正念:揭开它的三个阴影,并阐明理解它的综合方法

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS International Journal of Management Reviews Pub Date : 2022-04-22 DOI:10.1111/ijmr.12296
Carole Daniel, Isabelle Walsh, Jessica Mesmer-Magnus
{"title":"正念:揭开它的三个阴影,并阐明理解它的综合方法","authors":"Carole Daniel,&nbsp;Isabelle Walsh,&nbsp;Jessica Mesmer-Magnus","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over time mindfulness research and practice has taken on diverse basic assumptions and theoretical traditions, and the pseudo-scientific use of the term has become more prevalent. Given the ubiquitousness of both personal and professional applications of mindfulness, the need for a thorough understanding of its theoretical cornerstones is necessary. In this review, we use bibliometric techniques to uncover the field's intellectual roots (Study 1), and document bibliographic coupling analysis to illuminate current research avenues across management disciplines (Study 2). Our bibliometric process covers 48 references for co-citation and 238 articles for bibliographic coupling analyses, respectively, published between 2012 and 2020. Co-citation analysis reveals a shift of focus from the past two historical mindfulness schools of thought (Eastern and Western) to a novel intellectual structure of the mindfulness field articulated around three distinct yet overlapping research streams. We propose integrative ways to advance mindfulness research by unpacking mindfulness processes, dimensions and development, arguing that the integration of these three main foci is necessary to advance understanding of mindfulness. Bibliometric coupling analysis identifies eight management-related mindfulness research themes. We discuss the extent to which these eight themes have comparably explored the three foci (mindfulness processes, dimensions and development) highlighted in our model. Lastly, we use our theory-driven review to draw on under-developed areas of research, identifying profitable directions for future research on mindfulness in the workplace and beyond.</p>","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"24 4","pages":"654-683"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mindfulness: Unpacking its three shades and illuminating integrative ways to understand the construct\",\"authors\":\"Carole Daniel,&nbsp;Isabelle Walsh,&nbsp;Jessica Mesmer-Magnus\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijmr.12296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Over time mindfulness research and practice has taken on diverse basic assumptions and theoretical traditions, and the pseudo-scientific use of the term has become more prevalent. Given the ubiquitousness of both personal and professional applications of mindfulness, the need for a thorough understanding of its theoretical cornerstones is necessary. In this review, we use bibliometric techniques to uncover the field's intellectual roots (Study 1), and document bibliographic coupling analysis to illuminate current research avenues across management disciplines (Study 2). Our bibliometric process covers 48 references for co-citation and 238 articles for bibliographic coupling analyses, respectively, published between 2012 and 2020. Co-citation analysis reveals a shift of focus from the past two historical mindfulness schools of thought (Eastern and Western) to a novel intellectual structure of the mindfulness field articulated around three distinct yet overlapping research streams. We propose integrative ways to advance mindfulness research by unpacking mindfulness processes, dimensions and development, arguing that the integration of these three main foci is necessary to advance understanding of mindfulness. Bibliometric coupling analysis identifies eight management-related mindfulness research themes. We discuss the extent to which these eight themes have comparably explored the three foci (mindfulness processes, dimensions and development) highlighted in our model. Lastly, we use our theory-driven review to draw on under-developed areas of research, identifying profitable directions for future research on mindfulness in the workplace and beyond.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"volume\":\"24 4\",\"pages\":\"654-683\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12296\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12296","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着时间的推移,正念研究和实践已经采用了不同的基本假设和理论传统,对这个术语的伪科学使用也变得越来越普遍。鉴于正念的个人和专业应用无处不在,对其理论基础的全面理解是必要的。在这篇综述中,我们使用文献计量学技术来揭示该领域的知识根源(研究1),并使用文献书目耦合分析来阐明当前跨管理学科的研究途径(研究2)。我们的文献计量学过程涵盖了2012年至2020年间发表的48篇共被引参考文献和238篇文献书目耦合分析文章。共引分析揭示了一个焦点的转移,从过去的两个历史的正念思想流派(东方和西方)到一个新的正念领域的知识结构,围绕着三个不同但重叠的研究流。我们提出了通过解析正念过程、维度和发展来推进正念研究的综合方法,认为这三个主要焦点的整合对于促进对正念的理解是必要的。文献计量耦合分析确定了八个与管理相关的正念研究主题。我们讨论了这八个主题在多大程度上比较地探索了我们模型中突出的三个焦点(正念过程、维度和发展)。最后,我们利用理论驱动的回顾来借鉴欠发达的研究领域,为未来工作场所内外的正念研究确定有益的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mindfulness: Unpacking its three shades and illuminating integrative ways to understand the construct

Over time mindfulness research and practice has taken on diverse basic assumptions and theoretical traditions, and the pseudo-scientific use of the term has become more prevalent. Given the ubiquitousness of both personal and professional applications of mindfulness, the need for a thorough understanding of its theoretical cornerstones is necessary. In this review, we use bibliometric techniques to uncover the field's intellectual roots (Study 1), and document bibliographic coupling analysis to illuminate current research avenues across management disciplines (Study 2). Our bibliometric process covers 48 references for co-citation and 238 articles for bibliographic coupling analyses, respectively, published between 2012 and 2020. Co-citation analysis reveals a shift of focus from the past two historical mindfulness schools of thought (Eastern and Western) to a novel intellectual structure of the mindfulness field articulated around three distinct yet overlapping research streams. We propose integrative ways to advance mindfulness research by unpacking mindfulness processes, dimensions and development, arguing that the integration of these three main foci is necessary to advance understanding of mindfulness. Bibliometric coupling analysis identifies eight management-related mindfulness research themes. We discuss the extent to which these eight themes have comparably explored the three foci (mindfulness processes, dimensions and development) highlighted in our model. Lastly, we use our theory-driven review to draw on under-developed areas of research, identifying profitable directions for future research on mindfulness in the workplace and beyond.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
期刊最新文献
Uncovering the impact of digital technologies on strategising: Evidence from a systematic literature review One name for two concepts: A systematic literature review about meta‐organizations Career success and geographical location: A systematic review and future research agenda Towards a heuristic view of managerial heuristics: Integrating divergent perspectives The good, the bad and the evil: A unified conceptualization of negative leadership behaviour
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1