#MeToo, Covid-19 and the new workplace: re-examining institutional discrimination's impact on workplace harassment of expatriates following two exogenous shocks

Abstract

PurposeReplication is essential to science for the purpose of (1) updating previously accepted knowledge and (2) testing the boundary conditions of this knowledge. Although Bader et al.’s (2018) impactful paper on gender harassment experienced by expatriates was only published five years ago, there have been two relevant exogenous shocks to the environment since they collected their data, making this study an excellent target for replication.Design/methodology/approachThree-hundred ninety-one expatriates who were currently working in 79 different countries completed an electronic survey that included scales for gender harassment, ethnicity harassment, general stress, frustration and job satisfaction. Data were analyzed using partial least-squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in Stata17.FindingsConsistent with prior research, gender had a significant relationship with workplace gender harassment (ß = 0.228, p < 0.001) such that males experienced lower levels of harassment than other expatriates. The relationship between race/ethnicity and experiences of ethnicity harassment was dependent upon model specification. Workplace harassment had a negative relationship with job satisfaction (gender harassment, ß = −0.114, p = 0.030; ethnicity harassment; ß = −0.146, p = 0.002) and a positive relationship with frustration (gender harassment, ß = 0.231, p < 0.001; ethnicity harassment, ß = 0.213, p < 0.001).Originality/valueUsing a larger, more diverse sample than that used in prior research, the authors were able to test the generalizability of accepted knowledge. While the authors replicated many findings identified in prior research, they failed to replicate the effects pertaining to the relationship between macro-level variables and experiences of harassment. Given that macro-level variables play a key role in status construction theory (SCT), this research raises important questions for future work.

Designing, executing, and publishing replication research: Best practices for successfully taking replication ideas from conceptualization to publication

“…For example, Bermiss et al (2023) replicated a pair of studies with conflicting findings that had been widely discussed in the academic community and popular press. In Obenauer and Rezaei (2023), we replicated a paper that was only cited 58 times, but it was an award-winning paper. Additionally, we were specifically targeting a paper based on a call for submissions that said, "The submission may be a replication of an article published in JGM or a replication of a study with an appropriate topic for JGM but published in another journal" (Selmer et al, 2022).…”

“…We justified this decision by focusing on the importance of the research question, its position in the research stream, and its relevance to the journal, while arguing that we used replication as a vehicle for examining the research question rather than focusing on the target study. In the cases of both Kalsher et al (2019) and Obenauer and Rezaei (2023), our replication target selection was justified, but risky. Had we been unable to publish our replications in the targeted journals, our potential outlets for subsequent submissions may have been limited.…”

“…For example, when conducting literal replication, the researcher can simply restate the hypotheses from the target study that they will be retesting (e.g., Bermiss et al, 2023;Hamdani et al, 2023;Obenauer & Kalsher, 2023;Obenauer & Rezaei, 2023). When introducing new variables, it is helpful if the researcher motivates the introduction of these variables and proposes new hypotheses to test that will generate an understanding of the impact of these variables (e.g., Hammond et al, 2023;Obenauer, 2023;Obenauer & Rezaei, 2023). Choosing not to articulate hypotheses and utilize a research question is also possible (e.g., Chang et al, 2016;Hopp & Pruschak, 2023;Kalsher et al, 2019), though this method can make defining successful replication more difficult.…”

“…This is not the case. For example, when Obenauer and Rezaei's (2023) reviewers suggested that we test additional relationships, we simply updated our preregistration with a note explaining that updates occurred in response to peer review.…”

“…Rather it serves as a starting point for members of a field that recognizes the need for replication, but also lacks resources to guide researchers in replication. I will provide this guidance by drawing on my own experience publishing replication research (Kalsher et al, 2019;Obenauer, 2023;Obenauer & Kalsher, 2023;Obenauer & Rezaei, 2023) as well as patterns that I have observed in the literature.…”