Mapping the knowledge base and theoretical evolution of workplace conflict outcomes: a bibliometric and qualitative review, 1972–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to understand workplace conflict outcomes (WCO) literature and identify the research gaps by mapping its knowledge base and theoretical evolution. Design/methodology/approach This study combines bibliometric and qualitative analysis and encompasses 1,043 Scopus-indexed documents published between 1972 and 2022. The bibliometric analysis used VOSviewer, Excel and Tableau software for descriptive statistics, citation and co-citation analyses of publication patterns, authors, documents and journals. The qualitative analysis critiqued main theoretical perspectives and topical interests. Findings This study revealed a significant increase in literature after 2000, with authors representing 70 societies, primarily the USA, China, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Influential authors and their canonical articles were identified, including Jehn, De Dreu, Spector, Amason and Pelled. Highly cited articles focused on task, relationship, role and process conflict. Four main theoretical schools were categorized: conflict type paradigm, individual differences, conflict cooccurrence and conflict dynamics. Influential journals spanned psychology, management, negotiation and decision-making and business and marketing fields, including JAP, AMJ, ASQ, JM, JOB, AMR, IJCMA and OS. Research limitations/implications This study provides implications for future bibliometric analyses, theoretical and empirical studies, practitioners and society based on its quantitative and qualitative findings. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first bibliometric review of WCO literature, serving as a baseline for tracking the field’s evolution and theoretical advancements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.105 | 0.115 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".