IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i7d10.1007_s11192-024-05013-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Management and Organizational Studies divided into (micro-)tribes?

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Wieczorek

    (University of Kassel)

  • Olof Hallonsten

    (Lund University)

  • Fredrik Åström

    (Lund University)

Abstract

Many claims have been made in the past that Management and Organization Studies (MOS) is becoming increasingly fragmented, and that this fragmentation is causing it to drift into self-reference and irrelevance. Despite the weight of this claim, it has not yet been subjected to a systematic empirical test. This paper addresses this research gap using the tribalization approach and diachronic co-citation analyses. Based on 22,430 papers published in 14 MOS journals between 1980 and 2019, we calculate local and global centrality measures and the flow of cited articles between co-citation communities over time. In addition, we use a node-removal strategy to test whether only ritualized citations ensure MOS cohesion. Rather than tribalization, our results suggest a center–periphery structure. Furthermore, more peripheral papers are integrated into the central co-citation communities, but the lion's share of the flow of cited papers occurs over time to only a small number of large clusters. An increase of fragmentation and crowding-out of smaller clusters in MOS in seen in the polycentrically organized core 2014–2019.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Wieczorek & Olof Hallonsten & Fredrik Åström, 2024. "Is Management and Organizational Studies divided into (micro-)tribes?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3871-3995, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05013-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05013-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05013-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05013-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Whitley, 1984. "The Fragmented State Of Management Studies: Reasons And Consequences," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 331-348, July.
    2. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    3. Marek Kwiek, 2020. "Internationalists and locals: international research collaboration in a resource-poor system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 57-105, July.
    4. J. M. Santos & H. Horta & H. Luna, 2022. "The relationship between academics’ strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4191-4225, July.
    5. Tienari, Janne, 2012. "Academia as financial markets? Metaphoric reflections and possible responses," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 250-256.
    6. Acedo, Francisco José & Casillas, José Carlos, 2005. "Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 619-639, October.
    7. Lin Zhang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2017. "A citation-based cross-disciplinary study on literature ageing: part II—diachronous aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1559-1572, June.
    8. Macdonald, Stuart & Kam, Jacqueline, 2010. "Counting footnotes: Citability in management studies," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 189-203, June.
    9. Zhenyu Gou & Fan Meng & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Yi Bu, 2022. "Encoding the citation life-cycle: the operationalization of a literature-aging conceptual model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 5027-5052, August.
    10. Oguzhan Ozturk, 2021. "Bibliometric review of resource dependence theory literature: an overview," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 525-552, July.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2019. "The collaboration behavior of top scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 215-232, January.
    12. Mie Augier & James G. March & Bilian Ni Sullivan, 2005. "Notes on the Evolution of a Research Community: Organization Studies in Anglophone North America, 1945–2000," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-95, February.
    13. Oliver Wieczorek & Saïd Unger & Jan Riebling & Lukas Erhard & Christian Koß & Raphael Heiberger, 2021. "Mapping the field of psychology: Trends in research topics 1995–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9699-9731, December.
    14. Cummings, Jonathon N. & Kiesler, Sara, 2007. "Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1620-1634, December.
    15. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    2. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    3. Wang, Cheng-Jun & Yan, Lihan & Cui, Haochuan, 2023. "Unpacking the essential tension of knowledge recombination: Analyzing the impact of knowledge spanning on citation impact and disruptive innovation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    4. Yuxian Liu & Yishan Wu & Sandra Rousseau & Ronald Rousseau, 2020. "Reflections on and a short review of the science of team science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 937-950, November.
    5. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    6. Shen, Hongquan & Xie, Juan & Ao, Weiyi & Cheng, Ying, 2022. "The continuity and citation impact of scientific collaboration with different gender composition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    7. Samuel-Soma M. Ajibade & Festus Victor Bekun & Festus Fatai Adedoyin & Bright Akwasi Gyamfi & Anthonia Oluwatosin Adediran, 2023. "Machine Learning Applications in Renewable Energy (MLARE) Research: A Publication Trend and Bibliometric Analysis Study (2012–2021)," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-21, April.
    8. Liu, Jialin & Chen, Hongkan & Liu, Zhibo & Bu, Yi & Gu, Weiye, 2022. "Non-linearity between referencing behavior and citation impact: A large-scale, discipline-level analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    9. Nicola Cortinovis & Frank van der Wouden, 2021. "Better by design? Collaboration and performance in the board-game industry," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2104, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2021.
    10. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    11. Yiling Lin & Carl Benedikt Frey & Lingfei Wu, 2022. "Remote Collaboration Fuses Fewer Breakthrough Ideas," Papers 2206.01878, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    12. Huimin Xu & Yi Bu & Meijun Liu & Chenwei Zhang & Mengyi Sun & Yi Zhang & Eric Meyer & Eduardo Salas & Ying Ding, 2022. "Team power dynamics and team impact: New perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(10), pages 1489-1505, October.
    13. Kazuki Nakajima & Kazuyuki Shudo & Naoki Masuda, 2023. "Higher-order rich-club phenomenon in collaborative research grant networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2429-2446, April.
    14. Fauchart, Emmanuelle & Bacache-Beauvallet, Maya & Bourreau, Marc & Moreau, François, 2022. "Do-It-Yourself or Do-It-Together: How digital technologies affect creating alone or with others?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    15. Luis Antonio Orozco Castro, 2015. "Diversidad y heterogeneidad en redes de colaboración científica. Un estudio de las escuelas de administración de América Latina," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Administración de Empresas, edition 1, number 44, August.
    16. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1697-1735, April.
    17. Li, Linfei & Khan, Sufyan Ullah & Guo, Chenhao & Huang, Yanfen & Xia, Xianli, 2022. "Non-agricultural labor transfer, factor allocation and farmland yield: Evidence from the part-time peasants in Loess Plateau region of Northwest China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    19. Gao, Qiang & Liang, Zhentao & Wang, Ping & Hou, Jingrui & Chen, Xiuxiu & Liu, Manman, 2021. "Potential index: Revealing the future impact of research topics based on current knowledge networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    20. Wenxuan Shi & Renli Wu, 2024. "Women’s strength in science: exploring the influence of female participation on research impact and innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4529-4551, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05013-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.