Mapping the aliran of the academic discipline of entrepreneurship: A ...

quality as expressed by Azar and Brock [2007] mentioned above becomes more
complicated.
According to the rational, universalistic view of science, an article or other
publication should be accepted for publication and cited when it (1) offers original
contributions to science and (2) is designed and executed to high quality standards,
regardless of its author’s reputation or placement in the academic stratification
system (Cole & Cole, 1973; Merton, 1973). According to a universalistic
perspective, scientific progress and its corresponding citations should be open to all
and should not be reserved for a few “elite” individuals who secure jobs at visible,
prestigious institutions (Cole & Cole, 1972). From this perspe ctive, it is irrelevant
who wrote a paper—what matters is that the paper makes an original, high-quality
contribution to science. Merton’s concept of universalism is essential to effective,
meritocratic publication and dissemination of research findings. However, critics of
the publication and stratification system in science have counter-proposed a
particularistic, or social constructivist (Baldi, 1998) perspective, suggesting that
citations may be based on the source of a scientific contribution (e.g., a scientist’s
status and background) rather than its substance or merits (Cole & Cole, 1973).
Illustrative of the particularistic perspective is the “Matthew effect,” defined as “the
accruing of greater increments of recognition for particular scientific contributions
to scientists of considerable repute and the withholding of such recognition from
scientists who have not yet made their mark” (Merton, 1968: 58). From a
particularistic perspective, publication decisions and citations are focused on the
personal status of a writer, not the quality and contribution of the research per se.
[Judge, Cable, Colbert and Rynes, 2007, p492].
2.1.4.04 The complex mesh of publications, publication avenues and citation counts
integral to the discipline can be considered to relate to power within the discipline. While it
is inconsistent, under a Foucauldian epistemology, to claim that recognised authors hold
power, or that a highly cited article, text or commentary holds power, or that a high
number of citations accorded to one article, provides power, it can be claimed that these
can hold gravitas. The concept of gravitas implies seriousness or weight rather than power.
As will be discussed later in 2.4.3.09, with regards to Leibniz [1991], gravitas is more than
weight, it implies a force that can attract or repel. However, like power, gravitas can be
exercised, it can be shared and this, along with conformity to good form, is one of the
underlying fundamentals of the process of citation. Citations function such that we can say
that texts and authorship can exercise power, for example.
41