Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports

Abstract

The authors content analyzed self-reported limitations and directions for future research in 1,276 articles published between 1982 and 2007 in the Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Management, and the Strategic Management Journal. In order of frequency, the majority of self-reported limitations, as well as directions for future research, pertains to threats to internal, external, and construct validity issues, and there is a significant increase in the reporting of these elements over time. Longitudinal analyses revealed that some of these increases varied across management subfields (i.e., business policy and strategy, organizational behavior, organizational theory, and human resource management), indicating unique research contexts within some research domains. Based on the analyses of self-reported limitations and future research directions, the authors offer eight guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors. These guidelines refer to the need for authors to report limitations and to use a separate section for them and the need for reviewers to list limitations in their evaluations of manuscripts; authors and reviewers should prioritize limitations, and authors should report them in a way that describes their consequences for the interpretation of results. The guidelines for directions for future research focus on positioning them as a starting point for future research endeavors and for the advancement of theoretical issues. The authors also offer recommendations on how to use limitations and future research directions for the training of researchers. It is hoped that the adoption of these proposed guidelines and recommendations will maximize their value so that they can serve as true catalysts for further scientific progress in the field of management.

Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants

“…Our results have several implications for replication studies using qualitative research, as well as for authors and journal editors and reviewers in terms of how to enhance the transparency of qualitative research in the future. Also, improved replicability is likely to lead to improvements in quality because manuscripts that are more transparent allow for a more trustworthy assessment of a study's contributions for theory and practice (Brutus, Aguinis, & Wassmer, 2013). Specifically regarding managerial practices, increased transparency means that if organizations implement policies and actions closely based on detailed and open information available in published research, they are more likely to produce results consistent with those reported in the articles.…”

Analytical mindsets in turnover research

“…We discuss the evidence and implications regarding our proposed DAM in employee turnover research and provide an agenda for the future study of turnover. Although some of these individual suggestions may sound like conventional wisdom, a recent review of limitations and future research directions in the discussion sections of 514 OB articles in five top management journals found that authors reported a mean of 1.63 limitations and 1.36 future research directions, with the majority focused on internal validity issues (Brutus et al, ). Our content analysis suggests that such minor mentions are having little impact on research practice.…”

The Future of Purchasing and Supply Management Research: About Relevance and Rigor

“…Boundary conditions describe to what extent findings can be generalized to situations other than the one(s) studied. Limitations and boundary conditions should be reported in such a way that readers can understand the consequences of those limitations for the interpretation of results (Brutus, Aguinis, & Wassmer, ). Finally, the findings should be discussed in light of effect sizes found in earlier research (in a meta‐analytical sense).…”