Tag Archives: scholarship

Use Google Scholar to do Cited Reference Search within Topics

Ok, so I was hunting for a journal target for a working paper.

I needed to find possible outlets beyond obvious A-levels.

Thought I would take a key reference and see who had cited it and then hunt THAT set of cites for possible journal outlets.

Web of Knowledge has some awesome cited reference search tools, but ONLY for articles.

So, back to google scholar.  Found the reference, a chapter from 2001 in Social Capital: Theory and Research (that’s a sexy title).

Clicked on the “cited 568” link.

Now, I have a list of those 568.  I don’t want social capital and health, for example, so next I nee to search WITHIN these for results.

First, check the “search within citations” check box at the top of page.

Then click down arrow in search box.

Next, you get all your choices.

Make sure you use OR in caps for multiple selections.  Also, you can use truncated terms like “manang*”.

Voila!  From 568 to 46.

Success.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Research, writing

Ships and Writers

In response to a writer in AL writing group bemoaning needing to relearn simple lessons (like break work into small tasks).

We are like great old wooden tall ships- fast, elegant, idiosyncratic and needing lots of maintenance to keep the rigging ship shape and scrape the barnacles off.

Nice.  She said I was a poet.  Well, I don’t know about that… but I like the image…

English: Tall ship in port of Łeba. Polski: Ża...

A Tall Ship...

1 Comment

Filed under writing

Third Nugget from Clockwork Muse- Mountains and Stairs

Nugget #3…
Now Eviatar shifts to chunking tasks.  He calls this, quite nicely, “a mountain with stairs.”

Two points resonated for me.  First, about outlines, he suggests only outlining or changing outlines _between_ final drafts.  This may be part of my problem with “code rules” as it has been restructured five times, at least I think. Not all of these were after a final draft was done.

Second, he advocates writing and then revising in stages.  This more useful for my students than for me, perhaps, as I am already a committed reviser.  They still think, most of them, that writing is getting your ideas on paper instead of realizing that writing is another form of thinking.  They think it is a mistake to rewrite, instead of normal.

Now, to complicate matters, the idea of the mountain with steps is appealing; common-sensical too.  Break down the seemingly distant and difficult task into smaller, feasible steps.  I have climbed mountains.  I absorbed *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance*.  I have told hiking groups I led that to climb a mountain you have to have the disposition of a cow.  The difference is that in those cases, I usually know which way is _up_.  In writing, I find myself wondering if these steps are really the right steps to take.  I especially wonder if I am going up at a good rate, or, even worse, going down.  Efficiency and failure trouble me more directly than self-doubt that I will finish.  In mountain terms- I worry now about going sideways or downhill more than about whether I will ever get to the top.

1 Comment

Filed under Research, writing

Social Movement Theory and Terrorism

I have been chipping away at an article for awhile now on terrorism as an organizational activity.  Part of my argument is to understand terrorism as at times a social movement.

Part of the fun of this for me is to learn more about social movements which has always been a topic my interests bump up against, but something I never had time to formally study.

Reading Castells (who channel Alain Tourraine, apparently), Tilly, and Giddens, among others, brought the idea of social movements into my sphere of interest.  Then I started reading and reading about the work done by institutional theorists like Haogreeva Rao and others about thinking about consumers as social movements.  For example, his book, Market Rebels, makes the case that markets are at times created by consumers, not firms.

Today, in a fit of retroactive literature scanning, I decided to check what had been said about terrorism and social movement theory.  Two interesting findings.

First, the wikipedia article cites Tilly and Tarrow (separately) defining social movements as inherently a featrue of pluralist, democratic societies.  Moreover, Tilly’s repretoire does not include any violent acts.  This surprised me.  Terrorist organizations seem to operate in such societies and also, with Al Qaeda, at a global level.  Moreover, they are also embedded in or linked to social movements and sets of social movement organizations.  So, if a social movement is a an observable collective effort to resist or adopt social change, then terrorist organizations can be part of that definition, irrespective of their geographic location.

