The “WEIRDEST” Organizations in the World? Assessing the Lack of Sample Diversity in Organizational Research

IF 9.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Robin Schimmelpfennig, Christian Elbæk, Panagiotis Mitkidis, Anisha Singh, Quinetta Roberson
{"title":"The “WEIRDEST” Organizations in the World? Assessing the Lack of Sample Diversity in Organizational Research","authors":"Robin Schimmelpfennig, Christian Elbæk, Panagiotis Mitkidis, Anisha Singh, Quinetta Roberson","doi":"10.1177/01492063241305577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sampling data from organizations and humans associated with those organizations is essential to organizational research. Much of what we know about organizations is based on such work. However, this empirical foundation may be compromised, calling into question the field’s theoretical and empirical findings. Studies often sample data from relatively similar, narrow contexts, so a lack of sample diversity accumulates in the discipline. To conceptualize this lack of sample diversity and examine its prevalence across research publications, we conduct a pre-registered systematic review of articles from 2018 to 2022 in six top management journals and another systematic review of articles from 2013 to 2022 in six additional journals (not pre-registered). Our review assesses sample country diversity while also exploring within-country factors that are relatively under or oversampled, such as the size or industry of the sampled organization. We find a lack of sample diversity, for instance, a strong bias toward WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) samples and an underrepresentation of small and medium-sized enterprises in organizational research. Based on the findings and past work, we introduce a conceptual framework for sample diversity along three dimensions: the sample’s geographical, organizational, and personnel contexts. Additionally, we discuss factors that contribute to a lack of sample diversity and propose guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors to enhance it. Overall, this article seeks to improve the robustness and relevance of theoretical and empirical organizational research, thereby preventing the formulation of misinformed policies and practices in both organizational settings and broader societal contexts.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241305577","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

Sampling data from organizations and humans associated with those organizations is essential to organizational research. Much of what we know about organizations is based on such work. However, this empirical foundation may be compromised, calling into question the field’s theoretical and empirical findings. Studies often sample data from relatively similar, narrow contexts, so a lack of sample diversity accumulates in the discipline. To conceptualize this lack of sample diversity and examine its prevalence across research publications, we conduct a pre-registered systematic review of articles from 2018 to 2022 in six top management journals and another systematic review of articles from 2013 to 2022 in six additional journals (not pre-registered). Our review assesses sample country diversity while also exploring within-country factors that are relatively under or oversampled, such as the size or industry of the sampled organization. We find a lack of sample diversity, for instance, a strong bias toward WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) samples and an underrepresentation of small and medium-sized enterprises in organizational research. Based on the findings and past work, we introduce a conceptual framework for sample diversity along three dimensions: the sample’s geographical, organizational, and personnel contexts. Additionally, we discuss factors that contribute to a lack of sample diversity and propose guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors to enhance it. Overall, this article seeks to improve the robustness and relevance of theoretical and empirical organizational research, thereby preventing the formulation of misinformed policies and practices in both organizational settings and broader societal contexts.
世界上“最奇怪”的组织?评估组织研究中样本多样性的缺失
从组织和与这些组织有关的人员中取样数据对组织研究至关重要。我们对组织的了解大多是基于这样的工作。然而,这一实证基础可能会受到损害,对该领域的理论和实证发现提出质疑。研究往往从相对相似的、狭窄的背景中取样数据,因此在该学科中积累了样本多样性的缺乏。为了将这种样本多样性的缺乏概念化,并检查其在研究出版物中的普遍程度,我们对2018年至2022年在六家顶级管理期刊上发表的文章进行了预注册的系统评价,并对2013年至2022年在另外六家期刊(未预注册)上发表的文章进行了另一次系统评价。我们的审查评估了样本国家的多样性,同时也探讨了样本相对不足或过度的国家内部因素,如样本组织的规模或行业。我们发现缺乏样本多样性,例如,对WEIRD(西方,受过教育,工业化,富裕和民主)样本的强烈偏见以及在组织研究中对中小型企业的代表性不足。基于研究结果和过去的工作,我们从三个维度介绍了样本多样性的概念框架:样本的地理、组织和人员背景。此外,我们还讨论了导致样本多样性缺乏的因素,并为作者、审稿人和编辑提出了提高样本多样性的指导方针。总体而言,本文旨在提高理论和实证组织研究的稳健性和相关性,从而防止在组织环境和更广泛的社会背景下制定错误的政策和实践。
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
22.40
自引率
5.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research. The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.
×
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