Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 3

A Bibliometric and Scientific Mapping Analysis of Research on Institutional Logics from 1991 to 2021

1991-2021 Yılları Arasında Gerçekleştirilen Kurumsal Mantık Çalışmalarının Bibliyometrik ve Bilimsel Haritalama Teknikleri ile İncelenmesi

Pages
514–547
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We interpret this situation as the midlife crisis of institutional logics, and we have suggestions to overcome this problem for future research.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine the scientific production dynamics of the institutional logic approach between the years 1991-2021.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We interpret this situation as the midlife crisis of institutional logics, and we have suggestions to overcome this problem for future research.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALPTEKİN, H. D., KOÇ, U. (2022). A Bibliometric and Scientific Mapping Analysis of Research on Institutional Logics from 1991 to 2021. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 3, 514–547. https://ajindex.com/articles/532841

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Baum, J. A. (1999).
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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 Techno