Restricted Variance Interaction Effects

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Jose Cortina of Virginia Commonwealth University,  Tine Koehler of the University of Melbourne, Kathleen R. Keeler of Virginia Commonwealth University, and Bo Bernhard Nielsen of the University of Sydney and Copenhagen Business School. They recently published an article in Journal of Management entitled “Restricted Variance Interaction Effects: What they are and why they are your friends,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Dr. Cortina reveals the inspiration for conducting this research :]

JOM_44.1_72ppiRGB_powerpointI had read about Mischel’s situation strength notion when I was an undergrad. The idea was that, in strong situations, everyone behaves the same way regardless of individual differences like conscientiousness or extraversion. In weak situations where there aren’t clear norms for behavior, individual differences rule. This phenomenon results in Mischel’s personality by situation interaction such that personality predicts behavior in weak situations but not in strong situations. That made sense to me, and I didn’t giveit much more thought.

Until few years ago. Some of my students were interested in this stuff, so I started reading more about the situation strength hypothesis. Then, as always, I started to question. First, do authors who rely on Mischel’s theory for their hypotheses actually test for variance differences as per the theory? (Spoiler alert-the answer is no, but that paper is under review elsewhere). Second, might it be that this sort of phenomenon goes beyond personality by situation interactions? The more I thought about this second question, the more intrigued I became.

Then I was on sabbatical at the University of Sydney, and I was looking for an excuse to collaborate with Bo Nielsen on something related to international business. It occurred to me that a more general sort of interaction, something that I began calling a restricted variance interaction, was quite common in IB research. So Bo, my longtime partner in crime Tine Kohler, and I published a paper to this effect in JIBS. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that RV interactions went beyond IB. They were, in fact, everywhere, and at every level of analysis, from within person to between country. If we ever start doing interplanetary research, I bet we find RV interactions there too.
We started fiddling with data and equations, and we discovered that there was a lot of interesting stuff going on with these interactions. First, restriction of variance affects unstandardized weights, but not standardized weights. Second, while restriction on the DV weakens prediction as per Mischel, restriction on the IV actually has the opposite effect! Third, restriction on a mediator has no effect on the indirect effect. Fourth, higher order RV interactions are also entirely possible. Fifth, RV interactions have their own testing requirements. And the more we looked in the literature, the more we found examples of these and other RV interaction phenomena. Put all of this together, add my student Kate Keeler to the team, and you have our JOM paper.

This paper is one of three that Tine, Bo, Kate, and I are working on. The more that people look at the field through an RV lens, the easier they will find it to support their interaction hypotheses. My hope is that, through these various papers, we can generate enough interest in RV interactions that it reaches a tipping point such that everyone gets some exposure to the thinking that underlies these phenomena. Then we will see interaction hypotheses with stronger foundations than is currently the case. Here’s hopin’.

 

Stay up-to-date with the latest research and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

How are Research Methods Taught?

[This blog post was originally posted on the SAGE Connection – Insight blog. To read the original blog post and find more content from SAGE Connection – Insight, click here.]

How can librarians better support faculty who teach research methods? What materials do students look for in their libraries? Sharlene Hesse-Biber, a celebrated research methods author and faculty member at Boston College, sought out the answers to these questions by working closely with her library to teach research methods to students. In this clip, Hesse-Biber shares insight on the type of research instruction that students receive in the classroom and where library research resources and support can fit into that process. Watch as she addresses several big questions surrounding research methods instruction such as:

  • How can faculty and librarians provide students with good exemplars of great research?
  • How can faculty and librarians support students conducting their first research project?
  • What do students learn at various levels of their academic careers?

For more information on research methods check out MethodSpace, home of the research methods community.

via How are Research Methods Taught? — SAGE Connection – Insight

Top Five Articles from Organizational Research Methods

JPG READINGSummer is just around the corner, bringing with it longer days and warmer weather. To celebrate the season, we present a list of most read articles from Organizational Research Methods to add to your summer reading list.

“Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology” by Dennis A. Gioia, Kevin G. Corley, and Aimee Hamilton (January 2013)

For all its richness and potential for discovery, qualitative research has been critiqued as too often lacking in scholarly rigor. The authors summarize a systematic approach to new concept development and grounded theory articulation that is designed to
bring “qualitative rigor” to the conduct and presentation of inductive research.

Current Issue Cover

“Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale” by Gilad Chen, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden (January 2001)

Researchers have suggested that general self-efficacy (GSE)can substantially contribute to organizational theory, research, and practice. Unfortunately, the limited construct validity work conducted on commonly used GSE measures has highlighted such potential problems as low content validity and multidimensionality. The authors developed a new GSE (NGSE) scale and compared its psychometric properties and validity to that of the Sherer et al. General Self-Efficacy Scale (SGSE). Studies in two countries found that the NGSE scale has higher construct validity than the SGSE scale. Although shorter than the SGSE scale, the NGSE scale demonstrated high reliability, predicted specific self-efficacy (SSE) for a variety of tasks in various contexts, and moderated the influence of previous performance on subsequent SSE formation. Implications, limitations, and directions for future organizational research are discussed.

“Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)” by Jörg Henseler, Theo K. Dijkstra, Marko Sarstedt, Christian M. RingleAdamantios Diamantopoulos, Detmar W. Straub, David J. Ketchen Jr.Joseph F. Hair, G. Tomas M. Hult, and Roger J. Calantone (April 2014)

This article addresses Rönkkö and Evermann’s criticisms of the partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modeling. We contend that the alleged shortcomings of PLS are not due to problems with the technique, but instead to three problems with Rönkkö and Evermann’s study: (a) the adherence to the common factor model, (b) a very limited simulation designs, and (c) overstretched generalizations of their findings. Whereas Rönkkö and Evermann claim to be dispelling myths about PLS, they have in reality created new myths that we, in turn, debunk. By examining their claims, our article contributes to reestablishing a constructive discussion of the PLS method and its properties. We show that PLS does offer advantages for exploratory research and that it is a viable estimator for composite factor models. This can pose an interesting alternative if the common factor model does not hold. Therefore, we can conclude that PLS should continue to be used as an important statistical tool for management and organizational research, as well as other social science disciplines.

“Using Generalized Estimating Equations for Longitudinal Data Analysis” by Gary A. Ballinger (April 2004)

The generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach of Zeger and Liang facilitates analysis of data collected in longitudinal, nested, or repeated measures designs. GEEs use the generalized linear model to estimate more efficient and unbiased regression parameters relative to ordinary least squares regression in part because they permit specification of a working correlation matrix that accounts for the form of within-subject correlation of responses on dependent variables of many different distributions, including normal, binomial, and Poisson. The author briefly explains the theory behind GEEs and their beneficial statistical properties and limitations and compares GEEs to suboptimal approaches for analyzing longitudinal data through use of two examples. The first demonstration applies GEEs to the analysis of data from a longitudinal lab study with a counted response variable; the second demonstration applies GEEs to analysis of data with a normally distributed response variable from subjects nested within branch offices ofan organization.

“Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement” by James M. LeBreton and Jenell L. Senter (October 2008)

The use of interrater reliability (IRR) and interrater agreement (IRA) indices has increased dramatically during the past 20 years. This popularity is, at least in part, because of the increased role of multilevel modeling techniques (e.g., hierarchical linear modeling and multilevel structural equation modeling) in organizational research. IRR and IRA indices are often used to justify aggregating lower-level data used in composition models. The purpose of the current article is to expose researchers to the various issues surrounding the use of IRR and IRA indices often used in conjunction with multilevel models. To achieve this goal, the authors adopt a question-and-answer format and provide a tutorial in the appendices illustrating how these indices may be computed using the SPSS software.

All of the above articles from Organizational Research Methods will be free to access for the next two weeks. Want to know all about the latest research from Organizational Research Methods? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Reading image attributed to Herry Lawford (CC)

Seeking Serendipitous Scholarly Discoveries: SAGE Recommends

18501292075_59e5db288d_zResearch is a fickle process–at times, carefully planned searches and methodical approaches yield a bounty of relevant information, and other times, it seems there is no information to be found. Many times, when research plateaus, the best thing to revive research is a serendipitous discovery. But how exactly can serendipity be applied to research when it is inherently coincidental? A new two-part white paper from SAGE Publishing discusses the part serendipity plays in academic research, and how to encourage more coincidental discoveries.

In the first paper, “Expecting the Unexpected: Serendipity, Discovery, and Scholarly Research Process,” written by Alan Maloney and Lettie Y. Conrad, findings from a survey of 239 students and faculty suggest that researches prefer to stumble upon interesting, relevant content rather than have materials recommended by peers or by popularity. Statistically, 78% of undergraduates and 91% of faculty are inclined to click on recommendations during their online research, particularly when the recommendations are directly relevant to their research topic.

Lemony Snicket quote

In the second paper, “The Story of SAGE Recommends,” Alan Maloney describes how the research on serendipitous academic research led to the development of SAGE Recommends, a new discovery tool launched in December 2015. SAGE Recommends is designed to explain connections between content and subtly recommend relevant research materials to users. Alan Maloney explained:

SAGE Recommends is the first output of SAGE’s efforts over the last couple of years to develop better content intelligence, and to properly map and understand the disciplines in which we publish. This paper sets out how we have used this new knowledge and area of technical competence to make scholarly and educational materials more discoverable, to encourage new directions in research, and to delight our users.

The findings of this study will be discussed in a free webinar, which will take place on Tuesday, February 16th at 11 AM EST. The discussion will be moderated by InfoDOCKET’s Gary Price. To register, click here.

To read the first paper, “Expecting the Unexpected: Serendipity, Discovery, and Scholarly Research Process,” click here. To read the second paper, “The Story of SAGE Recommends,” click here.

New Podcast: Tyge Payne on Empirics in Family Business Research

Podcast Microphone

In the latest podcast from Family Business Reviewassistant editor Karen Vinton speaks with Tyge Payne of Texas Tech University about the article published in Family Business Review, “Empirics in Family Business Research: Progress, Challenges, and the Path Ahead,” co-authored with Robert E. Evert, John A. Martin,  and Michael S. McLeod.

