The Use and Misuse of Organizational Research Methods 'Best Practice' Articles
The Use and Misuse of Organizational Research Methods 'Best Practice' Articles
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/10944281211060706
复制
发表时间：
2021-12-03
影响因子：
9.5
通讯作者：
Rogelberg, Steven G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kreamer, Liana M.;Albritton, Betsy H.;Rogelberg, Steven G.
本研究探讨了组织科学研究人员如何使用和/或引用方法论的“最佳实践”（BP）的文章。也就是说，学者们是完全遵守他们引用的规定做法，还是从推荐的做法中挑选而不披露？或者更糟糕的是，学者们是否不准确地遵循了他们引用的方法论最佳实践？为了回答这些问题，我们选择了过去十年中发表在组织研究方法（ORM）上的三篇具有开创性和高引用率的最佳实践文章。这些文章为研究人员提供了明确和具体的方法论建议，因为他们对经验研究的设计，测量和解释做出决定。然后，我们收集了所有引用这些最佳实践的文章。使用全面的编码表格，我们评估了作者如何使用和引用最佳实践文章（例如，如果他们适当地遵循建议的做法）。我们的研究结果显示，作者引用最佳实践文章的方式存在很大差异，17.4%的引用适当，47.7%的引用有轻微的不准确，34.5%的引用不适当。这些发现揭示了方法学建议的使用（和滥用），为我们在设计和测试研究和理论时如何更好地消化和实施最佳实践提供了见解。关键的影响和建议，编辑，审稿人和作者进行了讨论。
This study explores how researchers in the organizational sciences use and/or cite methodological 'best practice' (BP) articles. Namely, are scholars adhering fully to the prescribed practices they cite, or are they cherry picking from recommended practices without disclosing? Or worse yet, are scholars inaccurately following the methodological best practices they cite? To answer these questions, we selected three seminal and highly cited best practice articles published in Organizational Research Methods (ORM) within the past ten years. These articles offer clear and specific methodological recommendations for researchers as they make decisions regarding the design, measurement, and interpretation of empirical studies. We then gathered all articles that have cited these best practice pieces. Using comprehensive coding forms, we evaluated how authors are using and citing best practice articles (e.g., if they are appropriately following the recommended practices). Our results revealed substantial variation in how authors cited best practice articles, with 17.4% appropriately citing, 47.7% citing with minor inaccuracies, and 34.5% inappropriately citing BP articles. These findings shed light on the use (and misuse) of methodological recommendations, offering insight into how we can better improve our digestion and implementation of best practices as we design and test research and theory. Key implications and recommendations for editors, reviewers, and authors are discussed.