BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL ECOLOGY THEORY (OET): TO REVIEW PAST FOR DIRECTING THE FUTURE OF THE FIELD

Year 2022, Volume: 22 Issue: 2, 195 - 212, 28.04.2022

Oğuzhan Öztürk , Esra Dil

https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.980638

Cited By: 6

Abstract

In this study, 399 articles of the extant literature published in the Web of Science database between 1975 and 2020 were examined using bibliometric analysis to determine the extent of Organizational Ecology Theory (OET) literature and current research priorities. Bibliometric techniques such as performance analysis, citation analysis, co-word and co-citation analysis are used for this purpose. We extracted several thematically clusters from bibliometric networks using co-citation and co-word analysis, describing related but distinct subfields of inquiry within the OET literature. “Organizational change”, “organizational forms and identity”, and “organizational founding and mortality” are overlapping clusters. Topics such as new organizational type, organizational failure, first-mover advantage, organizational founding, and coevolution may be examined in future research. Therefore, the expected contribution of this study is to provide a helpful inventory of past research to direct future research on the post-covid-19 era to advance OET literature.

Keywords

Organizational Ecology Theory, Systematic Literature Review, Bibliometric Analysis, Organizational Theory, Science Mapping, VOSviewer

References

• Aldrich HE (1979) Organizations and environments. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
• Aldrich HE, Pfeffer J (1976) Environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 2:79-105.
• Amankwah-Amoah J, Khan Z, Wood G (2021) COVID-19 and business failures: The paradoxes of experience, scale, and scope for theory and practice. European Management Journal, 39(2):179-184.
• Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11:959-975.
• Astley WG (1985) The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative science quarterly, 30(2):224-241.
• Barnett WP, Carroll GR (1987) Competition and mutualism among early telephone companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(3):400-421.
• Barron DN, West E, Hannan MT (1994) A time to grow and a time to die: Growth and mortality of credit unions in New York City, 1914-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2):381-421.
• Bartik AW, Bertrand M, Cullen Z, Glaeser EL, Luca M, Stanton C (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(30): 17656-17666.
• Baum JA, Ingram P (1998) Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1980. Management science, 44(7):996-1016.
• Baum JA, Mezias SJ (1992) Localized competition and organizational failure in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898-1990. Administrative science quarterly, 37(4):580-604.
• Baum JA, Oliver C (1991) Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative science quarterly, 36(2):187-218.
• Block JH, Fisch C (2020) Eight tips and questions for your bibliographic study in business and management research. Management Review Quarterly, 70(3):307–312.
• Block JH, Fisch C, Rehan F (2020) Religion and entrepreneurship: a map of the field and a bibliometric analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 70(4):591–627.
• Börner K, Chen C, Boyack KW (2003) Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual review of information science and technology, 37(1):179-255.
• Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization science, 2(3):239-262.
• Callon M, Courtial JP, Turner WA, Bauin S (1983) From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social science information, 22(2):191-235.
• Carroll GR (1984) Organizational ecology. Annual review of Sociology, 10(1):71-93.
• Carroll GR (1985) Concentration and specialization: Dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations. American journal of sociology, 90(6):1262-1283.
• Carroll GR, Hannan MT (1989) Density dependence in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations. American sociological review, 54(4):524-541.
• Carroll GR, Swaminathan A (2000) Why the microbrewery movement? Organizational dynamics of resource partitioning in the US brewing industry. American journal of sociology, 106(3):715-762.
• Carroll GR, Hannan MT (2000) The Demography of Organizations and Industries. Princeton University Press.
• Cobo MJ, López‐Herrera AG, Herrera‐Viedma E, Herrera F (2011) Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62:1382-1402.
• Coulter N, Monarch I, Konda S (1998) Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co‐word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(13):1206-1223.
• Dai R, Feng H, Hu J, Jin Q, Li H, Wang R, ..., Zhang X (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Evidence from two-wave phone surveys in China. China Economic Review, 67, 101607.
• Delacroix J, Carroll, GR (1983) Organizational foundings: An ecological study of the newspaper industries of Argentina and Ireland. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2): 274-291.
• Díez-Martín F, Blanco-González A, Prado-Román C (2020) The intellectual structure of organizational legitimacy research: a co-citation analysis in business journals. Review of Managerial Science, 15:1007–1043.
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48:147-160.
• Ferreira MP, Pinto CF, Serra FR (2014) The transaction costs theory in international business research: a bibliometric study over three decades. Scientometrics, 98(3):1899-1922.
• Freeman J, Hannan MT (1983) Niche width and the dynamics of organizational populations. American journal of Sociology, 88(6):1116-1145.
• Freeman J, Carroll GR, Hannan MT (1983) The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American sociological review, 48(5):692-710.
• Garfield E (1980) Bradford’s law and related statistical patterns. Current Contents, 19:476-583.
• Geroski PA (2000) Models of technology diffusion. Research policy, 29(4-5):603-625.
• Gutiérrez-Salcedo M, Martínez MÁ, Moral-Muñoz JA, Herrera-Viedma E, Cobo MJ (2018) Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields. Applied intelligence, 48(5):1275-1287.
• Hannan MT, Carroll GR (1992) Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. Oxford University Press.
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. American journal of sociology, 82(5):929-964.
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. American sociological review, 49(2):149-164.
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1987) The ecology of organizational founding: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4):910-943.
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1988) The ecology of organizational mortality: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of sociology, 94(1):25-52.
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1989) Organizational ecology. Harvard university press.
• Hannan MT, Carroll GR, Dundon EA, Torres JC (1995) Organizational evolution in a multinational context: Entries of automobile manufacturers in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. American Sociological Review, 60(4):509-528.
• Haveman HA (1993) Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative science quarterly, 38(4):593-627.
• Hrebiniak LG, Joyce WF (1985) Organizational adaptation: Strategic choice and environmental determinism. Administrative science quarterly, 30(3):336-349.
• Hu J, Zhang Y (2015) Research patterns and trends of Recommendation System in China using co-word analysis. Information processing & management, 51(4):329-339.
• Kessler MM (1963) Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American documentation, 14(1):10-25.
• Kücher A, Feldbauer-Durstmüller B (2019) Organizational failure and decline–A bibliometric study of the scientific frontend. Journal of Business Research, 98:503-516.
• Linnenluecke MK, Marrone M, Singh AK (2020) Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2):175-194.
• Liu GY, Hu JM, Wang HL (2012) A co-word analysis of digital library field in China. Scientometrics, 91(1):203-217.
• Mas-Tur A, Kraus S, Brandtner M, Ewert R, Kürsten W (2020) Advances in management research: a bibliometric overview of the Review of Managerial Science. Review of Managerial Science, 14(5): 933-958.
• Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83:340-363.
• Moral-Muñoz JA, Herrera-Viedma E, Santisteban-Espejo A, Cobo MJ (2020) Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El profesional de la información, 29(1), e290103.
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72(1):114-132.
• O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28:185-206.
• Öztürk O (2020) Bibliometric review of resource dependence theory literature: an overview. Management Review Quarterly, 71(3): 525–552.
• Pennings JM, Lee K, Witteloostuijn AV (1998) Human capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of management journal, 41(4):425-440.
• Schröder K, Tiberius V, Bouncken RB, Kraus S (2021) Strategic entrepreneurship: mapping a research field. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(3):753-776.
• Shane S, Stuart T (2002) Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management science, 48(1):154-170.
• Small H (1973) Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24:265-269.
• Small H (1999) Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American society for Information Science, 50(9):799-813.
• Stinchcombe A (1965) Organization-creating organizations. Society, 2(2):34-35.
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3):207-222.
• Usdiken B, Pasadeos Y (1995) Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: A comparison of co-citation networks. Organization Studies, 16:503-526.
• van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84: 523-538.
• van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2014) Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D (ed) Measuring scholarly impact. Springer, pp 285-320.
• van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2017) Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111:1053-1070.
• Waltman L, van Eck NJ (2012) A new methodology for constructing a publication‐level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12):2378-2392.
• Zaheer S, Mosakowski E (1997) The dynamics of the liability of foreignness: A global study of survival in financial services. Strategic management journal, 18(6):439-463.
• Zhai Q, Su J (2019) A perfect couple? Institutional theory and entrepreneurship research. Chinese Management Studies, 13(3):616-644.
• Zupic I, Čater T (2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18:429-472.
• https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-coronavirus-small-business-failure-20200812-6u5ju4hvcnhv3cbnvslesuvnvq-story.html. Accessed May 13, 2021
• https://www.accountancydaily.co/covid-puts-250000-small-businesses-risk-failure;
• https://fortune.com/2020/09/28/covid-buisnesses-shut-down-closed/. Accessed May 13, 2021
• https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/yelp-data-shows-60percent-of-business-closures-due-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic-are-now-permanent.html. Accessed May 13, 2021
• https://www.aarp.org/money/credit-loans-debt/info-2020/bankrupt-retail-chain-store-list-is-growing.html. Accessed May 13, 2021
• https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/covid-19-implications-for-business#. Accessed May 13, 2021
• https://research.fb.com/blog/2020/08/population-mobility-small-business-closures-and-layoffs-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/. Accessed May 13, 2021
• https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/Pages/small-businesses-get-creative-to-survive-during-the-pandemic.aspx. Accessed May 13, 2021
• https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/Pages/small-businesses-get-creative-to-survive-during-the-pandemic.aspx. Accessed May 13, 2021