基于科学计量的管理科学发展研究
|
摘要
管理科学自20世纪初形成以来,已发展成为具有庞大知识体系的研究领域,在人类文明进程和知识宝库中占有重要地位。改革开放同步我国管理科学研究的繁荣进程也就20多年,我国的管理科学研究及管理实践与国际先进水平还有一定差距,本文拟针对日益成熟的学科发展对严密的学术研究及研究范式的需要,分析我国管理科学研究的现状和规律,为提高中国管理科学研究水平提出有价值的建议。
本研究借助词频分析、共现分析方法等科学计量学理论与方法,以及社会网络分析方法,对国内外管理科学的学科结构及演进、国内管理科学知识扩散网络与学科交叉、中国管理科学研究队伍及合作者的年龄结构、管理科学基金资助项目与其支持环境的匹配合理性进行了研究。
从国际管理科学研究所呈现的关键词结构及演变看,国际管理科学已形成了一套核心学术语言。从高被引作者关系结构及演变看,组织理论研究作者群和组织行为及人力资源管理研究作者群联系密切,理论发展也较稳定,而战略管理研究作者群联系较分散,理论发展更新较快。
从中国管理科学研究所呈现的关键词结构及演变看,中外管理科学研究的侧重点明显不同,主要是围绕着中国体制的变迁而变,研究的范围及其广泛。管理期刊共被引网络不具有很强的凝聚力,期刊大体可以归为四个族类。
随着时间的推移,管理科学期刊知识交流网络密度在增大,学科分支领域在趋于融合,期刊引证间存在“无形学院”,在各共同体中有其核心成员。以引文网络作为反映学科知识交流的表征,揭示了管理科学各领域与其它社会科学领域之间的知识交流模式。
管理科学研究队伍年龄结构为青年峰的偏单峰分布,35岁以下的第一作者已占据半壁河山且保持稳定发展。学生作者(特别是博士生)是发表管理科学论文的重要群体,构成了中国管理科学队伍的年轻化趋势。二人和三人合作是我国管理科学领域最主要的科学合作形式,青年-中老、青年-老年、中年-青年-老年、青年-中年-青年是常见的二人和三人合作年龄结构,师生之间的合作研究是最主要的合作形式。
国家自然科学管理科学基金与管理科学论文地域的比较研究发现二者总体分布规律方面是一致的,也存在微观层次协调对应方面的问题。管理科学基金项目负责人及成员正在趋于年轻化、高职称和高学位化,项目负责人经历了单峰(老年峰)—双峰(青年峰、老年峰)—单峰(青年峰)发布的变动过程。管理科学研究队伍也正在向年轻化、高学位和高职称化结构方向发展。国家自然科学基金资助的管理科学项目组成员与我国管理科学研究队伍主体在年龄、职称和学位结构的演变中具有宏观一致性。
Management has been 100 years of history in America. There was only more than 20 years in China. it is a certain gap between China's management and internation management in scientific research and management practices. It is important to investigate the whole situation of management to promote of China's management. Based on the integrated methods of scientometrics and social network analysis, the author try to reveal the structure and evolution in the field of internation management science and representative scientists, the structure and evolution, communication of discipline knowledge, age structure of author, sciences foundation in the field of China management sciences.
From the present structure and evolution of the key words , the internation management science has developed a core set of academic language. From the structure and evolution of highly-cited authors of relations, author group of organization theory research and organization behavior have a respective tight link, but author group of strategic management is more decentralized.From the present structure and evolution of key words, Chinese and foreign management of scientific research focused on distinctly different. Management science of China mainly centered on the changes in China's system changed, the scope of the research object is extensive.The journal co-citation network does not have a strong cohesion. Journals can be roughly classified as four categories.
An examination of a management science community was discussed by using social network analyses on the citation network. It show that the exchange of knowledge of management science journals in the network density increases and community was more direct and open. The network has maintained relative stability, but it also has some obvious changes. These journals can be considered to be the "invisible college" that has core members. Four disciplines of management science citation patterns are examined, it show that the decision-making system journals is knowledge sources that other management field of science journals absorb. Interdisciplinary communication between management science and 10 social science fields are also examined, results showed the central position of economics is apparent in this citation network.
The age structure of the authors of management papers is the unimodal age distribution with higher peak of young men, proportion of first author of below 35-year-old make up to 50% and could keep stable. Author of students (especially doctoral candidates) are major groups the management of scientific papers published in.The younger trends of research personnel are due to increasing proportion of students. For two-author collaboration, Younger-Middle-ager and Younger-Elder are the predominant age structure; For three-author collaboration, Middle-ager -Younger-Younger and Younger-Middle-ager-Younger are the most important age structures. Tutor-student are main patterns of scientific collaboration in management.
The similarity and difference of regional distributions between management science publication and NSFC’s management science fund are compared. The similar distribution rule is found, but there is also micro-level incoordination. The distribution structure and trends of age, professional title and academic degree are compared between investigators of management projects of NSFC and personnel of management research. The results showed the investigators of management projects of NSFC are tending to younger, high professional title and high degree, at the same time, the distribution structure and trends of age, professional title and academic degree of personnel of management research are changing. The analysis revealed that the trend in investigators of management projects of NSFC was accord with personnel of management research.
本研究借助词频分析、共现分析方法等科学计量学理论与方法,以及社会网络分析方法,对国内外管理科学的学科结构及演进、国内管理科学知识扩散网络与学科交叉、中国管理科学研究队伍及合作者的年龄结构、管理科学基金资助项目与其支持环境的匹配合理性进行了研究。
从国际管理科学研究所呈现的关键词结构及演变看,国际管理科学已形成了一套核心学术语言。从高被引作者关系结构及演变看,组织理论研究作者群和组织行为及人力资源管理研究作者群联系密切,理论发展也较稳定,而战略管理研究作者群联系较分散,理论发展更新较快。
从中国管理科学研究所呈现的关键词结构及演变看,中外管理科学研究的侧重点明显不同,主要是围绕着中国体制的变迁而变,研究的范围及其广泛。管理期刊共被引网络不具有很强的凝聚力,期刊大体可以归为四个族类。
随着时间的推移,管理科学期刊知识交流网络密度在增大,学科分支领域在趋于融合,期刊引证间存在“无形学院”,在各共同体中有其核心成员。以引文网络作为反映学科知识交流的表征,揭示了管理科学各领域与其它社会科学领域之间的知识交流模式。
管理科学研究队伍年龄结构为青年峰的偏单峰分布,35岁以下的第一作者已占据半壁河山且保持稳定发展。学生作者(特别是博士生)是发表管理科学论文的重要群体,构成了中国管理科学队伍的年轻化趋势。二人和三人合作是我国管理科学领域最主要的科学合作形式,青年-中老、青年-老年、中年-青年-老年、青年-中年-青年是常见的二人和三人合作年龄结构,师生之间的合作研究是最主要的合作形式。
国家自然科学管理科学基金与管理科学论文地域的比较研究发现二者总体分布规律方面是一致的,也存在微观层次协调对应方面的问题。管理科学基金项目负责人及成员正在趋于年轻化、高职称和高学位化,项目负责人经历了单峰(老年峰)—双峰(青年峰、老年峰)—单峰(青年峰)发布的变动过程。管理科学研究队伍也正在向年轻化、高学位和高职称化结构方向发展。国家自然科学基金资助的管理科学项目组成员与我国管理科学研究队伍主体在年龄、职称和学位结构的演变中具有宏观一致性。
Management has been 100 years of history in America. There was only more than 20 years in China. it is a certain gap between China's management and internation management in scientific research and management practices. It is important to investigate the whole situation of management to promote of China's management. Based on the integrated methods of scientometrics and social network analysis, the author try to reveal the structure and evolution in the field of internation management science and representative scientists, the structure and evolution, communication of discipline knowledge, age structure of author, sciences foundation in the field of China management sciences.
From the present structure and evolution of the key words , the internation management science has developed a core set of academic language. From the structure and evolution of highly-cited authors of relations, author group of organization theory research and organization behavior have a respective tight link, but author group of strategic management is more decentralized.From the present structure and evolution of key words, Chinese and foreign management of scientific research focused on distinctly different. Management science of China mainly centered on the changes in China's system changed, the scope of the research object is extensive.The journal co-citation network does not have a strong cohesion. Journals can be roughly classified as four categories.
An examination of a management science community was discussed by using social network analyses on the citation network. It show that the exchange of knowledge of management science journals in the network density increases and community was more direct and open. The network has maintained relative stability, but it also has some obvious changes. These journals can be considered to be the "invisible college" that has core members. Four disciplines of management science citation patterns are examined, it show that the decision-making system journals is knowledge sources that other management field of science journals absorb. Interdisciplinary communication between management science and 10 social science fields are also examined, results showed the central position of economics is apparent in this citation network.
The age structure of the authors of management papers is the unimodal age distribution with higher peak of young men, proportion of first author of below 35-year-old make up to 50% and could keep stable. Author of students (especially doctoral candidates) are major groups the management of scientific papers published in.The younger trends of research personnel are due to increasing proportion of students. For two-author collaboration, Younger-Middle-ager and Younger-Elder are the predominant age structure; For three-author collaboration, Middle-ager -Younger-Younger and Younger-Middle-ager-Younger are the most important age structures. Tutor-student are main patterns of scientific collaboration in management.
The similarity and difference of regional distributions between management science publication and NSFC’s management science fund are compared. The similar distribution rule is found, but there is also micro-level incoordination. The distribution structure and trends of age, professional title and academic degree are compared between investigators of management projects of NSFC and personnel of management research. The results showed the investigators of management projects of NSFC are tending to younger, high professional title and high degree, at the same time, the distribution structure and trends of age, professional title and academic degree of personnel of management research are changing. The analysis revealed that the trend in investigators of management projects of NSFC was accord with personnel of management research.
引文
[1]Koontz Harold. Management theory of jungle[J].Academy of Management Journal, 1961, 3 (4): 174-188.
[2]Koontz Harold. The management theory jungle revisited[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1980, 5(2): 175-187.
[3]许康,劳汉生.中国管理科学历程[M].石家庄:河北科学技术出版社, 2000.
[4]李若筠,杨列勋.管理科学基金项目论文产出的定量分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2006(4):18~23.
[5]中国大百科全书编辑委员会.中国大百科全书[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社, 1991.
[6]国家自然科学基金委员会.管理科学[M].北京:科学出版社, 1995.
[7]成思危.中国管理科学的学科结构与发展重点选择[J].管理科学学报, 2000, 3(1): 1-6.
[8]芮明杰.管理学—现代的观点[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 2005.
[9] Wren D.A. The evolution of management thought[M]. New York: Wiley, 1993.
[10]乌家培.论管理科学的发展[J].南开管理评论, 2000, (6 ): 6-8.
[11]郭咸纲.西方管理思想史[M].北京:经济管理出版社, 2004: 5.
[12]魏文斌.现代西方管理学理论[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 2004: 4-5.
[13]霍幅广.论西方管理理论的发展趋势[J].华南理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2000, 2(2):91-96.
[14]管理科学学科发展战略研究组.自然科学学科发展战略调研报告—管理科学[M].北京:科学出版社, 1995.
[15]陈晓田.国家自然科学基金资助管理科学15年回顾与展望[J].中国科学基金, 2001, (6): 332-336.
[16]王续琨.管理科学学科结构及其发展态势[J].学术交流, 2002, (1): 17-22.
[17]Irene Wormell. Bibliometric analysis of the welfare topic[J]. scientometrics, 2000, 48(2): 203-236.
[18]Bernhard Dachs, Thomas Roediger-Schluga, Clemens Widhalm, et al. Mapping evolutionary economics: a bibliometric analysis[C]. European Meeting on Applied Evolutionary Economics, Vienna, Austria, 2001.
[19]Lee Yoo Taek, Lee Woo Young. The analysis of intellectual structure in supply chain management by using co-word analysis method[C]. The 8th International Conference of the Decision Sciences Institute, Barcelona, Spain, 2005.
[20]Tor J. Larsen, Linda Levine. Searching for management information systems: coherence and change in the discipline[J]. Information Systems Journal, 2005, 15: 357-381.
