Big Data, Proxies, Algorithmic Decision-Making and the Future of Management Theory

IF 7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Dirk Lindebaum, Christine Moser, Gazi Islam
{"title":"Big Data, Proxies, Algorithmic Decision-Making and the Future of Management Theory","authors":"Dirk Lindebaum,&nbsp;Christine Moser,&nbsp;Gazi Islam","doi":"10.1111/joms.13032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The future of theory in the age of big data and algorithms is a frequent topic in management research. However, with corporate ownership of big data and data processing capabilities designed for profit generation increasing rapidly, we witness a shift from scientific to ‘corporate empiricism’. Building on this debate, our ‘Point’ essay argues that theorizing in management research is at risk <i>now</i>. Unlike the ‘Counterpoint’ article, which portrays a bright future for management theory given available technological opportunities, we are concerned about management researchers increasingly ‘borrowing’ data from the corporate realm (e.g., Google et al.) to build or test theory. Our objection is that this data borrowing can harm scientific theorizing due to how scaling effects, proxy measures and algorithmic decision-making performatively combine to undermine the scientific validity of theories. This undermining occurs through reducing scientific explanations, while technology shapes theory and reality in a profit-predicting rather than in a truth-seeking manner. Our essay has meta-theoretical implications for management theory per se, as well as for political debates concerning the jurisdiction and legitimacy of knowledge claims in management research. Practically, these implications connect to debates on scientific responsibilities of researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"61 6","pages":"2724-2747"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.13032","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The future of theory in the age of big data and algorithms is a frequent topic in management research. However, with corporate ownership of big data and data processing capabilities designed for profit generation increasing rapidly, we witness a shift from scientific to ‘corporate empiricism’. Building on this debate, our ‘Point’ essay argues that theorizing in management research is at risk now. Unlike the ‘Counterpoint’ article, which portrays a bright future for management theory given available technological opportunities, we are concerned about management researchers increasingly ‘borrowing’ data from the corporate realm (e.g., Google et al.) to build or test theory. Our objection is that this data borrowing can harm scientific theorizing due to how scaling effects, proxy measures and algorithmic decision-making performatively combine to undermine the scientific validity of theories. This undermining occurs through reducing scientific explanations, while technology shapes theory and reality in a profit-predicting rather than in a truth-seeking manner. Our essay has meta-theoretical implications for management theory per se, as well as for political debates concerning the jurisdiction and legitimacy of knowledge claims in management research. Practically, these implications connect to debates on scientific responsibilities of researchers.

大数据、代理人、算法决策与管理理论的未来
大数据和算法时代理论的未来是管理研究中经常出现的话题。然而,随着企业对大数据的所有权以及为创造利润而设计的数据处理能力的快速增长,我们看到了从科学主义到 "企业经验主义 "的转变。在这一争论的基础上,我们的 "观点 "文章认为,管理研究中的理论化现在正面临风险。与 "观点 "不同的是,"观点 "一文描绘了在现有技术机遇下管理理论的光明前景,而我们则对管理研究人员越来越多地从企业领域(如谷歌等)"借用 "数据来构建或检验理论表示担忧。我们的反对意见是,这种数据借用可能会损害科学理论,因为缩放效应、代用措施和算法决策是如何结合在一起损害理论的科学性的。这种破坏是通过减少科学解释来实现的,而技术是以盈利预测而非寻求真理的方式来塑造理论和现实的。我们的文章对管理理论本身以及有关管理研究中知识主张的管辖权和合法性的政治辩论都具有元理论意义。在实践中,这些影响与关于研究人员科学责任的辩论相关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
99
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Studies is a prestigious publication that specializes in multidisciplinary research in the field of business and management. With a rich history of excellence, we are dedicated to publishing innovative articles that contribute to the advancement of management and organization studies. Our journal welcomes empirical and conceptual contributions that are relevant to various areas including organization theory, organizational behavior, human resource management, strategy, international business, entrepreneurship, innovation, and critical management studies. We embrace diversity and are open to a wide range of methodological approaches and philosophical perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信