Homophily in Human Resource Management Publishing

Published date01 September 2017
AuthorKatherine J.C. Sang,Yehuda Baruch,Stuart Barnes
Date01 September 2017
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12106
Homophily in Human Resource
Management Publishing
STUART BARNES,
1
KATHERINE J.C. SANG
2
and YEHUDA BARUCH
3
1
School of Management and Business, Kings College London, London, UK
2
Intercultural Research Centre Schoolof Management and Languages, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
3
Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Existing theorysuggests that social networksform a major factor in individualand team performance,including in
academic collaborative research. However, there is currently a lack of a theoretical framework to explain the social
network related factors that influence publicationprocesses and decisions.We address thisgap by adopting a theory-
building perspective, analysinga large data set on the impactof social networks. Using a caseof one leading journal
(Human ResourceManagement), we collected data on 10 yearsof publication, exploring 327 papers,written by 667
authors, whichrepresent 839 ties.Examining individual demographic and institutional characteristics, we developed
and tested a set of hypotheses, providing a framework for shaping and guiding future academic research
collaborations. Our findings suggest that as albeit the intention, diverse collaboration is still at a low level. This
contribution adds to the literature on understanding the factors influencing the type of collaborations that lead to
publications in leading journals.
Keywords: gender; ethnicity; social network analysis; HRM;co-authorship
Introduction
There have been rec ent calls for academic theorising to
move beyond Western paradigms, particularly as a
response to theincrease in research-active academics from
non-Western universities (Singh and Meng, 2013).
Indeed, concerns have been expressed over the influence
country of origin has on the knowledge created through
research (Usunier, 2006), with recent calls for
management research to move beyond the English
language hegemony (Özbilgin, 2014). Similarly, the role
of gender in knowledge creation through social networks
has often been neglected in the literature (Benschop,
2009; Durbin, 2011; Sozen et al., 2016). In light of this,
in this paper we consider homophily in academic
publishing, deemed to be the tangible outcomes of
academic social networks which are dominated by White
academics from elite Western Universities. Academic
scholarship involves the creation and dissemination of
knowledge. For management research, this knowledge
must be both academically and practically relevant
(Vicari, 2013). The main tool to evaluate the worthiness
and contribution of new knowledge is its publication.
Thus publish or perishis a basic truism in academia
(Baruch andHall, 2004; Adler and Harzing, 2009;Breschi
et al., 2008; Bedeian et al., 2010) across different cult ures
(Braine, 2005; Leung, 2007) and disciplines (Adler and
Harzing, 2009). A number of factors influence the
prospect of publication, one of which is collaboration
within a team of co-authors, where social networks play
crucial role in bringingpeople together and enabling them
to collaborate (Uzzi et al., 2007). Research collaboration
that takes place within emerging networks have started
to gain academic attention (Acedo et al., 2006). Such
analyses proved useful in other academic fields (e.g.
Racherla and Hu, 2010). Certain worries exist that
academic publishing is largely controlled by Anglo-
American corporate capital (Paasi, 2005) or the divide
between NorthAmerica and the rest of the world (Baruch,
2001; Harzing and Metz, 2012).
To explore the publishing phenomenon this paper
presents a case study of publishing patterns within a
leading journal in management studies: Human Resource
Management (HRM). HRM was selected due to its
centrality and status as the top target journal within the
specific field of HRM (and the only HRM journal on the
prestigious Financial Times list). In order to examine the
diversity (or lack of it) in publishing networks, a social
Correspondence: Katherine J. C. Sang, Intercultural Research Centre
Schoolof Management and Languages, Heiot WattUniversity, Edinburgh,
UK E-mail k.sang@hw.ac.uk
European Management Review, Vol. 14, 287302, (2017)
DOI: 10.1111/emre.12106
©2017 European Academy of Management
network analysis(SNA) was conducted on publications in
HRM between 2000 and 2009. The paper begins by
setting out the theoretical frameworkfor the current study:
homophily. This is then used, in conjunction with the
extant literature on academic publishing, to develop
specific hypotheses. We then describein detail the method
adopted to analyse the networks present in the journal,
specifically, SNA. The findings of the analysis are
presented, with implications for academic publishing and
theorising considered.
