Making a life in the organizational sciences: no one ever said it was going to be easy

Ferris, Gerald R.; Ketchen, David J.; Buckley, M. Ronald

doi:10.1002/job.533

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For reasons too numerous to describe in this commentary, the publication process has become increasingly difficult and intensely competitive over the course of the past 20 years (Certo, Sirmon, & Brymer, ; Ferris, Ketchen, & Buckley, ). To achieve success in terms of both scientific advancement and tenure considerations, scholars have sought non‐traditional data collection strategies to augment what others consider to be more accepted forms (e.g., single site, interviews, experimental).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the merits of student‐recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the making

Hochwarter

2013

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student‐recruited sampling (SRS), which typically involves students soliciting participants from predetermined populations to assist in data collection, has become an increasingly common and important research design feature. As evidence, many of the top occupational science journals have published studies with SRS as an important research component in recent years. Supportive evidence notwithstanding, SRS has been subjected to considerable consternation – Arguments that often have taken a one‐sided, and highly pejorative, tone. Wheeler, Shanine, Leon, and Whitman's (2013, J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.) recent meta‐analysis, which compared data from SRS and non‐SRS contexts, challenged the legitimacy of these claims. Findings opposed the persistent ‘non‐representativeness’ criticism documenting comparable effect sizes for politics perceptions and engagement across designs. In this commentary, I briefly discuss implications of their findings and then offer my opinions regarding the use of SRS as informed by the last decade of personal involvement.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the merits of student‐recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the making

Hochwarter

2013

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted earlier, developing paradigmatic fields tend to rely more on particularistic criteria (such as social capital) than universalistic ones (Long & Fox, ) when compared with more developed fields. Given the paradigmatic weakness of management science (Ferris, Ketchen & Buckley, ), it would seem that management academia would probably exhibit this over‐reliance on particularistic criteria. However, when viewed in comparison with some other fields, management science does not seem as extreme.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding a good job: Academic network centrality and early occupational outcomes in management academia

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The impact of universalistic versus particularistic criteria on academic hiring has been receiving growing attention in recent years. Yet, most studies conducted on hiring norms in academy and management academy have ignored the impact of social capital, particularly structural social capital, a particularistic attribute, on occupational outcomes. This could lead to a partial if not misleading view of the sociology of hiring in management academy. We utilize a novel approach, focusing on academic departments' structural social capital in the form of network centrality (based on cumulative PhD exchange networks), and explore how this type of centrality impacts job seekers' occupational prestige for new academic jobs in management departments and early career quality publications. We find that although merit‐based criteria such as publications matter somewhat, academic network centrality explains significant variance in obtaining prestigious jobs. Paradoxically, we find that academic network centrality does not explain early career publications. We discuss the implications of our findings for management science. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…With its intellectual foundations going back over a century (e.g., Dewey, 1896;James, 1907), and drawn from the fields of psychology, sociology, political science, and economics, the organizational sciences reflect a collective body of knowledge that is inherently expansive (Buckley, Hamdani, Klotz, & Valcea, 2011;Ferris, Ketchen, & Buckley, 2008). Over the years, the discipline has expanded to include broad and diverse areas that include organizational behavior, organizational theory, human resources management, and strategic management, and their multidisciplinary roots.…”

Section: The Nature Of Theory In the Organizational Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory in the organizational sciences

Ferris

Hochwarter

Buckley

2011

Organizational Psychology Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this essay, we further delineate the defining characteristics of theory as well as what constitutes a theoretical contribution in organizational research cultivated by our collective experiences in the field. Additionally, we offer our views regarding the fragmented state of thinking that currently exists, how this view has come about, as well as available remedies. Unfortunately, an accurate and honest treatment requires the realization that many of the problems facing the field are not likely be solved without radical shifts in its philosophy. In our identification of issues and subsequent discussions, we err on the side of candor, which may offend some readers. Others may simply view our beliefs as unduly cynical. However, our intention throughout this essay is merely to ''call-em-like-we-see-em'' and not to overstate the case or elicit strong emotions or negative reactions. On the other hand, we view it as a disservice to simply reiterate the ''party line,'' which presents an existing knowledge base that is both robust and accommodating. Clearly, it is neither. Keywords ambiguity, organizational sciences, theory, theory development ''If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.'' Albert EinsteinIt is no exaggeration that theory serves as the foundation of the organizational sciences. Unfortunately, there are few issues in the field that have generated more confusion and

show abstract

Making a life in the organizational sciences: no one ever said it was going to be easy

Cited by 13 publications

References 32 publications

On the merits of student‐recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the making

On the merits of student‐recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the making

Finding a good job: Academic network centrality and early occupational outcomes in management academia

Theory in the organizational sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About