Self-criticisms toward a socially responsible science in the field of management

Bibliographic References

• Agarwal, R., & Hoetker, G. (2007). A Faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with related disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1304– 1322.
• Aguinis, H., Cascio, W. F., & Ramani, R. S. (2017). Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 653–663.
• Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301.
• Aguinis, H., Hill, N. S., & Bailey, J. R. (2021). Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 678–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119836485
• Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110.
• Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Cascio, W. F. (2020). Methodological practices in international business research: An after-action review of challenges and solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(9), 1593–1608.
• Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1291–1315.
• Alberts, B. (2013). Impact Factors Distortions, Science, 340 (6134), 787.
• Andraszewicz, S., Scheibehenne, B., Rieskamp, J., Grasman, R., Verhagen, J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). An introduction to Bayesian hypothesis testing for management research. Journal of Management, 41(2), 521–543.
• Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21.
• Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.
• Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., Bochantin, J. E., Kirkman, B. L., Whelpley, C. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2016). Management’s science -practice gap: A grand challenge for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2205–2231.
• Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O’Brien, J. (2012). Bridging the research–practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73–92.
• Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2011). The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 233–237.
• Barley, S. R. (2010). Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for organization studies. Organization Studies, 31(6), 777–805.
• Barley, S. R. (2016). 60th anniversary essay: Ruminations on how we became a mystery house and how we might get out. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(1), 1–8.
• Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic– practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181–1201.
• Baum, J. A. (2012). The skewed few: Does “skew” signal quality among journals, articles, and academics? Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(3), 349–354.
• Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 198–216.
• Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 715–725.
• Bergh, D. D., Sharp, B. M., & Li, M. (2017). Tests for identifying “red flags” in empirical findings: Demonstration and recommendations for authors, reviewers, and editors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1), 110–124.
• Bettis, R. A. (2012). The search for asterisks: Compromised statistical tests and flawed theories. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1), 108–113.
• Bettis, R. A., Ethiraj, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2016). Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 257–261.
• Bettis, R. A., Helfat, C. E., & Shaver, J. M. (2016). The necessity, logic, and forms of replication. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2193–2203.
• Birkinshaw, J., Healey, M. P., Suddaby, R., & Weber, K. (2014). Debating the future of management research. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 38–55.
• Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1866–1891.
• Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Field, J. G., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, D. R. (2016). HARKing’s threat to organizational research: Evidence from primary and meta-analytic sources. Personnel Psychology, 69(3), 709–750.
• Brown, M. J. (2013). Values in science beyond underdetermination and inductive risk. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 829–839.
• Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
• Bullinger, B., Kieser, A., & Schiller-Merkens, S. (2015). Coping with institutional complexity: Responses of management scholars to competing logics in the field of management studies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 437–450.
• Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications – the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155.
• Cassell, C. (2016). European qualitative research: A celebration of diversity and a cautionary tale. European Management Journal, 34(5), 453–456.
• Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Wellknown but poorly understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 207–230.
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
• Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1013–1019.
• Community for Responsible Research in Business and Management. (2017). A vision of responsible research in business and management: Striving for credible and useful knowledge [White paper]. Draft for Targeted Consultation. https://rrbm.network/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/White_ Paper.pdf
• Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.
• Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 368–383.
• Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2011). The earth is not round (p=.00). Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 332–349.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Davis, G. F. (2015). Editorial essay: What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 179–188.
• De Frutos-Belizón, J., Martín-Alcázar, F., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2019). Reviewing the “Valley of Death” between management research and management practice. Management Research Review, 42(8), 926–953.
• De Man, A. P., Luvison, D., & de Leeuw, T. (In press). A temporal view on the academic–practitioner gap. Journal of Management Inquiry. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1056492620982375
• DORA Declaration. (2012). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Available at: http://www.ascb.org/dora/
• Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Drucker, P. (1974). Management: Tasks, responsibilities and priorities. Heinemann.
• Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
• Ethiraj, S. K., Gambardella, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2016). Replication in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2191–2192.
• Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891–904.
• Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Balanced incomplete block designs for inter-rater reliability studies. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5(1), 105–112.
• Fochler, M., Felt, U., & Müller, R. (2016). Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva, 54(2), 175–200.
• George, G. (2014). Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 1–6.
• George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895.
• Gibbert, M., Nair, L. B., Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. (2021). Using outliers for theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 172–181.
• Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
• Goldfarb, B., & King, A. A. (2016). Scientific apophenia in strategic management research: Significance tests & mistaken inference. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), 167–176.
• Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. The Journal of Business Education, 35(3), 115–117.
• Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.
• Hambrick, D. C. (1994). What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11–16.
• Hammarfelt, B. (2017). Recognition and reward in the academy: Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 607–623.
• Hammarfelt, B., & De Rijcke, S. (2015). Accountability in context: Effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 63–77.
• Hangel, N., & Schmidt-Pfister, D. (2017). Why do you publish? On the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 529–544.
• Harley, B. (2015). The one best way? “Scientific” research on HRM and the threat to critical scholarship. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(4), 399–407.
• Hemlin, S., & Rasmussen, S. B. (2006). The shift in academic quality control. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(2), 173–198.
• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.
• Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour -relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening!. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546.
• Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management, 43(1), 5–18.
• Honig, B., Lampel, J., Baum, J. A., Glynn, M. A., Jing, R., Lounsbury, M., Schübler, E., Sirmon, D., Tsui, A., Walsh, J., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2018). Reflections on scientific misconduct in management: Unfortunate incidents or a normative crisis? Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 412–442.
• Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. (2017). Special section on ethics in management research: Norms, identity, and community in the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1), 84–93.
• Hubbard, R. (2016). Corrupt research: The case for reconceptualizing empirical management and social science. SAGE.
• Ingwersen, P., & Larsen, B. (2014). Influence of a performance indicator on Danish research production and citation impact 2000–12. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1325–1344.
• Jebb, A. T., & Woo, S. E. (2015). A Bayesian primer for the organizational sciences: The “two sources” and an introduction to BugsXLA. Organizational Research Methods, 18(1), 92–132.
• Jonsen, K., Fendt, J., & Point, S. (2018). Convincing qualitative research: What constitutes persuasive writing? Organizational Research Methods, 21(1), 30–67.
• Kelemen, M., & Bansal, P. (2002). The conventions of management research and their relevance to management practice. British Journal of Management, 13(2), 97–108.
• Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533.
• Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2012). Collaborate with practitioners: But beware of collaborative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21, 14–28.
• Kieser, A., Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2015). The practical relevance of management research: Turning the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research program. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 143–233.
• Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open evaluation: A vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, Article 79.
• Kruschke, J. K., Aguinis, H., & Joo, H. (2012). The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 722–752.
• Lebel, J., & McLean, R. (2018). A better measure of research from the global south. Nature, 559(7712), 23–26.
• Leung, K. (2011). Presenting post hoc hypotheses as a priori: Ethical and theoretical issues. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 471–479.
• Lewin, A. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Fey, C. F., Levine, S. S., McDermott, G., Murmann, J. P., & Tsang, E. (2016). The critique of empirical social science: New policies at management and organization review. Management and Organization Review, 12(4), 649–658.
• Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. (2011). The skewed few: People and papers of quality in management studies. Organization, 18(4), 467–475.
• Mathieu, J. E. (2016). The problem with [in] management theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1132–1141.
• McKee, R. A., & Miller, C. C. (2015). Institutionalizing Bayesianism within the organizational sciences: A practical guide featuring comments from eminent scholars. Journal of Management, 41(2), 471–490.
• McLeod, A., Savage, A., & Simkin, M. G. (2018). The ethics of predatory journals. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 121–131.
• McShane, B. B., & Gal, D. (2015). Blinding us to the obvious? The effect of statistical training on the evaluation of evidence. Management Science, 62(6), 1707–1718.
• Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659.
• Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
• Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. Berrett-Koehler.
• Molina-Azorín, J. F., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M. D., Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., & Tarí, J. J. (2020). Multilevel research: Foundations and opportunities in management. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 23(4), 319–333.
• Murphy, K. R., & Aguinis, H. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in published results? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 1–17.
• Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.
• O’Kane, P., Smith, A., & Lerman, M. P. (2021). Building transparency and trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 104–139.
• Orlitzky, M. (2012). How can significance tests be deinstitutionalized? Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 199–228.
• Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2020). How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia. Research Policy, 49(1), 103831.
