Same Technology, Different Problems? A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis of Generative AI Across Education, Business, Communication, and Governance
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The rapid diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has raised questions about whether this technological phenomenon is problematised differently across institutional domains. This study compares GenAI scholarship in education, business and organisational research, communication and media and public governance, law, and policy. Four domain-specific Web of Science Core Collection corpora for 2023–2026 comprised 6,132, 1,901, 300 and 444 documents, respectively. Bibliometric performance analysis, thematic mapping, and author-keyword co-occurrence analysis were conducted using Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny and VOSviewer. Distinct thematic configurations emerged across the four domains. Education foregrounds learning, assessment, AI literacy, and academic integrity. Business research emphasises innovation, technology adoption, decision making, and organisational capability. Communication scholarship centres on journalism, trust, disinformation, and informational credibility, whereas research on governance foregrounds regulation, accountability, rights, and legal responsibility. These patterns are not treated as direct measures of institutional logics. Instead, the study develops a theory-informed mapping that relates empirical thematic configurations to institutional problems and normative priorities. GenAI is not problematised uniformly; its institutional salience is shaped by divergent criteria of legitimate knowledge, organisational value, professional authority, and public accountability. The study offers a comparative framework for examining GenAI as an institutionally situated sociotechnical phenomenon while maintaining a clear distinction between bibliometric evidence and institutional interpretation.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Este artículo se distribuye bajo Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) .
References
Al Naqbi, H., Bahroun, Z., & Ahmed, V. (2024). Enhancing work productivity through generative artificial intelligence: A comprehensive literature review. Sustainability,16(3), Article 1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031166
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago Press.
Altinay, F., Shadiev, R., Dagli, G., Shadiev, N., Muhamedov, A., Bahçelerli, N., & Altinay, Z. (2025). Evaluation of the development of social entrepreneurship skills in teaching using artificial intelligence. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 16(3), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.70594/brain/16.3/4
Anthony, C. (2021). When knowledge work and analytical technologies collide: The practices and consequences of black boxing algorithmic technologies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 1173– 1212. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211016755
Anthony, C., Bechky, B. A., & Fayard, A.-L. (2023). “Collaborating” with AI: Taking a system view to explore the future of work. Organization Science, 34(5), 1672–1694. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1651
Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C. (2017) bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis, Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Avnon, N., Kotliar, D. M., & Rivnai-Bahir, S. (2024). Contextualizing the ethics of algorithms: A socio-professional approach. New Media & Society, 26(10), 5962–5982.
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review ,39(3), 364– 381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
Cho, W., Fan, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2026). Artificial intelligence across the public administration system: Public values, institutions, and bureaucrats in the algorithmic age. Global Public Policy and Governance, 6, 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-026-00151-1
Dodds, T., Ngai Yeung, W., Mellado, C., & De Lima-Santos, M. F. (2026). On controlled change: Generative AI’s impact on professional authority in journalism. Journalism Studies, 1– 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2026.2616634
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., ... & Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Dwivedi, R., & Elluri, L. (2024). Exploring generative artificial intelligence research: A bibliometric analysis approach. IEEE Access, 12, 119884–119902. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3450629
Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic: On the practice of knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
Gërguri, D., Sorrells, J., Anghel, G., Frías, M., Matei, A., Çipuri, R., Lechpammer, S., Arık, E., & Lovrenčič Držanič, I. (2026). Diffusion, logics, and boundaries: How journalists in marginalized media markets negotiate AI in newsrooms. Media and Communication, 14, Article 12438. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.12438
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317– 371. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590299
Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2024). What generative AI means for the media industries, and why it matters to study the collective consequences for advertising, journalism, and public relations. Emerging Media, 2(3), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241289239
Introna, L. D. (2016). Algorithms, governance, and governmentality: On governing academic writing. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 17–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915587360
Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L. S., & Janowski, T. (2020). Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), Article 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101493
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003654160
Manolică, A., Bucătaru, O., Roman, C., Bertea, P., & Jelea, A. (2025). Adoption of AI in digital marketing: Comparing Gen Z and Gen Y through the technology acceptance model. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 16(3), 102–128. https://doi.org/10.70594/brain/16.3/9
Meijer, A., Lorenz, L. C., & Wessels, M. (2021). Algorithmization of bureaucratic organizations: Using a practice lens to study how context shapes predictive policing systems. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 837–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13391
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433– 474. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
Pachidi, S., Berends, H., Faraj, S., & Huysman, M. (2021). Make way for the algorithms: Symbolic actions and changeinaregimeofknowing.OrganizationScience, 32(1), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1377
Pătruț, M. (2026). The Post-ChatGPT Research Landscape of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2023–2026): A Bibliometric Analysis. BRAIN. Broad Research In Artificial Intelligence And Neuroscience, 17(1), 156-169. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.70594/brain/17.1/12
Purdy, J. M., Ansari, S., & Gray, B. (2019). Are logics enough? Framing as an alternative tool for understanding institutional meaning making. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(4), 409– 419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617724233
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6588004
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Wamba, S. F., Queiroz, M. M., Randhawa, K., & Gupta, G. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence and the challenges to adding value ethically. Technovation. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497225000677