Using Grounded Theory to Avoid Research Misconduct in Management Science
Main Article Content
Abstract
In this article, I show that several of the most common forms of research misconduct in quantitative research in management science could be avoided if researchers made open, comprehensive use of the well-established Grounded Theory paradigm when using quantitative data. Investigating various mainstream management research outlets, I found that this is scarcely ever the case. I propose some viable alternatives for the design of quantitative and mixed studies in management science. If these alternatives are used, researchers could follow the main basic assumptions that lie at the roots of Grounded Theory, and make sure these assumptions are clearly stated in order to avoid being pushed toward episodes of misconduct that have become common in the field of management science.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open-access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Bedeian, A., Taylor, S., & Miller, A. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(4), 715–725.
Benzécri, J., (1973). La place de l’a priori. Encyclopédia Universalis, Vol 17, Organum, 11–24.
Biemann, T. (2012). What if we are Texas Sharpshooters? A New Look at Publication Bias. Academy of Management Conference, Boston.
Birks, D., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., & Nasirin, S. (2013). Grounded theory method in information systems research: its nature, diversity and opportunities. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1):1–8.
De Vaujany, F-X., Walsh, I., & Mitev, N. (2011). An historically grounded critical analysis of research articles in IS. European Journal of Information Systems, 20, 395-417. doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.13.
Garst, J., Kerr, N., Harris, S. & Sheppard, L. (2002). Satisficing in hypothesis generation. The American Journal of Psychology, 115(4), 475–500.
Gawande, A. (1999). The cancer-cluster myth. The New Yorker, 9, 34–37.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Glaser, B. (2008). Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The Grounded Theory Review, 7(2), 1–17.
Glaser, B. (2005). The Grounded Theory perspective III: Theoretical Coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Grant, A., Dutton, J., & Rosso, B. (2008). Giving Commitment: Employee Support Programs and the Prosocial Sensemaking Process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898–918.
Harzing, A. (2007). Reflections on the h-index. Retrieved from http://www.harzing.com/pop_index.htm.
Havemann, E., & West, P. S. (1952). They Went to College: The College Graduate in America Today. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Kerr, N. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.
Klee, R. (1997). Introduction to the philosophy of science: cutting nature at its seams. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Thielens, W., & Riesman, D. (1977). The Academic Mind: Social Scientists in a Time of Crisis. New York: Arno Press.
Morse, J. (2003). Principles of Mixed Methods and Multimethod Research design. In Tashakkori A., & Teddlie, C. Handbook of Mixed Methods in social and behavioral research), (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.
O'Mahony, S., and Ferraro, F. (2007). The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1079–1106.
Schall, M. (1983). A Communication-Rules Approach to Organizational Culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 557–581.
Tashakkori A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: Calling for an integrative framework. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and Applications (pp. 101–119). London: SagenPublications Ltd.
Thomson, W. (2009). Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation. Law, Probability and Risk, 8(3), 257–276.
Tukey, J. (1979). Methodology, and the statistician's responsibility for BOTH accuracy AND relevance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(368), 786–793.