Measuring CMOT’s intellectual structure and its development

  • Matthias Meyer
  • Michael A. Zaggl
  • Kathleen M. Carley
Article

Abstract

Computational Organization Theory is often described as a multidisciplinary and fast-moving field which can make it difficult to keep track of it. The recent inclusion of Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory (CMOT) into the Social Science Citation Index offers a good reason to take stock of what has happened since the foundation of the journal and to analyze its intellectual structure and development from 1995 to 2008. We identify the most influential publications by means of citation analysis and show that a core of codified knowledge has developed over time. Additionally, we provide empirical support for the characteristics generally ascribed to the journal such as multidisciplinarity. Finally, we depict the main research foci in CMOT’s intellectual structure employing a co-citation analysis of publications and investigate their development over time. Overall, our quantitative review shows CMOT to be thematically focused on organizations, groups and networks while being remarkably diverse in terms of theoretical approaches and methods used.

Keywords

Citation analysis Co-citation analysis Computational organization theory Multidisciplinarity Research foci Sociology of science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlgren P, Jarneving B, Rousseau R (2003) Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to pearson’s correlation coefficient. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 54:550–560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth MJ, Carley KM (2007) Can tools help unify organization theory: perspectives on the state of computational modelling. Comput Math Organ Theory 13:89–111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bricker R (1988) Knowledge preservation in accounting: a citational study. Abacus 24:120–131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton RM, Obel B (1995) The validity of computational models in organization science: from model realism to purpose of the model. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:57–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carley KM (1995) Computational and mathematical organization theory: perspective and directions. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:39–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carley KM, Wallace WA (1995) Editorial. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:5–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carley KM, Reminga J, Storrick J, DeReno M (2009) ORA user’s guide 2009, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Institute for Software Research, Technical Report CMU-ISR-09-115 Google Scholar
  8. Chan KC, Liano K (2009) Threshold citation analysis of influential articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accounting. Account Finance 49:49–74 Google Scholar
  9. Charvet FF, Cooper MC, Gardner JT (2008) The intellectual structure of supply chain management: a bibliometric approach. J Bus Logist 29:47–73 Google Scholar
  10. Chen C, Paul RJ (2001) Visualizing a knowledge domain’s intellectual structure. Computer 34:65–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clauset A, ME Newman, Moore C (2004) Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys Rev E 70 Google Scholar
  12. Coen C (2009) Simple but not simpler. Comput Math Organ Theory 15:1–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cole S (1983) The hierarchy of the sciences? Am J Sociol 89:111–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole S (2004) Merton’s contribution to the sociology of science. Soc Stud Sci 34:829–844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crane D (1972) Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  16. Cronin B (1984) The citation process: the role and significance of citations in scientific communication. Taylor Graham, London Google Scholar
  17. Franklin JJ (1988) Testing and using quantitative methods in science policy contexts: a response to Hicks. Sci Soc Stud 18:365–375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert N (1997) A simulation of the structure of academic science. Socio Res Online 2 Google Scholar
  19. Gmür M (2003) Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: a methodological evaluation. Scientometrics 57:27–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hicks D (1987) Limitations of co-citation analysis as a tool for science policy. Soc Stud Sci 17:295–316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hicks D (1988) Limitations and more limitations of co-citation analysis/bibliometric modelling: a reply to Franklin. Soc Stud Sci 18:375–384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klavans R, Boyack KW (2006) Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:251–263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  24. Lunin LF, White HD (1990) Author cocitation analysis, introduction. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 41:429–432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCain KW (1986) Cocited author mapping as a valid representation of intellectual structure. J Am Soc Inf Sci 37:111–122 Google Scholar
  26. Merton RK (1979) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  27. Merton RK, Zuckerman H (1972) Age, aging, and age structure in science. Russell Sage Foundation, New York Google Scholar
  28. Meyer M, Lorscheid I, Troitzsch KG (2009) The development of social simulation as reflected in the first ten years of JASSS: a citation and co-citation analysis. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 12 Google Scholar
  29. Moed HF (2002) The impact-factors debate: the ISI’s uses and limits. Nature 415:731–732 Google Scholar
  30. Mullins NC, Hargens LL, Hecht PK, Kick EL (1977) The group structure of cocitation clusters: a comparative study. Am Sociol Rev 42:552–562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nerur SP, Natarajan V Rasheed AA (2008) The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: an author co-citation analysis. Strateg Manag J 29:319–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osareh F (1996a) Bibliometrics citation analysis and co-citation analysis I: a review of literature. Libri 46:149–158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osareh F (1996b) Bibliometrics citation analysis and co-citation analysis II: a review of literature. Libri 46:217–225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ponzi LJ (2002) The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of knowledge management: a bibliometric study of its early stage of development. Scientometrics 55:259–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prus RC (1996) Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience. State University of New York Press, New York Google Scholar
  36. Ramos-Rodriguez AR, Ruiz-Navarro J (2004) Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal. Strateg Manag J 25:981–1004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Samuelson D (2000) Designing organizations. OR/MS Today, 1–4 Google Scholar
  38. Samuelson D, Macal C (2006) Agent-based simulation comes of age. OR/MS Today 33:34–38 Google Scholar
  39. Small HG (1978) Cited documents as concept symbols. Soc Stud Sci 8:327–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Small HG (1980) Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. J Doc 36:183–196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tempest D (2009) Breaking boundaries: patterns in interdisciplinary citation. http://www.info.scopus.com/researchtrends/archive/RT11/bib_mes_11.html, download: February 5th 2010
  42. Thackray A, Merton RK (1972) On discipline building: the paradoxes of George Sarton. Isis 63:473–495 Google Scholar
  43. Valverde S, Solé RV, Bedau MA, Packard N (2007) Topology and evolution of technology innovation networks. Phys Rev E 76:56118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Meyer
    • 1
  • Michael A. Zaggl
    • 1
  • Kathleen M. Carley
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Management Control and AccountingHamburg University of TechnologyHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Software ResearchCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations