling innovative studies through tools like text mining, citation network analysis, and multimedia adaptations. Shakespeare’s relevance extended beyond literature into education, theater, and global cultural studies, reflecting his enduring impact across disciplines. Characteristics: Research during this phase achieved a balance between traditional textual analysis and contemporary interdisciplinary approaches, highlighting the adaptability of Shakespeare’s works to modern scholarly and cultural contexts. Methodology: Advanced digital humanities methods, such as computational analysis (Segarra et al. 2016) and network visualization (Griggs, 2011), became prominent. Additionally, performance studies and multimedia analysis underscored Shakespeare’s adaptability to modern platforms, further expanding his relevance to contemporary audiences.

4. (4)

   Post-pandemic phase (2019–2023): globalization and environmental concerns

Theory: New materialism and modernity emerged as dominant frameworks, focusing on ecological consciousness and technological implications. Scholars examined Shakespeare’s texts as critiques of anthropocentrism and as responses to global crises, highlighting their enduring relevance in addressing contemporary challenges. Context: The post-pandemic era accelerated the adoption of digital platforms for Shakespearean studies, facilitating virtual performances and online adaptations. Global crises such as climate change, inequality, and social justice became central focal points, reflecting the intersection of Shakespearean scholarship with pressing global issues. Characteristics: This phase emphasized cross-cultural adaptations (Sen, 2022) and environmental concerns, demonstrating Shakespeare’s relevance to contemporary global challenges (Kafantaris, 2020). The adaptability of his texts across linguistic and cultural boundaries reinforced their universality, making his works accessible and meaningful in diverse contexts. Methodology: The use of computational linguistics and interdisciplinary collaborations defined this phase. Researchers leveraged digital tools to analyze textual transformations (Kim, 2019) and to study the global dissemination of Shakespeare’s works, further expanding the scope of his influence in modern scholarship Table 5.

Discussion on research gaps and future directions in Shakespeare studies (RQ4)

Shakespeare studies continue to exhibit a Eurocentric focus, with limited engagement from non-Western perspectives that could offer valuable insights into cross-cultural interpretations. Advanced tools in digital humanities, such as AI and machine learning, remain underutilized, hindering deeper analyses of Shakespeare’s works and their broader implications. Environmental themes and connections to sustainability are underexplored, as are links to modern socio-political movements, leaving opportunities to connect Shakespeare’s plays with contemporary global challenges. Furthermore, while interdisciplinary approaches are increasingly adopted, they often lack a cohesive framework, resulting in fragmented analyses that fail to capture the full complexity and relevance of Shakespeare’s studies.

In the future, Shakespeare studies should prioritize interdisciplinary integration, contemporary relevance, and methodological innovation to address pressing academic and societal challenges. Refining theoretical frameworks such as new materialism, ecocriticism, and posthumanism is essential for exploring Shakespeare’s relevance to global issues like environmental sustainability and social justice. Additionally, exploring Shakespeare’s presence on digital platforms, such as streaming services, virtual reality, and video games-can provides valuable insights into how these mediums enhance accessibility and influence contemporary interpretations of his works. Research on cross-cultural adaptations should examine how Shakespeare’s works are localized to reflect regional cultural and political contexts, fostering a more inclusive global discourse. Scholars are encouraged to engage deeply with societal and environmental themes within Shakespeare’s plays, connecting them to contemporary socio-political movements and ecological debates. Combining computational techniques like distant reading with close textual analyses will enable a holistic approach, linking macro-scale trends with micro-level insights. These strategies will ensure that Shakespeare’s studies remain vibrant, relevant, and impactful in addressing the complex challenges of the 21st century.

1. (1)

   Shakespeare studies have become a prominent focus within the international academic community, characterized by interdisciplinary integration. The global distribution of Shakespeare studies exhibits a multi-centered pattern, with the USA and the United Kingdom maintaining dominant positions. China has emerged as a significant contributor among developing countries, with increasing research influence, particularly in cross-cultural adaptation studies within the context of globalization. Research spans diverse directions, including literary studies, cultural studies, performance arts, and digital humanities. Key research themes include historical texts, gender and performance, ethics and philosophy, power and politics, and adaptation and cross-cultural dissemination. In terms of journal influence, Shakespeare Quarterly, Renaissance Quarterly, and Shakespeare stand out as authoritative journals with substantial academic impact.