[21]Culnan MJ. Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980–1985: a co-citation analysis[J].Management of Information System Quarterly, 1987, 11(3): 341–353.
[22]Sean B.Eom. Decision support systems research: current state and trends[J]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 1999, 99(5): 213-220.
[23]F. J.A. Gonzalez, C.B.Castro, J. C. C. Bueno, et al. Dominant approaches in the field of management[J]. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2001, 9(4): 327-353.
[24]M. J.Culnan, C.A.O‘Reilly, J. A. Chatman. Intellectual structure of research in organizational behavior, 1972-1984: co-citation analysis[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1990, 41: 453-458.
[25]Antonio-rafael Ramos-rodr’iguez, Jos’e Ru’iz-navarro. Changes in the Intellectual Structure of Strategic Management Research: A Biblometrics Study of the Strategic Management Journal,1980–2000[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2004, 25: 981-1004.
[26]A. Pilkington, C. Liston-He yes. Is production and operations management a discipline? a citation, cocitation study[J]. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 1999, 19: 7-20.
[27]Hoffman D.L., Holbrook M.B.. The intellectual structure of consumer research: a bibliometric study of author co-citations in the first 15 years of the Journal of Consumer Research[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1993, 19: 505–517.
[28]U¨sdiken B, Pasadeos Y..Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: a comparison of co-citation networks[J]. Organization Studies, 1995, 16: 503–515.
[29]Pasadeos Y, Phelps J, Kim B. Disciplinary impact of advertising scholars: temporal comparisons of influential authors, works and research networks[J]. Journal of Advertising, 1998, 27: 53–70.
[30]Ponzi L.J..The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of knowledge management: a bibliometrics study of its early stage of development[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 55: 259–272.
[31]Francisco Jos′e Acedo, Carmen Barroso, Jose Luis Galan.The resource-based theory: dissemination and main trends[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 27: 621-636.
[32]Sean B. Eom. The Contributions of systems science to the development of the decision support system subspecialties: an empirical investigation[J]. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2000, 17:117-134.
[33]Sean B. Eom, Roy S. Farris. The contributions of organizational science to the development of decision support systems research subspecialties[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1996, 47(12): 941-952.
[34]Charvet F. Francois, Martha C. Cooper, John T. Gardner.The intellectual structure of supply chain management: a bibliometric approach[J]. Journal of Business Logistics, Forthcoming.
[35]Henri A. Schildt, Antti Sillanpaa. The field of entrepreneurship: a bibliometric assessment[R]. Working Paper No. 2004,Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, 2004: 2-29.
[36]陈悦.管理学学科演进的科学计量研究[D].博士论文,大连:大连理工大学, 2006.
[37]教育部社政司科研处.人文社会科学研究现状与发展趋势[M].湖南大学出版社, 2001.
[38]佘丛国,席酉民.国内外管理科学与工程研究热点的比较分析[J].科学学研究, 2002, 20(4): 406-410.
[39]孙晓燕,席酉民.工商管理研究热点与发展趋势的国内外比较[J].科学学研究, 2002, 20(6): 646-648.
[40]佘丛国,郭菊娥,席酉民.国内外宏观管理与政策研究热点的比较分析[J].科学学研究, 2002, 20(5): 506-509.
[41]张玲玲,房勇,杨涛等.管理科学与工程热点研究领域的文献计量分析[J].管理学报, 2005, 2(4):379-385.
[42]张维,李帅,熊熊等.基于文献计量方法的“十一五”期间工商管理学科国内外研究热点比较与分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2006,(3): 5-10.
[43]汪寿阳,杨晓光,刘作仪等.学科战略规划的方法与实践—管理科学与工程“十一五”战略规划研究[M].北京:科学出版社, 2007.
[44]任智军,朱东华,荆雷.基于可视化数据挖掘的管理科学科技文本分析研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2006, (1): 8-12.
[45]Paula E. Steephan, Sharon G. Levin. Age and the Nobel prize revisited[J]. Scientometrics, 1993, 28( 3): 387-399.
[46]H. Zuckerman, R. Merton. Age, aging, and age structure in science[C]. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations[A]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973: 497-575.
[47]Benjamin F. Jones. Age and great invention[J]. NBER Working Paper, 2005.
[48]赵红州.科学史数理分析[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社, 2001.
[49]Liang Liming, Zhao Hongzhou, Wang Yuan, et al. Distribution of major scientific and technological achievements in terms of age group-weibull distribution [J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(1) : 3-18.
[50]Hendrik P. van Dalen. The golden age of nobel economists[J]. American Economists, 1999, 43(2): 19-35.
[51]Jesús Rey-Rocha, María JoséMartín-Sempere, Belén Garzón. Research productivity of scientists in consolidated vs. non-consolidated teams: The case of Spanish university geologists[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 55(1):137-156.
[52]Frank M. Andrews. Scientific productivity: the effectiveness of research groups in six countries[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[53]岳洪江,张琳,梁立明.基金项目负责人与科技人才年龄结构的比较研究[J].科研管理, 2002, 23(6):100~106.
[54]Svein Kyvik. Age and scientific productivity, differences between fields of learning[J]. Higher Education, 1990, 19(3):37-55.
[55]郭永正,梁立明,岳洪江等.我国计算机科学研究队伍低龄化表现的数量特征[J].研究与发展管理, 2001, 13(2):47-51.
[56]Liang Liming, Zhao Hongzhou, Wang Yuan, et al. Distribution of major scientific and technological achievements in terms of age group-weibull distribution [J]. Scientometrics, 1996, (1) : 3-18.
[57]Price S. D. Multiple authorship. Science[J]. 1981, 212: 986.
[58]J. Sylvan Katz, Ben R. Martin. What is research collaboration?[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(1):1-18.
[59]Laudel G. What do we measure by co-authorships?[J]. Research Evaluation, 2002, 11(1): 3-15.
[60]Grit Laudel. Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate[J]. International Journal of Technology Management, 2001, 22(7-8): 762-781.
[61]Widhalm C., Toplnik M., Kopcsa A., et al. Evaluating patterns of co-operation: application of a bibliometric visualization tool to the fourth framework programme and the transport research programme[J]. Research Evaluation, 2001, 10(2):129-140.
