Reducing Uncertainty in Scholarly Publishing: Concepts in the Field of Organization Studies, 1960–2008

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the dynamics in the field of organization studies. We focus on the market for scholarly publishing and trace how many and which kinds of concepts have been developed and diffused in publications over the last 48 years. We argue that scholars in the publishing market must deal with two kinds of uncertainty: uncertainty on the delicate balance of maintaining research that is both novel and attentive to existing schools of thought, and uncertainty related to the heterogeneity of institutional logics that guide research in the field. We propose that concepts are a means of uncertainty reduction for two reasons. First, working with concepts allows considering both novelty and continuity. Second, working with concepts in a way that follows the dominant field logic helps to reduce uncertainty about what is valued as publishable in the field. We find that the number of concept articles in organization studies has increased, particularly concept articles that align with the dominant logic of positivism.

The decline of organizational sociology? An empirical analysis of research trends in leading journals across half a century

“…Instead, the decrease of theoretical diversity in organizational sociology seems to follow the general trend in the transdisciplinary field of organization studies. For this field, Bort and Schiller-Merkens (2011) have pointed out that since the 1980s scholars have increasingly tended to reuse a few dominant theoretical concepts instead of developing new ones in order to increase their chances of publishing in highly reputed business and organization journals.…”

“…While the variety of organizational forms has increased significantly in recent decades (Barley, 2016;Davis, 2015aDavis, , 2015b, theoretical diversity in attempting to understand these forms has decreased dramatically, leaving only two theoretical perspectives from the 1970s and 1980s that dominate the field. Since then no new organization-theory perspectives have been developed or advanced, either in leading organization studies outlets (Bort and Schiller-Merkens, 2011;Davis, 2015aDavis, , 2015b or in the four leading generalist sociology journals. The latter state of affairs seems to be especially problematic given that most of the newer organization theory perspectives emerged in top generalist sociology journals, not in organization studies outlets, during the 1970s and 1980s (for example, Hannan and Freeman, 1977;Meyer and Rowan, 1977;Williamson, 1981).…”

“…Administrative Science Quarterly. However, while organization and management journals do publish sociological papers, they are nevertheless primarily considered to belong to the field of business and management studies and rather detached from the broader sociological discourse (Adler et al, 2014;Augier et al, 2005;Bort and Schiller-Merkens, 2011). For our study we were mainly interested in the status of organizational sociology within the broader sociological discourse.…”

Exploring Diffusion and Dynamics of Corporate Social Responsibility

“…In order to add to the research on how the discourse on CSR concept has evolved, it is important to explore its evolution in various contexts and more specifically in the context of academia. Concepts play a special role in academia by helping reduce uncertainty and find a common base for the discourse (Bort & Schiller‐Merkens, ). The latter reflects and analyses existing business practices.…”

Los estudios críticos en administración: origen, evolución y posibilidades de aporte al desarrollo del campo de los estudios organizacionales en América Latina

“…Se privilegió la cuantificación, la estadística multivariada -ya anclada en la ciencia social americana (Camic & Xie, 1994;Schminke & Mitchell, 2003)-, el empirismo, el rigor metodológico y el uso de encuestas a gran escala. Todo ello, con el ánimo de generalizar, prescribir y obtener una utilidad práctica del conocimiento producido por la investigación (Augier, March & Ni Sullivan, 2005;Bort & Schiller-Merkens, 2011;Clegg & Bailey, 2008;Mowday, 1997). Marsden & Townley (1999, 409) identificaron este fenómeno como el desarrollo de una "ciencia normal de la organización".…”