Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015

Hensel, Przemysław

doi:10.1016/j.emj.2018.03.004

Cited by 23 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Replication studies in the natural sciences are plentiful and often repeat laboratory experiments in the exact same way as the original study (Hensel 2019). Replications are encouraged in medical and pharmacological fields to ensure findings' efficacy and safety.…”

Section: Replication Of Experimental Studies In Management (Accountinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, management science lacks replications of key research (Kepes et al 2014;Makel and Plucker 2014), which is troubling because this line of research is grounded in human behavior (Morrison et al 2010). While a few management journals (e.g., Management Review Quarterly) have recently begun to publish replications (Block and Kuckertz 2018), the number is still low (Hensel 2019). In management accounting, reanalysis of key works is rare, and only now are top journals calling for replication studies.…”

Section: Replication Of Experimental Studies In Management (Accountinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Replications enjoy a rich history in the natural sciences but are uncommon in the social sciences (Hensel 2019). Too often, in the social sciences, they are viewed as deficient in ingenuity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The impact of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction and manufacturing performance: a replication of Lindquist (1995) with a focus on the importance of common metrics in experimental design

Lindquist

Rausch

2021

J Manag Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper replicates Lindquist’s (Lindquist, Journal of Management Accounting Research 7:122–147, 1995) seminal research introducing the concepts of justice to the accounting literature. We use organizational justice theory, as did he, to replicate his study and, in doing so, question some findings of partial replications and extensions done over the past 25 years. We do this because work built off his study has challenged some of his findings. These challenges, we believe, have resulted from most researchers using different research metrics than did Lindquist. Many of these extensions have also used a mental-based task, instead of a manual-based one, in their experiments. We believe this constrains the ability to draw inferences and conclusions from this subsequent research. We further believe this constraint extends to much of the experimental research in the social sciences.In our research we replicate exactly Lindquist’s (Lindquist, Journal of Management Accounting Research 7:122–147, 1995) operationalizations of voice and vote and measure dependent outcomes for four of the same conditions he investigated. In contrast to most of other follow-up studies, we find, as did Lindquist, that having a voice only leads to significantly enhanced satisfaction with high-stretch targets, as compared to having a vote only or no input. We also corroborate Lindquist’s (Lindquist, Journal of Management Accounting Research 7:122–147, 1995) result that having a voice only leads to significantly greater satisfaction with the experimental task, as compared to participants with a vote only or no input. Additionally, unlike Lindquist (Lindquist, Journal of Management Accounting Research 7:122–147, 1995), we find participants allowed only a voice significantly outperform participants with a vote only and no input. We thus support Lindquist’s findings of a fair process effect for voice and perceptions of pseudo-participation related to vote.

show abstract

Section: Replication Of Experimental Studies In Management (Accountinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Replication Of Experimental Studies In Management (Accountinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction and manufacturing performance: a replication of Lindquist (1995) with a focus on the importance of common metrics in experimental design

Lindquist

Rausch

2021

J Manag Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meg kell jegyezni ugyanakkor, hogy még abban az esetben is, ha a kutatók olyan módszereket használnak, amelyek segítik a kutatás megismétlését, és megfelelő módon leírják a folyamatát, akkor is meglehetősen ritkán kerül sor kutatások megismétlésére. Az utóbbi időben megjelent kutatások rámutatnak, hogy a legszínvonalasabbnak tartott menedzsment-folyóiratokban publikált tanulmányok közül számos nem megismételhető (Bergh, Sharp, Aguinis & Li 2017;Hensel 2018b). A kiadók -amikor a szerzőkkel szemben támasztott követelményeiket fogalmazzák meg -, valamint a független bírálók és az olvasók is fenntartással fogadják a replikatív szövegeket (Ketchen Jr & Ireland 2010;Neuliep & Crandall 1991, 1993.…”

