与“真正的”团队合作的挑战:第二部分简介

IF 3.9 1区 心理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin
{"title":"与“真正的”团队合作的挑战:第二部分简介","authors":"Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin","doi":"10.1177/2041386620923165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We introduce the next two papers in our running special section on the challenges studying modern teams—those that may not have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, or members who belong only to that single team. Our perspective is that many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct, so rather than further exploiting our traditional approaches, the field should explore new or different ways to analyze the team experience. Thus, in these special sections, we present theoretical arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. This installment presents two papers that should enrich researchers’ sophistication in their ontological assumptions about teams. They are excellent complements to each other, as both are about questions of meaning and both have clear methodological implications for research design, but one zooms in to the nature of teams and the other zooms out to the nature of knowledge itself.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"57 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620923165","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The challenges of working with “real” teams: Introduction to the second installment\",\"authors\":\"Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2041386620923165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We introduce the next two papers in our running special section on the challenges studying modern teams—those that may not have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, or members who belong only to that single team. Our perspective is that many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct, so rather than further exploiting our traditional approaches, the field should explore new or different ways to analyze the team experience. Thus, in these special sections, we present theoretical arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. This installment presents two papers that should enrich researchers’ sophistication in their ontological assumptions about teams. They are excellent complements to each other, as both are about questions of meaning and both have clear methodological implications for research design, but one zooms in to the nature of teams and the other zooms out to the nature of knowledge itself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"57 - 61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620923165\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620923165\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620923165","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们在我们正在运行的关于研究现代团队的挑战的特别部分中介绍了接下来的两篇论文——那些可能没有可识别的边界、稳定的成员,或者成员只属于单一团队的团队。我们的观点是,关于团队本身的许多假设不再正确,因此,与其进一步利用我们的传统方法,该领域应该探索新的或不同的方法来分析团队经验。因此,在这些特殊章节中,我们提出了基于有纪律的想象和实际经验的理论论证,说明为什么这些新方法是可信的。本文将介绍两篇论文,它们将丰富研究人员对团队的本体论假设的复杂性。它们是相互补充的,因为它们都是关于意义的问题,都对研究设计有明确的方法论含义,但一个放大了团队的本质,另一个放大了知识本身的本质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The challenges of working with “real” teams: Introduction to the second installment
We introduce the next two papers in our running special section on the challenges studying modern teams—those that may not have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, or members who belong only to that single team. Our perspective is that many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct, so rather than further exploiting our traditional approaches, the field should explore new or different ways to analyze the team experience. Thus, in these special sections, we present theoretical arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. This installment presents two papers that should enrich researchers’ sophistication in their ontological assumptions about teams. They are excellent complements to each other, as both are about questions of meaning and both have clear methodological implications for research design, but one zooms in to the nature of teams and the other zooms out to the nature of knowledge itself.
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
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
1.60%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Organizational Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE in partnership with the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review’s unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, organizational behavior, personnel psychology, and work psychology).Articles accepted for publication in Organizational Psychology Review will have the potential to have a major impact on research and practice in organizational psychology. They will offer analyses worth citing, worth following up on in primary research, and worth considering as a basis for applied managerial practice. As such, these should be contributions that move beyond straight forward reviews of the existing literature by developing new theory and insights. At the same time, however, they should be well-grounded in the state of the art and the empirical knowledge base, providing a good mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and exciting new ideas.
×
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