Mapeo científico en Scopus con Biblioshiny: Un análisis bibliométrico de las tensiones organizacionales
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19094/contextus.2022.72151Palabras clave:
tensiones organizacionales, bibliometría, Biblioshiny, Scopus, campo investigadoResumen
El objetivo de este estudio es realizar un mapeo bibliométrico de la producción científica construida en torno a las tensiones organizacionales, uno de los temas centrales en la literatura de gestión internacional. Para ello, se realizó un análisis bibliométrico de las publicaciones indexadas en la plataforma Scopus durante los últimos 20 años, operacionalizado con la ayuda del software Biblioshiny, de RStudio. Los principales resultados indican un crecimiento representativo de la producción académica en los últimos 5 años. Predomina la investigación cualitativa y teórica, que abarca casi la totalidad de los estudios analizados. Además, el trabajo presenta los principales autores, países, revistas y artículos más influyentes, destacando los temas motores, básicos y los temas de tendencia del campo investigado.
Citas
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Asakawa, K. (2001). Organizational tension in international R&D management: The case of Japanese firms. Research Policy, 30(5), 735-757. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00103-7
Audebrand, L. K. (2017). Expanding the scope of paradox scholarship on social enterprise: The case for (re)introducing worker cooperatives. M@n@gement, 20, 368-393. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.204.0368
Beus, J. M., Lucianetti, L., & Arthur, W. (2020). Clash of the climates: Examining the paradoxical effects of climates for promotion and prevention. Personnel Psychology, 73(2), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12338
Carmine, S., Andriopoulos, C., Gotsi, et al (2021). A Paradox Approach to Organizational Tensions During the Pandemic Crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry. 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620986863
Cherrier, H., Goswami, P., Ray, S., et al (2018). Social entrepreneurship: Creating value in the context of institutional complexity. Journal of Business Research, 86, 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.056
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., et al (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
Cunha, M.P., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017739536
Cunha, M.P., Bednarek, R., & Smith, W. (2019). Integrative ambidexterity: One paradoxical mode of learning. The Learning Organization, 26(4), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2019-0038
Damayanthi, S., Gooneratne, T. N., & Jayakody, J. A. S. K. (2020). Logics, complexities and paradoxical tensions: Management controls in a clustered firm. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 34(2), 307-337. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2019-4030
De Angelis, R. (2021). Circular economy and paradox theory: A business model perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124823
Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., & Yoo, Y. (2015). Distributed tuning of boundary resources: The case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 39(1), 217-243. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.10
Fagerlin, W. P., & Wang, Y. (2020). Top managers’ communication efforts as response to tensions in product innovation: An attention-based view. Baltic Journal of Management, 16(1), 21-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-01-2020-0024
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). An Integrative Methodology for Organizational Oppositions: Aligning Grounded Theory and Discourse Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 917-940. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118776771
Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science, 13(6), 601-740. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.653.502
Gaim, M. (2018). On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms. European Management Journal, 36(4), 497-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.09.001
Gaim, M., & Wåhlin, N. (2016). In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 32(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.12.002
Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N., Cunha, M. P., & Clegg, S. (2018). Analyzing competing demands in organizations: A systematic comparison. Journal of Organization Design, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0030-9
Gregory, R. W., Keil, M., Muntermann, J., & Mähring, M. (2015). Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs. Information Systems Research, 26(1), 57-80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0554
Hilles, A. Q., Ding, T. D., & Ahmed, P. K. (2009). Managing for innovation and creativity: Organisational paradoxes in implementation practice. International Journal of Management Practice, 3(4), 305-326. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2009.026959
Hine, J. A. H. S., & Preuss, L. (2009). “Society is out there, organisation is in here”: On the perceptions of corporate social responsibility held by different managerial groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 381-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9970-2
Hoffmann, J. (2018). Talking into (non)existence: Denying or constituting paradoxes of Corporate Social Responsibility. Human Relations, 71(5), 668-691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717721306
Ismail, A., & Johnson, B. (2019). Managing Organizational Paradoxes in Social Enterprises: Case Studies from the MENA Region. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(3), 516-534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-00083-3
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Wernick, A. (2011). Paradoxical tensions in open innovation networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 521-548. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111174943
