The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research

The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research

1.  Olivier Furrer¹,

2.  Howard Thomas²,

3.  Anna Goussevskaia²

Article first published online: 25 SEP 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00217.x

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

Issue

International Journal of Management Reviews

Volume 10, Issue 1, pages 1–23, March 2008

Abstract

1.Top of page

2.Abstract

3.Introduction

4.Development of Strategic Management: An Overview

5.Method

6.Analyses and Results

7.Discussion and Conclusions

8.Acknowledgements

9.References

This paper analyses 26 years of strategic management research published in Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly and Strategic Management Journal. Through a content analysis, it studies the relationships between the subfields of strategic management. A multiple correspondence analysis provides a map of keywords and authors, and a framework to track this literature over the 26-year period. A discussion of future pathways in the strategic management literature is also provided.

Introduction

1.Top of page

2.Abstract

3.Introduction

4.Development of Strategic Management: An Overview

5.Method

6.Analyses and Results

7.Discussion and Conclusions

8.Acknowledgements

9.References

The purpose of this paper is to study the evolution of the strategic management literature based on an analysis of the content of the past 26 years of strategic management research published in the leading journals in the field, namely, the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Academy of Management Review (AMR), Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) and the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ). The paper serves not only to assess the structure and past evolution of the content of the strategic management field and its different subfields, but also presents some conjectures about further developments in this literature. By helping strategic management scholars to understand better the direction in which the field is going and where the gaps are, the paper is intended to provide a guideline for scholars in positioning their future research efforts.

We therefore focus on two questions. First, what is the content and the evolution of strategic management research? Second, who has published most in the literature of strategic management and what was their contribution to the evolution of the field? The first question involves a classification of articles to evaluate disciplinary evolution and to determine the ex post facto priorities of authors, editors and reviewers. To address the first question, we examined the content of the different subfields of the strategic management research field and their evolution over time. The second question involves the identification of the most prolific authors in the field and the evaluation of the impact of their articles. To address the second question, we counted the number of articles published per author and the number of citations these articles received. We then related the most influential papers to the different subfields of strategic management.

Our paper departs from recent studies of the structure and evolution of the strategic management field, such as Bowman et al. (2002), Herrman (2005), Hoskisson et al. (1999), Phelan et al. (2002) and Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro (2004), on three important aspects: data, analysis and coverage. Unlike, the studies by Bowman et al. (2002), Herrman (2005) and Hoskisson et al. (1999), our analysis of the structure and evolution of the strategic management field is based on quantitative data rather than qualitative interpretation, which may reflect the subjective views of their authors. Both types of studies are valuable and complementary, and therefore our results may be used to validate or invalidate previous interpretations. Unlike, the study by Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro (2004), we did not used bibliometric techniques based on citations to analyse the structure and evolution of the strategic management fields because, as these authors notice, it is impossible to distinguish the motives underlying the chosen citations. For example, a citation could be made either to enhance a theoretical framework or to criticize a document or approach. Instead, we developed a typology of keywords, which we used to classify articles. Finally, unlike the studies by Phelan et al. (2002) and Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro (2004), we did not focus on articles published in a single journal, but extended the scope of our study to the four leading journals in the strategic management field.

The choice of AMJ, AMR, ASQ and SMJ, as the leading representatives of the strategic management literature is straightforward. Over the 26-year period of study, these journals have attained positions as the top strategic management journals as well as the top business journals. Evidence of this comes from many sources, such as the studies published by Ian Macmillan (Macmillan 1989, 1991; Macmillan and Stern 1987) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). Macmillan (1991) reports the results of a survey that was conducted among business policy scholars in order to rate key management journals with respect to their appropriateness as outlets for academic research in the business policy field. This study was performed in 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1990. Indeed, since 1986, it shows that these four journals are consistently positioned at the top of the list of strategic management research journals. Evidence is also available from the SSCI, now incorporated into the Web of Science Internet library source. The SSCI measures the influence of business publications based