• Pettigrew, A., & Starkey, K. (2016). From the guest editors: The legitimacy and impact of business schools—Key issues and a research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4), 649–664.
• Pierson, F. C. (1959). The education of American Businessmen: A study of university college programs in business administration. McGraw-Hill.
• Popper, K. R. (1959). The propensity interpretation of probability. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 10(37), 25–42.
• Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century? McGraw-Hill.
• Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258–284.
• Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
• Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 486–502.
• Ramos-Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981– 1004.
• Roloff, J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2019). Null findings, replications and preregistered studies in business ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(3), 609–619.
• Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses, Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 475–515.
• Runfola, A., Perna, A., Baraldi, E., & Gregori, G. L. (2017). The use of qualitative case studies in top business and management journals: A quantitative analysis of recent patterns. European Management Journal, 35(1), 116–127.
• Sam, C., & Van Der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 68(6), 891–908.
• Sartal, A., González-Loureiro, M., & Vázquez, X. H. (2021). Meta-analyses in management: What can we learn from clinical research? BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 24(1), 91–111.
• Schwab, A., Abrahamson, E., Starbuck, W. H., & Fidler, F. (2011). Perspective—Researchers should make thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis significance tests. Organization Science, 22(4), 1105–1120.
• Shani, A. B., & Coghlan, D. (2014). Collaborate with practitioners: An alternative perspective a rejoinder to Kieser and Leiner (2012). Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(4), 433–437.
• Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 249–266.
• Simon, H. A. (1967). The business school a problem in organizational design. Journal of Management Studies, 4(1), 1–16.
• Stahl, G. K., Brewster, C. J., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multistakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100708.
• Starbuck, W. H. (2016). 60th anniversary essay: How journals could improve research practices in social science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 165–183.
• Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. (2009). Management research and the new logics of discovery and engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 547–558.
• Suddaby, R. (2014). Indigenous management theory: Why management theory is under attack (and what we can do to fix it). In J. A. Miles (Ed.), New directions in management and organization theory (pp. 457–468). Cambridge Scholars.
• Symon, G., Cassell, C., & Johnson, P. (2018). Evaluative practices in qualitative management research: A critical review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 134– 154.
• Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management. Harper.
• Thunnissen, M., & Gallardo-Gallardo, E. (2019). Rigor and relevance in empirical TM research: Key issues and challenges. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 22(3), 171–180.
• Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
• Tsang, E. W. (2016). The philosophy of management research. Taylor & Francis.
• Tsui, A. S. (2013). The spirit of science and socially responsible scholarship. Management and Organization Review, 9(3), 375–394.
• Tsui, A. S. (2016). Reflections on the so-called value-free ideal: A call for responsible science in the business schools. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(1), 4–28.
• Tsui, A. S., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2009). Successful authors and effective reviewers: Balancing supply and demand in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 259–275.
• Tsui, A. S., & Jia, L. (2013). Calling for humanistic scholarship in China. Management and Organization Review, 9(1), 1–15.
• Üsdiken, B. (2014). Centres and peripheries: Research styles and publication patterns in “top” US journals and their European alternatives, 1960–2010. Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 764–789.
• Van Baalen, P., & Karsten, L. (2012). The evolution of management as an interdisciplinary field. Journal of Management History, 18(2), 219–237.
• van Witteloostuijn, (2016). What happened to Popperian falsification? Publishing neutral and negative findings: Moving away from biased publication practices. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23 (3), 481–508.
• Varela, D., Benedetto, G., & Sanchez-Santos, J. M. (2014). Editorial statement: Lessons from Goodhart’s law for the management of the journal. European Journal of Government and Economics, 3(2), 100–103.
• Vogel, D., & Homberg, F. (2021). P-hacking, P-curves, and the PSM–performance relationship: Is there evidential value? Public Administration Review, 81(2), 191–204.
• Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. (2015). Rejoinder: Moving the management field forward. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 620–628.
• Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. (2003). Social issues and management: Our lost cause found. Journal of Management, 29(6), 859–881.
• Watermeyer, R., & Chubb, J. (2019). Evaluating “impact” in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF): Liminality, looseness and new modalities of scholarly distinction. Studies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1554– 1566.
• Wright, P. M. (2017). Making great theories. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 384–390.
• Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.