Course Syllabus: Research Methods in Management ADMI ......The emphasis of this course is on how to design and evaluate quantitative research studies. The course will cover foundational,

ADMI811 Research Methods -‐ T. Hecht Fall 2016 Course Syllabus Page 1

Course Syllabus: Research Methods in Management ADMI 811A, Fall 2016

Instructor: Dr. Tracy Hecht Office: MB14.323 Email: [email protected] Phone: 514-848-2424 ext. 2785 Fax: 514-848-4292 (attention: Tracy Hecht)

Section: A, W 13:15pm – 16:00pm Location: MB5.215, 1450 Guy Street at de Maisonneuve Office Hours: Tuesdays 1:15-2:15pm and by appointment

COURSE OVERVIEW This PhD level seminar is designed to familiarize students with quantitative research methods and techniques that are used in various fields of management (e.g., organizational behavior, human resources management, strategy, entrepreneurship and so on). The emphasis of this course is on how to design and evaluate quantitative research studies. The course will cover foundational, as well as more advanced, issues in quantitative research methods. This course does not cover qualitative research methods, as these are covered in depth in other courses in the joint Doctoral program. This course also is not a statistics course, but we will talk about some of the statistical decisions that need to be made in quantitative research and about how to align research goals, with research methods and corresponding data analyses. Major topics in this course include the notion of constructs, reliability and validity in measurement, scale development processes, quantitative research designs, data sources and sampling considerations, types of associations among variables (linear, curvilinear, mediation, moderation, and so on), levels of analysis, and research ethics. By learning about the research process, students should acquire the knowledge required to evaluate, review, and critique published (and unpublished) quantitative research. The overarching goal of this course is to help students become well-informed producers, readers, and reviewers of organizational research. DISCLAIMER

In the event that the University is unable to provide services or that courses are interrupted due to events beyond the reasonable control of the University, including


classroom disruptions, the University reserves the right to modify any element contained in the course outline including but not limited to the grading scheme and the weight accorded to exams or assignments.

OVERALL LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At this end of this course, you should be able to:

• Explain foundational and advanced concepts in quantitative research methods • Describe quantitative research designs, and their respective strengths and

weaknesses • Make informed choices when designing quantitative studies in order to align your

design with your research questions and hypotheses • Develop valid quantitative measures and articulate how measurement issues can

affect research results • Recognize issues related to statistical choices and levels of analysis when

conducting and evaluating research in organizational settings • Conduct ethical research and be aware of ethical issues in research design and

reporting • Assess the quality of published and unpublished (quantitative) research and

communicate your assessments to an academic audience. FORMAT

Classes will involve discussions, analyses, applications, and critiques of assigned readings. Most classes will be divided into 3 parts. The first half of the class will typically be spent discussing the readings pertaining to the main weekly topic. The second half of the class will typically be divided into 2 blocks: One block will be a presentation by students of research issues that are not otherwise covered by the weekly readings and the second block will involve the class critiquing one assigned empirical article. The assigned empirical articles span various content areas in Management. Students are expected to read all assigned readings prior to class and to attend all classes. Come prepared.


GRADING AND EVALUATION Final grades will be based on the following criteria: Assignment 1: Oral presentation of “other issues in research methods” 15% (This presentation may be done in pairs depending on the size of the class) Assignment 2: Written critique of an assigned empirical research article 20% (Individual assignment) Assignment 3: Written research proposal (Individual assignment) Total value 45%

Plan for research proposal 10% Research proposal 35%

Class Contributions 20%

Total 100% REQUIRED READINGS Textbook: Pedhazur, E.J. and Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach. Psychology Press. (Assigned chapters as listed on the class schedule)

Note: This textbook is available in hard copy at the bookstore. It is expensive, but it is a good reference book. You may also be able to find a used copy through other sources. An e-version of this text does not exist.

Other readings: Numerous journal articles as listed on the class schedule, these articles are available online through the Concordia library website (go to CLUES to access online holdings of journal articles and e-books). Be forewarned: The reading load for this course is very heavy. You may be tempted to skip things you do not understand. I encourage you to read everything; even if you do not understand it at first, you will eventually!


