institutions are reproduced and altered, an issue that has been largely ne- glected by institutional theorists. Our aim has been to develop the impli- cations of structuration theory for the interplay between actions and institutions and to address the practical problem of how to study institu- tional maintenance and change in organizations’’ (Barley & Tolbert, 1997, pp. 112–113).
Assimilation-Novel
The primary purpose of the citing paper is to incorporate the theory into a new theoretical framework. Example: Deephouse’s development of an
‘‘integrative theory of strategic balance’’ that incorporates both DiMaggio and Powell’s institutional isomorphism and Porter’s conceptualization of competitive advantage through the development of attractive niches.
‘‘This paperybegan developing a theory of strategic balance by integrating strategic management and organizational theories. Strategic management and organizational ecology contributed the idea that competition reduces the benefits of institutional isomorphism. Institutional and resource de- pendence theories contribute the idea that legitimacy activates the flow of resources that energizes a firm. The theory of strategic balance directs our attention to intermediate levels of differentiation where a firm benefits from reduced competition while maintaining its legitimacy’’ (Deephouse, 1999, p. 162).
This typology highlights those empirical, socio-cognitive, and theoretical factors that appear to be most important to a theory’s trajectory over time.
The specific factors are described in detail in the following sections, detailing how the basic categories from the citation context analysis were further enriched by interview and survey data.
Applicability
As mentioned above, the category of ‘‘application-explanatory’’ comprised 15 percent of all citations within the entire corpus. ‘‘Applicability’’ is the general term for what a number of theorists have described as ‘‘problem- solving’’ and appears to be a fruitful source of innovation. Several theorists indicated that their initial research activity was not driven by the need to apply a particular theory to a particular problem, but rather originated from a problem that piqued their interest enough to provoke a search for a po- tential explanation, resulting in the application or creation of a theory. A less creative variant of this is what has been called ‘‘inference to the best ex- planation’’ (Lipton, 1991) in which the researcher examining a particular phenomenon selects a particular theory as the most relevant or most likely explanation of that phenomenon. The applicability of a theory tends to promote its wider diffusion, as shown by the ‘‘institutional isomorphism’’
case, in which the theory was often quite ‘‘loosely coupled’’ to the empirical data, resulting in some dismay on the part of theorists DiMaggio and Powell.
EMPIRICAL FACTORS
SOCIO-COGNITIVE FACTORS
THEORETICAL FACTORS
APPLICABILITY application-explanatory
15% of all citations
CONNECTIVITY acknow-negative assimilation-existing
7% of all citations
CONSTRUCTIVITY analysis-empirical
23% of all citations
ACCESSIBILITY acknow-neutral acknow-positive
44% of all citations GENERATIVITY analysis-theoretical application-proposed assimilation-novel
11% of all citations
Fig. 6. Typology of Theory Functions Based on Citation Functions.
Of course, the more applicable the theory appears to be to a variety of phenomena, the more likely it is to be of interest to a variety of researchers.
‘‘Applicability,’’ therefore, appears to promote diffusion outside a well- defined ‘‘invisible college,’’ making methodological rigor more difficult to enforce. The less applicable a theory is to a variety of salient phenomena, the less likely it is to provoke interest on the part of others, as is most clearly shown in the case of English’s ‘‘Channel Retreat.’’ A related case is that of Beniger’s ‘‘Pseudo-Community’’ which, although potentially applicable to highly salient phenomena, was originally presented in such a way that it reached only a circumscribed audience of communication theorists rather than the wider audience of electronic commerce practitioners.
Constructivity
‘‘Constructivity,’’ a term borrowed from mathematics, is intended to denote that a theory is ‘‘capable in principle of being proven’’ rather than to focus on constructs and variables per se. As defined, the subcategory of ‘‘analysis- empirical’’ accounts for 23 percent of all citations within the corpus. Em- pirical evidence and methodological issues are the twin poles around which
‘‘invisible colleges’’ seem to converge.
