A Bibliometric Review of the Field Theory: Current Trends and Future Development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58905/athena.v3i2.420Keywords:
Bibliometric, Field theory, Systematic Literature ReviewAbstract
This study focuses on the development of Field Theory (FT) literature trends through bibliometric analysis for the previous 20 years. The data analyzed consists of 447 peer-reviewed journal articles from 228 sources retrieved in the Web of Science (WoS) database with Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) indexing, from 2003 to October 2022. An overview of 447 articles was presented by utilizing Biblioshiny and HistCite. To visualize the data, we used VOSviewer software. Bibliometric analysis enabled us to chart the development of the FT literature. and its variants, provide a thorough understanding of the FT field's dynamics (structure), and identify journals, authors, subtopics (themes), and their interconnections and network relationships. The results of this study obtained two significant findings, namely that studies on FT grew rapidly from 2003 to 2022, especially in 2016. In addition, there are seven research clusters where neo-institutionalism and Pierre Bourdieu are the dominant themes.
References
M. Krause, “How fields vary,” Br. J. Sociol., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 3–22, 2018, doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12258.
M. Savage and E. B. Silva, “Field analysis in cultural sociology,” Cult. Sociol., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 111–126, 2013, doi: 10.1177/1749975512473992.
N. Fligstein and D. McAdam, A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
J. Beckert, “How do fields change? The interrelations of institutions, networks, and cognition in the dynamics of markets,” Organ. Stud., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 605–627, 2010.
J. J. Sallaz and J. Zavisca, “Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980-2004,” Annu. Rev. Sociol., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 21–41, 2007.
L. Wacquant, “Following Pierre Bourdieu into the field,” Ethnography, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 387–414, 2004.
W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
G. Kungl and D. J. Hess, “Sustainability transitions and strategic action fields: A literature review and discussion,” Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, vol. 38, pp. 22–33, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.10.004.
E. Barman, “Varieties of field theory and the sociology of the non-profit Sector,” Sociol. Compass, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 442–458, 2016, doi: 10.1111/soc4.12377.
M. Rowlinson and J. S. Hassard, “Historical neo-institutionalism or neo-institutionalist history? Historical research in management and organization studies,” Manag. Organ. Hist., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 111–126, 2013, doi: 10.1080/17449359.2013.780518.
J. L. Martin, “What is Field Theory?,” Am. J. Sociol., vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 1–49, 2003, doi: 10.1086/375201.
M. Emirbayer and V. Johnson, “Bourdieu and organizational analysis,” Theory Soc., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–44, 2008.
B. G. King and E. T. Walker, “Winning hearts and minds: Field theory and the three dimensions of strategy,” Strateg. Organ., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 134–141, 2014.
S. E. A. Candido, M. R. Côrtes, O. M. S. Truzzi, and M. S. Neto, “Fields in organization studies: Relational approaches?,” Gest. e Prod., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 68–80, 2018, doi: 10.1590/0104-530X2122-16.
R. Benson and E. Neveu, “Field theory as a work in progress,” in Bourdieu and the journalistic field, R. Benson and E. Neveu, Eds., Polity Press, 2005, ch. 1, pp. 1–25.
G. Sapiro, “The literary field between the state and the market,” Poetics, vol. 31, no. 5–6, pp. 441–464, 2003, doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2003.09.001.
D. L. Swartz, Symbolic power, politics, and intellectuals: The political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. London: The University of Chicago Press, 2013.
M. Ancelovici, “Bourdieu in movement: toward a field theory of contentious politics,” Soc. Mov. Stud., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 155–173, 2021, doi: 10.1080/14742837.2019.1637727.
C. Scoville and N. Fligstein, “The promise of field theory for the study of political institutions,” in The New Handbook of Political Sociology, T. Janoski, C. de Leon, J. Misra, and I. W. Martin, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 2020, ch. 3, pp. 79–101.
S. Singh, “Appreciating field theory’s insights into politics: An empirical illustration using the case of emergency in India (1975-77),” Theory Soc., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 107–142, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11186-016-9266-y.
G. Steinmetz, “Bourdieusian field theory and the reorientation of historical sociology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Pierre Bourdieu, no. May, T. Medvetz and J. J. Sallaz, Eds., Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 601–628. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199357192.001.0001.
G. Steinmetz, “Field theory and interdisciplinarity: History and sociology in Germany and France during the twentieth century,” Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 477–514, 2017, doi: 10.1017/S0010417517000111.
P. S. Gorski, “Bourdieu as a theoriest of change,” in Bourdieu and historical analysis, P. S. Gorski, Ed., Durham: Duke University Press, 2013, pp. 1–18.
B. Bozic, S. Siebert, and G. Martin, “A strategic action fields perspective on organizational trust repair,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 58–66, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2018.04.005.
A. S. Hayes, “The behavioral economics of Pierre Bourdieu,” Sociol. Theory, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 16–35, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1177/0735275120902170.
S. Robinson, J. Ernst, O. J. Thomassen, and K. Larsen, “Introduction: Taking Bourdieu further into studies of organizations and management,” in Pierre Bourdieu in studies of organization and management, S. Robinson, J. Ernst, O. J. Thomassen, and K. Larsen, Eds., Routledge, 2021, pp. 1–19.
D. N. Kluttz and N. Fligstein, “Varieties of sociological field theory,” in Handbooks of Contemporary sociological Theory, S. Abrutyn, Ed., Springer, 2016, ch. 10, pp. 185–204.
M. J. Cobo, A. G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis , and cooperative study among tools,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1382–1402, 2011, doi: 10.1002/asi.