ASSIGNMENT 1: ORAL PRESENTATION OF “OTHER ISSUES IN RESEARCH METHODS” Most weeks throughout the term (beginning in Week 4), one or two students will present to the class regarding an issue in research methods that is not otherwise covered in the weekly readings. The topics for each week appear below. Students should submit a list of their top 4 preferred topics by September 14, 2016 and the instructor will assign topics by September 21, 2016. Depending on the size of the class, presentations for Assignment 1 may be done in pairs; if this is the case, pairs will be assigned by the instructor based on students’ expressed interested in presenting on a given topic. Detailed instructions for this assignment will be posted on Moodle. As a brief overview, the instructor will supply you with a list of articles to present. Students are not required to find additional sources beyond those that will be given by the instructor. Presentations should be about 15-20 minutes and presenters should integrate the assigned readings (as relevant) to explain to the class what the topic(s) of the week is (are) and what researchers should do in relation to these topics when designing quantitative research studies. If there are multiple articles on the same topic, students should NOT present a summary of each article, but should synthesize the key points from all articles to present a coherent explanation of the issue(s) related to the topic. Learning Objectives

• Identify and synthesize critical information from journal articles • Acquire and share knowledge about advanced concepts in quantitative research

methods • Practice orally explaining concepts from research methods to an academic

audience List of Topics

Week 4 (September 28): Ratios, count-based measures, and dichotimization Week 5 (October 5): Formative measurement and model misspecification

Note: A basic understanding of SEM would be useful to present this topic. Week 6 (October 12): No Class

Week 7 (October 19): Control variables Week 8 (October 26): Issues with self-report data

Week 9 (November 2): Response rates, missing data and outliers Week 10 (November 9): Online data collection

Week 11 (November 16): Difference scores Week 12 (November 23): Common method variance and spuriousness


ASSIGNMENT 2: WRITTEN CRITIQUE OF AN ASSIGNED EMPIRICAL ARTICLE The second assignment in this class involves writing an individual critique/review of an empirical article. Most weeks we will spend part of our class time critiquing an empirical article. We will discuss whether theoretical models are compelling, whether the researchers made good choices in their study designs, and the overall strengths and weaknesses of the research. For Assignment 2, each student will be required to produce his/her own original written critique of one empirical article. The professor will provide a short list of articles from which to choose; students are not required to find an article to review for this assignment. This assignment is due on November 23, 2016 and your critique should represent your views on the article. This is not a group assignment. Detailed instructions for this assignment will be posted on Moodle. Learning Objectives • Extract key information from academic articles • Identify strengths and weaknesses of a published scholarly work • Critique research methods and findings • Communicate your evaluation of the quality of an empirical article in a written format

to an academic audience ASSIGNMENT 3: WRITTEN RESEARCH PROPOSAL (INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT) Students will select a topic of scholarly interest in the field of management. Each student will review literature relevant to the topic and write a research proposal for an empirical study. Because this is a course on research methods, emphasis should be placed on developing a sound method and explaining the reasoning for your methodological choices in your paper. Prior to submitting the full proposal, students will submit a topic proposal for feedback and topic approval. Details regarding the research proposal will be provided in class and posted on Moodle.

The plan for your research proposal should be submitted by October 19, 2016, but students are welcome to submit them earlier if they are ready for feedback before that date.

The final research proposal is due at 10am on Monday December 12, 2016.

Learning Objectives

• Identify and explain relevant concepts and theories in management • Extract key information from scientific sources and integrate those findings to

deduce testable hypotheses • Design a feasible study capable of testing proposed hypotheses • Write a coherent paper that is accessible and credible to an academic audience


CLASS CONTRIBUTIONS

Students will discuss and explore material in class each week. The class will be driven by your contributions to these discussions. You are here to express yourselves, to learn from each other, and to (respectfully) challenge each others’ ideas.

Learning Objectives

• Demonstrate your knowledge of constructs and theories related to quantitative research methods

• Engage in scholarly discussions regarding issues related to designing quantitative research studies

• Critique (i.e., assess the strengths and weaknesses of) empirical studies in management

A NOTE ABOUT CLASSROOM CONDUCT

Students’ conduct in class is integral to the learning experience – both their own and that of their classmates. I expect you to attend class. This includes being on time and staying for the duration of the class. I expect you to pay attention to class discussions and to avoid “chatting” with your classmates about topics unrelated to the course during class. I expect you to put your phone on silent mode and to refrain from reading, sending, and responding to texts, calls, emails and other messages during class. Students who are absent, passive, and/or disruptive will not earn marks during class discussions. The burden of demonstrating that absence from class was the result of extenuating circumstances rests with the student.


CLASS SCHEDULE AND WEEKLY READINGS This schedule is subject to change and changes will be announced in class and/or sent via email. It is your responsibility to keep informed about announcements that are made in class, even if you are not present on the day an announcement is made. Please ensure that your e-mail address in Moodle is current to ensure that you receive emails regarding this course. Key topics for each session are listed in italics. Week 1: Introduction (September 7) Get to know each other; review outline; philosophy of course; why master research methods? Week 2: Constructs (Part 1: Definitional Clarity) and Theories (September 14) DUE: Submit preferences for presentation topics (See Assignment 1) What is a construct? What is theory and how to build it? What isn’t theory? Why are constructs and theories important? Pedhazur & Schmelkin (1991)

Ch. 8 (Definitions and Variables; pp. 164-179) Ch. 9 (Theories, Problems and Hypotheses; pp. 180-198)

Busse, C., Kach, A.P. and Wagner, S.M. (2016) Boundary Conditions: What They Are, How to Explore Them, Why We Need Them, and When to Consider Them Organizational Research Methods, online before print, doi:10.1177/1094428116641191 Shepherd, D.A. & Roy Suddaby, R. (2016). Theory Building: A Review and Integration. Journal of Management, online before print: May 9, 2016, doi:10.1177/0149206316647102 Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346-357. DOI:10.5465/AMR.2010.51141319 Article for in-class critique Keil, M., Rai, A., & Mann, J. (2000). Why software projects escalate: An empirical analysis and test of four theoretical models. MIS Quarterly, 24, 631-664.


Additional reference For some background on science and scientific inquiry, you may wish to read: Pedhazur & Schmelkin (1991; Ch. 7: pp. 147-163). Week 3: Introduction to Measurement and Reliability (September 21) Scales of measurement; basic descriptive statistics, rating versus ranking; types of reliability estimates; determinants of reliability; correction for attenuation Pedhazur & Schmelkin (1991)

Ch. 2 (Measurement and Scientific Inquiry; pp. 15-29) Ch. 5 (Reliability; pp. 81-117)

Bedeian, A.G. (2014). “More than meets the eye”: A guide to interpreting the 6 descriptive statistics and correlation matrices reported in management research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 121-135.

Note: This article provides information about basic statistics that is very useful for reviewing and critiquing research.

Boyd, B.K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M.A. (2005). Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 26, 239-257. Cho, E. and Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but Poorly Understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 207-230. doi:10.1177/1094428114555994 LeBreton, J.M., & Senter, J.L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852. Article for in-class critique Catano, V.M., Brochu, A., & Lamerson, C.D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of situational judgment tests used in high-stakes situations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 333-346


Week 4: Constructs (Part 2: Structure) and Validity (September 28) Types of validity; content validity; criterion-related validity; criterion deficiency and contamination; effects of range restriction; types of constructs; general grounds for construct validity; ways to establish construct validity; multi-trait multi-method logic Pedhazur & Schmelkin, (1991)

Ch. 3 (Criterion-related validity; pp. 30-51) Ch. 4 (Construct validation; pp. 52-80) Also see Chapter 23 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis; only pages 669-684 for further information on the multi-trait-multi-method logic)

