KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ

Rıdvan Kocaman, (Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi , Bilecik, Türkiye)
Umut Koç, (Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Eskişehir, Türkiye)
Bayram Zafer Erdoğan (Anadolu Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi, Eskişehir, Türkiye)
Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi
2 1
Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 77 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 227 - 250 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.33630/ausbf.1018608 İndeks Tarihi: 20-09-2022

KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ

Öz:
Örgütsel alan kavramı kurumsal kuramın merkezinde yer almaktadır. Böylelikle, kavramın kullanımı teorik ve özellikle de ampirik olarak oldukça geniş bir yelpazeye yayılmıştır. Bu durum, yapılacak olan çalışmalara yol göstermesi açısından daha kümülatif bir yaklaşım ihtiyacını beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, bu çalışma kapsamında örgütsel alana ilişkin mevcut tanım, tartışma ve araştırmaları içeren literatür incelenmiştir. Bunun neticesinde, örgütsel alanların ayırt edici özelliklerine göre sistematik bir şekilde kendi alt türleriyle beraber mübadele alanları ve mesele alanları olarak iki grupta sınıflandırılabileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Böylelikle, alanlar hakkındaki farklı yaklaşımların daha bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla incelenmesine olanak sağlanacağı düşünülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

A Literature Review on the Concept of Organizational Field and Types of Organizational Field in Institutional Theory

Öz:
The concept of organizational field is at the central of Institutional Theory. Thus, the use of the concept has spread over a wide spectrum both theoretically and especially empirically. This brings along the need for a more cumulative approach to guide the future studies. Accordingly, within the context of this study, the literature involving the extant definitions, discussions and research related to the organizational field was examined. As a result, it is concluded that organizational fields can be classified into two groups as exchange fields and issue fields, together with their sub-types based on their distinctive features. In this way, it is thought to enable that different approaches about the fields will be examined with a more holistic perspective.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abbott, Andrew (1988), The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
  • Anand, Narasimhan ve Richard A. Peterson (2000), “When Market Information Constitutes Fields: Sensemaking of Markets in the Commercial Music Industry”, Organization Science, 11 (3): 270-284.
  • Ansari, Shahzad ve Nelson Phillips (2011), “Text Me! New Consumer Practices and Change in Organizational Fields”, Organization Science, 22 (6): 1579-1599.
  • Barley, Stephen R. (2010), “Building An Institutional Field to Corral A Government: A Case to Set An Agenda for Organization Studies”, Organization Studies, 31 (6): 777-805.
  • Beckert, Jens (2010), “How Do Fields Change? The Interrelations of Institutions, Networks, and Ccognition in the Dynamics of Markets”, Organization Studies, 31 (5): 605-627.
  • Bertels, Stephanie, Andrew J. Hoffman ve Rich DeJordy (2014), “The Varied Work of Challenger Movements: Identifying Challenger Roles in the US Environmental Movement” Organization Studies, 35 (8): 1171-1210.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre (1975), “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason”, Sociology of Science, 14 (6): 19-47.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre (1985), “The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups”, Theory and Society, 14 (6): 723-744.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre (1999), “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field”, Steinmetz, George (Der.), State/Culture: State-Formation After the Cultural Turn (New York: Cornell University Press): 53-75.
  • Colyvas, Jeannette. A. ve Stefan Jonsson (2011), “Ubiquity and Legitimacy: Disentangling Diffusion and Institutionalization”, Sociological Theory, 29 (1): 27-53.
  • Curtis, Russel L. ve Loris A. Zurcher (1973), “Stable Resources of Protest Movements: The Multi- Organizational Field”, Social Forces, 52 (1): 53-61.
  • Deephouse, David L. (1999), “To Be Different, or To Be the Same? It’s A Question (and Theory) of Strategic Balance”, Strategic Management Journal, 20: 147-166.
  • Dhalla, Rumina ve Christine Oliver (2013), “Industry Identity in An Oligopolistic Market And Firms’ Responses to Institutional Pressures”, Organization Studies, 34 (12): 1803-1834.
  • Diani, Mario (2013), “Organizational Fields And Social Movement Dynamics”, Van Stekelenburg, Jacquelien, Conny Roggeband ve Bert Klandermans (Der.), The Future of Social Movement Research: Dynamics, Mechanisms, and Processes (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press): 145-168.
  • Diani, Mario ve Ivano Bison (2004), “Organizations, Coalitions, and Movements”, Theory and Society, 33 (3-4): 281-309.
  • DiMaggio, Paul. J. (1991), “Constructing An Organizational Field as A Professional Project: U.S. Art Museums”, Powell, Walter W. ve Paul J. DiMaggio (Der.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): 267-292.
