Meta-Review of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Literature: Citation Impact and Research Productivity Rankings
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Knowledge and Process Management Volume 11 Number 3 pp 185–198 (2004) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/kpm.203 & Research Article Meta-Review of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Literature: Citation Impact and Research Productivity Rankings Alexander Serenko and Nick Bontis* DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Canada The objective of this study is to conduct a meta-review analysis of the knowledge management and intellectual capital literatures by investigating research productivity and conducting a cita- tion analysis of individuals, institutions, and countries. The meta-analysis focuses on the three leading peer-reviewed, refereed journals in this area: Journal of Intellectual Capital, Journal of Knowledge Management, and Knowledge and Process Management. Results indicate that research productivity is exploding and that there are several leading authors and foundation publica- tions that are referenced regularly. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INTRODUCTION term appeared, as Feiwal himself mentions that it was John Kenneth Galbraith who first introduced The business world’s accelerated entry into the the term intellectual capital as early as 1969 (Bontis, knowledge era has spawned several new terms 1998). In a letter to economist Michael Kalecki, John that did not exist a few decades ago. The concept Kenneth Galbraith wrote, ‘I wonder if you realize of ‘knowledge management’ and the closely related how much those of us in the world around have concept of ‘intellectual capital’ have recently gar- owed to the intellectual capital you have provided nered strong representation in the management over these past decades’. lexicon of academia, business and government. A It was Tom Stewart who significantly popular- Google search conducted on these terms yields ized the concept in his June 1991 Fortune article thousands of websites (knowledge management ¼ ‘Brain Power: How Intellectual Capital Is Becoming 3 400 000, intellectual capital ¼ 368 000), which America’s Most Valuable Asset’. This high-profile attests to the large on-line appeal of these concepts. publication set the concept of intangible assets According to the ABI Inform Index, the first firmly on to the management agenda for many instances of the term knowledge management years to come. Over the past decade, the number appeared in 1975 (Goerl, 1975; Henry, 1975; of articles on knowledge management and intellec- McCaffery, 1975). Also in 1975, Feiwal (1975) wrote tual capital (KM/IC) has been increasing at the a book called The Intellectual Capital of Michael average annual rate of 50% per annum. Given Kalecki. This, however, was not the first time the this trend, the total number is predicted to exceed 100 000 publications by the year 2010. Accompany- ing this growth is an equally impressive growth in *Correspondence to: Nick Bontis, Associate Professor of Strat- the number of PhD dissertations which have been egy, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, MGD #207, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4M4, recently completed. Of the world’s top 10 selling Canada. E-mail: [email protected] PhD theses, the topic of KM/IC is represented Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management Figure 1 Published KM/IC articles as per ABI inform index well. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the growth objective measures such as counting the number of of this body of literature from 1993 to 2002 as deter- school’s publications in a selected set of journals mined by the ABI Inform Index. (Cox and Catt, 1977), estimating textbook citations The popularity of KM/IC has increased dramati- (Gordon and Vicari, 1992; Howard and Day, 1995), cally over the last decade for both academics and or assessing the number of students’ conference practitioners. There are many high-quality books, papers (Payne et al., 2001). journals, and conferences devoted to KM/IC in Most meta-review and citation impact studies are addition to education programs and corporate targeted to a very specific area of interest. For ex- initiatives. Historically, both researchers and prac- ample, Gibby et al. (2002) and Surrette and College titioners expressed their individual judgments on (2002) investigate the ranking of industrial- the foundations and future directions of the disci- organizational psychology doctoral programs in pline. However, these viewpoints have often been North America. Cheng et al. (1999) perform a cita- based on personal impressions. In order to comple- tion analysis to establish a hierarchical ranking of ment the favorable (subjective) judgments about the technology innovation management journals. the state of the field, we decided to conduct a Bapna and Marsden (2002) and Erkut (2002) exam- meta-review analysis which would present the first ine research productivity and impact of business comprehensive investigation of this body of litera- schools faculty members. Similar projects have ture. We specifically chose to examine research pro- been conducted in various areas such as operations ductivity and citation analysis by performing a research (Vokurka, 1996), management information meta-review of all of the publications in the three systems (Grover et al., 1992; Im et al., 1998), compu- leading peer-reviewed, refereed journals in the ter science (Goodrum et al., 2001), artificial intelli- KM/IC area. These three journals are: (1) Journal gence (Cheng et al., 1996), and jurisprudence of Intellectual Capital (JIC), (2) Journal of Knowledge (Wright and Cohn, 1996). There also exist two jour- Management (JKM), and (3) Knowledge and Process nals—Cybermetrics: International Journal of Sciento- Management (KPM). metrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, and Science Watch—devoted to the study of the quantitative analysis of scholarly and scientific communications, LITERATURE REVIEW citation impacts, and productivities of individual researchers. Virtually every well-established The study of research productivity and citation research field can now boast the growing body of impact has a long-standing tradition in academia. productivity and citation-impact research. Because As indicated by a substantial volume of prior it is very important to address all of these issues research, previous investigations have taken a vari- in the early stage of discipline development, we ety of forms, each of which has served different embarked on this project to investigate research purposes. The earliest productivity rankings productivity and impact of KM/IC scholars. As include the use and quantification of subjective such, this study empirically investigates the reputation ratings gathered from respectful and two following issues: (1) research productivity appropriate scholars within a research field and (2) research impact. The main questions are (Cartter, 1966). Contemporary studies utilize more as follows. 186 A. Serenko and N. Bontis Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE Research productivity Variables utilized (a) What is the individual productivity ranking of Among the various challenges in meta-review analy- KM/IC authors? sis, the most salient is the computation of per-author (b) What is the institutional productivity ranking? publication or citation credit in case of a multi-author (c) What is the country productivity ranking? paper (Lindsey, 1980). A review of previous research productivity studies reveals four basic approaches to Research impact assigning scores to a multi-author article or book: (1) straight count, (2) author position, (3) equal credit, (a) What are the most frequently cited KM/IC and (4) normalized page size. publications? The first approach, referred to as straight count, (b) Who are the most frequently cited KM/IC advocates that each of the co-authors should authors? receive a score of one regardless of the number of authors. However, the use of an absolute compari- son mechanism is error-prone since it favors a pub- METHODOLOGY lication ranking of a person who often co-authors papers, and it understates the rating of an in- In order to obtain empirical evidence to answer dividual who mostly works alone (Bapna and these research questions, we analyzed all articles Marsden, 2002). For example, a researcher who published in the three leading peer-reviewed, refer- was the third author in three independent publica- eed KM/IC journals: Journal of Intellectual Capital, tions would receive three credits, whereas someone Journal of Knowledge Management, and Knowledge who produced two sole-authored papers would and Process Management. Although there exist only obtain two scores. KM/IC articles published in other journals, our The second method argues that multi-author indi- efforts focused on these targeted publications for vidual productivity ratings should be based on the the following reasons. First, all these journals original position of authorship. A formula devel- have at least 4 years of publication history, and oped by Howard et al. (1987) is used to distribute they are widely recognized and read by the KM/ a credit in a multi-author paper. The formula favors IC community. Secondly, only KM/IC-related arti- dramatically the ratings of the first author and cles are published in these journals. Therefore, the diminishes the rankings of the other ones. For exam- results obtained by analyzing those publications ple, the authors of a two-author article would will pertain to KM/IC exclusively. There are also receive the scores of 0.6 and 0.4 respectively.