Second, I hopped over to google scholar to see what had been written about social movement theory and terrorism.  Using those search terms, I found one article in Terrorism and Political Violence.  Who knew there was sucha  specialized journal?  C. Gentry’s article is titled: ” THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY AND TERRORISM STUDIES: THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP, MEMBERSHIP, IDEOLOGY AND GENDER”.   I am not even sure from the title if it is relevant.  That was the first hit, none of the rest seemed any better. This struck me as very odd and made me wonder if I have stumbled onto a much larger claim than I realized initially:

Terrorist Organizing must be accounted for by social movement theory.

Now, I wonder about how to use my blog.  I have never had anything like an active “readership” as far as i can tell.  I would love to get some answers or responses to what I discuss here.  But how?  Should I email Brayden King or Fabio Rojas at OrgTheory.net and say, “hey, please read this?”

5 Comments

Filed under activism, organization theory, sociology, Terrorism

Fields in Institutional Theory

Every time I write about fields from an institutional theory perspective, I get hung up on what they mean.   I suppose that means I should write more about them.  Or that there are underlying tensions in how different scholars use them?

Somewhere in the various Virtual Worlds paper drafts that litter my “My Documents” like the broken and sunken galleons rising out of the Carribean Sea are probably the various definitions.  Maybe I should pull them all together and have that as my own reference file.

This post also represents the level of musing, free writing, and beginnings of conversations that I imagine I might use this blog for.  Sometimes I look at what I put here and it seems so NOT representational of the scholarship I am doing or currently working through.  It ends up looking more like my miscellaneous folder.  This is partly due to a concern  about not wanting to expose the messy writing process.  It is party because somehow I worry about giving away good ideas.  It is partly because fuller treatments of core ideas or puzzles I am working on require more time to write well and then it seems like the blog is time wasting instead of useful scholarly communication.

2 Comments

Filed under organization theory, sociology, writing

Comparing fourth and fifth editions of Organizations by Richard Scott (And Gerry Davis for fifth)

So, a new edition of Organizations:Rational, Natural, and Open Systems by W. Richard Scott is out. Its co-authored by Gerry Davis (Who was a student of Scott’s at Stanford, apparently) and has a newer, more active title (stamp out nouns!). This book was an absolute classic for me doing my PhD at IESE. It also helped me bridge sociology and management. So, like the priests we are, it is good to turn back to the canon and see what is there.

Organizations and Organizing: rational, natural, and open systems perspectives.

I wanted to see if it is worth reading/buying the new version. A quick comparison of the two tables of contents reveals that some major changes were made. After Break for table.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Books, organization studies, organization theory, Scholars, sociology

10, no 15, Commandments of Writing Theory

A conversation with a collaborator about how to write and publish theory led Ted to send me the hot-off-the-press Editor’s comments from the most recent AMR. Got me thinking about some of the other badly needed comments on theory in our field. Distilling them led to the following list. There are many other resources out there about how to think theoretically. These have the advantage of being about the craft of writing and publishing theory. These are all my paraphrases (including colorful language in a few places).

I am very grateful to to the cited authors for offering guidance and directions to those of us setting off across terra incognito.

□ Know that your audience are other scholars interested in same topic, not God, or ignorant savants. Talk to the Guild; the heavens ain’t listening (Rindova 2008).

□ Your theory shall start with a richly detailed problem statement that triggers theorizing (Weick 1989)

□ Your theory shall have a what (elements) a how (processes) and a why (fundamental logic) (Whetten 1989).

□ Your theory shall be a why account that emphasizes the causal nature of events, thoughts, and structure; it delves into reasons for systematic occurrence or non-occurrence.

□ Your theory shall not substitute references, list of variables, diagrams, hypotheses nor data for good theory (Sutton and Straw 1995)

□ Your theory enlightens, illuminates, surprises, delights, and narrates (Weick 1995; Sutton and Straw 1995; DiMaggio 1995).

