{"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 , 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":null,"pages":null},"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 , 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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
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.
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.