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E. (2019). Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018805345
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127013481016
Karhu, P., & Ritala, P. (2020). The multiple faces of tension: Dualities in decision-making. Review of Managerial Science, 14, 485-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0298-8
Keller, J., Chen, E. W., & Leung, A. K. (2018). How national culture influences individuals’ subjective experience with paradoxical tensions. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, 25(3), 443-467. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-02-2017-0013
Kenny, K., Haugh, H., & Fotaki, M. (2020). Organizational form and pro-social fantasy in social enterprise creation. Human Relations, 73(1), 94-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718821413
Kherrazi, S. (2020). Management control of collaborative innovation: Design and structuring mode. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2019-0110
Khiste, G., & Paithankar, R. (2017). Analysis of Bibliometric Term. International Journal of Library Science and Information Management (IJLSIM), 3(3) 81-88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320298273_Analysis_of_Bibliometric_Term_in_Scopus
Koseoglu, M. A. (2016). Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(3), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2016.02.001
Lauritzen, G., & Karafyllia, M. (2019). Perspective: Leveraging Open Innovation through Paradox. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(1), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12474
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776. https://doi.org/10.2307/259204
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective: Sharpening the Focus and Widening the Scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322
Lewis, R. L., Brown, D. A., & Sutton, N. C. (2019). Control and empowerment as an organising paradox: Implications for management control systems. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 32(2), 483-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2017-3223
Lindblad, H., & Guerrero, J. R. (2020). Client’s role in promoting BIM implementation and innovation in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 38(5), 468-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1716989
Lindskog, C., & Magnusson, M. (2021). Ambidexterity in Agile software development: A conceptual paper. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 8(1), 16-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-07-2019-0068
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767217
Mafico, N., Krzeminska, A., Härtel, C., & Keller, J. (2021). The mirroring of intercultural and hybridity experiences: A study of African immigrant social entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106093
Maijanen, P., & Virta, S. (2017). Managing exploration and exploitation in a media organisation-A capability-based approach to ambidexterity. Journal of Media Business Studies, 14(2), 146-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2017.1290025
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., et al (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594
Moral-Muñoz, J., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de La Información, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
Moreira, P., Guimarães, A., & Tsunoda, D. (2020). Qual ferramenta bibliométrica escolher? Um estudo comparativo entre softwares. P2P & Inovação, 6, 140-158. https://doi.org/10.21721/p2p.2020v6n2.p140-158
Nadiv, R., & Kuna, S. (2020). Diversity management as navigation through organizational paradoxes. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 39(4), 355-377. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-12-2018-0236
Niesten, E., & Stefan, I. (2019). Embracing the Paradox of Interorganizational Value Co-creation-Value Capture: A Literature Review towards Paradox Resolution. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(2), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12196
Packer, A. L. (2009). The scielo open access: a gold way from the south. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v39i3.479
Pålsson, H., & Sandberg, E. (2020). Paradoxes in supply chains: A conceptual framework for packed products. International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(3), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-12-2019-0338
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2016). In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation-efficiency tensions. Human Relations, 69(9), 1791-1822. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715625343
Park, J.-H. (2020). Chasing two rabbits: How social enterprises as hybrid organizations manage paradoxes. Asian Business and Management, 19, 407-437. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019-00065-3
Pedersen, E. R. G., & Rosati, F. (2019). Organisational tensions and the relationship to CSR in the football sector. European Sport Management Quarterly, 19(1), 38-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2018.1546754
Pereira, V., Patnaik, S., Temouri, Y., et al (2021). A longitudinal micro-foundational investigation into ambidextrous practices in an international alliance context-A case of a biopharma EMNE. International Business Review, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101770
Periac, F., David, A., & Roberson, Q. (2018). Clarifying the Interplay between Social Innovation and Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Framework Rooted in Paradox Management. European Management Review, 15(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12121
Pešalj, B., Pavlov, A., & Micheli, P. (2018). The use of management control and performance measurement systems in SMEs: A levers of control perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 38(11), 2169-2191. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2016-0565
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308389