2. (2)

   The evolution of Shakespeare’s studies follows a trajectory from theoretical critique to multidisciplinary integration, then to a mature focus on societal issues, and finally to global and environmental exploration. Key influencing factors shaping this progression include academic reactions to over-theorization during the 2000–2005. Other key factors include increased globalization and cultural exchange during 2005–2010, the rise of digital humanities and attention to global societal challenges during 2010–2019, and post-pandemic (2019–2023) technological acceleration alongside growing awareness of ecological crises in the current phase. Each phase reflects broader shifts in academic priorities, global contexts, and technological tools, underscoring the dynamism, adaptability, and interdisciplinary nature of Shakespeare studies in the 21st century.

3. (3)

   Scholars are increasingly exploring the “materiality” of Shakespeare’s works within the context of early modern British and European society, utilizing approaches such as New Historicism and Cultural Materialism. This perspective examines Shakespeare’s plays in relation to lifestyle, social structures, and cultural contexts, revealing their deep social embeddedness and offering fresh insights into their connections with the material culture of the time. Performance studies remain a cornerstone of Shakespearean scholarship, as researchers continue to analyze how his plays are reinterpreted across various historical and modern contexts. Whether through traditional stage performances or contemporary adaptations, Shakespeare’s works provide rich interpretive possibilities and enduring creative inspiration for today’s culture. Furthermore, there is growing interest in paleography, the study of historical written forms, and the evolution of scripts. By analyzing textual specifics, scholars seek to uncover connections between Shakespeare’s texts and classical culture. Paleographic analysis serves as a micro-historical method, challenging traditional grand narratives by highlighting the cultural and historical significance embedded in textual details.

4. (4)

   Shakespeare’s influence is no longer confined to isolated textual analysis. Contemporary research has expanded to examine his relationships with contemporaries, including poets and playwrights of the same era. Scholars now avoid viewing Shakespeare solely as a singular genius and instead place him within the broader literary and cultural context of the 16th and 17th centuries. This approach enriches our understanding of Shakespeare’s works by offering a deeper knowledge of the early modern literary landscape, showcasing the interconnectedness of writers and intellectual currents of his time.

Limitation

To our knowledge, this study represents a comprehensive attempt to analyze Shakespeare’s research through a systematic bibliometric approach, adhering to established methodological standards. However, the reliance on the WoS Core Collection may have excluded relevant literature indexed in other significant databases such as Scopus, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, potentially overlooking critical academic contributions outside this ecosystem. Additionally, while visual and quantitative studies of Shakespeare have introduced innovative approaches to understanding literature, these methods also present certain challenges. Recent advancements such as digital humanities, computational tools, and AI-driven approaches have transformed Shakespearean studies by enabling new methods of textual analysis, performance visualization, and global adaptations. However, these emerging directions were not fully explored in the current study.

Furthermore, the interpretation of visualized results heavily relies on the subjective judgment of researchers, which can increase the subjectivity of the conclusions drawn. Quantitative studies, while valuable, may overlook the deeper meanings and literary value of Shakespeare’s texts. These methods also depend on the accuracy and completeness of the data; any inaccuracies or omissions can result in misleading results.

Future research should address these limitations by incorporating literature from multiple databases and non-English sources while embracing modern technologies and interdisciplinary methodologies to capture the evolving and global nature of Shakespeare’s scholarship in contemporary contexts. To achieve a more comprehensive understanding of Shakespeare’s works, researchers should adopt a critical perspective when employing modern tools and complement quantitative methods with qualitative analysis. Future research should also explore effective strategies for integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, overcoming their respective limitations to fully uncover the rich and timeless significance of Shakespeare’s literature.