Extending the conversation: a network analysis of academic associations in workplace spirituality

Abstract

Examining academic networks provides insight into boundaries and boundary crossing as well as knowledge diffusion. We examine four academic networks focused on business, spirituality, and religion to identify network boundaries and boundary crossing. Scholars tend to align with networks consistent with the nature of their employing institution, both in its relative emphasis on research and its religious affiliation. Network and religious differences contribute to the relative isolation of research communities, despite shared topical interests and reliance on similar scholarly sources. The use of normative authorities may limit networking, but the relative absence of weak network links across networks may underestimate similarities. Increased boundary crossing may enhance innovation across networks.

Keywords:

• social network theory
• workplace spirituality
• academic network
• mutual nonprofit
• boundary spanning

Notes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Christian Business Faculty Association, Langley, British Columbia, June 2012. Appreciation is expressed to Gwen White and Keegan Kinder for their assistance in data collection and coding.

1. Omitted from the list of networks are ones which focus exclusively on business ethics (e.g. the International Vincentian Business Ethics Conference) and those which do not regularly host national or international scholarly conferences with several paper presentations (e.g. the Association of Christian Economists).

2. Research orientation aligns with the institution’s total student enrollment. Mean enrollment of the authors’ institutions by association were as follows: MSR = 16,420; CSTME = 11,883; CJBE = 9793; and CBFA = 3412. This difference was significant (F = 17.05 (N = 127), p < .001).

3. One MSR paper had 58 biblical citations in two tables. These were data used in the research analysis rather than as authoritative sources. These references were excluded from the analysis.

4. “Spiritual” and “Religious” are not opposing categories in workplace spirituality research but were placed on a continuum to identify the relative scholarly emphasis of each network.