□ Thou shalt know that the What and How of a theory describe; only Why explains (Whetten 1989).

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under organization theory, Research, social theory, writing

Scholarship 2.0: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

I am not an innovator, but maybe a first or late first adopter.   Of course, it varies by network too. At my university, I seem to be clearly an early adopter of many collaborative technologies (blogs, wikis, virtual worlds).  Anyway, this blog came up and seemed to be worth exploring further as my own scholarly work about Web 2.0/living web also takes on living web forms.

Mitchell Waldrop, coincidentally, is also the author of Complexity which is one of my favorite books and indirectly influenced my choices of scholarly interests in grad school and beyond.

This is a stub until I can look at the blog more.

Scholarship 2.0: An Idea Whose Time Has Come: <strong>Science 2.0</strong>
Scholarship 2.0 is devoted to describing and documenting the forms, facets, and features of alternative Web-based scholarly publishing philosophies and practices. The variety of old and new metrics available for assessing the impact, significance, and value of Web-based scholarship is of particular interest.

Leave a comment

Filed under Living Web, participatory technology, Research, Scholars, science, technology

Philoctetes A research Center on Creativity

My friend John Hunter, who is a crazy Comaprative Huamnities schoalr who is trying to bridge neurscience and humanities, put me onto this NY outift.

Philoctetes – Home

Their purpose is to… well, I’ll let them say:

The Philoctetes Center for the Multidisciplinary Study of the Imagination was established to promote an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to the understanding of creativity and the imaginative process.
The Center creates and supports projects, public forums, research and information gathering which foster cooperation and dialogue among diverse disciplines, while seeking to create public awareness of these efforts.

They had a program about education in SecondLife, a topic of absolutely explosive interest from where I stand.

The center looks interesting with a ranged of MDs and PhDs and a definite NYC cosmopolitan vibe. How do they fund such a thing, I wonder.

Given its relative accessibility (3 hours from here), looks like something I will have to explore further.

Leave a comment

Filed under Creativity, higher education, liberal arts, Research, Scholars, Uncategorized

Writing is Hard

Here are some thoughts about how writing is hard for me and some lessons I have learned (am learning).

I love listening to Sigur Ros to write.  Especially Takk.

Writing is hard.

I continue to learn in the sense of integrating into my behaviors that

1) Momentum is critical;

2) Each work is a world unto itself.  Like a song.  It has its onw reality .  I have to make that so.  Then It can be lilnked to , compared to, integrated with the other knowledge ou t there.  In the past I worried too muc that whatever I am saying or writing is instantly a part of the world, is accountable to the world . and the burdens, the internalized expectations, are crucshing.  If what I write is seamlessly synced to all th e knowledge of the world then:

a) Originality is a bastard

b) Accuracy is everything

c) I am acutely aware of my ignorance

d) Reputation can sink or rise

These damnable expectations, like a flock of albatrosses, would weigh down my neck forcing me to only mumble pathetically and gaze at my navel.  Anyway, purple prose aside, even though progress on both terror paper and SL paper is slow and I stare at the screen wanting to be anywhere else, I do feel like the painful process of giving birth to myself as a scholar is improving.

I think I am also aware of just the time crunch.  Like, to be an expert in the too-may areas I am trying to be an expert in requires me to read and stay abreast of so much information!  Its exhausting.

And I have been staying away from actually reading much of anything which may help me get words down, but also, I worry, can become a vicious cycle of me writing something, feeling its good and original, continuing to not read, and writing and so on.  And then I get to the end and start to read and realize that I have nothing original to say and I have basically recreated the language and conceptual framework that someone else has already done.

I am particularly worried about this process with SL paper in which, a bit like Castronova in his book, since we are dealing with a whole other world every bit as complex as this one, we end up doing a kind of superficial gloss on o, all of economics and sociology.

5 Comments

Filed under writing