The nature of scientific progress in organizational research

In some fields, research findings are rigorously curated in a common language and made available to enable future use and large-scale, robust insights. Organizational researchers have begun such efforts [e.g., metaBUS ( http://metabus.org/ )] but are far from the efficient, comprehensive curation seen in areas such as cognitive neuroscience or genetics. This review provides a sample of insights from research curation efforts in organizational research, psychology, and beyond—insights not possible by even large-scale, substantive meta-analyses. Efforts are classified as either science-of-science research or large-scale, substantive research. The various methods used for information extraction (e.g., from PDF files) and classification (e.g., using consensus ontologies) is reviewed. The review concludes with a series of recommendations for developing and leveraging the available corpus of organizational research to speed scientific progress. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Download Full-text

Can institutional theory be refuted, replaced or modified?

International Journal of Organizational Analysis ◽

10.1108/ijoa-02-2019-1666 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 135-159

Author(s):

Herman Aksom ◽

Oksana Zhylinska ◽

Tetiana Gaidai

Keyword(s):

Institutional Theory ◽

Scientific Progress ◽

Institutional Entrepreneurship ◽

Institutional Work ◽

Organizational Research ◽

Content Type ◽

Organizational Theories ◽

Closed Theory ◽

Dominant Theory ◽

Blind Spots

Purpose This paper aims to demonstrating that the former new institutional theory of isomorphism and decoupling cannot be extended, modified or refuted as it is a closed theory. By analyzing the structure of this former version of institutional theory and its numerous modern competitors (institutional entrepreneurship, institutional work and institutional logics theories) it is argued that these alternative theories demonstrate even less explanatory and predictive power and do not refute or extend their predecessor. The rise of new organizational theories can have no other effect on classic institutional theory than to limit the domain of its applicability. In turn, there are a number of principles and conditions that future theories should meet to be accepted as progressive advancements. Design/methodology/approach The paper provides a review of relevant organizational and philosophical literature on theory construction and scientific progress in organizational research and offers a set of principles and demands for those new theories that seek to challenge new institutionalism. Findings The authors show that the former institutional theory satisfies two main criteria that any scientific theory should conform with following it is useful and falsifiable in term of giving explanations and predictions while, at the same time, clearly specifying what can be observed and what cannot; what can happen and what is not likely to occur. Modern institutional theories cannot demonstrate this quality and they do not satisfy these criteria. Moreover, institutional isomorphism theory is a closed theory, which means it cannot be intervened with changes and modifications and all future theories should develop their theoretical propositions for other domains of applications while they should account for all empirical phenomena that institutional theory successfully explains. Originality/value Adopting instrumental view on organizational theories allowed reconstructing the logic and trajectory of organizational research evolution and defends its rationality and progressive nature. It is also outlined how existing dominant theory should be treated and how new theories should challenge its limitations and blind spots and which philosophical and methodological criteria should be met.

Download Full-text

Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18000584 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Michał Białek

Keyword(s):

Real World ◽

Scientific Progress ◽

The Public ◽

Psychological Science

AbstractIf we want psychological science to have a meaningful real-world impact, it has to be trusted by the public. Scientific progress is noisy; accordingly, replications sometimes fail even for true findings. We need to communicate the acceptability of uncertainty to the public and our peers, to prevent psychology from being perceived as having nothing to say about reality.

Download Full-text

Scientific progress is like doing a puzzle, not building a wall

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18000900 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Author(s):

Alexa M. Tullett ◽

Simine Vazire

Keyword(s):

Scientific Progress ◽

Original Research ◽

Jigsaw Puzzle ◽

Replication Research

AbstractWe contest the “building a wall” analogy of scientific progress. We argue that this analogy unfairly privileges original research (which is perceived as laying bricks and, therefore, constructive) over replication research (which is perceived as testing and removing bricks and, therefore, destructive). We propose an alternative analogy for scientific progress: solving a jigsaw puzzle.

Download Full-text