2018 Google Scholar Metrics Released

Last Thursday, Google released its 2018 Scholar Metrics. These ratings cover articles published between 2013-2017 inclusive and their citations indexed as of July 2018. Several of my articles were included. Although this will be the last year my AMJ article is in the 5-year ratings, the other two will be around for another one and two years respectively.

Values Work (2013) – 190 citations
#16 most cited article in Academy of Management Journal during the reporting period

Contextualizing Entrepreneurial Innovation (2014) – 130 citations
#39 most cited article in Research Policy during the reporting period

Robust Action Strategies (2015) – 114 citations
#11 most cited article in Organization Studies during the reporting period

Management and the Problems of Overdetermination and Underdetermination

The Wall Street Journal has posted a story entitled: Management Research Is Fishy, Says New Management Research. The article is based on a paper, “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize into Beautiful Articles.” According to the WSJ, the paper is forthcoming from the Journal of Management (note, however, that as of this writing, the paper was not available from the JOM website).

As reported by the WSJ, the paper finds that at the dissertation level, 82 hypotheses were supported for every 100 that were unsupported (i.e., 45% of hypotheses were supported), meaning that researchers’ theories were disproven by their findings more often than not. However, by the time the papers made it into journals, the ratio shifted to 194:100, meaning that some 65% of hypotheses were supported. This is commonly known as publication bias. In a prior version of the paper, the authors interpreted this finding as evidence of “questionable research practices” (QRP).

Implicit in this logic is an assumption that every dissertation should be published in a journal. How else could we resolve the QRP problem? It also seems to imply that both supported and unsupported hypotheses are inherently unproblematic, and require no further qualification. In essence, all hypotheses are intrinsically fit to print, and they are assumed to give us some kind of direct access to the “truth” of the matter. But what does it mean when a hypothesis is supported or not supported?

This discussion prompted me to reflect a bit on the problems of overdetermination and underdetermination. “Overdetermination” refers to situations in which a particular effect could arise from any one of many possible causes (Hannan, 1971; Meyer & Goes, 1988). Or as Weick (1996: 308) put it: “Overdetermination is simply another way of stating Thompson’s first point that people have multiple, interdependent, socially coherent reasons for doing what they do.” Other organizational theorists have described such circumstances in terms of mean-ends ambiguity, or situations when there are multiple plausible alternatives (Hambrick, 2007). Overdetermination also can occur when mechanist notions of causality overwhelm alternative plausible explanations for what is happening (Boje, 2001).

“Underdetermination” refers to situations in which the “facts” are not clear or strong enough to establish a definitive explanation (Giddens, 1979; 1984: 17). This could be because facts themselves posses “interpretive flexibility” (Pinch and Bijker, 1987), meaning they are open to more than one plausible reading. Or, it could be that the available empirical evidence is limited or derived from narrow contexts (Shrivastava, 1986). In both cases, the available evidence is compatible with more than one theory or explanation. However, more facts may not resolve the problem; “science” can even make matters worse (Sarewitz, 2004). As Giddens (1979: 243) put it: “no amount of accumulated fact will in and of itself determine that one particular theory be accepted and another rejected, since by the modification of the theory, or by other means, the observations in question can be accommodated to it.”

One famous example, Allison’s (1972) analysis of the Cuban missile crisis, has elements of both overdetermination and underdetermination. In this case, “the same event is explained by three completely different theories, each of which nevertheless is able to highlight clear and distinct insights into the origin, unfolding, and resolution of the crisis” (Burgelman, 2011: 597). More generally, viewed through the lenses of overdetermination and underdetermination, we might hypothesize that not every study will work out. Some hypotheses will be supported, some will not. But if they are to be useful, any such findings will need to be translated. After all, we don’t live in a world of variables.