Homophily and social networks
The processes by which workplace social networks
remain homogeneous has received considerable academic
attention. Social networks represent one of the structural
barriers to womens full participation in academic life, as
it reproduces and constitutes power in actionin everyday
organizational life(Benschop, 2009: 222223).
Specifically, workplaces, including academia, perpetuate
inequalities through the persistent dominance of White
men. Homophily,whereby greater contactis seen between
similar individuals, is argued to be a basic underlying
principle of organisations (McPherson et al., 2001). This
preference is in part due to uncertainty around working
with unfamiliar individuals (Gilbert et al., 1999). The
consequences of homophily has largely been studied in
relation to gender (in)equalities in workplaces. For
example homophily is seen to be key to gendered
networking practices including amongst others,
mentoring, selection and promotions (Benschop and
Brouns, 2003). Women report concerns that they are not
welcome in mens networks and that they may have
family commitments that make travel to develop and
maintain networks difficult (Bird, 2011). Aspiring
networking involves engaging with those in positions of
power doing so gets a person noticed and is beneficial
for careers. This is seen as gender appropriate behaviour
for men, but not for women (Benschop, 2009). The
increasing use of online technologies may facilitate
womens opportunities for networking and reduce their
marginalisation from important social networks (Menzies
and Newson, 2008). Homophily has also been
successfully used to understand the persistence of racial
inequalities in the workplace. Seebruck and Savage
(2014) reveal that while homophily may not in itself
advantage White employees, it does disadvantage ethnic
minority employees. However, homophily may be
advantageous for marginalised people when they enter
social networks, including those from ethnic minority
backgrounds (Mollica et al., 2003)
Homophily is releva nt also in the context of networking.
Formal and informal networks are essential to career
progression within the creative industries (McLeod et al.,
2009). Gibson and Klocker (2004) drew important
parallels between academia and the creative industries,
arguing that in both there are creative clusters which
dominate the discourse within the sector. Specifically,
these clusters are based within Western and Northern
geographies. Within academia such clustering has been
used to partially explain womens exclusion from social
networks which are important to career progression
(Vázquez-Cupeiro and Elston, 2006; Kakabadse et al.,
2015). The determinants of academic career progression,
such as the prestige of the university where an academic
gained his or her PhD, are complex and inter-related.
Publishing is necessary, not only for success in academia,
but for professionalsurvival (Frey, 2003).Academics who
have access to the key networks within their discipline
tend to be more productive in terms of publications
(Diamantopoulos, 1996). The following section considers
the extant literature on academic publishing.
Gender and ethnicity in publishing
Women represent a small proportion of the editorial
boards of management journals. Metz and Harzing
(2009) found that most journal editorial boards have less
than 20% female, while 40% have fewer than 10%
(Kimery et al., 2004).Membership on the editorial boards
of leading journals was a key predictor of publication in
such journals (Valleand Schultz, 2011). There is possibly
a reciprocal bi-directional relationship, because one
criterion for appointment to the board may be early
publication inthe journal (yet other criteria likereviewing
for the journal may be instrumental too). Therefore, if
women are not represented on editorial boards they lack
one of the key resources which can lead to publication.
Thus, women are less likely to find a position in
research-intensive institutions because these institutions
tend to hire those publishing in top journals. Kimery
et al. (2004) found very low representation of women in
accounting journals, and call for similar work to check if
the under-representation of women authors cuts across
disciplines. Homophily would suggest that academics
exhibit a preference for publishing with those who are
like them,that is, male academics will not only dominate
the networks in academic publishing,but they will also be
more likely to network with (and therefore publish with)
male academics. Based on this discussion, we propose
the following hypotheses:
H1a. Men exhibit homophily via their co-authorship.
H1b. The publication network is dominated by male
authors.
Within career theory (Arthur et al., 1989), the need for
career capital is critical for progress (Inkson and Arthur,
288 S. Barnes et al.
©2017 European Academy of Management

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT