Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping the institutional collaboration network of strategic management research: 1980–2014

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the evolution of institutional collaborations in articles published in the Strategic Management Journal between 1980 and 2014 via descriptive analysis and social network analysis. These analyses show that, in each sub-period, the number of institutions involved, as measured by papers published, increased significantly and a significant number of new institutions participated in the strategic management community via the SMJ. However, a few institutions from the US dominated the field. The collaboration network was weakly clustered, fragmented, and scattered, and the relationship among institutions was not close. International collaborations have been growing based on center-periphery, international trade, and social factors, instead of geographic proximity. An inclusive evaluation of the results, limitations, and suggestions for future research is provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Abbasi, A. & Altmann, J. (2011). On the correlation between research performance and social network analysis measures applied to research collaboration networks. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, HI: IEEE.

  • Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011a). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 594–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, S., & Rasmussen, K. J. R. (2011b). Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: Multi-levels and cross time analysis. Scientometrics, 89(2), 687–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbasi, A., Chung, K. S. K., & Hossain, L. (2012). Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Information Processing and Management, 48, 671–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abt, H. A. (1984). Citations to single and multiauthored papers. Publications of Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 96, 746–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006a). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006b). The resource-based theory: Dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal 27, 621–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12, 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anklam, P. (2003). KM and the social network. Knowledge Management Magazine, 6(8), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311(3–4), 590–614.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration, Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, J. (1971). The scientist’s role in society: A comparative study. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidault, F., & Hildebrand, T. (2014). The distribution of partnership returns: Evidence from co-authorships in economics journals. Research Policy, 43, 1002–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 262–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgstock, M. (1991). The quality of single and multiple authored papers: An unresolved problem. Scientometrics, 21, 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 345–423). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Penan, H. (1993). Cienciometría. La medición de la actividad científica: de la bibliometría a la vigilancia tecnológica. Gijon: Ediciones Trea.

  • Chan, K. C., Fung, H.-G., & Yau, J. (2010). Business ethics research: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 30–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimenler, O., Reeves, K. A., & Skvoretz, J. (2014). A regression analysis of researchers’ social network metrics on their citation performance in a college of engineering. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 667–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2004). Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in twentieth century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 160–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, M. Y., Ong, C. S., & Hsu, W. L. (2010). An analysis of research on information reuse and integration (2003–2008). International Transactions on Systems Science and Applications, 6(2/3), 146–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, J. (1997). Authorship patterns in Dutch sociology. Scientometrics, 39(2), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., & Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1187–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, Y. (2011). Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, J., Fier, H., & Grimpe, C. (2011). International scientist mobility and the locus of knowledge and technology transfer. Research Policy, 40(6), 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erfanmanesh, M., Rohani, V. A., & Abrizah, A. (2012). Co-authorship network of scientometrics research collaboration. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 17(3), 73–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbach, K., Putzke, J., & Schoder, D. (2011). Co-authorship networks in electronic markets research. Electronic Markets, 21, 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2004). Perfecting cross-pollination. Harvard Business Review, 83(9), 22–24.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 481–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard, J., & Arvanitis, R. (2013). Science and technology collaboration between Europe and Latin America: Towards a more equal partnership. In J. Gaillard & R. Arvanitis (Eds.), Research collaboration between Europe and Latin America mapping and understanding partnership (pp. 1–20). Paris: Archives Contemporaines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard, A., Gaillard, J., Russell, J. M., Galina, C. S., Canesse, A., Pellegrini, P., et al. (2013). Drivers and outcomes of S&T international collaboration activities. A case study of biologists from Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay. In J. Gaillard & R. Arvanitis (Eds.), Research collaboration between Europe and Latin America mapping and understanding partnership (pp. 157–192). France.

  • Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (1992). In P. Galison & B. Hevly (Eds.), Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, L. (2001). Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology. Research Policy, 30(6), 891–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, W. (1995). Lost science in the third world. Scientific American, 273(2), 76–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50, 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2008). ‘Triad’ or ‘Tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic World. Scientometrics, 74(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and “periphery effects” in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 57, 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y., Zhou, B., Pei, J., & Jia, Y. (2009). Understanding importance of collaborations in co-authorship networks: A supportiveness analysis approach, In Proceedings of the Ninth SIAM International Conference on Data Mining.

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Laham, S. (2009). Early-career scientific achievement and patterns of authorship: The mixed blessing of publication leadership and collaboration. Research Evaluation, 18(5), 405–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2004). Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Research Policy, 33(8), 1153–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of research collaboration in Europe. Research Policy, 39, 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, A., Zippel, K., Frehill, L. M., & Kramer, L. (2010). Report of the international workshop on international research collaboration. Report prepared with funding from the National Science Foundation OISE-0936970 and HRD- 0811170. http://nuweb.neu.edu/zippel/nsf-workshop/docs/FinalReport_Oct22_2010.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2015.

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C., & Racherla, P. (2008). Visual representation of knowledge networks: A social network analysis of hospitality research domain. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jogaratnam, G., McCleary, K. W., Mena, M. M., & Yoo, J. J.-E. (2005). An analysis of hospitality and tourism research: Institutional contributions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 29(3), 356–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagoz, D., & Kozak, N. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of Anatolia Turizm Arastirmalari Dergisi: An analysis of research subjects and institutional collaboration through social network analysis. Turk Kutuphaneciligi, 28(1), 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific Collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40, 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenworthy, T. P., & Verbeke, A. (2015). The future of strategic management research: Assessing the quality of theory borrowing. European Management Journal, 33, 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krichel, T. & Bakkalbasi, N. (2006). A social network analysis of research collaboration in the economic community. In Paper presented at the International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics, Nancy. 10–12 May 2006.

  • Kumar, S., & Jan, J. M. (2013). Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics, 97, 491–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampel, J. (2011). Torn between admiration and distrust: European strategy research and the American challenge. Organization Science, 22(6), 1655–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8), 762–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B., Kwon, O., & Kim, H. J. (2011). Identification of dependency patterns in research collaboration environments through cluster analysis. Journal of Information Science, 37(1), 67–85.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending ACA to the Web environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(12), 1616–1628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima, M., Liberman, S., & Russell, J. M. (2005). Scientific group cohesiveness at the National University of Mexico. Scientometrics, 64(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutters, W. G., Ackerman, M. S., Boster, J., & McDonald, D. W. (2000). Mapping knowledge networks in organizations: Creating a knowledge mapping. In Proceedings of the American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), AIS Press, 2014–2018.

  • Lu, K., & Wolfram, D. (2012). Measuring author research relatedness: A comparison of word-based, topic-based, and author cocitation approaches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 63(10), 1973–1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mali, F., Kronegger, L., & Ferligoj, A. (2010). Co-authorship trends and collaboration patterns in the slovenian sociological community. Corvinus Journal Of Sociology And Social Policy, 1(2), 29–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Sempere, M. J., Rey-Rocha, J., & Garzon-Garcia, B. (2002). The effect of team consolidation on research collaboration and performance of scientists. Case study of Spanish university researchers in Geology. Scientometrics, 55(3), 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maske, K. L., Durden, G. C., & Gaynor, P. E. (2003). Determinants of scholarly productivity among male and female economists. Economic Inquiry, 41(4), 555–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morisson, P. S., Dobbie, G., & McDonald, F. J. (2003). Research collaboration among university scientists. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(3), 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M.-J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 935–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21, 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerur, S. P., Rasheed, A. A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerur, S., Rasheed, A. A., & Pandey, A. (2015). Citation footprints on the sands of time: An analysis of idea migrations in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,. doi:10.1002/smj.2377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404–409.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. Physical Review E,. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, P. (2006). Purposive sampling. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The SAGE dictionary of social research methods. http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-dictionary-of-social-research-methods/n162.xml. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.

  • Ordóñez-Matamoros, H. G., Cozzens, S. E., & Garcia, M. (2010). International co-authorship and research team performance in colombia. Review of Policy Research, 27(4), 415–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European university–industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, K., Phillips, W. J., Canter, D. D., & Abbott, J. (2011). Hospitality and tourism research rankings by author, university, and country using six major journals: The first decade of the new millennium. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 35(3), 381–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, A., & Lawton, T. C. (2014). Divided by a common language? transnational insights into epistemological and methodological approaches to strategic management research in English-speaking countries. Long Range Planning, 47(5), 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new Paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racherla, P., & Hu, C. (2010). A social network perspective of tourism research collaboration. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1012–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos-Rodriguez, A.-R., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L. Á. (2010). Dynamics of the scientific community network within the strategic management field through the Strategic Management Journal 1980–2009: The role of cooperation. Scientometrics, 85, 821–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L. Á. (2012). Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962–2008: A co-word analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 33(2), 162–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (2001). Are multi-authored articles cited more than single-authored ones? Are collaborations with authors from other countries more cited than collaborations within the country? A case study. In F. Havemann, R. Wagner-Döbler, H. Kretschmer (Eds.), Collaboration in science and in technology: Proceedings of the second berlin workshop on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 173–176). Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung.

