Author:
Woiceshyn Jaana,Daellenbach Urs
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to address the imbalance between inductive and deductive research in management and organizational studies and to suggest changes in the journal review and publishing process that would help correct the imbalance by encouraging more inductive research.Design/methodology/approachThe authors briefly review the ongoing debate about the “developmental” vs “as-is/light-touch” journal review modes, trace the roots of the prevailing developmental review to the hypothetico-deductive research approach, and contrast publishing deductive and inductive research from the perspectives of authors, editors, and reviewers.FindingsApplication of the same developmental evaluation and review mode to both deductive and inductive research, despite their fundamental differences, discourages inductive research. The authors argue that a light-touch review is more appropriate for inductive research, given its different logic.Practical implicationsSpecific criteria for the light-touch evaluation and review of and some concrete suggestions for facilitating inductive research.Social implicationsAdvancing knowledge requires a better balance of inductive and deductive research, which can be facilitated by light-touch evaluation and review of inductive research.Originality/valueBuilding on the debate on journal publishing, the authors differentiate the evaluation and review of inductive and deductive research based on their philosophical underpinnings and draw implications of pursuing inductive research for authors, editors, and reviewers.
Subject
General Business, Management and Accounting,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Reference47 articles.
1. Barley, S.R. (2008), “A letter to editors”, in Baruch, Y., Konrad, A., Aguinis, H. and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds), Opening the Black Box of Editorship, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 39-45.
2. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline;Academy of Management Learning and Education,2004
3. Bedeian, A. (2008), “Balancing authorial voice and editorial omniscience: the “It’s my paper and I’ll say what I want to” versus ‘Ghostwriters in the sky’ minuet”, in Baruch, Y., Konrad, A., Aguinis, H. and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds), Opening the Black Box of Editorship, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 134-142.
4. Bergh, D. (2008), “The developmental editor: assessing and directing manuscript contribution”, in Baruch, Y., Konrad, A., Aguinis, H. and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds), Opening the Black Box of Editorship, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 114-123.
Cited by
97 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献