感知环境典型性与管理研究成果可推广性的信念

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Przemysław Hensel , Adam Tatarynowicz
{"title":"感知环境典型性与管理研究成果可推广性的信念","authors":"Przemysław Hensel ,&nbsp;Adam Tatarynowicz","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite growing calls for a greater internationalization of management research, the discipline still struggles with the challenge of integrating diverse national contexts. While recent decades have seen a change toward a more equitable treatment of all national contexts, the belief that research conducted outside the United States is less generalizable remains strong. In this research note, we explore the general perceptions of what is considered a “typical” study context by associating them with authors' variable tendencies to report threats to external validity. Using a sample of 400 papers from seven top-tier management journals, we find that research based on non-US data tends to report more external validity threats, which makes it appear less generalizable. While the belief that the US constitutes a “typical” study context is shared by both US and non-US author teams, non-US co-authors tend to exhibit a relatively stronger bias against the generalizability of non-US samples in their studies. Collectively, our results contribute to the literature on external validity threats, generalizability, and biases in peer review, while also responding to recent calls for a more diverse and inclusive management research program.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":"53 6","pages":"Article 105020"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceived context typicality and beliefs in the generalizability of management research findings\",\"authors\":\"Przemysław Hensel ,&nbsp;Adam Tatarynowicz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite growing calls for a greater internationalization of management research, the discipline still struggles with the challenge of integrating diverse national contexts. While recent decades have seen a change toward a more equitable treatment of all national contexts, the belief that research conducted outside the United States is less generalizable remains strong. In this research note, we explore the general perceptions of what is considered a “typical” study context by associating them with authors' variable tendencies to report threats to external validity. Using a sample of 400 papers from seven top-tier management journals, we find that research based on non-US data tends to report more external validity threats, which makes it appear less generalizable. While the belief that the US constitutes a “typical” study context is shared by both US and non-US author teams, non-US co-authors tend to exhibit a relatively stronger bias against the generalizability of non-US samples in their studies. Collectively, our results contribute to the literature on external validity threats, generalizability, and biases in peer review, while also responding to recent calls for a more diverse and inclusive management research program.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Policy\",\"volume\":\"53 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 105020\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000696\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000696","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管管理研究国际化的呼声日益高涨,但这门学科仍在努力应对整合不同国家背景的挑战。虽然近几十年来,各国的情况都得到了更加公平的对待,但认为在美国以外进行的研究普遍性较低的观点仍然十分强烈。在本研究报告中,我们通过将 "典型 "研究背景与作者报告外部效度威胁的不同倾向联系起来,探讨了人们对 "典型 "研究背景的普遍看法。通过对来自七种顶级管理期刊的 400 篇论文进行抽样调查,我们发现基于非美国数据的研究往往会报告更多的外部有效性威胁,从而使其显得不那么具有普遍性。虽然美国和非美国作者团队都认为美国是 "典型的 "研究背景,但非美国共同作者在其研究中往往对非美国样本的普适性表现出相对更强的偏见。总之,我们的研究结果为有关外部有效性威胁、可推广性和同行评审中的偏见的文献做出了贡献,同时也响应了最近关于建立一个更加多元化和包容的管理研究项目的呼吁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perceived context typicality and beliefs in the generalizability of management research findings

Despite growing calls for a greater internationalization of management research, the discipline still struggles with the challenge of integrating diverse national contexts. While recent decades have seen a change toward a more equitable treatment of all national contexts, the belief that research conducted outside the United States is less generalizable remains strong. In this research note, we explore the general perceptions of what is considered a “typical” study context by associating them with authors' variable tendencies to report threats to external validity. Using a sample of 400 papers from seven top-tier management journals, we find that research based on non-US data tends to report more external validity threats, which makes it appear less generalizable. While the belief that the US constitutes a “typical” study context is shared by both US and non-US author teams, non-US co-authors tend to exhibit a relatively stronger bias against the generalizability of non-US samples in their studies. Collectively, our results contribute to the literature on external validity threats, generalizability, and biases in peer review, while also responding to recent calls for a more diverse and inclusive management research program.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
×
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