  • Sakata, I., Sasaki, H., & Inoue, T. (2011). Structure of international research collaboration in wind and solar energy. In Paper presented at the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. Singapore. 6–9 December 2011.

  • Schott, T. (1998). Ties between center and periphery in the scientific world system: Accumulation of rewards, dominance and selfreliance in the center. Journal of World Systems Research, 4(2), 112–144.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Grant, J. (2009). A scientometric analysis of the proceedings of the McMaster World Congress on the Management of Intellectual Capital and Innovation for the 1996–2008 period. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Bayer, A. E. (1986). Author collaboration and impact: A note on citation rates of single and multiple authored articles. Scientometrics, 10, 297–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeby, J. C., & Trondal, J. (2005). Globalisation or Europeanisation? International contact among university staff. Higher Education, 49(4), 449–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenwald, D. (2007). Scientific collaboration: A synthesis of challenges and strategies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, O., & Fleming, L. (2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy, 33(10), 1615–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks, and knowledge flow. Research Policy, 35(7), 994–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stichweh, R. (1996). Science in the system of world society. Social Science Information, 35, 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subelj, L., Furlan, S., & Bajec, M. (2011). An expert system for detecting automobile insurance fraud using social network analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 1039–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, L., & Ding, J. (2015). The frontier and evolution of the strategic management theory: A scientometric analysis of Strategic Management Journal, 2001–2012. Nankai Business Review International, 6(1), 20–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valderrama-Zurián, J. C., González-Alcaide, G., Valderrama-Zurián, F. J., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., & Miguel-Dasit, A. (2007). Coauthorship Networks and Institutional Collaboration in Revista Española de Cardiología Publications. Revista Española de Cardiología, 60(2), 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velden, T., Haque, A., & Lagoze, C. (2010). A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks: Mesoscopic analysis and interpretation. Scientometrics, 85(1), 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). the dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 426–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. (2006). International collaboration in science and technology: Promises and pitfalls. In L. Box & R. Engelhard (Eds.), Science and technology policy for development dialogues at the interfaces (pp. 165–176). London/New york/Dehli: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. (2008). The new invisible college science for development. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C., Brahmakalum, I., Jackson, B., Yoda, T., & Wong, A. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: Building capacity in developing countries?. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005a). Mapping the network of global science: Comparing international co-authorship from 1990–2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(2), 185–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005b). Network structure, self-organization, and growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Liu, Z., Chen, Y., & Zhy, X. (2008). Analysis of science collaboration network of top universities in the world. In Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics. Berlin, 28 July–1 August 2008.

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, F., Huberman, B. A., Adamic, L. A., & Tyler, J. R. (2004). Information flow in social groups. Physica A: Statistical and Theoretical Physics, 337(1–2), 327–335.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 2107–2118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E., Ding, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2010). Mapping library and information science in china: A coauthorship network analysis. Scientometrics, 83(1), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, Q., Song, H., & Li, T. (2012). Cross-institutional collaboration networks in tourism and hospitality research. Tourism Management Perspectives, 2(3), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, L., Kretschmer, H., Hanneman, R. A., & Liu, Z. (2006). Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing and Management, 42, 1599–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H. Z., Qiu, B. J., Ivanova, K., Giles, C. L., Foley, H. C., & Yen, J. (2010). locality and attachedness-based temporal social network growth dynamics analysis: A case study of evolving nanotechnology scientific collaboration networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(5), 964–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47, 627–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2014). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods. doi:10.1177/1094428114562629.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank John A. Parnell, Gary Ross, and Fevzi Okumus for their many helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, American University of the Middle East, Egaila, Kuwait

    Mehmet Ali Koseoglu

  2. Business School, Yildirim Beyazit Univeristy, Ankara, Turkey

    Mehmet Ali Koseoglu

Authors
  1. Mehmet Ali Koseoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Ali Koseoglu.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 77 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koseoglu, M.A. Mapping the institutional collaboration network of strategic management research: 1980–2014. Scientometrics 109, 203–226 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1894-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1894-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation