Evaluating inductive vs deductive research in management studies

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.

Publisher

Emerald

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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3