[62]Liming Liang, Hildrun Kretschmer, Yongzheng Guo, et al. Age structures of scientific collaboration in Chinese computer science [J].Scientometrics, 2001, 52, (3): 471-486.
[63]Freeek A. Lootsma, Pieter W.G. Bots. The assignment of scores for output-based research funding[J]. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1999, 8: 44–50.
[64]Linda Butler. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts[J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32:143–155.
[65]Kirby I. Bland. Concerning trends and outcomes for national institutes of health funding of cancer research[J]. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2007, 95: 161–166.
[66]Cunningham P. The evaluation of European programmes and the future of scientometrics[J]. Scientometrics, 1997, 38(1): 71-85.
[67]毕鹏程,王琦,席酉民.我国管理科学研究资助体系的统计分析[J].研究与发展管理, 2003, 15(5): 81-87.
[68]郭菊娥,席酉民.我国管理科学研究的回顾与发展展望[J].管理工程学报, 2004, 18(3):51-54.
[69]Gl?nzel W., Sch?pflin U.. Little scientometrics, big scientometrics and beyond[J]. Scientometrics,1994, 30(2–3): 375–384.
[70]Moed, Henk F., Gl?nzel, et al. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems[M]. Hardcover: Springer, 2004.
[71]庞景安.科学计量研究方法论[M].北京:科学计量文献出版社, 1999.
[72]梁立明,武夷山.科学计量学:理论探索与案例研究[M].北京:科学出版社, 2006.
[73]Henk F. Moed.Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation[M]. Hardcover: Springer, 2005.
[74]Loet Leydesdorff. Evaluation of research and evolution of science indicators[J]. Current Science, 2005, 89(9): 1510-1517.
[75]邱均平.信息计量学[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社, 2007.
[76]Van Raan A. F. J..Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988.
[77]Eliezer Geisler.The metrics of science and technology[M].New York:Quorum Books, 2002.
[78]Hicks D, Kroll P, Narin F, et al. Quantitative methods of research evaluation used by the U.S. federal government[R]. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, No.86, 2002.
[79]David A. King. The scientific impact of nations[J]. Nature, 2004, 430:311-316.
[80]Martin, B.R. British science in the 1980s-has the relative decline continued?[J], Scientometrics, 1994, 29(1): 27-56.
[81]Luwel M., E.C.M. Noyons, H.F. Moed. Bibliometric assessment of research performance in Flanders: policy background and implications[J]. R & D Management, 1999, 29 (2): 133-141.
[82]Price D. J. Networks of scientific papers[J]. Science, 1965, 149(30):510-514.
[83]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-occurrence[OL].
[84]Evers A. A review of new developments in text retrieval systems[J]. Journal of Information Scienc, 1994, 20(6): 438-445.
[85]James L., R. James. Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into the measurement of meaning[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 74(3): 739-751.
[86]Reinhard Rapp.The computation of word associations: comparing syntagmatic and paradigmatic approaches[A]. 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics[C], Taibei, 2002.
[87]He Q. Konwledge discovery through co-word analysis[J]. Library Trends, 1999, 48 (1): 133-159.
[88]Small H. Paradigms, citations and maps of science: a personal history[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 54(5): 394-349.
[89]White H.D.. Cocited author retrieval online: an experiment with the social indicators literature[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1981, 32:16-22.
[90]White H.D., McCain K.W. Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of informationscience 1972-1995[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1998, 49 (4 ): 327-335.
[91]Loet Leydesdorff. Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals: an online mapping exercise[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, (1):5-38.
[92]Loet Leydesdorff. Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in the journal citation reports[J]. Journal of Documentation, 2004, 60(4): 317-427.
[93]Katy B?rner, Chaomei Chen, Kevin W. Boyack.Visualizing knowledge domains[J]. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 2003, 37:179-255.
[94]Ketan K. Mane, Katy Borner. Mapping knowledge domains[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2004, 101: 5183-5185.
[95]Ketan K. Mane, Katy Borner. Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2004, 101: 5287-5290.
[96]Noyons E.C.M. Bibliometric mapping as a science policy and research management tool[M]. Leiden: DSWO Press, 1999.
[97]Stegmann J, Grohmann G. Hypothesis generation by co-word clustering[J]. Scientometrics, 2003, 56 (1) : 111-135.
[98]Wasserman S., Faust K.. Social network analysis: methods and applications[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[99]Scott J. Social networks analysis[M]. London: Sage Publications, 2000.
[100]Freeman, L. C. The development of social network analysis[M]. Empirical Press, 2004.
[101]Extejt, Marian M., Jonafllan E.Smith. The behavioral sciences and management: an evaluation of relevant jourals[J]. Journal of Management, 1990, 16(3): 539-551.
[102]Gomez-Mejia,Ialis R., David B.Balkin. Deterrninants of faculty pay: an agency theory perspective[J].Academy of Management Journal, 1992, 35(5):921-955.
[103]Leo Egghe, Ronald Rousseau. A proposal to define a core of a scientific subject: a definition using concentration and fuzzy sets[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 54(1): 51-62 .
[104]陈晓田,金碧辉,杨列勋等.我国管理科学重要期刊的遴选及其认定[J].管理科学学报, 1999, 2(4): 70-76.
[105]Bredrup,H..Performance measurement. performance management. a rolstadas[M]. London: Chapman and Hall, 1995: 169-198.
[106]Ainsworth M.,Smith N.. Making it happen: managing performance at work[M]. Sydney: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[107]熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1990: 73-75.
[108]Matzler K.,Renzl B. Patterns in management research: an analysis of US American, European and German approaches[J]. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2005, (1): 118-127.
[109]Cowan, Roberta A. An abbreviated annotated bibliography: H. Igor Ansoff, in Wood, John C.,Wood, Michael C. (ed), H. Igor Ansoff: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management History[M], Routledge, Abingdon, Oxford, 2007:6-26.
[110]Ma Hao.Competitive advantage and firm performance[J]. Competitiveness Review, 2000, 10(2):15-32.
[111]OECD. The knowledge-based economy[R].1996.
[112]Davenport Thomas H.,Lawrence Prusak. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know[M]. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
[113]J.Law, J.Whittaker. Mapping acidification research: a test of the co-word method[J]. Scientometrics, 1992, 23(3): 417-461.
[114]Jin Zhang, Edie M. Rasmussenb. Developing a new similarity measure from two different perspectives[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2001, 37(2):279-294.
[115]Callon M,Courtial J P,Laville F. Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry[J]. Scientometrics,1991, 22(1) :155-205.
[116]Thomas S.Kuhn.The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
[117]McCain K. W. Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1990, 41 (6) : 433-443.
[118]D. Crane. Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
[119]Leo Egghe, Ronald Rousseau. Aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, and utilization: definitions and relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science[J]. 2000, 51(11):1004-1017.
[120]Wesley M. Cohen , Daniel A. Levinthal. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1):128-152.
[121]Bruce Kogut, Udo Zander. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology[J]. Organization Science, 1992, 3(3): 383-397.
[122]C. E. Armstrong, K. Shimizu. A review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm[J]. Journal of Management, 2007, 33(6): 959-986.
[123]Ranjay Gulati. Alliance and networks[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(4): 293-317.
[124]Jay Barney. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage[J]. Journal of Management, 1991, 17(1):99-120
[125]Prahalad, C.K., Gary Hamel. The core competence of the corporation [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1990, 68(3):79-91.
[126]Eisenhardt, K., J. Martin. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21:1105-1121.
[127]亨利·明茨伯格.战略历程:纵览战略管理学派[M].刘瑞红译,北京:机械工业出版社, 2001.
[128]Walter W. Powell. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis[M]. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1991.
[129]Karl E. Weick. Sensemaking in organizations[M]. CA: Sage Publications, 1995.
[130]Dororthy Leonard-Barton. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13:111-125.
[131]Michael L. Tushman, Philip Anderson. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986, 31(3):439-465.
[132]Richard R. Nelson. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis[M]. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1993.
[133]Herbert A. Simon. Administrative behavior[M]. NewYork: Free Press ,4th, 1997.
[134]Eric von Hippel. The sources of innovation[M]. NewYork:Oxford University Press, 1994.
[135]Ikujiro Nonaka. The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation[M]. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[136]S. Crainer. The management century: a critical review of 20th century thought and practice[M]. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2000.
[137]苏新宁.中国人文社会科学学术影响力报告(2000-2004) [M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2007.
[138]Anne S. Tsui. Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality indigenous research[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2004, 21(4): 491-513.
[139]谭劲松.关于中国管理学科定位的讨论[J].管理世界, 2006, (2): 71-79.
[140]许德音,周长辉.中国战略管理学研究现状评估[J].管理世界, 2004, (5): 76-87.
[141]James Moody, Douglas R. White. Social cohesion and embeddedness: a hierarchical conception of social groups[J]. American Sociological Review, 2003, 68(1):1-25.
[142]Borgatti S.P., Everett M.G., Freeman L.C.. Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis[M]. Harvard: Analytic Technologies,2002.
[143]刘军.社会网络分析导论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社, 2004: 267-285.
[144]Borgman C.L., Furner J.. Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2002, 36: 3-72.
[145]Hanneman, Robert A., Mark Riddle. Introduction to social network methods[M]. Riverside, CA: University of California, 2005.
[146]潘云涛,马峥. 2004年度中国科技论文统计与分析[M].北京:科学技术文献出版社, 2005.
[147]Rik Pieters, Hans Baumgartner. Who talks to whom? intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2002, Vol.XL: 483-509.
[148]Marianne W. Lewis, Andrew J. Grimes. Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple paradigms[J].The Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(4):672-690.
[149]教育部发展规划司.中国教育统计年鉴[M].北京:人民教育出版社, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
[150]H. Zuckerman. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States[M]. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publisher, 1996.
[151]James D. Adamsa, Grant C. Blackb, J. Roger Clemmonsc. Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981–1999[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(3):259-285
[152]John D. Lee, Andrea Cassano-Pinché, Kim J. Vicente. Bibliometric analysis of human factors (1970–2000): a quantitative description of scientific impact[J]. Human Factors, 2005, 47(4):753–766.
[153]国家自然科学基金委员会.国家自然科学基金资助项目统计资料[Z].北京,1999, 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004.
[154]中国科学技术信息研究所.中国科技论文统计与分析(年度研究报告)[R].北京,1999, 2000,2001,2002,2003, 2004.
[155]南京大学中国社会科学研究评价中心.中国社会科学研究计量指标[M].南京:南京大学出版社, 2003, 2004, 2005.
[156]梁立明,梁立华,李国亭等.基金项目与项目支持环境的匹配合理性[J].科研管理, 1997, 18(1):10-20.
[157]教育部社政司.全国高校社科统计资料汇编[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2002, 2006.
[158]岳洪江.基金项目承担者与科研主体的结构比较[J].科学学研究, 2003, 21 (5):528-532.
[159]宋新民.我国人才管理的不足及对策[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 1993, 14(12):47-48.
[160]Loet Leydesdorff. Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1997, 48: 418-427.
[2]Koontz Harold. The management theory jungle revisited[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1980, 5(2): 175-187.
[3]许康,劳汉生.中国管理科学历程[M].石家庄:河北科学技术出版社, 2000.
[4]李若筠,杨列勋.管理科学基金项目论文产出的定量分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2006(4):18~23.
[5]中国大百科全书编辑委员会.中国大百科全书[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社, 1991.
[6]国家自然科学基金委员会.管理科学[M].北京:科学出版社, 1995.
[7]成思危.中国管理科学的学科结构与发展重点选择[J].管理科学学报, 2000, 3(1): 1-6.
[8]芮明杰.管理学—现代的观点[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 2005.
[9] Wren D.A. The evolution of management thought[M]. New York: Wiley, 1993.
[10]乌家培.论管理科学的发展[J].南开管理评论, 2000, (6 ): 6-8.
[11]郭咸纲.西方管理思想史[M].北京:经济管理出版社, 2004: 5.
[12]魏文斌.现代西方管理学理论[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 2004: 4-5.
[13]霍幅广.论西方管理理论的发展趋势[J].华南理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2000, 2(2):91-96.