Hecht, T. D., & McCarthy, J. M. (2010). Coping with employee, family, and student roles: Evidence of dispositional conflict and facilitation tendencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 631. Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. M. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of management review, 23(4), 741-755. Shaffer, J.A., DeGeest, D. and Li, A. (2016) Tackling the Problem of Construct Proliferation: A Guide to Assessing the Discriminant Validity of Conceptually Related Constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 80-110, doi:10.1177/1094428115598239 Article for in-class critique Hamann, P.M., Schiemann, F., Bellora, L., & Guenther, T.W. (2013). Exploring the dimensions of organizational performance, A construct validity study. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 67-87. Additional references For statistical background on exploratory factor analysis, you may wish to consult:

Bandalos, D.L., & Bohem-Kaufman, M.R. (2009). Four common misconceptions in exploratory factor analysis. In C.E. Lance & R.J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 61-87). New York: Routledge. This chapter is available online at : https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OdaNAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA61&dq=misconceptions+about+factor+analysis&ots=iFemK8Py8j&sig=nMkt72qEASqkLqoT8RHnKvEGHbg#v=onepage&q=misconceptions%20about%20factor%20analysis&f=false


For an alternative perspective on assessing construct dimensionality, you may wish to consult: Tay, L., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Theoretical, statistical, and substantive issues in the assessment of construct dimensionality: Accounting for the item response process. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 363-384, doi: 1094428112439709. For more information and a comprehensive review of diverse approaches to measuring organizational performance and their pros and cons, you may wish to consult:

Richard, P.J., Devinney, T.M., Yip, G.S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 35, 718-804.

Week 5: Time in Organizational Research and More on Constructs (Parts 3: Stability; October 5) Longitudinal research designs, time as a variable in research, alpha, beta, and gamma change; assessing the stability of constructs Bergh, D.D., & Fairbank, J.F. (2002). Measuring and testing change in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 359-366. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of management, 26(4), 657-684. McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual review of psychology, 60, 577-605.

Millsap, R. E., & Hartog, S. B. (1988). Alpha, beta, and gamma change in evaluation research: A structural equation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 574. Ployhart, R.E., & Ward, A.K. (2011). The “quick start guide” for conducting and publishing longitudinal research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 413-422 Article for in-class critique Nye, C. D., Brummel, B. J., & Drasgow, F. (2010). Too good to be true? Understanding change in organizational outcomes. Journal of Management, 36 (6), 1555-1577.


Additional reference For more information about spuriousness in longitudinal research, please consult:

Braun, M.T., Kuljanin, G., and DeShon, R.P. (2013) Spurious Results in the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods 16, 302-330. doi:10.1177/1094428112469668

Week 6: NO CLASS (October 12) Please note that class is cancelled on October 12; this class will be made up at the end of term. Week 7: Understanding relationships among variables (October 19) DUE: Submit plan for research proposal (See Assignment 3) Basic forms of association; restriction of range; skewness; curvilinear effects; mediation and indirect effects; moderation; ordinal and disordinal interactions; curvilinear interactions; mediated moderation; moderated mediation; gratuitous mediation; suppressor variables; Aguinis, H., Edwards, J.R. and Bradley, K.J. (2016). Improving Our Understanding of Moderation and Mediation in Strategic Management Research. Organizational Research Methods, online before print, first published on January 27, 2016 as doi:10.1177/1094428115627498 Dawson, J.F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1-19. Goodwin, L. D., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Understanding correlation: Factors that affect the size of r. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 249-266. Mathieu, J.E., & Taylor, S.R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031-1056. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.


Article for in-class critique Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 701-722. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.52814578. Additional reference: For further information about mediation and moderation, and a regression-based statistical approach, you may wish to consult:

www.afhayes.com Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford

Week 8: Operationalizing Constructs: Scale Development and Other Measurement Approaches (October 26) Scale development, problems of single-item measurement; types of rating scales; types of existing or available (i.e., archival) data; reasons for using existing data; problems with existing data Pedhazur & Schmelkin (1991)

Ch. 6 (Selected Approaches to Measurement in Sociobehavioural Research; pp. 118-146).