  • DiMaggio, Paul J. ve Walter W. Powell (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
  • Dougles Creed, W. E., Bryant. A. Hudson, Gerardo. A. Okhuysen ve Kristin Smith-Crowe (2014), “Swimming in A Sea of Shame: Incorporating Emotion into Explanations of Institutional Reproduction and Change”, Academy of Management Review, 39 (3): 275-301.
  • Evans, Rhonda ve Tamara Kay (2008), “How Environmentalists “Greened” Trade Policy: Strategic Action and the Architecture of Field Overlap”, American Sociological Review, 73: 970-991.
  • Farjoun, Moshe (2002), “The Dialectics of Institutional Development in Emerging and Turbulent Fields: The History of Pricing Conventions in the On-Line Database Industry”, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5): 848-874.
  • Fligstein, Neil (2001), “Social Skill and the Theory of Fields”, Sociological Theory, 19 (2): 105-125.
  • Fligstein, Neil ve Doug McAdam (2012), “Toward A General Theory of Strategic Action Fields”, Sociological Theory, 29: 1-26.
  • Freeman, John H. ve Pino G. Audia (2006), “Community Ecology and the Sociology of Organizations”, Annual Review of Sociology, 32: 145-169.
  • Friedland, Roger (2014), “Divine Institution: Max Weber’s Value Spheres and Institutional Theory”, Tracey, Paul, Nelson Phillips ve Michael Lounsbury (Der.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing): 217-258.
  • Friedland, Roger (1991), “Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions”, Walter, W. Powell, Paul J. DiMaggio (Der.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): 232-263.
  • Furnari, Santi (2014), “Interstitial Spaces: Microinteraction Settings and the Genesis of New Practices Between Institutional Fields”, Academy of Management Review, 39 (4): 439-462.
  • Galvin, Tiffany L. (2002), “Examining Institutional Change: Evidence from the Founding Dynamics of U.S. Health Care Interest Associations”, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4): 673– 696.
  • Garud, Raghu, Sanjay Jain ve Arun Kumaraswamy (2002), “Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Sponsorship of Common Technological Standards: The Case of Sun Microsystems and Java”, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 196-214.
  • Gawer, Annabelle ve Nelson Phillips (2013), “Institutional Work as Logics Shift: The Case of Intel’s Transformation to Platform Leader”, Organization Studies, 34 (8): 1035-1071.
  • Gibbons, Deborah E. (2004), “Network Structure and Innovation Ambiguity Effects on Diffusion in Dynamic Organizational Fields”, Academy of Management Journal, 47 (6): 938-951.
  • Glynn, Mary A. (2008), “Configuring the Field of Play: How Hosting the Olympic Games Impacts Civic Community”, Journal of Management Studies, 45 (6): 1117-1146.
  • Glynn, Mary A. (2000), “When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict Over Organizational Identity Within A Symphony Orchestra”, Organization Science, 11 (3): 285-298.
  • Glynn, Mary A. ve Michael Lounsbury (2005), “From the Critics’ Corner: Logic Blending, Discursive Change and Authenticity in A Cultural Production System”, Journal of Management Studies, 42 (5): 1031-1055.
  • Granqvist, Nina ve Juha Laurila (2011), “Rage Against Self-Replicating Machines: Framing Science and Fiction in the U.S. Nanotechnology Field”, Organization Studies, 32 (2): 253-280.
  • Gray, Peter H. ve William H. Cooper (2010), “Pursuing Failure”, Organizational Research Methods, 13: 620-643.
  • Greenwood, Royston, Roy Suddaby ve Christopher R. Hinings (2002), “Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields”, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 58-80.
  • Greenwood, Royston ve Roy Suddaby (2006), “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms”, Academy of Management Journal, 49: 27-48.
  • Greenwood, Royston, Christine Oliver, Roy Suddaby ve Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson (2008), “Introduction”, Greenwood, Royston, Christine Oliver, Roy Suddaby ve Kerstin Sahlin- Andersson (Der.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (London, U.K.: Sage): 1-46.
  • Helfen, Markus ve Jörg Sydow (2013), “Negotiating as Institutional work: The Case of Labour Standards and International Framework Agreements”, Organization Studies, 34 (8): 1073- 1098.
  • Helms, Wesley S., Christine Oliver ve Kernaghan Webb (2012), “Antecedents of Settlement on A New Institutional Practice: Negotiation of the ISO 26000 Standard on Social Responsibility”, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (5): 1120-1145.
  • Hoffman, Andrew J. (1999), “Institutional Evolution and Change: Environmentalism and the U.S. Chemical Industry”, Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4): 351-371.
  • Holm, Petter (1995), “The Dynamics of Institutionalization: Transformation Processes in Norwegian Fisheries” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3): 398-422.
