A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and ... - Emerald

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 4 Percentage of practitioners 60 50 48.3 % of authors 40 30 20 10 0 28.6 36.4 27.0 26.1 29.3 23.8 22.3 15.3 21.1 12.8 10.1 16.2 12.2 10.5 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Table II Country productivity ranking (equal credit method) Rank Country Score 1 USA 465.66 2 UK 390.44 3 Australia 178.60 4 Spain 106.72 5 Canada 94.25 6 Germany 74.88 7 Finland 63.42 8 Sweden 63.00 9 The Netherlands 60.17 10 Italy 46.50 11 Greece 46.33 12 Denmark 40.25 13 Taiwan 33.10 14 India 32.58 15 France 30.07 16 New Zealand 28.75 17 Malaysia 26.58 17 Singapore 26.58 19 Norway 24.58 20 Japan 23.42 21 Ireland 22.33 22 Austria 20.33 23 Hong Kong 19.47 24 Switzerland 18.92 25 Israel 17.60 26 Brazil 14.17 27 South Korea 13.75 28 Belgium 12.02 29 Portugal 10.42 30 South Africa 10.33 Sweden, The Netherlands and Greece, is also acknowledged. It is noted that the research outputs of Taiwan (33.10) or Hong Kong (19.47) exceeded that of China (9.00). Out of all 73 countries identified, 45 that had total productivity scores of at least 3 points were selected. For them, the Spearman’s correlation between the productivity scores and their 2008 GDP per capita was calculated (r ¼ 0:597, p , 0:000). In total, 1,450 unique institutions were identified. Out of them, there were 955 and 455 academic and non-academic organizations, respectively. Table III presents the list of leading KM/IC institutions. The top five were: PAGE 12j j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010
Table III Institutional productivity ranking (equal credit method) Rank Institution Score 1 Cranfield University, UK 32.84 2 Copenhagen Business School, Denmark 21.07 3 Macquarie University, Australia 17.68 4 University of Oviedo, Spain 17.50 5 McMaster University, Canada 16.23 6 Open University, UK 13.58 7 Tampere University of Technology, Finland 13.17 8 Loughborough University, UK 12.92 9 Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden 12.85 10 George Washington University, USA 12.83 11 Griffith University, Australia 12.42 12 Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany 12.00 13 University of Sheffield, UK 11.35 14 Monash University, Australia 11.33 15 Helsinki University of Technology, Finland 11.00 16 University of Warwick, UK 10.58 17 Kingston University, UK 10.25 18 National Technical University of Athens, Greece 9.75 19 University of Limerick, Ireland 9.60 20 The Leadership Alliance Inc., Canada (non-academic) 9.50 20 University of Technology, Sydney, Australia 9.50 22 University of Westminster, UK 9.33 23 Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain 9.25 24 Brunel University, UK 9.08 25 INHOLLAND University, The Netherlands 9.00 25 University of New South Wales, Australia 9.00 27 Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece 8.92 27 University of Southampton, UK 8.92 29 Multimedia University, Malaysia 8.83 30 University of Western Sydney, Australia 8.50 1. Cranfield University, UK; 2. Copenhagen Business School, Denmark; 3. Macquarie University, Australia; 4. University of Oviedo, Spain; and 5. McMaster University, Canada. Two interesting findings emerged. First, out of 30 institutions, nine were from the UK and only one (George Washington University) from the USA. Second, only one non-academic institution was included in the list. Overall, the leading non-academic organizations were: 1. the Leadership Alliance, Inc., Canada (score of 9.50); 2. Intellectual Capital Services Limited, UK (6.90); 3. Progressive Practices, USA (6.00); 4. Knowledge Research Institute, Inc., USA (5.00); and 5. IBM, USA (4.50). In total, 77 percent of all non-academic organizations were represented by only a single individual. The most productive practitioners were: 1. Peter A.C. Smith, Canada (score of 10.00); 2. Jay Chatzkel, USA (6.00); and 3. Karl M. Wiig, USA (5.00). A total of 89 percent of all practitioners authored or co-authored only one article. VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 j j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 13
Page 1 and 2: A scientometric analysis of knowled
Page 3 and 4: ehaviors and decisions. For example
Page 5 and 6: Investigation of individual researc
Page 7 and 8: Table I List of KM/IC peer-reviewed
Page 9: Figure 1 Authorship distribution (1
Page 13 and 14: Table VI The usage of research meth
Page 15 and 16: academics from various disciplines,
Page 17 and 18: ‘‘ Overall, there is a great da
Page 19 and 20: Harman, K. and Koohang, A. (2005),
Page 21: Nick Bontis is an Associate Profess

A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and ... - Emerald

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?