Are finance, management, and marketing autonomous fields of scientific research? An analysis based on journal citations
- 586 Downloads
Although there is considerable consensus that Finance, Management and Marketing are ‘science’, some debate remains with regard to whether these three areas comprise autonomous, organized and settled scientific fields of research. In this paper we aim to explore this issue by analyzing the occurrence of citations in the top-ranked journals in the areas of Finance, Management, and Marketing. We put forward a modified version of the model of science as a network, proposed by Klamer and Van Dalen (J Econ Methodol 9(2):289–315, 2002), and conclude that Finance is a ‘Relatively autonomous, organized and settled field of research’, whereas Management and (to a larger extent) Marketing are relatively non-autonomous and hybrid fields of research’. Complementary analysis based on sub-discipline rankings using the recursive methodology of Liebowitz and Palmer (J Econ Lit 22:77–88, 1984) confirms the results. In conclusions we briefly discuss the pertinence of Whitley’s (The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 1984) theory for explaining cultural differences across these sub-disciplines based on its dimensions of scholarly practices, ‘mutual dependency’ and ‘task uncertainty’.
KeywordsCitations Finance Management Marketing Autonomy
JEL ClassificationC89 A12
The authors are deeply indebted for helpful comments and suggestions of two anonymous referees. The usual caveat applies.
- Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Borgman, C. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age information infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Borgman, C., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3–72.Google Scholar
- de Wilde, R. (1992). Discipline en legende. De identiteit van de sociologie in Duitsland en de Verenigde Staten 1870–1930, Van Gennep, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Dusansky, R., & Vernon, C. (1998). Rankings of U. S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(1), 157–170.Google Scholar
- Frey, B. S., & Eichenberger, R. (1997). Economists: First semester, high flyers and UFOs. In P. A. G. Van Bergeijk, A. L. Bovenberg, E. E. C. van Damme, & J. van Sinderen (Eds.), Economic science and practice (pp. 15–48). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Fry, J. (2006). Studying the scholarly web: How disciplinary culture shapes online representations. Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 10(1). Available at: http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/vol10iss1.html.
- Garfield, E. (1986). Essays of an information Scientist: 1986. In Towards Scientography. Preface (Vol. 9, pp. xi–xii).Google Scholar
- Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Laband, D., & Piette, M. (1994). The relative impact of economic journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 32, 640–666.Google Scholar
- Liebowitz, S. J., & Palmer, J. P. (1984). Assessing the relative impacts of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 22, 77–88.Google Scholar
- Mabry, R, H., & Sharplin, A. D. (1985). The relative importance of journals used in financial research. Journal of Financial Research, 8, 287–296.Google Scholar
- Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Moore, W. J. (1972). The relative quality of economics journals: A suggested rating system. Western Economic Journal, 10, 156–169.Google Scholar
- Noyons, E. C. M., Luwel, M., & Moed, H. F. (1999). Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes. A bibliometric study on recent development in micro-electronics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Polanyi, M. (1962/1969). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. In Knowing and Being (pp. 49–72). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Rigney, D., & Barnes, D. (1980). Patterns of interdisciplinary citation in the social sciences. Social Science Quarterly, 61(1), 114–127.Google Scholar
- van Raan, A. F. (2004). Measuring science. Capita Selecta of Current Main Issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (Chap. 1, pp. 19–50). Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerGoogle Scholar
- White, H., & McCain, K. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.Google Scholar
- Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Wouters, P. (1999). The citation culture. Ph.D. Dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Zitt, M. (2006). Scientometric indicators: A few challenges. Data mine-clearing, knowledge flows measurements, diversity issues, invited plenary talk. In Proceedings international workshop on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & seventh COLLNET meeting, Nancy (France). http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00006306/.