Iranian Journal of Information Management

Application of Word Co-Occurrence Analysis in Exploring the Shared Semantic Territory between Two Theoretical Views: A Study of Dynamic Capabilities and Ambidexterity

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Master of Business Administration, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Prof., Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Prof., Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Word co-occurrence analysis is one of the text-mining methods that has various applications in the information management area. One of these applications, which has been less noticeable, is exploring the shared semantic territory between different theoretical views. The importance of this application is due to the formation of recent scientific trends of various research areas based on different theories and concepts. Accordingly, the current study attempts to reveal the applicability of word co-occurrence analysis in exploring the shared semantic territory between two theoretical views. To this end, the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity views were chosen as the case of this study. Dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity have had a notable co-occurrence in recent strategic management studies to the extent that researchers considered them as two integrable views. Accordingly, this study aims at exploring the structure of shared semantic territory between dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity. To this end, all scientific documents related to both theories, indexed in the Web of Science or Scopus databases, and dated to 2018 were retrieved. Then, the authors analysed the corpus composed of titles, abstracts, and keywords of collected documents by using the word co-occurrence analysis. By doing so, they introduced 14 main conceptual categories in the shared territory of these two views: 1) dynamic capabilities and their components, 2) ambidexterity and its components, 3) performance, 4) innovation, 5) organizational capabilities and resources, 6) sustainable competitive advantage, 7) organizational knowledge and learning, 8) environmental and organizational change, 9) technology and information technology, 10) leadership, 11) entrepreneurship, 12) collaboration networks, 13) business model, and 14) operations and supply chain. Also, according to the word temporal analysis, research trends among the conceptual categories were revealed. Based on these trends, it is expected that further studies in the shared semantic territory between dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity will probably tend to subjects in the fields of business model, operations and supply chain, or entrepreneurship.

Keywords

تلافی داریانی، مجتبی. 1398. بررسی کاربرد متن‌کاوی در شناسایی جهت‌گیری‌های پژوهشی یک حوزه مطالعاتی (موردمطالعه: حوزه قابلیت‌های پویا). پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تهران: دانشکده مدیریت.
تلافی داریانی، مجتبی، سید محمدحسین شجاعی و سید امین طاهری. 1397. مطالعه تطبیقی مسائل و گزینه‌های راهبردی در صنعت هوافضا با استفاده از متن‌کاوی اسناد سیاستی. فصلنامه مدیریت نوآوری 7(1): 90 - 57.
حیدری، علی، و نادر سیدکلالی. 1395. ارائۀ مدل مزیت رقابتی شرکت‏های مشاورۀ مدیریت بر اساس نظریۀ قابلیت‏های پویا. فصلنامه مدیریت بازرگانی 8(2): 338 - 317.
خطیر، اشکان، آزاده محبی، و سهیل گنجه فر. 1397. ارائه راهکاری خودکار بر اساس متن‌کاوی برای شناخت و تحلیل روند تحقیقات حوزه‌های علمی. فصلنامه مدیریت اطلاعات 4(1): 120 - 91.
خلیلی جعفرآباد، احمد. 1396. بررسی تغییرات حوزه کیفیت داده با استفاده از تحلیل کلمات کلیدی. فصلنامه مدیریت اطلاعات 3(2): 138 - 121.
سلطانی زرندی، زهره، محمدباقر نگهبان، و فاطمه مکی‌زاده. 1395. تحلیل هم‌واژگانی مقالات فارسی حوزه کشاورزی کرمان در نمایه استنادی علوم ایران با رویکرد ترسیم نقشه علمی. فصلنامه مدیریت اطلاعات 2(3و4): 96 - 74.
Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Fernández-Rodríguez, V., and Ariza-Montes, A. 2018. Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis. European Research on Management and Business Economics 24(1): 42-52.
Batista Mota, F., Damasceno Pinto, C., Paranhos, J., and Hasenclever, L. 2017. Mapping the ‘dynamic capabilities’ scientific landscape, 1990-2015: A bibliometric analysis. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management 11(2): 309-324.
Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., and Raisch, S. 2016. How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review 58(4): 36-58.
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., and Laville, F. 1991. Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics 22(1): 155-205.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., and Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science 20(4): 781-796.
Cho, J. 2014. Intellectual structure of the institutional repository field: A co-word analysis. Journal of Information Science 40(3): 386-397.
Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., and Verona, G. 2010. Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain. Industrial and Corporate Change 19(4): 1187-1204.
Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., and Foo, S. 2001. Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing and Management 37(6): 817-842.
Dutta, S. K. 2012. Dynamic capabilities: Fostering ambidexterity. SCMS Journal of Indian Management 9(2): 81-91.
Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J. J., Raposo, M. L., Estevão, C., Peris-Ortiz, M., and Rueda-Armengot, C. 2017. The dynamic capabilities perspective of strategic management: A co-citation analysis. Scientometrics 112(1): 529-555.
García-Lillo, F., Úbeda-García, M., and Marco-Lajara, B. 2016. Organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the knowledge base. Scientometrics 107(3): 1021-1040.
García-Lillo, F., Úbeda-García, M., and Marco-Lajara, B. 2017. Organisational ambidexterity: A literature review using bibliometric methods. International Journal of Bibliometrics in Business and Management 1(1): 3-25.
Hajiheydari, N., Talafidaryani, M., Khabiri, S., and Salehi, M. 2019. Business model analytics: Technically review business model research domain. Foresight 21(6): 654-679.
Jurksiene, L., and Pundziene, A. 2016. The relationship between dynamic capabilities and firm competitive advantage: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. European Business Review 28(4): 431-448.
Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., and Filippini, R. 2012. The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization 10(4): 450-465.
O’Reilly III, C. A., and Tushman, M. L. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 185-206.
Popadić, M., and Milohnić, I. 2016. Structure of the organizational ambidexterity field: Qualitative literature review, article co-citation analysis, and science mapping. Informatologia 49(1-2): 47-60.
Raisch, S., and Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management 34(3): 375-409.
Snehvrat, S., Kumar, A., Kumar, R., and Dutta, S. K. 2018. The state of ambidexterity research: A data mining approach. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-06-2017-1182.
Teece, D. J. 2018. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning 51(1): 40-49.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509-533.
Van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. 2011. Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. ISSI Newsletter 7(3): 50-54.
Van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. 2014. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact, 285-320. Cham: Springer.
Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., and van den Berg, J. 2010. A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(12): 2405-2416.
Vogel, R., and Güttel, W. H. 2013. The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews 15(4): 426-446.
Wilhelm, H., Schlömer, M., and Maurer, I. 2015. How dynamic capabilities affect the effectiveness and efficiency of operating routines under high and low levels of environmental dynamism. British Journal of Management 26(2): 327-345.
Yan, B. N., Lee, T. S., and Lee, T. P. 2015. Mapping the intellectual structure of the Internet of Things (IoT) field (2000-2014): A co-word analysis. Scientometrics 105(2): 1285-1300.
Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., and Cardinal, L. B. 2018. Managing persistent tensions on the frontline: A configurational perspective on ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies 55(5): 739-769.
Iranian Journal of Information Management
Volume 5, Issue 2 - Serial Number 9
March 2020
Pages 197-219
  • Receive Date: 20 September 2019
  • Revise Date: 25 November 2019
  • Accept Date: 25 February 2020