绘制工作场所冲突结果的知识基础和理论演变:文献计量学和定性回顾,1972-2022

IF 2.7 3区 管理学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Mengting Su, Parisa Rungruang
{"title":"绘制工作场所冲突结果的知识基础和理论演变:文献计量学和定性回顾,1972-2022","authors":"Mengting Su, Parisa Rungruang","doi":"10.1108/ijcma-02-2023-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to understand workplace conflict outcomes (WCO) literature and identify the research gaps by mapping its knowledge base and theoretical evolution.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study combines bibliometric and qualitative analysis and encompasses 1,043 Scopus-indexed documents published between 1972 and 2022. The bibliometric analysis used VOSviewer, Excel and Tableau software for descriptive statistics, citation and co-citation analyses of publication patterns, authors, documents and journals. The qualitative analysis critiqued main theoretical perspectives and topical interests.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study revealed a significant increase in literature after 2000, with authors representing 70 societies, primarily the USA, China, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Influential authors and their canonical articles were identified, including Jehn, De Dreu, Spector, Amason and Pelled. Highly cited articles focused on task, relationship, role and process conflict. Four main theoretical schools were categorized: conflict type paradigm, individual differences, conflict cooccurrence and conflict dynamics. Influential journals spanned psychology, management, negotiation and decision-making and business and marketing fields, including JAP, AMJ, ASQ, JM, JOB, AMR, IJCMA and OS.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis study provides implications for future bibliometric analyses, theoretical and empirical studies, practitioners and society based on its quantitative and qualitative findings.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first bibliometric review of WCO literature, serving as a baseline for tracking the field’s evolution and theoretical advancements.\n","PeriodicalId":47382,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Conflict Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping the knowledge base and theoretical evolution of workplace conflict outcomes: a bibliometric and qualitative review, 1972–2022\",\"authors\":\"Mengting Su, Parisa Rungruang\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijcma-02-2023-0025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis study aims to understand workplace conflict outcomes (WCO) literature and identify the research gaps by mapping its knowledge base and theoretical evolution.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis study combines bibliometric and qualitative analysis and encompasses 1,043 Scopus-indexed documents published between 1972 and 2022. The bibliometric analysis used VOSviewer, Excel and Tableau software for descriptive statistics, citation and co-citation analyses of publication patterns, authors, documents and journals. The qualitative analysis critiqued main theoretical perspectives and topical interests.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis study revealed a significant increase in literature after 2000, with authors representing 70 societies, primarily the USA, China, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Influential authors and their canonical articles were identified, including Jehn, De Dreu, Spector, Amason and Pelled. Highly cited articles focused on task, relationship, role and process conflict. Four main theoretical schools were categorized: conflict type paradigm, individual differences, conflict cooccurrence and conflict dynamics. Influential journals spanned psychology, management, negotiation and decision-making and business and marketing fields, including JAP, AMJ, ASQ, JM, JOB, AMR, IJCMA and OS.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThis study provides implications for future bibliometric analyses, theoretical and empirical studies, practitioners and society based on its quantitative and qualitative findings.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first bibliometric review of WCO literature, serving as a baseline for tracking the field’s evolution and theoretical advancements.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":47382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Conflict Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Conflict Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-02-2023-0025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Conflict Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-02-2023-0025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究旨在了解职场冲突结果(WCO)的文献,并通过绘制其知识基础和理论演进来识别研究空白。本研究结合了文献计量学和定性分析,涵盖了1972年至2022年间发表的1043篇scopus索引文献。文献计量学分析使用VOSviewer、Excel和Tableau软件对出版模式、作者、文献和期刊进行描述性统计、被引和共被引分析。定性分析批评了主要的理论观点和主题兴趣。研究结果:这项研究显示,2000年之后,相关文献的数量显著增加,作者来自70个社会,主要是美国、中国、澳大利亚、加拿大和荷兰。确定了有影响力的作者及其经典文章,包括约翰,德德鲁,斯佩克特,亚马逊和佩尔德。高引用率的文章关注任务、关系、角色和过程冲突。冲突类型范式理论、个体差异理论、冲突共生性理论和冲突动态性理论是冲突的主要理论流派。有影响力的期刊涵盖心理学、管理学、谈判与决策、商业与营销等领域,包括JAP、AMJ、ASQ、JM、JOB、AMR、IJCMA、OS等。本研究的定量和定性研究结果对未来的文献计量学分析、理论和实证研究、从业者和社会都有启示。原创性/价值据作者所知,本研究代表了WCO文献的第一次文献计量学综述,可作为跟踪该领域演变和理论进展的基线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mapping the knowledge base and theoretical evolution of workplace conflict outcomes: a bibliometric and qualitative review, 1972–2022
Purpose This study aims to understand workplace conflict outcomes (WCO) literature and identify the research gaps by mapping its knowledge base and theoretical evolution. Design/methodology/approach This study combines bibliometric and qualitative analysis and encompasses 1,043 Scopus-indexed documents published between 1972 and 2022. The bibliometric analysis used VOSviewer, Excel and Tableau software for descriptive statistics, citation and co-citation analyses of publication patterns, authors, documents and journals. The qualitative analysis critiqued main theoretical perspectives and topical interests. Findings This study revealed a significant increase in literature after 2000, with authors representing 70 societies, primarily the USA, China, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Influential authors and their canonical articles were identified, including Jehn, De Dreu, Spector, Amason and Pelled. Highly cited articles focused on task, relationship, role and process conflict. Four main theoretical schools were categorized: conflict type paradigm, individual differences, conflict cooccurrence and conflict dynamics. Influential journals spanned psychology, management, negotiation and decision-making and business and marketing fields, including JAP, AMJ, ASQ, JM, JOB, AMR, IJCMA and OS. Research limitations/implications This study provides implications for future bibliometric analyses, theoretical and empirical studies, practitioners and society based on its quantitative and qualitative findings. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first bibliometric review of WCO literature, serving as a baseline for tracking the field’s evolution and theoretical advancements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
18.20%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信