  • Jacobides, Michael G., John. P. MacDuffie ve Chung Won J. Tae (2016), “Agency, Structure, and the Dominance of OEMs: Change and Stability in the Automotive Sector”, Strategic Management Journal, 37 (9), 1942-1967.
  • Jung, Wooseok, Brayden G. King ve Sarah A. Soule (2014), “Issue Bricolage: Explaining the Configuration of the Social Movement Sector, 1960–1995”, American Journal of Sociology, 120 (1): 187-225.
  • Kartoğlu, Neslihan. U. (2008), “Türkiye Müzecilik Örgütsel Alanında Kurumsal Mantıklar: Rekabetçi mi, Tamamlayıcı mı?”, Yönetim ve Organizasyon Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3 (2): 33-76.
  • Kennedy, Mark T., ve Peer C. Fiss (2009), “Institutionalization, Framing, and Diffusion: The Logic of TQM Adoption and Implementation Decisions Among U.S. Hospitals”, Academy of Management Journal, 52 (5): 897–918.
  • Koç, Umut, Janset Özen-Aytemur ve Erkan Erdemir (2016), “Powerful Actor and Hesitant Institutionalization: The State in the History of Turkish Football”, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 33 (16), 1904-1920.
  • Kostova, Tatiana, Kendall Roth ve M. Tina Dacin (2008), “Institutional theory in the Study of Multinational Corporations: A Critique and New Directions”, Academy of Management Review, 33 (4): 994-1006.
  • Lounsbury, Michael (2001), “Institutional Sources of Practice Variation: Staffing College and University Recycling Programs”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 29-56.
  • Lounsbury, Michael (2007), “A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds”, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2): 289-307.
  • Maguire, Steve, Cynthia Hardy ve Thomas B. Lawrence (2004), “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada”, Academy of Management Journal, 47 (5): 657-679.
  • Marquis, Christopher, Mary A. Glynn ve Gerald F. Davis (2007), “Community Isomorphism and Corporate Social Action”. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3): 925-945.
  • McCarthy, John D. ve Meyer N. Zald (1977), “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory”, American Journal of Sociology, 82 (6): 1212-1241.
  • Meyer, Alan D., Anne S. Tsui ve C. Robert Hinings (1993), “Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis”, Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6): 1175-1195.
  • Meyer, Renate E. ve Markus A. Höllerer (2010), “Meaning Structures in a Contested Issue Field: A Topographical Map of Shareholder Value in Austria”, Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6): 1241-1262.
  • Mizruchi, Mark S. ve Lisa C. Fein (1999), “The Social Construction of Organizational Knowledge: A Study of the Uses of Coercive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4): 653-683.
  • Munir, Kamal A. (2005), “The Social Construction of Events: A Study of Institutional Change in the Photographic Field”, Organization Studies, 26 (1): 93-112.
  • Oakes, Leslie S., Barbara Townley ve David J. Cooper (1998), “Business Planning as Pedagogy: Language and Control in A Changing Institutional Field”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (2): 257-292.
  • O’Mahony, Siobhán ve Beth A. Bechky (2008), “Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration Among Unexpected Allies”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (3): 422-459.
  • O’Sullivan, Niamh ve Brendan O’Dwyer (2015), “The Structuration of Issue-Based Fields: Social Accountability, Social Movements and the Equator Principles Issue-Based Field”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 43: 33-55.
  • Özen, Şükrü (2007), “Yeni Kurumsal Kuram: Örgütleri Çözümlemede Yeni Ufuklar ve Yeni Sorunlar”, Selami A. Sargut ve Şükrü Özen (Der.) Örgüt kuramları (Ankara: İmge Kitabevi): 237-331.
  • Özen, Şükrü ve Hayriye Özen (2009), “Peasants Against MNCs and the State: the Role of the Bergama Struggle in the Institutional Construction of the Gold-Mining Field in Turkey”, Organization, 16 (4), 547-573.
  • Özen, Hayriye ve Şükrü Özen (2017), “What Makes Locals Protesters? A Discursive Analysis of Two Cases in Gold-Mining Industry in Turkey”, World Development, 90, 256-268.
  • Pfeffer, Jeffrey ve Gerald R. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependent Approach (New York: Harper and Row Publishers).
  • Porac, Joseph F., Howard Thomas ve Charles Baden Fuller (1989), “Competitive Groups as Cognitive Communities: The Case of Scottish Knitwear Manufacturers”, Journal of Management Studies, 26 (4): 397-416.
  • Powell, Walter W. ve Kurt W. Sandholtz (2012), “Amphibious Entrepreneurs and the Emergence of Organizational Forms”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6 (2): 94-115.
  • Powell, Walter W., Achim Oberg, Valeska P. Korff, Carrie Oelberger ve Karina Kloos (2017), “Institutional Analysis in a Digital Era: Mechanisms and Methods to Understand Emerging Fields”, Georg, Krücken, Carmelo Mazza, Renate E. Meyer ve Peter Walgenbach (Der.), New Themes in Institutional Analysis: Topics and Issues from European Research (Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar): 305-344.
  • Rao, Hayagreeva, Calvin Morrill ve Mayer N. Zald (2000), “Power Plays: How Social Movements and Collective Action Create New Organizational Forms”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 22: 237-281.
  • Reay, Trish, Karen Golden-Biddle ve Kathy Germann (2006), “Legitimizing A New Role: Small Wins and Microprocesses of Change”, Academy of Management Journal, 49 (5): 977-998.
  • Reay, Trish ve Christopher R. Hinings (2009), “Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics”, Organization Studies, 30 (6): 629-652.
  • Scott, William R. (2014), Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). Smets, Michael, Tim Morris ve Royston Greenwood (2012), “From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven Institutional Change”, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4): 877-904.
  • Suddaby, Roy ve Royston Greenwood (2005), “Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (1): 35-67.
  • Suddaby, Roy ve Daniel Muzio (2015), “Theoretical Perspectives on the Professions” Empson, Laura, Daniel Muzio, Joseph P. Broschak ve Christopher R. Hinings (Der.), The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press): 25-47.
  • Taşçı, Deniz. Ve Akansel Yalçınkaya (2015), “Havayolu Sektöründe Yeni Bir İş Modeli: Bağlı Düşük Maliyetli Havayolu (Airline Within Airline) Modeli Ve Anadolujet Örneği Bağlamında Bir Karşılaştırma”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 10 (2), 177-201.
  • Thornton, Patricia H., William Ocasio ve Michael Lounsbury (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press).
  • Tolbert, Pamela S. ve Lynne G. Zucker (1983), “Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880–1935”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 22-39.
  • Van Bommel, Koen ve André Spicer (2011), “Hail the Snail: Hegemonic Struggles in the Slow Food Movement”, Organization Studies, 32 (12): 1717-1744.
  • Voronov, Maxim ve Russ Vince (2012), “Integrating Emotions into the Analysis of Institutional Work”, Academy of Management Review, 37 (1): 58-81.
  • Wooten, Melissa and Andrew J. Hoffman (2008), “Organizational Fields: Past, Present and Future”, Greenwood, Royston, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson, Roy Suddaby (Der.), SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (London, U.K.: Sage): 130-147.
  • Zbaracki, Mark J. (1998), “The Rhetoric and Reality of Total Quality Management”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (3): 602-636.
  • Zietsma, Charlene ve Thomas B. Lawrence (2010), “Institutional Work in the Transformation of An Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice Work”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (2): 189-221.
  • Zietsma, Charlene, Peter Groenewegen, Danielle. M. Logue ve Christopher R. Hinings (2017), “Field or Fields? Building the Scaffolding for Cumulation of Research on Institutional Fields”. Academy of Management Annals, 11 (1): 1-95.
APA Kocaman R, KOÇ U, ERDOĞAN B (2022). KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. , 227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
Chicago Kocaman Rıdvan,KOÇ UMUT,ERDOĞAN Bayram Zafer KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. (2022): 227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
MLA Kocaman Rıdvan,KOÇ UMUT,ERDOĞAN Bayram Zafer KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. , 2022, ss.227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
AMA Kocaman R,KOÇ U,ERDOĞAN B KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. . 2022; 227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
Vancouver Kocaman R,KOÇ U,ERDOĞAN B KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. . 2022; 227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
IEEE Kocaman R,KOÇ U,ERDOĞAN B "KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ." , ss.227 - 250, 2022. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
ISNAD Kocaman, Rıdvan vd. "KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ". (2022), 227-250. https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.1018608
APA Kocaman R, KOÇ U, ERDOĞAN B (2022). KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 77(1), 227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
Chicago Kocaman Rıdvan,KOÇ UMUT,ERDOĞAN Bayram Zafer KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 77, no.1 (2022): 227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
MLA Kocaman Rıdvan,KOÇ UMUT,ERDOĞAN Bayram Zafer KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, vol.77, no.1, 2022, ss.227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
AMA Kocaman R,KOÇ U,ERDOĞAN B KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi. 2022; 77(1): 227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
Vancouver Kocaman R,KOÇ U,ERDOĞAN B KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi. 2022; 77(1): 227 - 250. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
IEEE Kocaman R,KOÇ U,ERDOĞAN B "KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ." Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 77, ss.227 - 250, 2022. 10.33630/ausbf.1018608
ISNAD Kocaman, Rıdvan vd. "KURUMSAL KURAM’DA ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN KAVRAMI VE ÖRGÜTSEL ALAN TÜRLERİNE İLİŞKİN BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ". Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 77/1 (2022), 227-250. https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.1018608
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
10-05-2024 13:35

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları