New Ways of Seeing: Pitfalls and Opportunities in Multilevel Research
New Ways of Seeing: Pitfalls and Opportunities in Multilevel Research
复制标题
新的观察方式：多层次研究的陷阱和机遇
DOI：
10.5465/amj.2018.4003
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
10.5
通讯作者：
J. Shaw
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Paruchuri;J. Perry;P. Chattopadhyay;J. Shaw
研究人员曾经哀叹文献中缺乏多层次理论、模型和研究（例如，O 'Reilly, 1990; Staw, 1984），但现在管理期刊上充斥着这样的研究。大约十年前，Hitt, Beamish， Jackson和Mathieu（2007）注意到，最近的管理学出版物中约有四分之一是多层次的，毫无疑问，这一趋势仍然是积极的。这种扩散可能为“吱吱叫的轮子有油吃”这句谚语提供了支持，但它也可能反映了该领域发展更全面、更丰富的理论和发现的愿望。此外，用于发展多层次理论和分析相关数据的“如何”卷的可用性（例如，Johns, 2001,2006; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000），以及易于获取的统计软件包的广泛可用性，都有助于这一运动。这种转变既是象征性的，也是实质性的。多层上下文——曾经被视为需要控制的未知或混乱的误差方差来源——经常是各种主题理论化的核心。这可能在团队文献中最为明显（见Mathieu， Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson， 2008年的综述），其中多层研究检查了直接的跨层效应以及影响较低层次过程和结果的情境调节因子（例如，Yu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018）。1但是，这种影响在其他领域也很明显，包括战略人力资源管理（Ployhart,Weekley, & Ramsey, 2009）、情绪（Scott, Barnes, & Wagner, 2012）、社交网络（Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004）等等。
Researchers once lamented the paucity of multilevel theory, models, and research in the literature (e.g., O’Reilly, 1990; Staw, 1984), but now management journals are replete with such studies. Around a decade ago, Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, and Mathieu (2007) noted that about a quarter of recent management publications were multilevel—undoubtedly, the trajectory remains positive. The proliferation may provide support for the adage that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” but it likely also reflects the field’s desire to develop more comprehensive, context-rich theory and findings. Moreover, the availability of “how to” volumes for developing multilevel theory and analyzing the associated data (e.g., Johns, 2001, 2006; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), as well as the widespread availability of accessible statistical packages, contributes to the movement. The shift is both symbolic and substantive. The multilevel context—once treated as an unknown or messy source of error variance that needed to be controlled—is frequently at the heart of theorizing on a variety of topics. This is perhaps most evident in the teams literature (see Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008, for a review) where multilevel studies examine direct cross-level effects as well as contextual moderators that influence lower-level processes and outcomes (e.g., Yu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018).1But, the influence is apparent in other streams as well, including strategic human resource management (Ployhart,Weekley, & Ramsey, 2009), emotions (Scott, Barnes, & Wagner, 2012), social networks (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004), and many others.