An Additional Rating Method for Journal Articles in the Field of Management

Kacmar, K. Michele; Whitfield, J. Michael

doi:10.1177/109442810034005

Cited by 80 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also need to test boundary conditions to know when predictions of a theory hold and when they do not. Ironically, despite the organizational science's deductive exclusivity, many if not most of what is presented as theory is underdeveloped (Cucina and McDaniel 2016), and our theories receive inadequate confirmatory testing (Cortina 2016;Kacmar and Whitfield 2000;Nicklin and Spector 2016).…”

Section: Induction Abduction Deductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Lost Art of Discovery: The Case for Inductive Methods in Occupational Health Science and the Broader Organizational Sciences

Spector

2017

Occup Health Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper makes a case for the necessity of inductive and abductive approaches to research in occupational health science and the broader organizational sciences. Three forms of scientific inference are described: induction (exploratory research that generalizes from observations), abduction (deriving explanations for observations), and deduction (confirmatory research that tests theory-derived hypotheses). It is argued that the current deductive exclusiveness in the major journals of many fields has created unintended challenges to research integrity of confirmation bias, phacking, HARKing, and the chrysalis effect. Recommendations are given for writing and reviewing research papers that adopt an inductive and/or abductive approach.Keywords Abduction . Exploratory research . Inductive research . Philosophyofscience . Research integrity . Research methods Discovery can be considered the most important aspect of scientific progress, both for the field and individual scientists. Famous scientists are generally known mostly for what they discovered, such as Einstein for relativity, Fleming for penicillin, and Newton for mechanics of motion. Although these examples are from the physical sciences, social and organizational sciences have discoveries too, for example, that goals improve performance (E. A. Locke and Latham 1990), or that introducing new work technologies can be disruptive and stressful (Trist and Bamforth 1951). These discoveries add to the knowledge base of the field, help direct future research, and are often the basis for evidence-based intervention in the field. Yet despite the fact that discovery is vitally important in science, for more than two decades, the organizational sciences have rejected discovery, considering it somehow inferior and unimportant as

show abstract

Section: Induction Abduction Deductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Lost Art of Discovery: The Case for Inductive Methods in Occupational Health Science and the Broader Organizational Sciences

Spector

2017

Occup Health Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, theories need to be tested, so for every theory we should expect to find a number of tests to confirm or disconfirm the theory's predictions. Unfortunately, in these days of over-reliance on theory generation, many if not most of our theories have been under-tested and receive few if any empirical tests beyond the original paper in which they appeared (Kacmar and Whitfield 2000).However, there can be drawbacks when we demand that we base our science entirely on theory. By providing frameworks, theories can focus our approaches in certain directions to the exclusion of others, and discourage us from exploring new ways of thinking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving the Pendulum Back to the Middle: Reflections on and Introduction to the Inductive Research Special Issue of Journal of Business and Psychology

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue of the Journal of Business and Psychology contains a diverse set of 13 papers that adopted an inductive approach. In addition to setting the stage for the special feature, the case for inductive research is broached. The papers in the special feature used a variety of approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, that shared the characteristic that they did not report tests of deductive theory-driven hypotheses. Rather these papers presented exploratory findings that were not limited by an explicit a priori theoretical framework. The special issue heeds calls that the field needs more inductive research to serve as the basis for theory. It is hoped that it will inspire editors of other journals to be more accepting of good inductive papers that report novel findings.Keywords Deductive research Á Deductive theory Á Inductive research Á Inductive theory Á Special issueOver the past 60 years, psychology has evolved from the largely atheoretical and data-driven era of behaviorism to the theory-driven hypothesis testing days of today. Organizational research has followed this trend, moving from empirical demonstration and exploratory approaches to deductive theory-based hypothesis confirmation. Whereas the almost exclusive focus on the deductive approach has come under criticism (Hambrick 2007;Locke 2007), if anything the field's response to calls for a more balanced approach has been to double-down on the requirement for deductive theory testing in every paper. Even papers reporting meta-analyses, that just a few years in the past were largely descriptive snapshots of an area of research, now contain theoretical frameworks and hypothesis tests, often because this is what editors and reviewers demand.There is no disputing that theories can be useful. They can help organize and synthesize what we know about a phenomenon. A good theory can help us predict and control future events. Furthermore, theories need to be tested, so for every theory we should expect to find a number of tests to confirm or disconfirm the theory's predictions. Unfortunately, in these days of over-reliance on theory generation, many if not most of our theories have been under-tested and receive few if any empirical tests beyond the original paper in which they appeared (Kacmar and Whitfield 2000).However, there can be drawbacks when we demand that we base our science entirely on theory. By providing frameworks, theories can focus our approaches in certain directions to the exclusion of others, and discourage us from exploring new ways of thinking. If all of our studies must be based on a priori theory, there is no room in the literature for reports of new phenomena for which there are no theories, or for new ways of viewing phenomena that fail to fit any preconceived theoretical frameworks.Another drawback to an over-emphasis on theory is that it has created a literature in which post hoc theorizing is routinely presented as tests of a priori hypotheses, leading to confirmation bias in which almost all papers report s...

show abstract

“…For example, (1) long articles collect many citations and, on average, receive a higher journal impact factor than short articles; (2) journals with a short publication lag allow many short-term journal citations and thus receive a higher journal impact factor; (3) new and specialized journals tend to be excluded from the impact factor; (4) no correlation exists between an individual's journal articles and the journal impact factor; and (5) authors tend to over-cite themselves (Guerrero, 2002). Kacmar and Whitfield (2000) identify several inherent problems with journal rankings. They suggest that the problem arises because of the generalization in rankings, as each citation is awarded equal weight.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rankings in the Eyes of the Beholder: A Vox Populi Approach to Academic Journal Ranking

Fam¹,

Shukla²,

Sinha³

et al. 2011

AJBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ranking of academic journals is a contentious issue in the current higher education environment. Across the world, peers judge academics for tenure and promotion on the basis of the quality or prestige of the journals in which they publish. This research proposes a new metric (i.e., the MAG score) to assess journal impact and ranking in the field of marketing using the vox populi approach. The findings show that the vox populi approach provides a more comprehensive measure of journal impact than other impact factor metrics from the perspective of academics.

show abstract

An Additional Rating Method for Journal Articles in the Field of Management

Cited by 80 publications

References 84 publications

The Lost Art of Discovery: The Case for Inductive Methods in Occupational Health Science and the Broader Organizational Sciences

The Lost Art of Discovery: The Case for Inductive Methods in Occupational Health Science and the Broader Organizational Sciences

Moving the Pendulum Back to the Middle: Reflections on and Introduction to the Inductive Research Special Issue of Journal of Business and Psychology

Rankings in the Eyes of the Beholder: A Vox Populi Approach to Academic Journal Ranking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About