Thought experiments: Review and recommendations

Abstract

Summary Thought experiments have been used as an effective methodological approach to advance theory in numerous scientific fields. However, they are underutilized in organizational behavior (OB) and adjacent fields. Accordingly, we conducted a comprehensive and multidisciplinary literature review of thought experiments that entailed 174 sources in economics, psychology, marketing, medicine, sociology, finance, and other fields. We used insights from this literature review to define and describe the unique nature of thought experiments and offer a taxonomy of four main types based on a theory's development stage (i.e., early vs. late) and a study's theoretical goal (i.e., confirmation vs. disconfirmation). We also provide a decision‐making tree useful for evaluating whether conducting a thought experiment is beneficial for a particular research situation and which of the four types is most likely to produce a meaningful contribution. Then, we offer best‐practice recommendations for conducting thought experiments that address how to plan, execute, report results, and discuss implications. In addition, we demonstrate the potential of thought experiments by using the best‐practice recommendations to design and conduct a thought experiment in the domain of workplace allyship. Finally, we offer suggestions for future substantive research that would benefit from thought experiment methodology (i.e., diversity, equity, and inclusion; leadership; performance; selection and recruitment; teams; and turnover). Overall, our article offers a comprehensive review and recommendations that we hope will be a catalyst for using thought experiments to advance theory in OB and related fields.

Thought experiments: No argument here—We need more of them

“…When the format for a set of articles is called “point/counterpoint” (PCP), the reader is naturally led to expect a debate or “argument” between the contributing authors. For the current topic of thought experiments, however, this creates a dilemma for me, since I find myself agreeing with Aguinis et al's (2023) points regarding thought experiments. Now, I suppose, I could contradict these points by providing the “counterpoint” perspective that readers may be anticipating, but doing so risks advocating a nonsensical position that has little merit just for the sake of argument.…”

“…Indeed, if this definition alone is applied, one could argue that many, and perhaps most, of the articles appearing in management journals devoted exclusively to theory, such as the Academy of Management Review , or conceptual special issues such as those published annually by the Journal of Organizational Behavior and Group & Organization Management , employ thought experiments. What separates the thought experiments Aguinis et al (2023) advocate from the theory building approaches reflected in most OB conceptual articles is the explicit and systematic methodology they advanced and the best‐practice recommendations it encompasses (see tab. 1 from their article).…”

“…To support the preceding assertion, I examined a set of theory articles that I have come to rely on in my own teaching and research that appear to fit Aguinis et al's (2023) thought experiment definition, but did not show up in their review. Note that because my search for examples was neither systematic nor exhaustive, it most likely constitutes just a fraction of the conceptual works that eluded their literature review.…”

“…Now, I suppose, I could contradict these points by providing the “counterpoint” perspective that readers may be anticipating, but doing so risks advocating a nonsensical position that has little merit just for the sake of argument. So, instead, I wish to identify up front the key points on which Aguinis and associates (2023) and I agree, followed by a discussion of some points where I have a slightly different perspective. Here, it is important to note that these differences in perspective can best be viewed as “Yes, and …” extensions of their arguments, rather than “Yes, but …” counterpoints.…”

Using review articles to address societal grand challenges

“…Also, addressing societal grand challenges does not mean that only reviews of novel methods are useful. On the contrary, although many reviews have addressed methodologies that are quite novel and under‐utilized in management research, such as thought experiments (Aguinis et al., in press‐a; Hachigian, in press), others address qualitative and quantitative methods that have been in use for decades, such as meta‐analysis (Steel et al., 2021), among many others.…”