Research Methods in the Service of Discovery

Morgan W. McCall, Jr. University of Southern California Philip Bobko Rutgers University The scientific method, developed and refined largely by the physical sciences and adapted to the behavioral sciences, is particularly suited to the verification of theories, ideas, and hunches. The role "normal" science (Kuhn, 1970) plays in the discovery of anything neb is less clear. Using examples from the physical sciences, this chapter explores the relationship between methodology and discove y and concludes that no particular technique or method holds a monopoly on creating, uncovering, or inventing something new-no approach to science provides a recipe or guarantee. In many cases, major scientific discoveries in the physical sciences have resulted from methodologies held in vague disrepute by industrial and organizational psychologists. In this chapter, we argue that we would profit from greater methodological open-mindedness in our approach to exploring organizational phenomena. More explicitly, we suggest that there are steps that can be taken, no matter what method one uses, to encourage the possibility of discovering the new or unexpected.

What Theory is Not

by: Robert I. Sutton, Barry M. Staw

Abstract
This essay describes differences between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory. There is little agreement about what constitutes strong versus weak theory in the social sciences, but there is more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory. Despite this consensus, however, authors routinely use these five elements in lieu of theory. We explain how each of these five elements can be confused with theory and how to avoid such confusion. By making this consensus explicit, we hope to help authors avoid some of the most common and easily averted problems that lead readers to view papers as having inadequate theory. We then discuss how journals might facilitate the publication of stronger theory. We suggest that if the field is serious about producing stronger theory, journals need to reconsider their empirical requirements. We argue that journals ought to be more receptive to papers that test part rather than all of a theory and use illustrative rather than definitive data.

Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable

by: Jeffrey Pfeffer The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4. (1993), pp. 599-620. doi:10.2307/258592 Key: citeulike:3577636

Abstract
The level of paradigm development-technical certainty and consensus-characterizing a field of study has numerous consequences for the social organization and operation of that field. These consequences, ranging from the ability to obtain resources to the ease of working collaboratively on research, have an impact on the subsequent development of the field (i.e., through a positive feedback loop). Although the degree of technical certainty or consensus is clearly affected by the fundamental nature of the subject of study, consensus is also produced by social practices that differentiate fields that are more or less paradigmatically developed. The study of organizations is arguably paradigmatically not well developed, in part because of values that emphasize representativeness, inclusiveness, and theoretical and methodological diversity. Although these values are attractive ideals, there are consequences for the field's ability to make scientific progress, which almost requires some level of consensus, as well as for its likely ability to compete successfully with adjacent social sciences such as economics in the contest for resources. Recognizing the trade-offs and processes involved in scientific progress seems to be a necessary first step for thinking about the dilemmas that are implicit in the sociology of science literature.

Building Theories from Case Study Research

by: Kathleen M. Eisenhardt

Abstract
This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies-from specifying the research questions to reaching closure. Some features of the process, such as problem definition and construct validation, are similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others, such as within-case analysis and replication logic, are unique to the inductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described here is highly iterative and tightly linked to data. This research approach is especially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory is often novel, testable, and empirically valid. Finally, frame breaking insights, the tests of good theory (e.g., parsimony, logical coherence), and convincing grounding in the evidence are the key criteria for evaluating this type of research.

Comments on "What Theory is Not"

by: Paul J. DiMaggio

Volume, Volatility, Price, and profit When All Traders Are Above Average
By Odean

Psychological studies establish that people are usually overconfident and that they systematically Overweight some types of information while underweighting others. How overconfidence affects a Financial market depends on who in the market is overconfident and on how Information is distributed. This paper examines markets in which price-taking traders, a strategic-trading insider, and risk-averse marketmakers are overconfident. It also analyzes the effects of overconfidence when information is costly. In all scenarios, overconfidence increases expected trading volume and market depth while lowering the expected utility of those who are overconfident. However, its effect on volatility and price quality depend on Who is overconfident? Overconfident traders can cause markets to underreact to the information Of rational traders. Markets also underreact to abstract, statistical, or highly relevant Information, while they overreact to salient, anecdotal, or less relevant information.

AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

F. DAVID SCHOORMAN Purdue University ROGER C. MAYER A considerable amount of research has examined trust since our 1995 publication. We revisit some of the critical issues that we addressed and provide clarifications and extensions of the topics of levels of analysis, time, control systems, reciprocity, and measurement. We also recognize recent research in new areas of trust, such as

affect, emotion, violation and repair, distrust, international and cross-cultural issues, and context-specific models, and we identify promising avenues for future research.