TU-L0022 - Statistical Research Methods D, Lecture, 2.11.2021-6.4.2022
This course space end date is set to 06.04.2022 Search Courses: TU-L0022
Written assignment 7 (mandatory)
Readings
Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ--Part 1: Topic Choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432-435. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.61965960
Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ--Part 2: Research Design. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 657-660. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.64869103
Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ--Part 3: Setting the Hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873-879. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.4000
Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ--Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098-1102. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.4001
Zhang, Y. (Anthea), & Shaw, J. D. (2012). Publishing in AMJ--Part 5: Crafting the Methods and Results. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 8-12. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4001
Geletkanycz, M., & Tepper, B. J. (2012). Publishing in AMJ-Part 6: Discussing the Implications. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 256-260. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4002
Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2477
Guide, D., & Ketokivi, M. (2015). Notes from the editors: Redefining some methodological criteria for the journal. Journal of Operations Management, 37, v–viii. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(15)00056-X
Ketokivi, M., & McIntosh, C. N. (2017). Addressing the endogeneity dilemma in operations management research: Theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Operations Management, 52, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2017.05.001
Optional:
Bansal, P. (Tima), & Corley, K. (2012). Publishing in AMJ--Part 7: What's Different about Qualitative Research? Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 509-513. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4003
George, G. (2012). Publishing in AMJ for Non-U.S. Authors. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1023-1026. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4005
Instructions
Read the editorials and answer the questions below.
Questions
1) Compare the four theory-testing empirical articles (Deephouse, 1999; Hekman et al., 2010; Mesquita & Lazzarini, 2008; Yli-Renko, Autio, & Sapienza, 2001) discussed in the class against the guidelines and recommendations presented in the six AMJ editorials. For each editorial, answer the following questions:
- What are the main points of the editorial?
- Which article, in your opinion, was the best with regards to the guidance provided by the editorial?
- Which article, in your opinion, was the weakest with regards to the guidance provided by the editorial and how could it be improved?
An ideal answer would consist of three short paragraphs for each editorial, each answering one of the subquestions above.
2) The Journal of Operations Management, Leadership Quarterly, and Strategic Management Journal editorials both explain policy changes in these journals. Summarize the main points of each of the three editorials. On a more general level, what do you think are the main problems that these editorials address? (Note: Ketokivi and McIntosh 2017 is not an editorial but you should read it nevertheless.)
3) Two of the articles read during the course provide apparently contradictory advice on the inclusions of control variables. One one hand, Antonakis et al (2010) state that "It is always safer to err on the side of caution by including more than fewer control variables" (p. 1092). On the other hand, Aguinis and Vandenberg recommend to "avoid the ‘throw them all into the analyses’ approach" (p. 588). These two recommendations seem conflicting because the first says that there is no harm in including a large number of controls and the second that including a large number of controls is harmful. How should we generally deal with conflicting methodological recommendations? What are each of these recommendations based on? Which of these two recommendations (or both) is correct in this specific case? Justify your answer.
Submit your answers two days before the lecture and bring them also to the lecture. The answer should be 5-10 pages. If you have done this assignment as a part of a previous attempt at this course, you can use your old answer as a starting point and do a revision. If you need help or have questions about the assignment, please post those to the Unit 8 discussion forum.
Readings
Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ--Part 1: Topic Choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432-435. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.61965960
Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ--Part 2: Research Design. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 657-660. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.64869103
Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ--Part 3: Setting the Hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873-879. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.4000
Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ--Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098-1102. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.4001
Zhang, Y. (Anthea), & Shaw, J. D. (2012). Publishing in AMJ--Part 5: Crafting the Methods and Results. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 8-12. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4001
Geletkanycz, M., & Tepper, B. J. (2012). Publishing in AMJ-Part 6: Discussing the Implications. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 256-260. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4002
Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2477
Guide, D., & Ketokivi, M. (2015). Notes from the editors: Redefining some methodological criteria for the journal. Journal of Operations Management, 37, v–viii. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(15)00056-X
Ketokivi, M., & McIntosh, C. N. (2017). Addressing the endogeneity dilemma in operations management research: Theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Operations Management, 52, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2017.05.001
Optional:
Bansal, P. (Tima), & Corley, K. (2012). Publishing in AMJ--Part 7: What's Different about Qualitative Research? Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 509-513. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4003
George, G. (2012). Publishing in AMJ for Non-U.S. Authors. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1023-1026. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4005
Instructions
Read the editorials and answer the questions below.
Questions
1) Compare the four theory-testing empirical articles (Deephouse, 1999; Hekman et al., 2010; Mesquita & Lazzarini, 2008; Yli-Renko, Autio, & Sapienza, 2001) discussed in the class against the guidelines and recommendations presented in the six AMJ editorials. For each editorial, answer the following questions:
- What are the main points of the editorial?
- Which article, in your opinion, was the best with regards to the guidance provided by the editorial?
- Which article, in your opinion, was the weakest with regards to the guidance provided by the editorial and how could it be improved?
An ideal answer would consist of three short paragraphs for each editorial, each answering one of the subquestions above.
2) The Journal of Operations Management, Leadership Quarterly, and Strategic Management Journal editorials both explain policy changes in these journals. Summarize the main points of each of the three editorials. On a more general level, what do you think are the main problems that these editorials address? (Note: Ketokivi and McIntosh 2017 is not an editorial but you should read it nevertheless.)
3) Two of the articles read during the course provide apparently contradictory advice on the inclusions of control variables. One one hand, Antonakis et al (2010) state that "It is always safer to err on the side of caution by including more than fewer control variables" (p. 1092). On the other hand, Aguinis and Vandenberg recommend to "avoid the ‘throw them all into the analyses’ approach" (p. 588). These two recommendations seem conflicting because the first says that there is no harm in including a large number of controls and the second that including a large number of controls is harmful. How should we generally deal with conflicting methodological recommendations? What are each of these recommendations based on? Which of these two recommendations (or both) is correct in this specific case? Justify your answer.
Submit your answers two days before the lecture and bring them also to the lecture. The answer should be 5-10 pages. If you have done this assignment as a part of a previous attempt at this course, you can use your old answer as a starting point and do a revision. If you need help or have questions about the assignment, please post those to the Unit 8 discussion forum.
Sorry, no guest users are allowed to access this plugin. Please login.