IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v17y2011i1d10.1007_s10588-010-9076-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring CMOT’s intellectual structure and its development

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Meyer

    (Hamburg University of Technology)

  • Michael A. Zaggl

    (Hamburg University of Technology)

  • Kathleen M. Carley

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Meyer & Michael A. Zaggl & Kathleen M. Carley, 2011. "Measuring CMOT’s intellectual structure and its development," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-34, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:17:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-010-9076-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-010-9076-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-010-9076-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-010-9076-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sridhar P. Nerur & Abdul A. Rasheed & Vivek Natarajan, 2008. "The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: an author co‐citation analysis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 319-336, March.
    2. Kam C. Chan & Kartono Liano, 2009. "Threshold citation analysis of influential articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accounting," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(1), pages 59-74, March.
    3. Per Ahlgren & Bo Jarneving & Ronald Rousseau, 2003. "Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(6), pages 550-560, April.
    4. Matthias Meyer & Iris Lorscheid & Klaus G. Troitzsch, 2009. "The Development of Social Simulation as Reflected in the First Ten Years of JASSS: a Citation and Co-Citation Analysis," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12.
    5. Michael J. Ashworth & Kathleen M. Carley, 2007. "Can tools help unify organization theory? Perspectives on the state of computational modeling," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 89-111, March.
    6. Katherine W. McCain, 1986. "Cocited author mapping as a valid representation of intellectual structure," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 37(3), pages 111-122, May.
    7. N. Gilbert, 1997. "A Simulation of the Structure of Academic Science," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(2), pages 91-105, June.
    8. Antonio‐Rafael Ramos‐Rodríguez & José Ruíz‐Navarro, 2004. "Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(10), pages 981-1004, October.
    9. Leonard J. Ponzi, 2002. "The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of Knowledge Management: A bibliometric study of its early stage of development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(2), pages 259-272, August.
    10. Corinne Coen, 2009. "Simple but not simpler," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-4, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthias Meyer & Iris Lorscheid & Klaus G. Troitzsch, 2009. "The Development of Social Simulation as Reflected in the First Ten Years of JASSS: a Citation and Co-Citation Analysis," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12.
    2. Manuel Portugal Ferreira & José Eduardo Storopoli & Fernando Ribeiro Serra, 2014. "Two Decades of Research on Strategic Alliances: Analysis of Citations, Co-citations and Themes Researched," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 18(spe), pages 109-133.
    3. Raasch, Christina & Lee, Viktor & Spaeth, Sebastian & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2013. "The rise and fall of interdisciplinary research: The case of open source innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1138-1151.
    4. Rogerio S. Victer, 2020. "Connectivity knowledge and the degree of structural formalization: a contribution to a contingency theory of organizational capability," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Nadia Preghenella & Cinzia Battistella, 2021. "Exploring business models for sustainability: A bibliographic investigation of the literature and future research directions," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2505-2522, July.
    6. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    7. William B. Gartner & Per Davidsson & Shaker A. Zahra, 2006. "Are you Talking to Me? The Nature of Community in Entrepreneurship Scholarship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(3), pages 321-331, May.
    8. Kim, Juran & Kang, Seungmook & Lee, Ki Hoon, 2021. "Evolution of digital marketing communication: Bibliometric analysis and network visualization from key articles," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 552-563.
    9. Manuel Portugal Ferreira & Nuno R. Reis & Roberta M. Paula & Claudia Frias Pinto, 2017. "Structural and longitudinal analysis of the knowledge base on spin-off research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 289-313, July.
    10. Silvia Blasi & Silvia Rita Sedita, 2022. "Mapping the emergence of a new organisational form: An exploration of the intellectual structure of the B Corp research," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 107-123, January.
    11. Zahra Ghorbani & Sanaz Kargaran & Ali Saberi & Manijeh Haghighinasab & Seyedh Mahboobeh Jamali & Nader Ale Ebrahim, 2022. "Trends and patterns in digital marketing research: bibliometric analysis," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(2), pages 158-172, June.
    12. Floriana Fusco & Marta Marsilio & Chiara Guglielmetti, 2018. "La co-production in sanit?: un?analisi bibliometrica," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(108), pages 35-54.
    13. Manuel Portugal Ferreira & Cláudia Frias Pinto & Fernando Ribeiro Serra, 2014. "The transaction costs theory in international business research: a bibliometric study over three decades," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1899-1922, March.
    14. Kunz, Werner H. & Hogreve, Jens, 2011. "Toward a deeper understanding of service marketing: The past, the present, and the future," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 231-247.
    15. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    16. Martin, Ben R., 2012. "The evolution of science policy and innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1219-1239.
    17. Alexander Tkotz & Jan Christoph Munck & Andreas Erich Wald, 2018. "Innovation Management Control: Bibliometric Analysis Of Its Emergence And Evolution As A Research Field," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(03), pages 1-34, April.
    18. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    19. Chabowski, Brian R. & Hult, G. Tomas M. & Mena, Jeannette A., 2011. "The Retailing Literature as a Basis for Franchising Research: Using Intellectual Structure to Advance Theory," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 269-284.
    20. Santiago, Ana Lúcia & Demajorovic, Jacques & Rossetto, Dennys Eduardo & Luke, Hanabeth, 2021. "Understanding the fundamentals of the Social Licence to Operate: Its evolution, current state of development and future avenues for research," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:17:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-010-9076-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.