But in that case, how do we know if a study is fit to print? In a widely cited paper, Davis (1971) offered one explanation, arguing that “interesting” studies are more likely to be published and popular. No doubt other explanations are possible. Whether such circumstances are evidence of questionable research practices, depends on the meaning that is given to the evidence. Can a question such as this even be put to a hypothesis test? My sense is that it cannot. Instead, questions such as these entail what I have called values work. Conclusions and their sustenance depend on the network of values practices in which one is entangled and on the continued performance of the implicated social and material network.

Selected References

Allison, G. T. 1972. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little Brown & Co.

Boje, D. M. 2001. Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Burgelman, R. A. 2011. Bridging History and Reductionism: A Key Role for Longitudinal Qualitative Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42: 591–601.

Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309–344.

Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The Field of Management’s Devotion to Theory: Too Much of a Good Thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1346–1352.

Hannan, M. T. 1971. Aggregation and Disaggregation in Sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. 1988. Organizational Assimilation of Innovations: A Multilevel Contextual Analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 897–923.

Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. 1987. The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Social Construction of Technological Systems: 17–50. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sarewitz, D. 2004. How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7: 385–403.

Shrivastava, P. 1986. Is Strategic Management Ideological? Journal of Management, 12: 363–377.

Weick, K. E. 1996. Drop Your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 301–313.

Values Work Update

It has been a little over four months since my paper with Linda Treviño and Raghu Garud on “Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and Performance of Organizational Values Practices” was published in the Academy of Management Journal.

amj2013

This morning, SSRN notified me that it is once again a top download in the IRPN: Innovation & Social Psychology (Topic) All Papers category.

It has been among the Top 50 Most-Read AMJ Articles since being published: March (#5), April (#14), May (#36) and June (#39) 2013.

AMJ Values Work Paper Among Most Read

Our paper on “Values Work” was published in the February issue of the Academy of Management Journal. The paper also can be downloaded for free from SSRN. According to the AMJ website the paper was the #5 most-read paper during March 2013. The introduction to the special issue was ranked #2.

amj2013

According to ISI’s Journal Citation Reports, the Academy of Management Journal had a 1-year impact factor of 5.608 in 2011, making it the highest rated empirical research journal out of 166 “management” journals, and 113 “business” journals.

“Values Work” also was one of six papers featured in Volume 1, Issue 1 of the University of Alberta School of Business Research Paper Series, edited by Michael Lounsbury.

The final citation is: Gehman, J., Treviño, L.K., & Garud, R. 2013. Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and Performance of Organizational Values Practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 84-112.

Values Work Paper Update

My paper with Linda Treviño and Raghu Garud on “Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and Performance of Organizational Values Practices” is due to be published any day now. In what we hope were the penultimate page proofs, the full citation was listed as:

Gehman, Joel, Linda K. Treviño, and Raghu Garud. 2013. Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and Performance of Organizational Values Practices. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56, No. 1, 84–112. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0628.

In the paper we combine actor network theory with practice theory to study the emergence and performance of organizational values practices. Specifically, we study the development of an honor code within a large business school over a 10-year period. As with codes of conduct more generally, honor codes are designed to deter dishonesty and to promote integrity and honor. A brief summary is available here.

The paper has been a “Top 10 Recent Download” at SSRN multiple times and in multiple categories (here, here, here, here and here). This week, I received notice that it was now also among the Top 10 Downloads of all time (January 2, 1997 to March 4, 2013) in the Journal of Psychology of Innovation eJournal.

Values Work Paper Cited by Phillips and Lawrence

In their recent Strategic Organization paper — The Turn to Work in Organization and Management Theory: Some Implications for Strategic Organization — co-authors Nelson Phillips of Imperial College and Tom Lawrence of Simon Fraser University identified 15 distinct forms of “work” being researched in organization and management theory.

In addition to well known topics such as institutional work, boundary work and identity work, Phillips and Lawrence singled out values work as well. Building on our forthcoming Academy of Management Journal paper, they define values work as “the activities that are carried out by actors whereby values come to be practiced in organizations.”