You can find the podcast on the Family Business Review website here, or click here to download the podcast. You can also read the full article here.

The abstract:

Competent research methods and data analysis are essential components for the FBR_C1_revised authors color.inddprogression of family business research. To identify and evaluate empirical trends, and make suggestions for future research, we examine 319 empirical articles published in Family Business Review since 1988. These studies are compared with 146 family business research articles published in top-tier journals not dedicated to family business research over the same time frame. While we substantiate growth in rigor and sophistication, we address specific family business research challenges regarding construct validity, generalizability, causality, temporality, and multilevel issues. Suggestions are provided for future empirical research across six major topical areas.

Want to hear more? Click here to browse more podcasts from Family Business Review and here to subscribe to the SAGE Management and Business podcast channel on iTunes. You can also sign up for e-alerts and get notifications of all the latest research from Family Business Review sent directly to your inbox!


 

 

TP_Palace

G. Tyge Payne, PhD, is a professor of strategic management and Jerry S. Rawls Professor of Management in the Area of Management, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.

https://managementink.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/karen_vinton1.jpg

Karen L. Vinton, Ph.D., is assistant editor of FBR and a 1999 Barbara Hollander Award winner and Professor Emeritus of Business at the College of Business at Montana State University, where she founded the University’s Family Business Program. An FFI Fellow, she has served on its Board of Directors and chaired the Body of Knowledge committee.

William H. Starbuck on How Journals Can Improve Research Practices in Social Sciences

FullSizeRender

This year marks the 60th Anniversary of Administrative Science Quarterly, presenting an opportunity to not only celebrate the success of the journal and anticipate the promise of what the future holds, but also an opportunity to reflect on areas where the editorial process could be improved. In his essay, “60th Anniversary Essay: How Journals Could Improve Research Practices in Social Science,” published in the Administrative Science Quarterly, William H. Starbuck considers some imperfect properties of current editorial practices and methodology in the social sciences.

ASQ CoverThe abstract from his essay:

This essay proposes ways to improve editorial evaluations of manuscripts and to make published research more reliable and trustworthy. It points to troublesome properties of current editorial practices and suggests that editorial evaluations could become more reliable by making more allowance for reviewers’ human limitations. The essay also identifies some troublesome properties of prevalent methodology, such as statistical significance tests, HARKing, and p-Hacking, and proposes editorial policies to mitigate these detrimental behaviors.

You can read “60th Anniversary Essay: How Journals Could Improve Research Practices in Social Science” from Administrative Science Quarterly free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Administrative Science Quarterly? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Gould Reading Room picture credited to eflon (CC)

How Can Mental Models Illuminate Decision-Making and Learning Processes?

HRD cover[We’re pleased to welcome Robin Grenier of the University of Connecticut. Dr. Grenier recently published an article with Dr. Dana Dudzinska-Przesmitzki in the Human Resource Development Review entitled “A Conceptual Model for Eliciting Mental Models Using a Composite Methodology.”]

In the Adult Learning Program in the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education, we are interested in studying how mental models shape and influence adult learning, both at work and in personal development.

Individuals hold numerous mental models, which are formed through experience, observation, and learning. These models are used in decision making to understand, predict, and solve problems. There is a lot of interest in mental models, like in business and , and a lot is written about mental models both in scholarly publications and in the popular media. However, my co-author and I found that there is still much to be learned about how to utilize these tacit models. Our paper was an investigation of how mental models are usually elicited and an introduction to a possible new model for mental model elicitation (MMME) that can be applied in research and practice.

Given that Forbes, The Wharton School, and The Harvard Business Review, among others, have recently highlighted the importance of understanding one’s mental models, we found it interesting that there was not more written on how to best elicit mental models and apply theses models to the shaping and informing of organizational practice or individual learning.

Our MMME has the potential to offer techniques that more closely resemble what practitioners might actually use in an organizational context. It is a practical approach to elicitation that combines three methods. The combination of methods enable better and deeper access to participants’ mental models using both recall and recognition, which may help with the retrieval of more information. Compared with single methods of elicitation, MMME can improve elicitation through systematic steps used for increasing accuracy and contextualizing responses. For scholars and researchers, the application of MMME may help to expand the field of human resource development by supporting exploration of how individuals’ mental models shape learning, organizational development, and change.

You can read “A Conceptual Model for Eliciting Mental Models Using a Composite Methodology for free by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest news and research from Human Resource Development Review? Just click here to sign up for e-alerts!


Robin S GrenierRobin S. Grenier, PhD, is an associate professor of Adult Learning in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Connecticut. She earned her PhD in adult education from the University of Georgia, as well as a certificate in qualitative inquiry. Her research interests include expertise development, informal and experiential learning in the lives of adults, museums as places of life-long learning, and qualitative inquiry.

Dana Dudzinska-Przesmitzki, PhD, earned her doctorate in Adult Learning from the University of Connecticut and now serves as an education specialist for the U.S. Federal Judicial Center in Washington, DC. Her research interests include museum studies, and training and development.