[14]管理科学学科发展战略研究组.自然科学学科发展战略调研报告—管理科学[M].北京:科学出版社, 1995.
[15]陈晓田.国家自然科学基金资助管理科学15年回顾与展望[J].中国科学基金, 2001, (6): 332-336.
[16]王续琨.管理科学学科结构及其发展态势[J].学术交流, 2002, (1): 17-22.
[17]Irene Wormell. Bibliometric analysis of the welfare topic[J]. scientometrics, 2000, 48(2): 203-236.
[18]Bernhard Dachs, Thomas Roediger-Schluga, Clemens Widhalm, et al. Mapping evolutionary economics: a bibliometric analysis[C]. European Meeting on Applied Evolutionary Economics, Vienna, Austria, 2001.
[19]Lee Yoo Taek, Lee Woo Young. The analysis of intellectual structure in supply chain management by using co-word analysis method[C]. The 8th International Conference of the Decision Sciences Institute, Barcelona, Spain, 2005.
[20]Tor J. Larsen, Linda Levine. Searching for management information systems: coherence and change in the discipline[J]. Information Systems Journal, 2005, 15: 357-381.
[21]Culnan MJ. Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980–1985: a co-citation analysis[J].Management of Information System Quarterly, 1987, 11(3): 341–353.
[22]Sean B.Eom. Decision support systems research: current state and trends[J]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 1999, 99(5): 213-220.
[23]F. J.A. Gonzalez, C.B.Castro, J. C. C. Bueno, et al. Dominant approaches in the field of management[J]. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2001, 9(4): 327-353.
[24]M. J.Culnan, C.A.O‘Reilly, J. A. Chatman. Intellectual structure of research in organizational behavior, 1972-1984: co-citation analysis[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1990, 41: 453-458.
[25]Antonio-rafael Ramos-rodr’iguez, Jos’e Ru’iz-navarro. Changes in the Intellectual Structure of Strategic Management Research: A Biblometrics Study of the Strategic Management Journal,1980–2000[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2004, 25: 981-1004.
[26]A. Pilkington, C. Liston-He yes. Is production and operations management a discipline? a citation, cocitation study[J]. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 1999, 19: 7-20.
[27]Hoffman D.L., Holbrook M.B.. The intellectual structure of consumer research: a bibliometric study of author co-citations in the first 15 years of the Journal of Consumer Research[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1993, 19: 505–517.
[28]U¨sdiken B, Pasadeos Y..Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: a comparison of co-citation networks[J]. Organization Studies, 1995, 16: 503–515.
[29]Pasadeos Y, Phelps J, Kim B. Disciplinary impact of advertising scholars: temporal comparisons of influential authors, works and research networks[J]. Journal of Advertising, 1998, 27: 53–70.
[30]Ponzi L.J..The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of knowledge management: a bibliometrics study of its early stage of development[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 55: 259–272.
[31]Francisco Jos′e Acedo, Carmen Barroso, Jose Luis Galan.The resource-based theory: dissemination and main trends[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 27: 621-636.
[32]Sean B. Eom. The Contributions of systems science to the development of the decision support system subspecialties: an empirical investigation[J]. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2000, 17:117-134.
[33]Sean B. Eom, Roy S. Farris. The contributions of organizational science to the development of decision support systems research subspecialties[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1996, 47(12): 941-952.
[34]Charvet F. Francois, Martha C. Cooper, John T. Gardner.The intellectual structure of supply chain management: a bibliometric approach[J]. Journal of Business Logistics, Forthcoming.
[35]Henri A. Schildt, Antti Sillanpaa. The field of entrepreneurship: a bibliometric assessment[R]. Working Paper No. 2004,Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, 2004: 2-29.
[36]陈悦.管理学学科演进的科学计量研究[D].博士论文,大连:大连理工大学, 2006.
[37]教育部社政司科研处.人文社会科学研究现状与发展趋势[M].湖南大学出版社, 2001.
[38]佘丛国,席酉民.国内外管理科学与工程研究热点的比较分析[J].科学学研究, 2002, 20(4): 406-410.
[39]孙晓燕,席酉民.工商管理研究热点与发展趋势的国内外比较[J].科学学研究, 2002, 20(6): 646-648.
[40]佘丛国,郭菊娥,席酉民.国内外宏观管理与政策研究热点的比较分析[J].科学学研究, 2002, 20(5): 506-509.
[41]张玲玲,房勇,杨涛等.管理科学与工程热点研究领域的文献计量分析[J].管理学报, 2005, 2(4):379-385.
[42]张维,李帅,熊熊等.基于文献计量方法的“十一五”期间工商管理学科国内外研究热点比较与分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2006,(3): 5-10.
[43]汪寿阳,杨晓光,刘作仪等.学科战略规划的方法与实践—管理科学与工程“十一五”战略规划研究[M].北京:科学出版社, 2007.
[44]任智军,朱东华,荆雷.基于可视化数据挖掘的管理科学科技文本分析研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2006, (1): 8-12.
[45]Paula E. Steephan, Sharon G. Levin. Age and the Nobel prize revisited[J]. Scientometrics, 1993, 28( 3): 387-399.
[46]H. Zuckerman, R. Merton. Age, aging, and age structure in science[C]. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations[A]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973: 497-575.
[47]Benjamin F. Jones. Age and great invention[J]. NBER Working Paper, 2005.
[48]赵红州.科学史数理分析[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社, 2001.
[49]Liang Liming, Zhao Hongzhou, Wang Yuan, et al. Distribution of major scientific and technological achievements in terms of age group-weibull distribution [J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(1) : 3-18.
[50]Hendrik P. van Dalen. The golden age of nobel economists[J]. American Economists, 1999, 43(2): 19-35.
[51]Jesús Rey-Rocha, María JoséMartín-Sempere, Belén Garzón. Research productivity of scientists in consolidated vs. non-consolidated teams: The case of Spanish university geologists[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 55(1):137-156.
[52]Frank M. Andrews. Scientific productivity: the effectiveness of research groups in six countries[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[53]岳洪江,张琳,梁立明.基金项目负责人与科技人才年龄结构的比较研究[J].科研管理, 2002, 23(6):100~106.
