Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T22:31:46.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Show Me the Data! Improving Evidence Presentation for Publication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2018

Henrich R. Greve
Henrich R. Greve*
Affiliation:
INSEAD, Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Management journals publish research that can be divided into many fields and originate from many theories, but in one regard all are similar: the presentation of data according to professional conventions. The presentation of empirical findings expresses broad agreement across theories, fields of study, and researcher background, an agreement that is upheld by doctoral training and by scholars learning presentation conventions through reading journal articles. The agreement is most easily uncovered by examining empirical papers in other fields of study, which quickly yields two conclusions. First, the fields are different from the management field; second, many of them have greater internal diversity in evidence presentation than management does. In particular, empirical articles outside management use more graphical displays to show the data in addition to showing model estimates, and have a great variety of graphing techniques.

Type
Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 423 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bettis, R. A., Ethiraj, S. K., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C. E., & Mitchell, W. 2016. Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 37 (2): 257–261.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. 2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4): 1246–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldfarb, B., & King, A. A. 2016. Scientific apophenia in strategic management research: Significance tests and mistaken inference. Strategic Management Journal, 37 (1): 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, H. R. 2016. From the Editor. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (June): v–vi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. 2013. Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21 (3): 267–297.Google Scholar
Lewin, A. Y., Chiu, C.-Y., Fey, C. F., Levine, S. S., McDermott, G., Murmann, J. P., & Tsang, E. W. K. 2016. The critique of empirical social science: New policies at Management and Organization Review. Management and Organization Review, 12 (4): 649–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, E. R. 2001. The visual display of quantitative information, 2nd ed. Cheshire, CO: Graphics Press.Google Scholar