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35, 293-334. Hardy, B. and Ford, L.R. (2014). It’s Not Me, It’s You: Miscomprehension in Surveys. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 138-162, doi:10.1177/1094428113520185 Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 195 - 210. Hox, J. J., & Boeije, H. R. (2005). Data collection, primary vs. secondary. Encyclopedia of social measurement, 1, 593-599. Ketchen, D.J. Jr., Ireland, R.D., & Baker, L.T. (2013). The use of archival proxies in strategic management studies: Castles made of sand? Organizational Research Methods, 16, 32-42.


Article for in-class critique Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The tolerance for ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 58-65. Additional references For information about formatting surveys and other practical survey design issues, you may wish to consult the following references:

Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method--2007 Update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. John Wiley & Sons. Fanning, Elizabeth (2005). Formatting a Paper-based Survey Questionnaire: Best Practices. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(12). Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=12 Simsek, Z., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). A primer on internet organizational surveys. Organizational research methods, 4(3), 218-235.

For information about unobtrusive measures, please consult:

Hill, A.D., White, M.A., & Wallace, J.C. (2014). Unobtrusive measurement of psychological constructs in organizational research. Organizational Psychology Review, 4, 148-274.

For information about the use of proxy measures (and their convergent validity with focal measures), please consult:

Carlson, K.D., & Herdman, A.O. (2012). Understanding the impact of convergent validity on research results. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 17-32.

Week 9: Sampling, Power, and Sources of Data (November 2) Approaches to sampling, students as research participants, generalizability, power, Type I and Type II errors, primary vs. secondary data sources Pedhazur & Schmelkin (1991)

Ch. 9 Theories, Problems, and Hypotheses (pp. 198-210) Ch. 15 Introduction to Sampling (pp. 318-341)


Baguley, T. (2004). Understanding statistical power in the context of applied research. Applied Ergonomics, 35(2), 73-80. Cohen, P. (1982). To be or not to be: Controlling and balancing type I and type II errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 5, 247-253. Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2009). Do samples really matter that much? In C.E. Lance and R. J. Vandenberg, (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences, (pp. 247-265).

Available online at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/40955157/RT2382X_C010.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1471023787&Signature=%2B%2FsAJB5jREDqTa0czyhxakuA8Xw%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DDo_samples_really_matter_that_much.pdf

Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., & Palmer, T. B. (2002). The role of sampling in strategic management research on performance: A two-study analysis. Journal of Management, 28(3), 363-385. Article for in-class critique McCarthy, J. M., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lievens, F., Kung, M. C., Sinar, E. F., & Campion, M. A. (2013). Do candidate reactions relate to job performance or affect criterion-related validity? A multistudy investigation of relations among reactions, selection test scores, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 701-720. Additional reference For information about effect sizes in organizational research, you may wish to consult the following:

Kelley, K., & Preacher, K. J. (2012). On effect size. Psychological methods, 17(2), 137.


Week 10: Correlational, Experimental, and Quasi-Experimental Designs (November 9) Participant reactivity; placebo and Hawthorne effects; lab versus field settings; field quasi-experiments; threats to internal validity; criteria for causality; extreme group designs. Pedhazur & Schmelkin (1991)

Ch. 10 (Research Design: Basic Principles and Concepts; pp. 211-233) Ch. 11 (Artifacts and Pitfalls in Research; pp. 234-249) Ch. 12 (Experimental Designs; pp. 250-276)

Grant, A.M., & Wall, T.D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi- experimentation: Why-to, when-to and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 653-686. Ketchen, D.J. Jr., Boyd, B.K., & Bergh, D.D. (2008). Research methodology in strategic management: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 643-658. Spector, P.E. and Meier, L. L. (2014) Methodologies for the study of organizational behavior processes: How to find your keys in the dark. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37 (1), 1109–1119. DOI: 10.1002/job.1966 Article for in-class critique Flammer, C., & Luo, J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility as an employee governance tool: Evidence from a quasi-‐‑experiment. Strategic Management Journal, online before print. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2492 Additional references For more information about estimating cause in strategy research using cross-sectional and panel data, you may wish to consult:

Certo, S. T., & Semadeni, M. (2006). Strategy research and panel data: Evidence and implications. Journal of Management, 32(3), 449-471. Hamilton, B. H., & Nickerson, J. A. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic organization, 1(1), 51-78.