Later in the paper they write: “Values work, for instance, undoubtedly involves recognizable sets of practices, but what makes it values work is its focus on affecting organizational values by ‘dealing with pockets of concern, knotting local concerns into action networks, performing values practices, and circulating values discourse’ (Gehman et al., in press).”

Values Work Paper in the Top Ten Again

In March I mentioned that my paper with Linda Treviño and Raghu Garud on “Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and Performance of Organizational Values Practices“ was accepted for publication in the Academy of Management Journal.

This week I learned that the paper was listed as an SSRN Top Ten download for the fifth time. This time the paper was ranked as an Top Ten download in 10 different categories:

In addition to being available for free on SSRN, the paper also can be downloaded from the Academy of Management Journal’s In Press website (login required).

Fourth Top Ten Download for Values Work Paper

A couple weeks ago I mentioned that my paper with Linda Treviño and Raghu Garud on “Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and Performance of Organizational Values Practices“ was accepted for publication in the Academy of Management Journal.

This week I learned that the paper was listed as an SSRN Top Ten download for the fourth time. This time the paper was ranked as an Top Ten download in 2 different categories:

In addition to being available for free on SSRN, the paper also can be downloaded from the Academy of Management Journal’s In Press website (login required).

Values Work Paper in the Top 10 Again

A couple weeks ago I mentioned that my paper with Linda Treviño and Raghu Garud on “Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and Performance of Organizational Values Practices“ was accepted for publication in the Academy of Management Journal.

This week I learned that the paper was listed as an SSRN Top Ten download for the third time. This time the paper was ranked as an Top Ten download in 3 different categories:

In addition to being available for free on SSRN, the paper also can be downloaded from the Academy of Management Journal’s In Press website (login required).

Sociomaterial Networks and Moral Agencements

A good friend of mine recently sent me this TEDx talk in which Nitin Nohria, Dean of Harvard Business School, explores what he calls moral overconfidence and argues for the practice of moral humility as an antidote.

According to the talk’s abstract: Whenever we see examples of ethical or moral failure, our knee-jerk reaction is to say “that was a bad person.” We like to sort the world into good people who have stable and enduringly strong, positive characters, and bad people who have weak or frail characters. So why then do seemingly good people behave badly?

The centerpiece of Dean Nohria’s talk is the Milgram Experiment, which is typically argued to show that — given a strong enough situation — even “good people” will do “bad things.” More particularly, following Stanley Milgram’s own interpretation, most consider the experiment as showing the potentially dangerous consequences that may result from blind obedience to authority.

In light of my own research on values work, it seems the entire line of inquiry may be a false start — it presupposes from the beginning that good and bad are individually located. An alternative interpretation of the Milgram Experiment might start by taking notice of the many heterogeneous social and material actors that were required to be enrolled in the performance of “bad things.” Yale University, newspaper advertisements, experimental designs, subjects, confederates, experimenters, lab coats, electricity, shock machines, voltages, vocabulary tests, payments. In short, the experiment requires the enrollment of an ensemble of sociomaterial actors. If any of them had resisted, the experiment might have “failed.” So why is the actor at the end of the network the one to blame?

Such an interpretation is broadly consistent with actor network theory, in which the explanation for action can no longer be reduced to individual agency. In fact, such attributions are themselves part of what is in need of sociological explanation. What if the Milgram Experiment says more about the culture in which it is located than it does about the subjects it tested? After all, what kind of society is required for test subjects to be held responsible for the actions of an entire network, without which their performances could not have gone off? One can well imagine alternative societies in which different conclusions might have been drawn from the very “same” experiment.

In other words, we need to pose a more fundamental question. As Latour puts it, where is the morality? Is it in me, or in the objects? After reflecting on automobiles, seat belts and police officers, he concludes that morality is located in a network of humans and things. Networks make me (im)moral. Rather than an individual attribute, the definition, recognition and performance of good and evil are the result of moral agencements; moral agency is sociomaterially constituted.

See: Bruno Latour, 1992, ‘‘Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts,’’ in Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, eds., Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, pp. 225-258.