Section: Academy Of Management Journalunclassified

A legitimáció nyomában

Hensel¹,

Glinka²

2019

Apertura

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dolgozat a szervezetelmélet néhány aspektusát vizsgálja. A szervezetelméletet olyan kutatási területként jellemzi, amely egymással nem összeegyeztethető belső és külső elvárásoknak kénytelen megfelelni. Ebből a feltevésből kiindulva vizsgálják meg a szerzők azokat a tényezőket, amelyek befolyásolják a terület legitimációs folyamatait. A tanulmány második részében tárgyalják a publikációs gyakorlatokat -beleértve a független bírálatot (peer review) -, valamint azoknak a legitimációs folyamatokra gyakorolt hatását. Foglalkoznak továbbá a szervezetelmélet különféle diskurzusaival: a tudományos és a populáris diskurzussal. A tanulmány összefoglalásaként rámutatnak arra, hogyan befolyásolják a meglévő gyakorlatok a kutatás minőségét és a terület további sorsát. SzerzőProf. dr hab. Przemysław Hensel a Varsói Egyetem Menedzsment Tanszékének docense. Jelenlegi kutatási témái között szerepel a szervezetelméleti kutatások legitimációs kérdései, a megkérdőjelezhető kutatási gyakorlatok és a kutatási eredmények megismételhetősége.Nemrégiben közölt egy cikket arról, hogyan viszonyultak a menedzsmenttel foglalkozó legnevesebb folyóiratok a megismételt kutatásokhoz az utóbbi 45 év során (European Management Journal), egy cikket az intézményesülés kezdeti stádiumának szervezetelméleti vonatkozásairól ( Journal of Management Inquiry), és könyve jelent meg azokról a legitimációs problémákról, amelyekkel a menedzsmenttudományok szembesülnek. Fulbrgiht-ösztöndíjjal kutatott a Stanfordi

show abstract

“…Second, increased participation of Eastern European scholars in that market may bring new ideas and points of view to the debate thus enriching the global discourse on organizations. Third, given the recent increase in interest in replication research (Bettis et al, 2016;Gelman, 2015;Gelman & Loken, 2014;Hensel, 2019), testing extant theories with Eastern European samples may help identify theories' boundaries and limitations. Fourth, the findings of this study may constitute a departure point for similar studies in other underrepresented regions, such as South America, Africa, and parts of Asia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalized Publishing Practices as a Barrier to Participation in the Global Management Discourse

Hensel¹,

Warsaw²

2018

IJCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Eastern European authors in general, and Polish authors in particular hardly ever publish their work in the top management journals. For instance, out of the 3710 Administrative Science Quarterly papers available in the Web of Science, only 6 (0.16%) were authored or co-authored by scholars residing in the Eastern Europe, including none residing in Poland. The situation is not much better when we take a look at European management journals: Organization Studies features only 24 papers (0.87% of all OS papers available in WoS) authored by scholars residing in Eastern Europe, while Journal of Management Studies so far published one such paper (0.03% of all). Research aims. The study aims at answering the question by analyzing institutionalized publishing practices manifested in the submission guidelines of Polish and global management journals. Methodology. Content analysis of submission guidelines in two samples of journals: global and Polish. Key findings. The study identified significant differences between Polish and global institutionalized publishing practices, regarding the requirements toward the contribution, the role of reviewers, and the technical features of papers. The obtained results shed light on difficulties associated with publishing papers by Polish scholars in the global top management journals. Findings also suggest that adopting different institutionalized practices necessary for successful submissions to global journals may be associated with identity work and depends on author's willingness and ability to engage in such work. Finally, the results of this study contribute to research on the Americanization of management education and on the persistence of institutionalized practices despite prolonged exposure to global literature on management.

show abstract

Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015

Cited by 23 publications

References 83 publications

The impact of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction and manufacturing performance: a replication of Lindquist (1995) with a focus on the importance of common metrics in experimental design

The impact of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction and manufacturing performance: a replication of Lindquist (1995) with a focus on the importance of common metrics in experimental design

A legitimáció nyomában

Institutionalized Publishing Practices as a Barrier to Participation in the Global Management Discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About