[54]Svein Kyvik. Age and scientific productivity, differences between fields of learning[J]. Higher Education, 1990, 19(3):37-55.
[55]郭永正,梁立明,岳洪江等.我国计算机科学研究队伍低龄化表现的数量特征[J].研究与发展管理, 2001, 13(2):47-51.
[56]Liang Liming, Zhao Hongzhou, Wang Yuan, et al. Distribution of major scientific and technological achievements in terms of age group-weibull distribution [J]. Scientometrics, 1996, (1) : 3-18.
[57]Price S. D. Multiple authorship. Science[J]. 1981, 212: 986.
[58]J. Sylvan Katz, Ben R. Martin. What is research collaboration?[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(1):1-18.
[59]Laudel G. What do we measure by co-authorships?[J]. Research Evaluation, 2002, 11(1): 3-15.
[60]Grit Laudel. Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate[J]. International Journal of Technology Management, 2001, 22(7-8): 762-781.
[61]Widhalm C., Toplnik M., Kopcsa A., et al. Evaluating patterns of co-operation: application of a bibliometric visualization tool to the fourth framework programme and the transport research programme[J]. Research Evaluation, 2001, 10(2):129-140.
[62]Liming Liang, Hildrun Kretschmer, Yongzheng Guo, et al. Age structures of scientific collaboration in Chinese computer science [J].Scientometrics, 2001, 52, (3): 471-486.
[63]Freeek A. Lootsma, Pieter W.G. Bots. The assignment of scores for output-based research funding[J]. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1999, 8: 44–50.
[64]Linda Butler. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts[J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32:143–155.
[65]Kirby I. Bland. Concerning trends and outcomes for national institutes of health funding of cancer research[J]. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2007, 95: 161–166.
[66]Cunningham P. The evaluation of European programmes and the future of scientometrics[J]. Scientometrics, 1997, 38(1): 71-85.
[67]毕鹏程,王琦,席酉民.我国管理科学研究资助体系的统计分析[J].研究与发展管理, 2003, 15(5): 81-87.
[68]郭菊娥,席酉民.我国管理科学研究的回顾与发展展望[J].管理工程学报, 2004, 18(3):51-54.
[69]Gl?nzel W., Sch?pflin U.. Little scientometrics, big scientometrics and beyond[J]. Scientometrics,1994, 30(2–3): 375–384.
[70]Moed, Henk F., Gl?nzel, et al. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems[M]. Hardcover: Springer, 2004.
[71]庞景安.科学计量研究方法论[M].北京:科学计量文献出版社, 1999.
[72]梁立明,武夷山.科学计量学:理论探索与案例研究[M].北京:科学出版社, 2006.
[73]Henk F. Moed.Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation[M]. Hardcover: Springer, 2005.
[74]Loet Leydesdorff. Evaluation of research and evolution of science indicators[J]. Current Science, 2005, 89(9): 1510-1517.
[75]邱均平.信息计量学[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社, 2007.
[76]Van Raan A. F. J..Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988.
[77]Eliezer Geisler.The metrics of science and technology[M].New York:Quorum Books, 2002.
[78]Hicks D, Kroll P, Narin F, et al. Quantitative methods of research evaluation used by the U.S. federal government[R]. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, No.86, 2002.
[79]David A. King. The scientific impact of nations[J]. Nature, 2004, 430:311-316.
[80]Martin, B.R. British science in the 1980s-has the relative decline continued?[J], Scientometrics, 1994, 29(1): 27-56.
[81]Luwel M., E.C.M. Noyons, H.F. Moed. Bibliometric assessment of research performance in Flanders: policy background and implications[J]. R & D Management, 1999, 29 (2): 133-141.
[82]Price D. J. Networks of scientific papers[J]. Science, 1965, 149(30):510-514.
[83]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-occurrence[OL].
[84]Evers A. A review of new developments in text retrieval systems[J]. Journal of Information Scienc, 1994, 20(6): 438-445.
[85]James L., R. James. Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into the measurement of meaning[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 74(3): 739-751.
[86]Reinhard Rapp.The computation of word associations: comparing syntagmatic and paradigmatic approaches[A]. 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics[C], Taibei, 2002.
[87]He Q. Konwledge discovery through co-word analysis[J]. Library Trends, 1999, 48 (1): 133-159.
[88]Small H. Paradigms, citations and maps of science: a personal history[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 54(5): 394-349.
[89]White H.D.. Cocited author retrieval online: an experiment with the social indicators literature[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1981, 32:16-22.
[90]White H.D., McCain K.W. Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of informationscience 1972-1995[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1998, 49 (4 ): 327-335.
[91]Loet Leydesdorff. Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals: an online mapping exercise[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, (1):5-38.
[92]Loet Leydesdorff. Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in the journal citation reports[J]. Journal of Documentation, 2004, 60(4): 317-427.
[93]Katy B?rner, Chaomei Chen, Kevin W. Boyack.Visualizing knowledge domains[J]. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 2003, 37:179-255.
[94]Ketan K. Mane, Katy Borner. Mapping knowledge domains[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2004, 101: 5183-5185.
[95]Ketan K. Mane, Katy Borner. Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2004, 101: 5287-5290.
[96]Noyons E.C.M. Bibliometric mapping as a science policy and research management tool[M]. Leiden: DSWO Press, 1999.
[97]Stegmann J, Grohmann G. Hypothesis generation by co-word clustering[J]. Scientometrics, 2003, 56 (1) : 111-135.
[98]Wasserman S., Faust K.. Social network analysis: methods and applications[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[99]Scott J. Social networks analysis[M]. London: Sage Publications, 2000.
[100]Freeman, L. C. The development of social network analysis[M]. Empirical Press, 2004.
[101]Extejt, Marian M., Jonafllan E.Smith. The behavioral sciences and management: an evaluation of relevant jourals[J]. Journal of Management, 1990, 16(3): 539-551.
[102]Gomez-Mejia,Ialis R., David B.Balkin. Deterrninants of faculty pay: an agency theory perspective[J].Academy of Management Journal, 1992, 35(5):921-955.
[103]Leo Egghe, Ronald Rousseau. A proposal to define a core of a scientific subject: a definition using concentration and fuzzy sets[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 54(1): 51-62 .
