Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The presence of something or the absence of not...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

The presence of something or the absence of nothing: increasing theoretical precision in management research

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The presence of something or the absence of nothing: increasing theoretical precision in management research. / Edwards, Jeffrey R.; Berry, James W.
In: Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13, No. 4, 10.2010, p. 668-689.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Edwards, JR & Berry, JW 2010, 'The presence of something or the absence of nothing: increasing theoretical precision in management research', Organizational Research Methods, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 668-689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110380467

APA

Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2010). The presence of something or the absence of nothing: increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 668-689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110380467

Vancouver

Edwards JR, Berry JW. The presence of something or the absence of nothing: increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods. 2010 Oct;13(4):668-689. doi: 10.1177/1094428110380467

Author

Edwards, Jeffrey R. ; Berry, James W. / The presence of something or the absence of nothing : increasing theoretical precision in management research. In: Organizational Research Methods. 2010 ; Vol. 13, No. 4. pp. 668-689.

Bibtex

@article{1279fa31ec1b4be0986a21adb81bf7cb,
title = "The presence of something or the absence of nothing: increasing theoretical precision in management research",
abstract = "In management research, theory testing confronts a paradox described by Meehl in which designing studies with greater methodological rigor puts theories at less risk of falsification. This paradox exists because most management theories make predictions that are merely directional, such as stating that two variables will be positively or negatively related. As methodological rigor increases, the probability that an estimated effect will differ from zero likewise increases, and the likelihood of finding support for a directional prediction boils down to a coin toss. This paradox can be resolved by developing theories with greater precision, such that their propositions predict something more meaningful than deviations from zero. This article evaluates the precision of theories in management research, offers guidelines for making theories more precise, and discusses ways to overcome barriers to the pursuit of theoretical precision. ",
keywords = "philosophy of science, quantitative research , theory development",
author = "Edwards, {Jeffrey R.} and Berry, {James W.}",
year = "2010",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1177/1094428110380467",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "668--689",
journal = "Organizational Research Methods",
issn = "1094-4281",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The presence of something or the absence of nothing

T2 - increasing theoretical precision in management research

AU - Edwards, Jeffrey R.

AU - Berry, James W.

PY - 2010/10

Y1 - 2010/10

N2 - In management research, theory testing confronts a paradox described by Meehl in which designing studies with greater methodological rigor puts theories at less risk of falsification. This paradox exists because most management theories make predictions that are merely directional, such as stating that two variables will be positively or negatively related. As methodological rigor increases, the probability that an estimated effect will differ from zero likewise increases, and the likelihood of finding support for a directional prediction boils down to a coin toss. This paradox can be resolved by developing theories with greater precision, such that their propositions predict something more meaningful than deviations from zero. This article evaluates the precision of theories in management research, offers guidelines for making theories more precise, and discusses ways to overcome barriers to the pursuit of theoretical precision.

AB - In management research, theory testing confronts a paradox described by Meehl in which designing studies with greater methodological rigor puts theories at less risk of falsification. This paradox exists because most management theories make predictions that are merely directional, such as stating that two variables will be positively or negatively related. As methodological rigor increases, the probability that an estimated effect will differ from zero likewise increases, and the likelihood of finding support for a directional prediction boils down to a coin toss. This paradox can be resolved by developing theories with greater precision, such that their propositions predict something more meaningful than deviations from zero. This article evaluates the precision of theories in management research, offers guidelines for making theories more precise, and discusses ways to overcome barriers to the pursuit of theoretical precision.

KW - philosophy of science

KW - quantitative research

KW - theory development

U2 - 10.1177/1094428110380467

DO - 10.1177/1094428110380467

M3 - Journal article

VL - 13

SP - 668

EP - 689

JO - Organizational Research Methods

JF - Organizational Research Methods

SN - 1094-4281

IS - 4

ER -