For more information about how to analyze panel data, you may wish to consult: Hsiao, C. (2007). Panel data analysis—advantages and challenges. Test, 16(1), 1-22.


For more information about quasi-experimental designs, you may also wish to consult:

Pedhazur & Schmelkin (1991); Ch. 13 (Quasi-experimental Designs; pp. 277-303)

For information about interpreting regression results, you may wish to consult:

Nimon, K.F. and Oswald, F.L. (2013). Understanding the Results of Multiple Linear Regression: Beyond Standardized Regression Coefficients. Organizational Research Methods October, 16: 650-674, doi:10.1177/1094428113493929

Week 11: Levels of analysis (November 16) Multi-level models and theories; cross-level effects; partitioning variance; the impact of context; the many ways to describe a group or social unit; aligning theory, measurement, and analysis Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246. Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of management, 23(6), 723-744. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408. Mathieu, J.E., & Chen, G. (2011). The etiology of the multilevel paradigm in management research. Journal of Management, 37, 610-641. -good overview of multi-level research, from historical perspectives, chronicles all important issues, theories, analytic approaches etc.. Uy, M.A., Foo, M-D., & Aguinis, H. (2010). Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 31-54. Article for in-class critique Chen, G., Fahr, J-L., Campbell-Bush, E.M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1018-1127.


Week 12: Meta-analysis (November 23) DUE: Submit written article today (see Assignment 2) Guest Host: Robert Nason Meta-analysis, measurement error, understanding meta-analytic results, meta-analytic moderators, meta-regression Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 306-331. Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Crook, T. R., & Roth, P. L. (2011). Assessing cumulative evidence within ‘macro’research: Why meta‐analysis should be preferred over vote counting. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 178-197. Geyskens, I., Krisnan, R., Steenkamp, J-B. E.M., & Cunha, P.V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35, 393-419. Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (2001). Meta-analysis. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol, 1, pp. 51-70). London: Sage. Read Slides from David Wilson’s Website (Based on Lipsey & Wilson Book below) (overview, effect sizes, database structure, analysis and interpretation): http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S. Y. (2008). Strategic resources and performance: a meta‐analysis. Strategic management journal, 29(11), 1141-1154. Article for in-class critique Nason, R. S., & Wiklund, J. (2015). An assessment of resource-based theorizing on firm growth and suggestions for the future. Journal of Management, doi: 0149206315610635. Additional Readings For additional information about “how to” issues when conducting a meta-analysis, please consult:

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic press.


Mark W.. Lipsey, & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2014). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage publications. Sterne, J. (2009). Comprar Meta-Analysis In Stata: An Updated Collection From The Stata Journal| Jonathan Sterne| 9781597180498| CRC PRESS. CRC PRESS. http://cphs.hsph.edu.vn/uploads/tainguyen/sachvabaocao/Meta-AnalysisinStata.pdf METABUS: 5 minute meta-analysis. http://www.metabus.org

Week 13: Industry Studies – An Alternative Approach (November 30) Guest Host: Isabelle Dostaler Child, J., & Smith, C. (1987). The context and process of organizational transformation – Cadbury Limited in its sector. Journal or Management Studies, 24(6), 565-593. Elliott, C. (2013). The impact of AACSB accreditation: A multiple case study of Canadian university business schools. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 30(3), 203-218. Jacobides, M.G., MacDuffie, J.P., & Tae, C.J. (2016). Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs: Change and stability in the automotive sector. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1942-1967. Oum, T.H., Adler, N., & Yu C. (2006). Privatization, corporatization, ownership forms and their effects on the performance of the world’s major airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(3), 109-121. Sharp, M. S., Bergh, D.D., & Li, M. (2013). Measuring and testing industry effects in strategic management research: An update, assessment, and demonstration. Organization Research Methods, 16(1), 43-66. Article for in-class critique Griffith, J.R. (2015). Understanding high-reliability organizations: Are Baldrige recipients models? Journal of Healthcare Management, 60(1), 44-62.


Week 14: Research Ethics (Week of December 6, make-up day for missed class, exact date and time to be determined) Ethics basics; informed consent; plagiarism; self-plagiarism; authorship protocol; giving feedback to participants and sponsors; who owns the data; citation coercion Bedeian, A.G., Taylor, S.G., & Miller, A.N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanours. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 715-725. Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2007). The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18, 63-77. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). E-‐‑Research: Ethics, Security, Design, and Control in Psychological Research on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 161-176. Pascual-Leone, A., Singh, T., & Scoboria, A. (2010). Using deception ethically: Practical research guidelines for researchers and reviewers. Canadian Psychology, 51, 241-248. Schminke, M. (2009). Editor’s comments: The better angels of our nature—ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy of Management Review, 34, 586-59.

And then read... Schminke, M., & Ambrose, M. L. (2011). Retracted: Ethics and Integrity in the Publishing Process: Myths, Facts, and a Roadmap. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 397-406. If you are interested, you can also find: Schminke, M. & Ambrose, M.L. (2011). Ethics and Integrity in the Publishing Process: Myths, Facts, and a Roadmap. Management and Organization Review 7:3 397–406 doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00248.x available online at: http://www.iacmr.org/v2en/publications/mor/schminkeambrose_mor_2011.pdf

To see formal Codes of Ethics for Management and Psychology, please review:

Academy of Management. (2011). Academy of Management code of ethics. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1299-1306 (Section 4 focuses on Research and Publication; available online at http://aom.org/uploadedFiles/About_AOM/Governance/AOM_Code_of_Ethics.pdf) American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (focus on Section 8 pertaining to research and publication). American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073. (See also update AP 2010, p. 493).


Article for in-class critique Honig, B., & Bedi, A. (2012). The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the Academy of Management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 101-123. Additional references For comprehensive information on conducting research with human participants in Canada, please consult the TCPS2:

Tri-Council policy statement (TCPS2): Ethical conduct for research involving humans. (2014). The tri-council includes the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The TCPS2 is available online at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/

For information on formatting manuscripts for publication, you may wish to consult:

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

For more information about different types of material that require supporting citations, please consult:

Campion, M.A. (1997). Rules for references: Suggested guidelines for choosing literary citations for research articles in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 50, 165- 167.

For more information about publishing from multiple articles from a single data set, please consult: Kirkman, B. L., & Chen, G. (2011). Maximizing your data or data slicing? Recommendations for managing multiple submissions from the same dataset. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 433-446. For more information on plagiarism, consider checking:

Plagiarism.org or Turnitin.com (see material under “Research resources”) The Academy of Management YouTube site also contains videos covering a range of ethical issues concerning research.


CLASS POLICIES A. Assignments Late assignments will be docked 5% per day. If you need to request an extension in the case of illness or compassionate grounds, please notify me at least the day before the due date. Valid documentation is required in order to be granted an extension on the due-date of an assignment. B. Re-evaluation Requests for re-evaluation of assignments or presentations must be made in writing. For written assignments, your written request must accompany the original assignment, and you must clearly indicate the place(s) on the original where you feel marks were incorrectly or unfairly allocated. For all requests, you must include a detailed explanation of the reasons why you believe marks were incorrectly or unfairly allocated. Please note that when an assignment or presentation is accepted for re-evaluation, the entire assignment or presentation will be re-evaluated and it is possible for grades to go down, as well as up. C. Requests for Grade Increases Supplemental work and/or re-weighting the evaluation components of the course will not be allowed to make up a low grade that is obtained for any reason. Consistent with University regulations concerning final exams, if a student completes an examination or assignment, even though he/she is ill or faced with other personal problems or situations, the subsequent grade obtained on the examination or assignment will stand and the weight of that component of the course will not be adjusted. Petitions on the grounds of illness or compassionate reasons will not be considered after the fact. If you are ill or experiencing difficulties, please come to see me prior to handing in work that you feel is sub-standard. In the case of personal problems and situations, you are also encouraged to consult with Concordia Health Services or Counseling Services. D. Academic Integrity Plagiarism, cheating, or any other form of academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. The Code of Conduct (Academic) at Concordia University is in effect throughout this course and any academic misconduct under this code will be reported to the Vice/Associate Dean and Student Affairs with an incident report. Sanctions for academic misconduct can entail severe consequences, including expulsion. The Code of Conduct (Academic) at Concordia University states that “the integrity of University academic life and of the degrees, diplomas and certificates the University confers is dependent upon the honesty and soundness of the instructor-student learning relationship and, in particular, that of the evaluation process. As such, all students are


expected to be honest in all of their academic endeavours and relationships with the University,” (Academic Code of Conduct, art. 1). All students enrolled at Concordia are expected to familiarize themselves with the contents of this Code. You are strongly encouraged to read the pertinent section in the Concordia Graduate Calendar Graduate Calendar available only at http://graduatestudies.concordia.ca/publications/graduatecalendar/current/ and visit the following web address: concordia.ca/students/academic-integrity, both of which provide useful information about proper academic conduct. The most common offense under the Academic Code of Conduct is plagiarism, which the Code defines as “the presentation of the work of another person as one’s own or without proper acknowledgement.” This includes material copied word for word from books, journals, Internet sites, professor’s course notes, etc. It refers to material that is paraphrased but closely resembles the original source. It also includes for example the work of a fellow student, an answer on a quiz, data for a lab report, a paper or assignment completed by another student. It might be a paper purchased from any source. Plagiarism does not refer to words alone –it can refer to copying images, graphs, tables and ideas. “Presentation” is not limited to written work. It includes oral presentations, computer assignment and artistic works. Finally, if you translate the work of another person into any other language and do not cite the source, this is also plagiarism. In Simple Words: Do not copy, paraphrase or translate anything from anywhere without saying where you obtained it! (Source: The Academic Integrity Website: concordia.ca/students/academic-integrity) Words and ideas taken from published or unpublished sources must be properly referenced both within the text of an assignment and on a reference list. Failure to place quotation marks around, and to provide a reference for, the exact words (including text, tables, figures, and graphs) of a published or unpublished source constitutes plagiarism. Failure to reference the source of ideas, and/or the interpretation of ideas, that have been paraphrased from a published or unpublished source also constitutes plagiarism If you paraphrase someone else’s words of ideas, then you must reference the source of those ideas immediately following their presentation. If you copy or make a verbatim translation, then you must indicate (a) the material that was copied of translated by putting quotation marks around it, and (b) including the reference with relevant page numbers immediately following the copied material. If you take words or ideas from someone else, you need to acknowledge this and give them credit. Please refer to the American Psychological Association Publication Manual (available at the library) for guidelines on how to properly reference different sources.


E. Language of Instruction and of Work In compliance with University regulations, all materials will be presented in English, including exams. Students are permitted to hand in written assignments and to respond to exam questions in French. LIST OF CONCORDIA SERVICES The University offers many services that can help students. Concordia Counselling and Development offers career services, psychological services, student learning services, etc. http://www.concordia.ca/offices/cdev.html/ The Concordia Library Citation and Style Guides library.concordia.ca/help/howto/citations Advocacy and Support Services http://supportservices.concordia.ca/ Student Transition Centre http://stc.concordia.ca/ New Student Program http://newstudent.concordia.ca/ Access Centre for Students with Disabilities http:// concordia.ca/offices/acsd Student Success Centre concordia.ca/students/success The Academic Integrity Website concordia.ca/students/academic-integrity Financial Aid & Awards concordia.ca/offices/faao Health Services concordia.ca/students/health HOJO (Off Campus Housing and Job Bank): http://csu.qc.ca/hojo CSU Advocacy Centre


http://csu.qc.ca/advocacy Dean of Students Office: http://concordia.ca/offices/dean-students International Students Office: http://concordia.ca/students/international Student Hub http://concordia.ca/students

Documents

Course Syllabus: Research Methods in Management ADMI ......The emphasis of this course is on how to design and evaluate quantitative research studies. The course will cover foundational,