Call for Papers

In this sub-theme, we want to critically examine the correspondence between theory and methods and advance scholarly work by discussing the relationship and interaction between theorizing and the application of research methods. We have observed that investigators are too often concerned with how methods are carried out, i.e., which steps they need to follow, and which analyses they need to run when employing method X, especially when determining rigor. However, rigor in most author’s (and reviewers’) understanding has devolved into something of a yardstick that measures whether an author followed the same steps followed in previous work, rather than a larger evaluation of the degree to which the design and methods are in line with the actual research questions, the specific research context, and the larger epistemological background of the study (Harley & Cornelissen, 2022; Köhler, Smith, & Bhakoo, 2022).
 
Consequently, as editors and editorial board members, we have witnessed the application of many sophisticated statistical techniques in quantitative work or templated application of a coding scheme in qualitative work, which do not in fact lend themselves to the evaluation of the research questions or hypotheses all that well. On the flipside, in some cases, we see authors make adjustments to methods for no apparent reason, other than to increase the likelihood of producing a particular outcome of their research (e.g., Cortina et al., 2017; Heggestad et al., 2019; Smith, McCarthy, & Anderson, 2000). Both of these trends are worrisome, particularly when considering (re)emerging themes in organization studies, like time, space, and people. With this sub-theme, we provide a platform to discuss current methodological trends, theoretical and methodological concerns, as well as ways forward to curb these trends and foster a more appropriate union of theory and method.
 
In particular, we would like to see a more critical engagement of the research community with the way in which we employ research methods to support and facilitate our theorizing. Increased awareness that the methods we employ greatly influence the findings from our research and the conclusions we draw for theorizing is necessary to stop some of the worrying trends mentioned above (e.g., Köhler & Cortina, 2021, 2023; Köhler, Smith, & Bhakoo, 2022; Mees-Buss, Welch, & Piekkari, 2022; Cortina et al., 2022; Cortina et al., 2023).
 
In addition, we need to question prevailing methodological assumptions and templates to reflect whether our favored research methods allow us to explore and understand topics of high relevance. For example, recent research on consequences of caste membership, low-income populations, or refugee samples has called into question whether our current conceptualizations of rigor, favored epistemological stance, and methodological best practices really support highly relevant work in non-standard populations, which often do not conform to the characteristics of the kind of middle-class, highly educated samples we usually research (Chrispal, Bapuji, & Zietsma, 2020; Halme et al., 2022). Going forward, we need to critically assess how our methodological choices hinder knowledge advancement in our field and how we can overcome our predilections to break new grounds and achieve deeper insights in our work. We believe such conversations are best held with organization studies scholars, who can be unconventional and critical in their methods and theory.
 
With this sub-theme, we want to create room for taking stock, contemplation, and calls for change (Bartunek, 2019) regarding the field’s methodological practices and subsequent theorizing. Possible topics include but are not restricted to:

• Which methodological practices best support the process of theorizing?

• What methodological trends are worrying and why?

• What are the consequences of these trends for the content and quality of the field’s theorizing efforts?

• What hegemonial forces underlie current methodological choices that restrict exploration of highly relevant research topics (including time, space, people), as well as an engagement with underrepresented population groups?

• How does the prevalence of some epistemological traditions potentially undermine a balanced knowledge generation cycle?

• What strategies could be employed to curb these trends and foster a better integration of theory and method?

• What are potentially useful research methods to expand our field of research and broaden our lenses of exploration, leading to new discoveries and new ways of seeing?

• How could we encourage greater diversity of methods, including critical methods, to advance organization theory?

 
These topics are indicative only. We generally welcome papers that critically engage with the method-theory nexus, and we are open to conceptual, empirical, and methodological papers.
 

References

• Bartunek, J.M. (2019): “Contemplation and Organization Studies: Why contemplative activities are so crucial for our academic lives.” Organization Studies, 40 (10), 1463–1479.
• Chrispal, S., Bapuji, H., & Zietsma, C. (2021): “Caste and Organization Studies: Our Silence Makes Us Complicit.” Organization Studies, 42 (9), 1501–1515.
• Cortina, J.M., Green, J.P., Keeler, K.R., & Vandenberg, R.J. (2017): “Degrees of Freedom in SEM: Are We Testing the Models That We Claim to Test?.” Organizational Research Methods, 20 (3), 350–378.
• Cortina, J.M., Köhler, T., Keeler, K.R., & Pugh, S.D. (2022): “Situation strength as a basis for interactions in psychological models.” Psychological Methods, 27 (2), 212–233.
• Cortina, J.M., Köhler, T., Sheng, Z., Keeler, K.R., Nielsen, B.B., Coombs, J.E., & Ketchen, D.J. (2023): “Restricted Variance Interactions in Entrepreneurship Research: A Unique Basis for Context-as-Moderator Hypotheses.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47 (5), 1995–2016.
• Halme, M., Piekkari, R., Matos, S., Wierenga, M., & Hall, J. (2022): “Rigour vs. Reality: Contextualizing Qualitative Research in the Low‐Income Settings in Emerging Markets.” British Journal of Management, first published online on November 23, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12690.
• Harley, B., & Cornelissen, J. (2022): “Rigor With or Without Templates? The Pursuit of Methodological Rigor in Qualitative Research.” Organizational Research Methods, 25 (2), 239–261.
• Heggestad, E.D., Scheaf, D.J., Banks, G.C., Monroe Hausfeld, M., Tonidandel, S., & Williams, E.B. (2019): “Scale Adaptation in Organizational Science Research: A Review and Best-Practice Recommendations.” Journal of Management, 45 (6), 2596–2627.
• Köhler, T., & Cortina, J.M. (2021): “Play It Again, Sam! An Analysis of Constructive Replication in the Organizational Sciences.” Journal of Management, 47 (2), 488–518.
• Köhler, T., & Cortina, J.M. (2023): “Constructive replication, reproducibility, and generalizability: Getting theory testing for JOMSR right.” Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1 (2), 75–93.
• Köhler, T., Smith, A., & Bhakoo, V. (2022): “Templates in Qualitative Research Methods: Origins, Limitations, and New Directions.” Organizational Research Methods, 25 (2), 183–210.
• Mees-Buss, J., Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2022): “From Templates to Heuristics: How and Why to Move Beyond the Gioia Methodology.” Organizational Research Methods, 25 (2), 405–429.
• Smith, G.T., McCarthy, D.M., & Anderson, K.G. (2000): “On the sins of short-form development.” Psychological assessment, 12 (1), 102–111.
•