[104]陈晓田,金碧辉,杨列勋等.我国管理科学重要期刊的遴选及其认定[J].管理科学学报, 1999, 2(4): 70-76.
[105]Bredrup,H..Performance measurement. performance management. a rolstadas[M]. London: Chapman and Hall, 1995: 169-198.
[106]Ainsworth M.,Smith N.. Making it happen: managing performance at work[M]. Sydney: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[107]熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1990: 73-75.
[108]Matzler K.,Renzl B. Patterns in management research: an analysis of US American, European and German approaches[J]. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2005, (1): 118-127.
[109]Cowan, Roberta A. An abbreviated annotated bibliography: H. Igor Ansoff, in Wood, John C.,Wood, Michael C. (ed), H. Igor Ansoff: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management History[M], Routledge, Abingdon, Oxford, 2007:6-26.
[110]Ma Hao.Competitive advantage and firm performance[J]. Competitiveness Review, 2000, 10(2):15-32.
[111]OECD. The knowledge-based economy[R].1996.
[112]Davenport Thomas H.,Lawrence Prusak. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know[M]. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
[113]J.Law, J.Whittaker. Mapping acidification research: a test of the co-word method[J]. Scientometrics, 1992, 23(3): 417-461.
[114]Jin Zhang, Edie M. Rasmussenb. Developing a new similarity measure from two different perspectives[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2001, 37(2):279-294.
[115]Callon M,Courtial J P,Laville F. Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry[J]. Scientometrics,1991, 22(1) :155-205.
[116]Thomas S.Kuhn.The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
[117]McCain K. W. Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1990, 41 (6) : 433-443.
[118]D. Crane. Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
[119]Leo Egghe, Ronald Rousseau. Aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, and utilization: definitions and relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science[J]. 2000, 51(11):1004-1017.
[120]Wesley M. Cohen , Daniel A. Levinthal. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1):128-152.
[121]Bruce Kogut, Udo Zander. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology[J]. Organization Science, 1992, 3(3): 383-397.
[122]C. E. Armstrong, K. Shimizu. A review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm[J]. Journal of Management, 2007, 33(6): 959-986.
[123]Ranjay Gulati. Alliance and networks[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(4): 293-317.
[124]Jay Barney. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage[J]. Journal of Management, 1991, 17(1):99-120
[125]Prahalad, C.K., Gary Hamel. The core competence of the corporation [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1990, 68(3):79-91.
[126]Eisenhardt, K., J. Martin. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21:1105-1121.
[127]亨利·明茨伯格.战略历程:纵览战略管理学派[M].刘瑞红译,北京:机械工业出版社, 2001.
[128]Walter W. Powell. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis[M]. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1991.
[129]Karl E. Weick. Sensemaking in organizations[M]. CA: Sage Publications, 1995.
[130]Dororthy Leonard-Barton. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13:111-125.
[131]Michael L. Tushman, Philip Anderson. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986, 31(3):439-465.
[132]Richard R. Nelson. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis[M]. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1993.
[133]Herbert A. Simon. Administrative behavior[M]. NewYork: Free Press ,4th, 1997.
[134]Eric von Hippel. The sources of innovation[M]. NewYork:Oxford University Press, 1994.
[135]Ikujiro Nonaka. The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation[M]. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[136]S. Crainer. The management century: a critical review of 20th century thought and practice[M]. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2000.
[137]苏新宁.中国人文社会科学学术影响力报告(2000-2004) [M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2007.
[138]Anne S. Tsui. Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality indigenous research[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2004, 21(4): 491-513.
[139]谭劲松.关于中国管理学科定位的讨论[J].管理世界, 2006, (2): 71-79.
[140]许德音,周长辉.中国战略管理学研究现状评估[J].管理世界, 2004, (5): 76-87.
[141]James Moody, Douglas R. White. Social cohesion and embeddedness: a hierarchical conception of social groups[J]. American Sociological Review, 2003, 68(1):1-25.
[142]Borgatti S.P., Everett M.G., Freeman L.C.. Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis[M]. Harvard: Analytic Technologies,2002.
[143]刘军.社会网络分析导论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社, 2004: 267-285.
[144]Borgman C.L., Furner J.. Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2002, 36: 3-72.
[145]Hanneman, Robert A., Mark Riddle. Introduction to social network methods[M]. Riverside, CA: University of California, 2005.
[146]潘云涛,马峥. 2004年度中国科技论文统计与分析[M].北京:科学技术文献出版社, 2005.
[147]Rik Pieters, Hans Baumgartner. Who talks to whom? intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2002, Vol.XL: 483-509.
[148]Marianne W. Lewis, Andrew J. Grimes. Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple paradigms[J].The Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(4):672-690.
[149]教育部发展规划司.中国教育统计年鉴[M].北京:人民教育出版社, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
[150]H. Zuckerman. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States[M]. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publisher, 1996.
[151]James D. Adamsa, Grant C. Blackb, J. Roger Clemmonsc. Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981–1999[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(3):259-285
[152]John D. Lee, Andrea Cassano-Pinché, Kim J. Vicente. Bibliometric analysis of human factors (1970–2000): a quantitative description of scientific impact[J]. Human Factors, 2005, 47(4):753–766.
[153]国家自然科学基金委员会.国家自然科学基金资助项目统计资料[Z].北京,1999, 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004.
[154]中国科学技术信息研究所.中国科技论文统计与分析(年度研究报告)[R].北京,1999, 2000,2001,2002,2003, 2004.
[155]南京大学中国社会科学研究评价中心.中国社会科学研究计量指标[M].南京:南京大学出版社, 2003, 2004, 2005.
[156]梁立明,梁立华,李国亭等.基金项目与项目支持环境的匹配合理性[J].科研管理, 1997, 18(1):10-20.
[157]教育部社政司.全国高校社科统计资料汇编[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2002, 2006.
[158]岳洪江.基金项目承担者与科研主体的结构比较[J].科学学研究, 2003, 21 (5):528-532.
[159]宋新民.我国人才管理的不足及对策[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 1993, 14(12):47-48.
[160]Loet Leydesdorff. Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1997, 48: 418-427.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |