WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET? ENHANCING METHODOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

被引:295
作者
Aguinis, Herman [1 ]
Ramani, Ravi S. [2 ]
Alabduljader, Nawaf [2 ]
机构
[1] George Washington Univ, Sch Business, Management, Washington, DC 20052 USA
[2] George Washington Univ, Sch Business, Dept Management, Washington, DC 20052 USA
关键词
QUESTIONABLE RESEARCH PRACTICES; BEST-PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS; STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT; INTERNATIONAL-BUSINESS; APPLIED-PSYCHOLOGY; EFFECT SIZES; ORGANIZATIONAL-PSYCHOLOGY; CONSTRUCT MEASUREMENT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; MULTIPLE-REGRESSION;
D O I
10.5465/annals.2016.0011
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We review the literature on evidence-based best practices on how to enhance methodological transparency, which is the degree of detail and disclosure about the specific steps, decisions, and judgment calls made during a scientific study. We conceptualize lack of transparency as a "research performance problem" because it masks fraudulent acts, serious errors, and questionable research practices, and therefore precludes inferential and results reproducibility. Our recommendations for authors provide guidance on how to increase transparency at each stage of the research process: (1) theory, (2) design, (3) measurement, (4) analysis, and (5) reporting of results. We also offer recommendations for journal editors, reviewers, and publishers on how to motivate authors to be more transparent. We group these recommendations into the following categories: (1) manuscript submission forms requiring authors to certify they have taken actions to enhance transparency, (2) manuscript evaluation forms including additional items to encourage reviewers to assess the degree of transparency, and (3) review process improvements to enhance transparency. Taken together, our recommendations provide a resource for doctoral education and training; researchers conducting empirical studies; journal editors and reviewers evaluating submissions; and journals, publishers, and professional organizations interested in enhancing the credibility and trustworthiness of research.
引用
收藏
页码:83 / 110
页数:28
相关论文
共 172 条
[41]  
Blumberg M., 1982, The Academy of Management Review, V7, P560, DOI [DOI 10.5465/AMR.1982.4285240, 10.5465/amr.1982.4285240]
[42]   PUBLISHING IN AMJ-PART 2: RESEARCH DESIGN [J].
Bono, Joyce E. ;
McNamara, Gerry .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2011, 54 (04) :657-660
[43]   HARKING'S THREAT TO ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH: EVIDENCE FROM PRIMARY AND META-ANALYTIC SOURCES [J].
Bosco, Frank A. ;
Aguinis, Herman ;
Field, James G. ;
Pierce, Charles A. ;
Dalton, Dan R. .
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 69 (03) :709-750
[44]   Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? [J].
Boyd, BK ;
Gove, S ;
Hitt, MA .
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2005, 26 (03) :239-257
[45]   What Is Method Variance and How Can We Cope With It? A Panel Discussion [J].
Brannick, Michael T. ;
Chan, David ;
Conway, James M. ;
Lance, Charles E. ;
Spector, Paul E. .
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2010, 13 (03) :407-420
[46]   Are Common Language Effect Sizes Easier to Understand Than Traditional Effect Sizes? [J].
Brooks, Margaret E. ;
Dalal, Dev K. ;
Nolan, Kevin P. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2014, 99 (02) :332-340
[47]   Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations [J].
Brutus, Stephane ;
Aguinis, Herman ;
Wassmer, Ulrich .
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 2013, 39 (01) :48-75
[48]   STATE OF SCIENCE IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: A REVIEW OF SELF-REPORTED LIMITATIONS [J].
Brutus, Stephane ;
Gill, Harjinder ;
Duniewicz, Kris .
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 63 (04) :907-936
[49]   The Gray Zone: Questionable Research Practices in the Business School [J].
Butler, Nick ;
Delaney, Helen ;
Spoelstra, Sverre .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, 2017, 16 (01) :94-109
[50]   Solutions to the Credibility Crisis in Management Science [J].
Byington, Eliza K. ;
Felps, Will .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, 2017, 16 (01) :142-162