A scientometric analysis of the Proceedings of the McMaster World Congress on the Management of Intellectual Capital and Innovation for the 1996‐2008 period
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
PurposeThis paper seeks to present a scientometric analysis of the Proceedings of the McMaster World Congress on the Management of Intellectual Capital and Innovation for the 1996‐2008 period in order to better understand the evolution and identity of the discipline.Design/methodology/approachQualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques were applied to determine author distribution, country, individual and institutional‐level productivity rankings, and employed methodologies.FindingsIt was found that an average manuscript was written by 1.73 authors. The USA, Canada and the UK were the three most productive countries, which is consistent with prior KM/IC productivity research. Most productive institutions were the University of Calgary (Canada), Polytechnic University of Catalonia (Spain) and Universidad de Oviedo (Spain). The most productive individuals were James Falconer, Jose Maria Viedma Marti and Scott Erickson. Lotka's α, which represents the degree of conference delegate retention rate, was established as 2.7. Case studies were the most frequent method of inquiry, followed by framework development and literature reviews. Surveys and usage of secondary data were the leading empirical methodologies. Interviews, laboratory experiments, and field studies were under‐represented.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings offer valuable insights into the state and development of the KM/IC discipline and shed some light on its identity.Practical implicationsScientometric analyses are of primary interest for academic researchers and therefore the practical implications of this study are limited.Originality/valueThe research reported is among the first to investigate the issue of the KM/IC discipline identity from a descriptive perspective.
