Search results

Traditionally, the main goal of empirical research has been to test theories. Yet, theory-testing is problematical in the social sciences. Findings from empirical studies have proven hard to replicate and there is a lack of progress in creating a coherent and cumulative knowledge base. There are both practical and epistemological issues that prevent effective empirical tests. It is difficult to operationalize constructs and design decisive tests of theories. The laws and regularities posited in theories in the natural sciences are independent of human actors, while theories in the social sciences describe systems and structures that are created and maintained by human actors. Nonetheless, human actors are sometimes guided by theories. They may change their behavior or make different decisions based on academically produced knowledge. This relationship is usually mediated by the use of tools of various sorts (i.e., design principles, diagrams, or stories). I discuss why scholars should conduct empirical research to test the pragmatic validity of tools that are derived from theories rather than testing the scientific validity of the theories themselves.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework of ideation pathways that organically extend the current stock of knowledge to generate new and useful knowledge. Although detailed, granular guidance is available in the strategy literature on all aspects of empirically testing theory, the other key aspect of theory development – theory generation – remains relatively neglected. The framework developed in this paper addresses this gap by proposing pathways for how new theory can be generated.

Grounded in two foundational principles in epistemology, the Genetic Argument and the open-endedness of knowledge, I offer a framework of distinct pathways that systematically lead to the creation of new knowledge.

Existing knowledge can be deepened (through introspection), broadened (through leverage) and rejuvenated (through innovation). These ideation pathways can unlock the vast, hidden potential of current knowledge in strategy.

The novelty and doability of the framework can potentially inspire research on a broad, community-wide basis, engaging PhD students and management faculty, improving knowledge, democratizing scholarship and deepening the societal footprint of strategy research.

Knowledge is open-ended. The more we know, the more we appreciate how much we don’t know. But the lack of clear guidance on rigorous pathways along which new knowledge that advances both theory and practice can be created from prior knowledge has stymied strategy research. The paper’s framework systematically pulls together for the first time the disparate elements of transforming past learning into new knowledge in a coherent epistemological whole.

Scholars have applied a number of theoretical perspectives to enhance understanding of social entrepreneurial opportunities, and have most recently turned to the lens of critical realism. Although this metatheoretical perspective overcomes some problems with previous views and helps to identify the essence of a construct, the level of abstraction required by this approach leaves unanswered questions related to how social entrepreneurs leverage opportunities. The purpose of this paper is to create a framework to describe social entrepreneurial opportunities in a way that facilitates action and decision-making by social entrepreneurs.

Through adapting Davidsson's (2015) deconstruction of the opportunity construct and using it to inform the pragmatist view of entrepreneurs as theory-testing scientists, this paper develops a framework for understanding social entrepreneurial opportunities. The paper explores the idea that social opportunities are composed of external enablers, a new social venture idea, and social opportunity confidence, and integrates the existing literature on social opportunities into this framework.

Using the framework developed, the authors advance a template of questions, hypotheses and quasi-experimental means that social entrepreneurs can use to determine how to move forward in social opportunity actualization. The authors also expand three categories of research questions that scholars may explore to extend the practical and theoretical understanding of social opportunities.

This work is among the first to adopt the pragmatist lens to elucidate social opportunities in a practical way. It takes an important first step in offering a means for social entrepreneurs to investigate when or where the requisite components of a social entrepreneurial opportunity may exist. Furthermore, it advances the pragmatist perspective of social opportunities by using Davidsson's model to explain the components of theories about what may or may not be a social opportunity.

The changing environment and competitive market forces have brought many changes in the business sector that have put organisations under immense pressure. The use of psychometric assessments and behavioural profiling help organisations to determine individuals' abilities, aptitudes, personality traits, values and factors which intrinsically motivate them and assist in bringing the right people on board who fit well within the organisational culture and can contribute towards the performance goals. Although behavioural profiling and psychometric assessments are accepted worldwide, however, developing countries particularly the public sector still relies on conventional recruitment methods and the adaptation of contemporary behavioural profiling and psychometric assessments is a challenge. Therefore, this chapter evaluates how the adaptation of behavioural profiling and psychometric assessments in the civil service exams in developing countries can improve the selection process and ultimately can help to improve the quality of public services, capacity building and achieving sustainability goals.

This paper serves to test the validity of Chatman’s theory of “Life Lived in the Round” within a modern prison context. In particular, it examines Propositions Five and Six of her theory.

Data regarding the information-seeking practices of Australian adult female and male prisoners from maximum-, medium- and minimum-security facilities was gathered through 106 surveys and 27 semi-structured interviews. Participants’ information-seeking from sources internal and external to the “small world” of the prison was described. The information behaviours of the participants were examined against Chatman’s theory of “Life in the Round” to determine its applicability in the prison context.

The data gathered does not support Chatman’s theory of “Life Lived in the Round”, despite that theory being developed in a prison context. Neither Proposition Five nor Proposition Six of Chatman’s theory can be supported when examined in the light of the current data.

The inability of the data to support Chatman’s theory requires a reassessment of the applicability of the theory, at least to the prison context. As the theory was generated in part from a prison study, the foundational understandings of the theory could be questioned as a result of this current research.

Although Chatman’s theory has been examined against the information behaviours of other “Small World” communities, none of these studies have taken the theory back to the prison context from which the theory was developed. This study is also novel as its findings do not support Chatman’s theory, in contrast to other previously published examinations.

This paper aims to test the empirical validity of the dynamic trade-off theory in its symmetric and asymmetric versions in explaining the capital structure of a panel of publicly listed US industrial firms over the period from 2013 to 2019. It analyzes the existence of an adjustment of leverage toward its target level and whether the speed of this adjustment is influenced by the debt measure, the model specification or/and the fact that the actual debt ratio is higher or lower than its long-term target level.

This paper uses a quantitative research methodology using panel data analysis under the partial adjustment model and the error correction model using the generalized moment method in first differences and in systems to explore the dynamic nature of firms’ capital structure behavior.

The results show that the effects of the conventional determinants of leverage are globally consistent with the trade-off theory predictions. The dynamic versions confirm that firms exhibit leverage-targeting behavior. Although this speed of adjustment (SOA) depends on the debt and model specifications, it is around 60% on average. The estimated SOA is higher for the market leverage measure compared to the book leverage. The asymmetric adjustment model reveals that firms are more sensitive to reducing leverage than increasing it when they are away from their target; overleveraged firms exhibit approximately 5% faster adjustment than underleveraged firms when book leverage is used.

The originality of this research paper lies in its development and test of an asymmetric model to allow the leverage adjustment speed to vary depending on whether the firm’s debt ratio is above or below its target level and the methodological approach as well as the different model specifications used and the insights generated through the application of rigorous econometric techniques.

The purpose of this study is to examine the alignment between the risk hedging strategy and supplier collaboration and its effect on manufacturing competitiveness.

Building on the resource-based view (RBV) and contingency theory (CT), this study is guided by a positivist philosophy and employs a survey strategy to investigate both the direct relationship between the risk hedging strategy and manufacturing competitiveness and the moderating role of supplier collaboration using data collected from 397 respondents of manufacturing firms. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique is used to analyze collected data and to present the research findings.

Consistent with the RBV and CT, study findings indicate that a significant positive relationship exists between the risk hedging strategy and manufacturing competitiveness and that this relationship becomes stronger when supplier collaboration is interactively aligned. Study findings provide important insights on the role of the risk hedging strategy in promoting manufacturing competitiveness. Furthermore, supplier collaboration as a moderator accounts for a significant proportion of the relationship between the risk hedging strategy and manufacturing competitiveness.

Internal resources provide an explanation of the competitive differences among firms employing the risk hedging strategy. However, the environment presents opportunities for firms to acquire additional resources to fulfil the unique collaborative requirements of the risk hedging strategy. This study has used the moderation perspective to explain the interaction between the risk hedging strategy and supplier collaboration and its effect on manufacturing competitiveness. Future studies could incorporate other alignment concepts such as mediation and systems approach and compare the results to improve the theory.

This study can be considered as its kind in the supply chain management literature and both practitioners and researchers can benefit from the experience of resource-based and contingency analysis research and the results of aligning the risk hedging strategy with supplier collaboration for higher levels of manufacturing competitiveness.

This study focuses on (re-)introducing computer simulation as a part of the research paradigm. Simulation is a widely applied research method in supply chain and operations management. However, leading journals, such as the International Journal of Operations and Production Management, have often been reluctant to accept simulation studies. This study provides guidelines on how to conduct simulation research that advances theory, is relevant, and matters.

This study pooled the viewpoints of the editorial team of the International Journal of Operations and Production Management and authors of simulation studies. The authors debated their views and outlined why simulation is important and what a compelling simulation should look like.

There is an increasing importance of considering uncertainty, an increasing interest in dynamic phenomena, such as the transient response(s) to disruptions, and an increasing need to consider complementary outcomes, such as sustainability, which many researchers believe can be tackled by big data and modern analytical tools. But building, elaborating, and testing theory by purposeful experimentation is the strength of computer simulation. The authors therefore argue that simulation should play an important role in supply chain and operations management research, but for this, it also has to evolve away from simply generating and analyzing data. Four types of simulation research with much promise are outlined: empirical grounded simulation, simulation that establishes causality, simulation that supplements machine learning, artificial intelligence and analytics and simulation for sensitive environments.

This study identifies reasons why simulation is important for understanding and responding to today's business and societal challenges, it provides some guidance on how to design good simulation studies in this context and it links simulation to empirical research and theory going beyond multimethod studies.

Based on the general formula, which depends on the length and difficulty of the test, the number of respondents and the number of ability levels, this study aims to provide a closed formula for the adaptive tests with medium difficulty (probability of solution is p = 1/2) to determine the accuracy of the parameters for each item and in the case of calibrated items, determine the required test length given number of respondents.

Empirical results have been obtained on computerized or multistage adaptive implementation. Simulation studies and classroom/experimental results show that adaptive tests can measure test subjects’ ability to the same quality over half the test length compared to linear versions. Due to the complexity of the problem, the authors discuss a closed mathematical formula: the relationship between the length of the tests, the difficulty of solving the items, the number of respondents and the levels of ability.

The authors present a closed formula that provides a lower bound for the minimum test length in the case of adaptive tests. The authors also present example calculations using the formula, based on the assessment framework of some student assessments to show the similarity between the theoretical calculations and the empirical results.

With this formula, we can form a connection between theoretical and simulation results.