Pradies, C., Tunarosa, A., Lewis, M. W., & Courtois, J. (2021). From vicious to virtuous paradox dynamics: the social-symbolic work of supporting actors. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1241-1263 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620907200
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
Radu-Lefebvre, M., & Randerson, K. (2020). Successfully navigating the paradox of control and autonomy in succession: The role of managing ambivalent emotions. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 38(3), 184-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242619879078
Raisch, S., Hargrave, T. J., & van de Ven, A. H. (2018). The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1507-1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12397
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2018.0072
Raza-Ullah, T. (2020). Experiencing the paradox of coopetition: A moderated mediation framework explaining the paradoxical tension-performance relationship. Long Range Planning, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.003
Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018). Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1490-1506. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12398
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422
Schneider, A., Bullinger, B., & Brandl, J. (2020). Resourcing Under Tensions: How frontline employees create resources to balance paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1291-1317 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620926825
Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (2017). Knots in the Discourse of Innovation: Investigating Multiple Tensions in a Reacquired Spin-off. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 463-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640845
Sivunen, A., & Putnam, L. (2020). The dialectics of spatial performances: The interplay of tensions in activity-based organizing. Human Relations, 73(8), 1129-1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719857117
Smith, W., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407-442. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323327
Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
Smith, W., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., et al. (2017). Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 303-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617693560
Srisusilawati, P., Rusydiana, A. S., Sanrego, Y. D., et al. (2021). Biblioshiny R application on islamic microfinance research. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9428&context=libphilprac
Sukoco, B. M., Tanjung, C., & Ishadi, S. K. (2020). Managing paradoxes of innovation in an Indonesian TV group. Creative Industries Journal, 13(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2019.1684094
Szentes, H. (2018). Reinforcing cycles involving inter- and intraorganizational paradoxical tensions when managing large construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 36(3), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1315826
Szentes, H., & Eriksson, P. E. (2016). Paradoxical organizational tensions between control and flexibility when managing large infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001081
Tse, T. (2013). Paradox resolution: A means to achieve strategic innovation. European Management Journal, 31(6), 682-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.05.001
Vazquez-Maguirre, M., & Portales, L. (2018). Profits and purpose: Organizational tensions in social enterprises. Intangible Capital, 14(4), 604-618. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1208
Wagenschwanz, A. M., & Grimes, M. G. (2021). Navigating compromise: How founder authenticity affects venture identification amidst organizational hybridity. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106085
Waldman, D. A., Putnam, L. L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2019). The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.006
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Giner, J. L. C. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195-1215. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0895
Wenzel, M., Koch, J., Cornelissen, J. P., et al (2019). How organizational actors live out paradoxical tensions through power relations: The case of a youth prison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.001
Wu, Y., & Wu, S. (2016). Managing ambidexterity in creative industries: A survey. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2388-2396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.008
Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., & Cardinal, L. B. (2018). Managing Persistent Tensions on the Frontline: A Configurational Perspective on Ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 739-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12311
Zupic, I., & Čarter, T. (2014). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Os autores, no ato da submissão, aceitam a declaração abaixo:
Nós autores mantemos sobre nosso artigo publicado os direitos autorais e concedemos à revista Contextus o direito de primeira publicação, com uma licença Creative Commons na modalidade Atribuição – Não Comercial 4.0 Internacional, a qual permite o compartilhamento com reconhecimento da autoria e da publicação inicial nesta revista.
Temos ciência de estarmos autorizados a assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), também com reconhecimento tanto da autoria, quanto da publicação inicial neste periódico.
Atestamos que o artigo é original ou inédito, não foi publicado, até esta data, em nenhum periódico brasileiro ou estrangeiro, quer em português, quer em versão em outra língua, nem está encaminhado para publicação simultânea em outras revistas.
Sabemos que o plágio não é tolerado pela revista Contextus e asseguramos que o artigo apresenta as fontes de trechos de obras citadas, incluindo os de qualquer trabalho prévio produzido e publicado pelos próprios autores.
3.png)
1.jpg)
1.jpg){kind=small}
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
2.png)
1.jpg)
2.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
