1991-2021 YILLARI ARASINDA GERÇEKLEŞTİRİLEN KURUMSAL MANTIK ÇALIŞMALARININ BİBLİYOMETRİK VE BİLİMSEL HARİTALAMA TEKNİKLERİ İLE İNCELENMESİ

Year 2022, , 514 - 547, 30.09.2022

Hazal Duman , Umut Koç

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.994092

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1991-2021 yılları arasında kurumsal mantık yaklaşımına ilişkin bilimsel üretim dinamikleri ve temaların stratejik gelişiminin ele alınmasıdır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda yönetim ve organizasyon alanında en yüksek etki oranına sahip 15 dergi temel alınmış ve dahil etme kriterleri doğrultusunda 235 araştırma incelenmiştir. Analiz sürecinde bilimsel üretim dinamiklerinin ortaya çıkarılmasında VOSviewer yazılımı, temaların stratejik gelişim haritalarının oluşturulmasında ise SciMAT yazılım programından faydalanılmıştır. Bilimsel üretim dinamiklerine ilişkin bulgular incelendiğinde alanda en fazla yayın yapan ülke Amerika, en aktif dergi Organizational Studies ve alana katkısı en yüksek yazar Michael Lounsbury olarak belirlenmiştir. Kurumsal mantık kapsamında temaların tarihsel gelişimi üç periyotta (1991-2001; 2002-2012; 2013-2021) incelenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda ilk periyotta 7, ikinci periyotta 17 ve son periyotta ise 52 ana temanın alandaki çalışmalara yön verdiği tespit edilmiştir. Periyotlara göre tema sayısının artmasına karşın, temalar arası sürdürülebilirliğin düşük olduğu araştırma sonucu öne çıkan bir bulgudur. Bu kapsamda alanda 1991 yılından bu yana geçen 30 yıllık süreçte sadece “kurumsal değişim” temasının üç periyotta da önemini koruyan bir araştırma teması olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen bu durum, kurumsal mantık perspektifinde yaşanan orta yaş krizine dayandırılırken, alandaki tematik dağınıklığın önüne geçmek için öneriler geliştirilmiştir.

Keywords

Kurumsal Mantık, Bibliyometrik Analiz, Bilimsel Haritalama Analizi, VOSviewer, SciMAT

A BIBLIOMETRIC AND SCIENTIFIC MAPPING ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH ON INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS FROM 1991 TO 2021

Abstract

This study aims to examine the scientific production dynamics of the institutional logic approach between the years 1991-2021. For this purpose, we have searched 15 journals with the highest impact rate in management and organization, and we have examined 235 studies in line with the inclusion criteria. We have used VOSviewer software to reveal the dynamics of scientific production and the SciMAT software for the scientific mapping of the themes. When we examine the dynamics of the scientific output, we have found that the USA has the most publications. The most active journal is Organizational Studies, and the most cited author is Michael Lounsbury. We have investigated the historical development of the themes within the scope of institutional logics (1991-2001; 2002-2012; 2013-2021). We have found that seven main themes were in the first period, 17 in the second period, and 52 in the last period. Despite the increase in the number of themes, it is a prominent finding that these themes reflect temporary research trends. In this context, we detect that the researchers have only examined the theme of "institutional change" in all three periods. We interpret this situation as the midlife crisis of institutional logics, and we have suggestions to overcome this problem for future research.

Keywords

Institutional Logic, Bibliometric Analysis, Science Mapping Analysis, VOSviewer, SciMAT