P. Vujković, D. Ravšelj, L. Umek, and A. Aristovnik, “Bibliometric analysis of smart public governance research: Smart city and smart government in comparative perspective,” Soc. Sci., vol. 11, no. 7, 2022, doi: 10.3390/socsci11070293.
N. Suhaimi and S. N. D. Mahmud, “A bibliometric analysis of climate change literacy between 2001 and 2021,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 19, p. 11940, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su141911940.
W. E. Yudiatmaja, R. V. Salomo, and E. Prasojo, “Leadership Styles and Employees’ Innovative Behavior: A Systematic Review Using Bibliometrics,” J. Behav. Sci., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 120–137, 2023.
M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, “bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis,” J. Informetr., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.
P. Bourdieu, The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell, “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields,” Am. Sociol. Rev., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 147–160, 1983.
N. Fligstein and D. McAdam, “Toward a general theory of strategic action fields,” Sociol. Theory, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2011.
P. Bourdieu and L. J. D. Wacquant, An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
M. Maclean, C. Harvey, R. Suddaby, and K. O’Gorman, “Political ideology and the discursive construction of the multinational hotel industry,” Hum. Relations, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 766–795, 2018, doi: 10.1177/0018726717718919.
N. Fligstein, “Understanding stability and change in fields,” Res. Organ. Behav., vol. 33, pp. 39–51, 2013.
D. L. Swartz, “Theorizing fields,” Theory Soc., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 675–682, 2014.
P. Bourdieu, Outline of a theory of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
N. Crossley, “Phenomenology, structuralism and history: Merleau-Ponty’s social theory,” Theor. A J. Soc. Polit. Theory, vol. 103, pp. 88–121, 2004, doi: 10.3167/004058104782267303.
Jens Beckert, “Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institutional change,” Sociol. Theory, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 150–166, 2010.
P. A. Hall and R. C. R. Taylor, “Political science and the three New Institutionalisms,” Polit. Stud., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 936–957, 1996.
I. Zupic and T. Čater, “Bibliometric methods in management and organization,” Organ. Res. Methods, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 429–472, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629.
V. K. Singh, P. Singh, M. Karmakar, J. Leta, and P. Mayr, “The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis,” Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. 5113–5142, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5.
C. Jambrino-Maldonado, D. Rando-Cueto, J. M. Núñez-Sánchez, P. P. Iglesias-Sanchez, and C. D. las Heras-Pedrosa, “Bibliometric analysis of international scientific production on the management of happiness and well-being in organizations,” Soc. Sci., vol. 11, no. 7, 2022, doi: 10.3390/socsci11070272.
S. A. S. AlRyalat, L. W. Malkawi, and S. M. Momani, “Comparing bibliometric analysis using pubmed, scopus, and web of science databases,” J. Vis. Exp., vol. 152, pp. 1–12, 2019, doi: 10.3791/58494.
T. Van Leeuwen, “The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research: Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible,” Scientometrics, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 133–154, 2006, doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0010-7.
W. E. Yudiatmaja et al., “Fourteen Years of Research on Smart City and Community: A Bibliometric Analysis,” BIO Web Conf., vol. 134, no. 02005, pp. 1–13, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1051/bioconf/202413402005.
L. Waltman, “A review of the literature on citation impact indicators,” J. Informetr., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 365–391, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.
K. Borner, C. Chen, and K. W. Boyack, “Visualizing knowledge domains,” Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 179–255, 2005.
H. Özen and Ş. Özen, “Interactions in and between strategic action fields: A comparative analysis of two environmental conflicts in gold-mining fields in Turkey,” Organ. Environ., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 343–363, 2011, doi: 10.1177/1086026611426343.
M. Laamanen and P. Skålén, “Collective–conflictual value co-creation: A strategic action field approach,” Mark. Theory, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 381–400, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1470593114564905.
R. Taylor, J. Rees, and C. Damm, “UK employment services: Understanding provider strategies in a dynamic strategic action field,” Policy Polit., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 253–267, 2016, doi: 10.1332/030557314x14079275800414.
B. J. Taylor, “Strategic action fields in US higher education: The 1939 Mercer University heresy trial,” J. Hist. Sociol., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 359–384, 2016, doi: 10.1111/johs.12084.
A. Domaradzka and F. Wijkstrom, “Game of the City Re-negotiated: the Polish Urban Re-generation Movement as an Emerging Actor in a Strategic Action Field,” POLISH Sociol. Rev., no. 195, pp. 291-308 WE-Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), 2016.
R. Benson, “News media as a ‘journalistic field’: What Bourdieu adds to new institutionalism, and vice versa,” Polit. Commun., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 187–202, 2006, doi: 10.1080/10584600600629802.
V. A. Schmidt, “Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism,’” Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2010, doi: 10.1017/S175577390999021X.
J. Block, C. Fisch, and F. Rehan, “Religion and entrepreneurship: A map of the field and a bibliometric analysis,” Manag. Rev. Q., vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 591–627, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11301-019-00177-2.
F. P. Appio, F. Cesaroni, and A. Di Minin, “Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis,” Scientometrics, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 623–661, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1329-0.
T. Kostova, K. Roth, and M. T. Dacin, “Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions,” Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 994–1006, 2008, doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.34422026.
Y. W. Chang, M. H. Huang, and C. W. Lin, “Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses,” Scientometrics, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 2071–2087, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1762-8.
R. Bhukya, J. Paul, M. Kastanakis, and S. Robinson, “Forty years of European Management Journal: A bibliometric overview,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 10–28, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2021.04.001.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Tri Samnuzulsari, Iwan Gardono Sudjatmiko, Meuthia Ganie-Rochman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