During the course of the interviews, it also became obvious that these are the issues most controversial in ‘‘theory work.’’ It appears that focusing on methodological questions can be counter-productive if it leads theorists to concentrate more on refining their methods than their ideas. While periodic critical reviews of the literature by senior scholars appear to be helpful in focusing attention on central problems, it appears that methodological strictures can be internalized by reviewers to the extent of excluding oth- erwise promising lines of research, either unintentionally or intentionally.
This corresponds to the findings of several studies of the peer review process that have indicated methodological criticisms are the primary form of so- called ‘‘gatekeeping’’ in the journals studied (e.g.,Gilliland & Cortina, 1997).
Connectivity
‘‘Connectivity’’ is defined by a particular theory’s linkage to other theoretical frameworks. While the specific categories that define the meta-category of
‘‘connectivity’’ (acknowledgement-negative and assimilation-existing frame- work) in the citation context analysis accounted for only 7% of all citations BETSY VAN DER VEER MARTENS 34
within the corpus, it is also true that all documents in the corpus were initially identified through their connection to a particular theory or theories.
Therefore, ‘‘connectivity’’ may be considered a taken-for-granted element of theory diffusion that is perhaps clearer in more standard citation analyses.
Generativity
The categories of ‘‘analysis-theoretical,’’ ‘‘application-proposed,’’ and ‘‘as- similation-novel’’ accounted for 11 percent of all citations in the corpus.
They are here combined in the meta-category of ‘‘generativity’’ to denote their particular contribution towards the development of new theoretical frameworks. This meta-category includes the development of new theories, the suggestion of new fields for investigation and application, and the sub- sumption of rival theories into new theoretical frameworks.
As mentioned above, the initial citation context analysis had identified a number of theorists who had developed the theories in novel ways. Inter- views with these theorists in particular underscored the value of theories that can be propagated in ways perhaps not foreseen by the original theorists. In fact, interviews with the original theorists did not reveal nearly as much interest in the subsequent ‘‘generativity’’ of these theories as in their ‘‘con- structivity.’’
The combined value of ‘‘generativity’’ and ‘‘constructivity’’ was neatly summarized by one of the editorial review board respondents: ‘‘This article, subsequently reprinted in an important edited volume, helped to define a major theoretical perspective in the study of organizations and social move- ments – one of the most empirically fruitful, in my view.’’ Thus, certain theory functions may best be appreciated by observers over time rather than by the contemporary theorists themselves.
Accessibility
‘‘Accessibility’’ here defines the broader function of what was initially iden- tified in the citation context analysis phase of the study as ‘‘acknowledge- ment.’’ This meta-category includes 44 percent of all citations in the corpus.
Much previous emphasis on the ‘‘social turn’’ in citation analysis, including
‘‘referencing as persuasion’’ (Gilbert, 1977), ‘‘captation’’ (Latour, 1987), and the ‘‘rhetoric-first model’’ (Cozzens, 1989), has been on the subjective rather than the objective side of these citations. Lately, however, there has been a
renewed appreciation of citations as ‘‘knowledge claims’’ (Budd, 1999). As Blaise Cronin has aptly put it: ‘‘citations have multiple articulations in that they inform our understanding of the socio-cultural, cognitive, and textual aspects of scientific communication’’ (Cronin, 1998, p. 45).
The ‘‘accessibility’’ function, therefore, when considered collectively rather than individually, appears to reflect the evolution of a discipline’s consensus regarding each theory’s potential importance over time. ‘‘Acces- sibility’’ is a socio-cognitive measure of how visible a theory may become both inside and outside a particular discipline.
