Call for Proposals! Small Group Research: 2018 Review Issue

SGR_call2018.jpg

Small Group Research is currently accepting proposals regarding the 2018 Review Issue. Please view the full details about the submission process here, or by clicking on the image above.

Manuscripts are due:  May 30, 2017

Submissions should be made to SGR’s Manuscript Central website: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sgr, where authors will be required to set up an account.

Small Group Research (SGR), peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly, is an international and interdisciplinary journal presenting research, theoretical advancements, and empirically supported applications with respect to all types of small groups. SGR, a leader in the field, addresses and connects three vital areas of study: the psychology of small groups, communication within small groups,and organizational behavior of small groups. This journal is a member of the Committee on Pubication Ethics (COPE).

Don’t forget to sign up for email notifications about the latest research through the journal homepage.

Benefits and Costs of Covert Research: An Analysis

[We’re pleased to welcome author Thomas Roulet of King’s College, UK.  Roulet recently published an article in Organizational Research Methods entitled Reconsidering the Value of Covert Research: The Role of Ambiguous Consent in Participant Observation, co-authored by Michael J. Gill, Sebastien Stenger, and David James Gill. From Roulet:]

What inspired you to be interested in this topic? We were inspired by recent ethnographic work relying heavily on covert observation – for example the recent work by Alice Goffman on low income urban areas, or the paper byORM_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpg Ethan Bernstein on the pitfalls of transparency in a Chinese factory.Alice Goffman’s work was attacked for the ethical challenges associated with the work of ethnographer.

So we went back to the literature and looked at research in various fields that relied on covert observation – the observation of a field of enquiry by a researcher that does not reveal his or her true identity and motives. This methodological approach has progressively fallen into abeyance because of the ethical issues associated with it- in particular the fact that covert observation implies not getting consent from the people observed by the researcher.

Were there findings that were surprising to you? Our review of covert research reveals that:
– all observations have issues with consent to different extent. It is obtain the full consent of all subjects. We put forward a two dimensions
– covert research can be ethically justified when tackling taboo topics, or trying to uncover misbehaviors.
– there is a wide range of ways and practices that can be used to minimize ethical concerns and limit the harm to subjects.

How do you see this study influencing future research? We hope that the ethical guidelines of some associations can evolve to offer more room for covert or semi covert research, and acknowledge the difficulties of obtaining full consent. We also think that ethical boards in universities may be willing to offer a more flexible perspective on covert research.

Finally our work is a call to researchers to consider covert observational approaches… with care!

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts through the ORM homepage. 

How Surveys Provide Integrated Communication Skills

“Excuse me, can you spare a  a few minutes? We’re conducting a survey and would greatly appreciate your responses.” You’ve most likely heard these two sentences presented to you as you’re walking briskly down a crowded street. The Internet is also a crowded street full of news, but we hope you can spare a few minutes to read about the latest research from Business and Professional Communication Quarterly.

Author Anne Witte of EDHEC Business School, France, recently published a paper in BCQ entitled “Tackling the survey: A learning-by-induction design,”where she outlines the different learning outcomes that surveys afford. Below, Witte describes her inspiration for the study:]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

Our world is filled with surveys, yet surveys are often a negl4453697565_dcacd29f08_z.jpgected area in business training and often taught as a kind of mechanical application task which has more to do with software than with thinking.  As qualitative and quantitative data are the basis for business and organizations today, I wanted to train students more in the “art” rather than the “science” of the survey.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?

Students are often overconfident in their ability to do a survey task from A to Z.  When you challenge them with an interesting question to answer through a survey, they discover on their own how difficult it really is to obtain quality data that can be used to make decisions.

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

I love testing new teaching paradigms with advanced business students and especially using interdisciplinary thought experiments that oblige students to draw from previous knowledge and varied skills sets.

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts on the BCQ homepage. 

Survey photo attributed to Plings (CC).

 

Communities as Nested Servicescapes

jsrrr.JPG[We’re pleased to welcome Xiaojing Sheng from the University of Texas at Rio Grande. Sheng co-authored a recently published article in the Journal of Service Research  entitled “Communities as Nested Servicescapes” with Penny Simpson and Judy Siguaw. From Sheng:]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

From groups of four to sixteen sipping margaritas in local restaurants to dancing at a beach or Mexican fiesta, retired winter migrants are a ubiquitous presence in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas each winter. These migrating consumers repeatedly come to the area in large numbers each winter to enjoy the warm tropical weather, to participate in the many available activities, and to enjoy each other in their highly social living environment of mobile homes and recreational vehicle communities. These senior citizens also become an inseparable part of the region by routinely going to restaurants, events, shows and stores where they seem to exude a comradery and enjoyment of life not seen by typical residents of any community. For these migrants, winter life in the Valley seems to be a fun-filled, months-long vacation. Through casual observation of the lifestyle of these hundreds of thousands of active retirees, we were driven to understand their experiences as they become immersed in the broader servicescape of the Valley and in the nested servicescapes of their mobile home/recreational vehicle communities in which they reside for extended periods of time.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?

The finding that servicescape engagement weakened the positive effect of perceived servicescape satisfaction on loyalty intention is unexpected and surprising. This is probably because high levels of activity engagement become all-consuming, making perceived servicescape satisfaction itself less important in loyalty intention. For example, consumers may be willing to overlook a rundown beach villa if the beach activities are exceptional. On the other hand, lower levels of engagement strengthened the impact of perceived servicescape satisfaction on loyalty intentions, conceivably because consumer attention is less distracted by activity involvement, and therefore, more focused on servicescape factors.

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

An interesting finding from our study is that, when consumers interact with two servicescapes of which one is nested within another, their experiences are shaped by the effects of the individual servicescape, the compounding effects of both servicescapes, and by the transference effects between the two servicescapes. Consequently, marketers need to take a holistic approach to managing servicescapes at all levels to create an overall positive consumer experience. We hope that our research serves as a catalyst for future studies that examine effects of nested servicescapes. Moreover, we hope our work encourages other researchers to investigate less conventional servicescapes, such as regions, towns, and neighborhoods, because there is so much more to be learned about how the places in which we live, work, and play affect and transform our lives.

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts through JSR’s homepage so you never miss a newly published article.

Notes on the Origin of “The Normalization of Corruption”

[Wjmie’re pleased to welcome back J.S. Nelson, Senior Fellow at the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at Wharton, and an Advisor in the Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Nelson recently published an article in the Journal of Management Inquiry entitled “The Normalization of Corruption.” Notes from Nelson:]

My forthcoming article on “The Normalization of Corruption” in the November 2016 issue of the Journal of Management Inquiry started in a fairly unusual way. I am an attorney—a former prosecutor and commercial litigator—who has taught in business schools for nearly ten years. My work focuses on both entrepreneurship and business ethics.

But the differences between law and business still surprise me. At the 2016 Western Academy of Management meeting in Portland, a group of us were lingering over the end of breakfast at a conference table. As we described what we were working on, and I mentioned my articles about the incentives for wrongdoing within organizations leading to the 2007-08 financial crisis and scandals since, someone at the table stopped me mid-stream. “What are you doing sitting here? You need to be in the session happening now on corruption,” she told me. I protested that I didn’t work on corruption. For lawyers, corruption is the paying of bribes to government officials. But the management, finance, and organizational behavior people at the table envisioned corruption much more broadly—they saw corruption as the misuse of organizational resources by anyone who hijacks the proper purpose of the corporation. Yes, under this definition, the financial crisisthe VW emissions scandal, and today’s headlines about fraud at Wells Fargo are all corruption.

So I ran over to the room where the corruption symposium was mid-stride. And, lo and behold, a defense lawyer spoke to the crowd about white collar crime. Other people described the loss of positive “voice” that they had seen in corporate scandals. I was writing the Oxford University Press’s book on Business Ethics. These people were speaking my language. As the session drew to a close, I raised my hand to make a comment about the sorry state of the law and how middle management is often where the details of large scandals originate in order to protect top executives who don’t want to ask the questions that they should while on the job.

My comment and question drew Paul Hirsch’s attention. Paul is, as you know, the James L. Allen Professor of Strategy & Organizations in the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He is also passionate about new ideas and what we can do about corruption in this country. We sat down for an impromptu talk perched at a small table outside the meeting room to compare notes about how decisions in the courts are helping to fuel the patterns of corruption that we both study. We talked about the work that I was doing on the prevalence of corruption industry-by-industry, and how behavioral ethics helped explain the tipping points beyond which corruption became a norm.

Paul looked at me hard. I could tell he was coming to a decision. “Okay, do it,” he said. “Write this up for me as a guest editor of the issue—let’s put this in the Journal of Management Inquiry’s special issue on Corruption.” I protested—I came from a different discipline, the deadline was two weeks away, I had other publishing commitments, it just wasn’t possible. But Paul had seen the links between my work and his field. We cared about the same things. He knew that the management community needed to hear from additional perspectives, and he knew that the synergies would be worth pursuing.

And he was exactly right. The “Normalization of Corruption” article wrote itself.  The management material told part of the story, and the additional keys were in law and behavioral ethics. There is a pronounced cycle: the fact that misconduct is perceived by individuals to be so widespread has led to a normalization of corruption within companies and industries. The contribution of the law—and this part is particularly vicious—is that the normalization of corruption, in turn, helps to defeat attempts to prosecute the misconduct and to prevent its spread. Normalizing corruption tells individuals not only that it is acceptable to cheat, but that cheating is the behavior now expected of them and for which they will be rewarded.

So read the paper. Let me know what you think. Lawyers don’t usually talk about cultures and norms, and business professors don’t usually talk about doctrine and cases. But it’s time to put the pieces together. These synergies are shaping the world we live in, and—unless we have the conversations that we need to change that world—they are reciprocally creating the normalization of corruption.

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts for the new articles published in the Journal of Management Inquiry. 

Wide Research, Narrow Effects: Why Interdisciplinary Research – and Innovation – is Hard

[This blog post was originally featured on Organizational Musings, written by Administrative Science Quarterly‘s Editor, Henrich R. Greve. Click here to view the original post.]

Interdisciplinary research is seen as very valuable for society and economy. Some of that could be hype, but there are some good examples of what it can do. You have probably noticed that oil is no longer 100 dollar per barrel, and the US is no longer a big importer. This is a result of fracking, a result of interdisciplinary research. And if you don’t like fracking, a good alternative is photovoltaic energy, which comes from the sun, and from interdisciplinary research.

So some interdisciplinary research has been good for society. Is it also good for the scientists who are supposed to do it? The answer to this question is very interesting, and is reported in an article in Administrative Science Quarterly by Erin Leahey, Christine Beckman, and Taryn Stanko. The start is easy to explain: interdisciplinary research is less productive, but it gets more attention. The answer got more complicated, and more interesting, when they started looking at why that happened.

Current Issue CoverThe first step was to look at whether interdisciplinary research is more difficult to do, or whether it is because it is harder for it to gain acceptance and get published. The answer is clear: it is not harder to gain acceptance, but it is harder to do, especially early on. The second step was to look at why this research got more attention. Here many factors played a role, but one stood out to me: Actually what increases especially much is the variation in how much attention interdisciplinary research gets, and that helps explain the increased average. So interdisciplinary research is related to fracking in one more way – few reap the awards from it.

This paper doesn’t really result in career advice for scientists, because everyone will be interested in different kinds of research, and have different ideas on how much risk to take on. But has important insights on how innovations are made. Building on closely related ideas is much easier to do, so no wonder much of what scientists – and companies – do is incremental. And this is true even though we often tell stories of the great successes of interdisciplinary research and integrative innovations, while forgetting all those who tried and didn’t succeed. Whether that means we cross-fertilize knowledge too little, too much, or just enough is hard to tell.

You can read the article, “Prominent but Less Productive: The Impact of Interdisciplinarity on Scientists’ Research” from Administrative Science Quarterly free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to stay up to date on all of the latest research from Administrative Science QuarterlyClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

The Chrysalis Effect: Publication Bias in Management Research

14523043285_2235b0dbb4_zHow well do published management articles represent the broader management research? To say that questionable research practices impact only a few articles ignores the broader, systemic issue effecting management research. According to authors Ernest Hugh O’Boyle Jr., George Christopher Banks, and Erik Gonzalez-Mulé, the high pressure for academics to publish leads many to engage in questionable research, thereby leading the resulting published articles to be biased and unrepresentative. In their article, “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles,” published in Journal of Management, O’Boyle, Banks, and Gonzalez-Mulé delve into the issue of questionable research practices. The abstract for the paper:

The issue of a published literature not representative of the population of research is Current Issue Covermost often discussed in terms of entire studies being suppressed. However, alternative sources of publication bias are questionable research practices (QRPs) that entail post hoc alterations of hypotheses to support data or post hoc alterations of data to support hypotheses. Using general strain theory as an explanatory framework, we outline the means, motives, and opportunities for researchers to better their chances of publication independent of rigor and relevance. We then assess the frequency of QRPs in management research by tracking differences between dissertations and their resulting journal publications. Our primary finding is that from dissertation to journal article, the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses more than doubled (0.82 to 1.00 versus 1.94 to 1.00). The rise in predictive accuracy resulted from the dropping of statistically nonsignificant hypotheses, the addition of statistically significant hypotheses, the reversing of predicted direction of hypotheses, and alterations to data. We conclude with recommendations to help mitigate the problem of an unrepresentative literature that we label the “Chrysalis Effect.”

You can read “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles” from Journal of Management free for the next two weeks by clicking here.

Want to stay current on all of the latest research published by Journal of ManagementClick here to sign up for e-alerts! You can also follow the journal on Twitter–read through the latest tweets from Journal of Management by clicking here!

*Library image attributed to Apple Vershoor (CC)