Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41000246›Full record

ArticleCompetition & change2025

Theorizing competition: An interdisciplinary framework.

Carina Altreiter, Claudius Gräbner-Radkowitsch, Stephan Pühringer, Ana Rogojanu, Georg Wolfmayr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Competition & change, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carina AltreiterInstitute for Sociology and Social Research, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0791-1598
Claudius Gräbner-RadkowitschDepartment of Pluralist Economics, Europa Universität Flensburg, Flensburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4065-4722
Stephan PühringerInstitute for the Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2902-1895
Ana RogojanuInstitute for Sociology and Social Research, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0493-0729
Georg WolfmayrInstitute for Sociology and Social Research, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper introduces a framework to facilitate an interdisciplinary analysis of "competition." While such an interdisciplinary analysis can be justified by referencing the various fields of social and economic life in which "competition" is important, three challenges are found to aggravate such endeavor: First, a challenge of scope, which refers to the generality of the concept of "competition" and the fact that contributions differ with regard to the competing actors, the objects of competition, as well as the institutional specificities of competition; second, a challenge of methodology, which exists because different scientific disciplines study competition with distinct methods and epistemological orientations, and, third, a challenge of normativity, which refers to the fact that debates about competition have been closely linked to controversial political debates. To mitigate these challenges, and to explicate the often implicit meta-theoretical assumptions in the scope, methodological, and normative dimension, this paper introduces a meta-theoretical framework. Its usefulness is illustrated via a comparative description of selected contributions from the social sciences and humanities. Despite its limited scope, it yields some preliminary conjectures that may inspire future research: first, there are sufficient common elements across different concepts of competition that justify an interdisciplinary approach to study competition; second, apart from differences between disciplines, there are remarkable differences within disciplines that are at least of similar importance. Finally, there are important interdependencies between the meta-theoretical dimensions considered in the framework.

Indexed as

B41B5Competitioninterdisciplinaritymethodology of the social sciences and humanitiesP16

Identifiers

PMID41000246
PMCPMC12459866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.