Importantly, the role of journal editors, peer reviewers, and senior schol- ars in the process of citation development became more obvious during the course of the interviews than was readily apparent from the citation context analysis itself. Most of the junior theorists interviewed said that their initial interest in particular theories was due to the fact that those theories were the ones that were introduced to them during their doctoral studies, either by their professors or during the course of their reading. Additionally, there was a strong personal connection in that the junior scholars were often students or former students of the original theorists or at least had had some personal contact with them. Further, in three of the eight cases studied the
‘‘seminal’’ paper for the theories relied on empirical support from several dissertation research projects supervised by the senior theorists. However, the interviews also revealed that ‘‘accessibility’’ is mediated by the other factors of ‘‘constructivity,’’ ‘‘applicability,’’ ‘‘connectivity,’’ and ‘‘genera- tivity’’ in ways that are not readily apparent merely by reading those articles that achieved published status.
For instance, the centrality of ‘‘constructivity’’ was shown not only by the large proportion of empirically oriented papers in the corpus, but was also reflected in interviews with Miceli, Near, and Dansereau, all theorists who described difficulties in receiving acceptance for their non-standard meth- odologies and who resorted to publishing outside the standard journal sys- tem. The characteristic of ‘‘applicability,’’ which is often assumed only to play a role in ‘‘trickle-down’’ to practitioner journals in fact appeared to help make ‘‘Institutional Isomorphism’’ a so-called classic citation, as a large number of authors publishing in non-sociological journals used it to explain organizational phenomena of interest in their own fields, ranging from social work to education to health care. Conversely, the lack of ‘‘ap- plicability’’ of English’s ‘‘Channel Retreat’’ to any actual empirical phe- nomena at the time, clearly played a part in the neglect his paper received, while the salience of various information technology advances in the late 1980s and early 1990s, beginning with advances in electronic data BETSY VAN DER VEER MARTENS 36
interchange and culminating in the commercialization of the Internet, is obvious in the prevalent use of anecdotal evidence in a number of subse- quent papers citing Malone’s ‘‘Electronic Markets and Hierarchies.’’
The importance of ‘‘connectivity’’ to dominant theories, already apparent in the convention of the literature review required by scholarly articles, was addressed by both senior and junior theorists in their interviews, all of whom appeared to have an excellent grasp of the literature that related to their own publications. It should be noted, however, as several did, that the journal review and revision process sometimes made the theoretical con- nections more prominent in the article than was warranted by the author’s original intentions. Thus ‘‘connectivity’’ was probably both over represented as a factor (in that most papers in the corpus were in fact identified through their explicit citation connections with the theories being studied) and un- derrepresented (in that most interviewees preferred to focus discussion on what was novel in their own work).
‘‘Generativity,’’ one of the smallest categories in terms of absolute num- bers, however, may eventually be found to play a critical role in the careers of theories over a longer period of time than that of the current study. The ease with which a theory is able to suggest new empirical and theoretical paths is presumably central to a long and, by definition, ‘‘fruitful’’ career.
In summary, this issue of how theoretical and empirical factors relevant to specific theories do in fact mediate their ‘‘accessibility’’ has been somewhat neglected in recent studies of scholarly communication, which have empha- sized its networking and discursive aspects. While both co-citation analysis (Rousseau & Zuccala, 2004) and rhetorical analysis (White, 2004) are now considered essential tools of investigation, they have tended to obscure other potentially fruitful approaches to theoretic communication, especially in regard to what has been variously termed the ‘‘integral,’’ ‘‘substantive,’’ or
‘‘organic’’ citation of theories that has been emphasized here. It is our con- tention that theories, as the most important form of innovation, are at the heart of ‘‘organic’’ citation, and an examination of their perceived attributes can help to provide an explanation of why ‘‘most scientific innovations fail to diffuse widely’’ (Crane, 1972, p. 76). Figure 7 compares the ‘‘theory characteristics’’ typology to Everett Rogers’s classic ‘‘characteristics of in- novations that promote diffusion’’ (Rogers, 1962).