References

• Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co‐authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957-983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x
• Aksom, H. (2018). Academics’ experience of contradicting institutional logics of publishing. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(7), 1184–1201. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2017-0035
• Aksom, H., Zhylinska, O. and Gaidai, T. (2020), Can institutional theory be refuted, replaced or modified?, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(1), 135-159. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2019-1666
• Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y., & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to meaning: A social science with something to say. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198787099.001.0001 Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2019). Neo-institutional theory and organization studies: A mid-life crisis? Organization Studies, 40(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618772610
• Alvesson, M., & Blom, M. (2022). The hegemonic ambiguity of big concepts in organization studies. Human Relations, 75(1), 58-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720986847
• Andersson, T., & Liff, R. (2018). Co-optation as a response to competing institutional logics: Professionals and managers in healthcare. Journal of Professions and Organization, 5(2), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joy001
• Baum, J. A. (1999). Organizational ecology. S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy WR Nord (Eds.). Studying Organization Theory and Method, (pp. 71-108). London: Sage. https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=qd2AMTw51S8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA71&dq
• Bellomi, F., & Bonato, R. (2005). Network analysis for Wikipedia. Proceedings of Wikimania 2005—The First International Wikimedia Conference. Frankfurt, Germany. http://www.fran.it/blog/2005/08/network-analisis-for-wikipedia.html
• Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
• Bowring, M. A. (2000). De/constructing theory: a look at the institutional theory that positivism built. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(3), 258-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492600930
• Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1609-1630. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22688
• David, R., Bitektine, A. (2009). De deinstitutionalization of institutional theory? In Buchanan, D., Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. London: SAGE Publications.https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076100410030604
• Davis, G. F. (2015). Celebrating organization theory: The after‐party. Journal of Management Studies, 52(2), 309-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12094
• Donaldson, L., & Lex, D. (1995). American anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation (Vol. 25). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016914002697
• Durocher, S., & Fortin, A. (2021). Financial statement users’ institutional logic. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 40(2), 106819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2021.106819
• Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
• Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003
• Friedland, R. (2011). The institutional logic of religious nationalism: Sex, violence and the ends of history. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 12(1), 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2011.564403
• Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (232–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/uchi051/91009999.html
• Glazer, J. L., Massell, D., & Malone, M. (2019). Charter schools in turnaround: Competing institutional logics in the Tennessee Achievement School District. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(1), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.3102/016237371879505
• Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1031-1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00531.x
• Gümüsay, A. A., Claus, L., & Amis, J. (2020). Engaging with grand challenges: An institutional logics perspective. Organization Theory, 1(3), 2631787720960487. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877209604
• Haveman, H. A., & Gualtieri, G. (2017). Institutional Logics. In R. J. Aldag (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopaedia of business and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.137
• Johansen, C. B., & Waldorff, S. B. (2017). What are institutional logics–and where is the perspective taking us?. In New themes in Institutional Analysis (pp. 51-76). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784716875.00007
• Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241-1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522952
• Lounsbury, M., Steele, C. W., Wang, M. S., & Toubiana, M. (2021). New directions in the study of institutional logics: From tools to phenomena. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-111734
• Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289-307. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634436
• Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of The American Society for İnformation Science And Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
• Nash, K. (2019). Neo-liberalisation, universities and the values of bureaucracy. The Sociological Review, 67(1), 178-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118754780
• Ocasio, W., Thornton, P. H., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Advances to the institutional logics perspective. In The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 509-531). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446280669.n20 Perrow, C. (1986). Economic theories of organization. Theory and Society, 15(1-2), 11-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/657174
• Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104803
• Rehn, C., Kronman, U., & Wadskog, D. (2007). Bibliometric indicators—definitions and usage at Karolinska Institutet. Karolinska Institutet, 13, 2012. http://ki.se/content/1/c6/01/79/31/Bibliometric%20indicators%20-%20definitions_1.0.pdf
• Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587
• Sargut, A. S., Özen, Ş., Gökşen, N. S., Oğuz, F., Önder, Ç., Üsdiken, B., & Yıldırım, E. (2010). Örgüt kuramları. (1. Baskı). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
• Scaraboto, D., & Fischer, E. (2013). Frustrated fatshionistas: An institutional theory perspective on consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets. Journal Of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1234-1257. https://doi.org/10.1086/668298
• Shan, J., Ballard, D., & Vinson, D. R. (2020). Publication Non grata: The challenge of publishing non-COVID-19 research in the COVID era. Cureus, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.11403
• Sharifi, A., Simangan, D., & Kaneko, S. (2020). Three decades of research on climate change and peace: A bibliometrics analysis. Sustainability Science, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00853-3
• Sigala, M. (2020). Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. Journal of Business Research, 117, 312-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.015
• 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(4), 265-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
• Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 346-357. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.51141319
• Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.155.0583
• Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook Of Organizational İnstitutionalism, 840(2008), 99-128. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n4
• Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361
• Üsdiken, B., & Pasadeos, Y. (1995). Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: A comparison of co-citation networks. Organization Studies, 16(3), 503-526. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406950160030
• Üsdiken, B. (2010). Between contending perspectives and logics: Organizational studies in Europe. Organization Studies, 31(6), 715-735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610372581
• Üsdiken, B. (2014). Centres and Peripheries: Research Styles and Publication Patterns in ‘Top’US Journals and their E uropean Alternatives, 1960–2010. Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 764-789. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12082
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, A Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2013). VOSviewer manual. Leiden: Univeristeit Leiden, 1(1), 1-53. https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.10.pdf
• Verma, S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal of Business Research, 118, 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.057
• Zhao, L., Deng, J., Sun, P., Liu, J., Ji, Y., Nakada, & Yang, Y. (2018). Nanomaterials for treating emerging contaminants in water by adsorption and photocatalysis: Systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 627, 1253-1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.006