The characteristics that promote diffusion of even ‘‘ordinary’’ theories as shown appear to be similar to but distinct from those previously defined in innovation diffusion research in that the so-called ‘‘context of justification’’
(Reichenbach, 1938) in scientific communication requires considerably more empirical and epistemological support by potential adopters than that
required for the adoption of other artifacts and ideas. This is, of course, in full accordance with exemplary historical case studies of the growth of sci- entific consensus around particular theories even prior to the development of the formalized gatekeeping processes inherent in the contemporary jour- nal system (e.g.,Rudwick, 1985).
‘‘Accessibility’’ incorporates all those socio-cognitive factors that lead to the publication of a theory. This corresponds to and combines Rogers’s categories of ‘‘observability’’ and ‘‘complexity:’’ that is, with what ease or difficulty the results of an innovation may be observed and understood by other potential adopters. This characteristic is essential to any further the- oretic communication, as a theory that is not somehow communicated be- yond its originator cannot diffuse.
‘‘Applicability’’ resembles Rogers’s ‘‘relative advantage’’ (the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes) in that it describes the extent to which a theory may be used to explain a variety of phenomena. Generalizability promotes wider diffusion to scholarly com- munities. It may also promote a more superficial use of the theory as it is applied to explain a broader range of evidence without an accompanying increase in rigor.
‘‘Connectivity’’ corresponds to Rogers’s ‘‘compatibility’’ (the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters) but is more specific in that it describes the extent to which a theory connects to or is built on existing theory. In general, connectivity with existing theory promotes diffusion to current theorists through the common process of ‘‘citation chaining’’ (that is, following the citations in an article of interest to uncover additional related articles).
‘‘Constructivity’’ is similar to Rogers’s ‘‘trialability’’ (the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis) in that it is the extent to which a theory may be tested. Unlike ‘‘trialability,’’ however, which was meant to convey whether an innovation might be adopted on a
Theory Characteristics Typology
Accessibility Applicability Connectivity Constructivity Generativity
Rogers’s Innovation Characteristics
Observability/
Complexity
Relative Advantage
Compatibility Trialability Reinvention
Fig. 7. Theory Characteristics Compared to General Innovation Characteristics.
BETSY VAN DER VEER MARTENS 38
temporary basis, ‘‘constructivity’’ conveys the extent to which the theory has been constructed so as to facilitate testing or replication, and the potential relevance of empirical data.
‘‘Generativity’’ does not correspond to any of Rogers’s original catego- ries, but it does relate to his and Ronald Rice’s work on ‘‘re-invention’’ of innovations (Rice & Rogers, 1980;Rogers, 1995b), in that it describes the extent to which a theory can generate new ideas. Generativity of theory promotes diffusion to later theorists through the potential for new publi- cations, as novelty is a desired, though not defining, characteristic of pub- lishable theoretic contributions (Whetten, 1989).
The use of these categories allows the theories to be analyzed as shown in Fig. 8. This figure is ordered by a normalized diffusion ratio (total number of citations for each theory divided by number of years since its original date of publication) and shows the percentages within each category for each individual theory. It is apparent from this figure that the various theories did not accrue their citations equally across all categories.
While all theories (except ‘‘Channel Retreat’’) received a third or more of all of their citations through ‘‘accessibility’’ (that is, by ritual or perfunctory citation), the remaining percentages of citations for each theory indicate interesting differences. ‘‘Applicability’’ is seen to be below 5 percent for most of these theories. ‘‘Institutional Isomorphism,’’ however, earned more than a quarter of all its citations in that category, indicating that the theory has been widely employed outside what is in comparison (though not in absolute terms) a much smaller ‘‘invisible college’’ that focuses on ‘‘con- structivity’’ (13 percent of the citations). Relatedly, another analyst of the diffusion of this theory has also commented on its unusual citation pattern and identified it as a problem in terms of maintaining theoretical rigor (Mizruchi & Fein, 1999).
The absence of any ‘‘constructivity’’ citations for ‘‘Pseudo-Community’’
indicates that no ‘‘invisible college’’ has crystallized, and that this paper is usually cited as part of another theory’s framework. The ‘‘Whistleblowing,’’
‘‘Social Influence,’’ ‘‘Leader-Member Exchange,’’ and ‘‘Organizational Cit- izenship Behavior’’ theories, however, all received more than a third of their citations in this category, indicating the presence of an active group testing the theory’s constructs. The ‘‘invisible colleges’’ of the last two theories named, however, are substantially larger than those of the first two. The smaller percentage of ‘‘constructivity’’ citations for ‘‘Electronic Markets and Hierarchies’’ probably reflects the fact (not apparent in the figure) that this particular theory has now been overshadowed by a more comprehensive
‘‘coordination theory’’ (Malone & Crowston, 1994).
THEORY Accessibiliy Applicability Connectivity Constructivity Generativity
Total Citations
Diffusion Ratio Channel
Retreat
0 0 Pseudo-
Community 87% 13% 23 2.09
Whistle-
blowing 33% 2% 17% 41% 7% 42 2.80
Social
Influence 49% 2% 4% 36% 4% 55 4.58
Leader-
Member Ex. 29% 4% 7% 50% 10% 147 8.65
Organiz.
Cit. Behav. 32% 4% 10% 35% 19% 190 11.87
Electronic
Markets 57% 7% 3% 19% 14% 143 11.91
Institutional
Isomorphism 47% 26% 9% 13% 5% 671 41.94
Fig. 8. Functional Characteristic Percentages for Theories.
BETSYVANDERVEERMARTENS40
The ‘‘Electronic Market and Hierarchies’’ theory’s relatively high per- centage in the ‘‘generativity’’ category is also an indicator of these ongoing theoretical discussions involving new permutations of theory in the elec- tronic commerce arena. Similarly, the high percentage in this category for
‘‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior’’ shows that it has become a seminal theory for the emerging field of ‘‘prosocial behavior.’’ Though not obvious from the figure, the relatively low percentage in the ‘‘generativity’’ category for ‘‘Institutional Isomorphism’’ is more a reflection of its unusually high
‘‘applicability,’’ as in fact the absolute number of ‘‘generativity’’ cites for this theory is far higher than for the others.
Finally, all these attributes were combined to create the ‘‘theory functions model’’ shown in Fig. 9, which represents how various empirical and the- oretical factors mediate and are mediated by socio-cognitive factors central to the scholarly communication system. The questions are those that are asked, implicitly or explicitly, about any theory as it is considered for in- clusion within the system.
The theory functions model represents a new framework for the inves- tigation of scientific communication. This model suggests that a theory that collects the majority of its citations in particular functional categories is likely to diffuse in particular directions and have particular strengths and weaknesses. A theory attracting more ‘‘applicability’’ than ‘‘constructivity’’
citations in its early stages may never develop sufficient rigor to withstand competing theories, while a theory with a preponderance of ‘‘constructivity’’
citations may be of limited practical use. A theory lacking ‘‘generativity’’
citations may be less likely to persist over time than one with many such citations. A theory lacking ‘‘connectivity’’ citations may fail to attract nec- essary support from the surrounding research community. A theory that has many ‘‘accessibility’’ citations but fails to accrue citations in other func- tional categories is unlikely to survive over time.
Obviously, in the theory cases studied here, none of the eight theories represent an ‘‘ideal type,’’ but more of a continuum, with the ‘‘Channel Retreat’’ theory showing the most common outcome for theories (non- diffusion), the ‘‘Pseudo-Community’’ and ‘‘Whistleblowing’’ theories show- ing limited diffusion largely due to their methodological limitations, the
‘‘Social Influence,’’ ‘‘Electronic Markets and Hierarchies,’’ ‘‘Leader- Member Exchange,’’ and ‘‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior’’ theories all showing aspects of the normal diffusion expected in ‘‘invisible college’’
clusters, and the ‘‘Institutional Isomorphism’’ theory showing the explosive diffusion characteristic of a disciplinary paradigm in the making.