Organizational sciences’ obsession with ‘‘that’s interesting!’’: Consequences and an alternative

Organizational Psychology Review

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 187-194

  Pillutla, Madan M ^a   Thau, Stefan ^a  

^a LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Methodology; Philosophy of science; Research problems

Indexed keywords

EID: 85118478502     PISSN: 20413866     EISSN: 20413874     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2041386613479963     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social. Psychology, 62, 335–343.
2. Ahlstrom, D. (2011). Clearing the first hurdle at the Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2), 171–177.
3. Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ – Part I – Topic choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432–435.
4. Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1990). Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay Organization Sci-ence,. 1(1), 1–9.
5. Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Toward a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy and Social Science, 1, 309–344.
6. Eden, D., & Rynes, S. (2003). Publishing across borders: Furthering the internationalization of AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 679–783.
7. Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2012). Theory in the organizational sciences: How will we know it when we see it? Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 94–106.
8. Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
9. Gill, G., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2009). Fashion versus informing: Response to Baskerville and Myers. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 667–671.
10. Hambrick, D. (1994). What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11–16.
11. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change when change is hard. New York: Broad-way Books.
12. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Lon-don, UK: Penguin Books.
13. Markoczy, L., & Deeds, D. L. (2009). Theory building at the intersection: Recipe for impact or road to nowhere? Journal of Management Studies, 46(6), 1076–1088.
14. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
15. Pearce, J. L. (2007). Organizational behavior unchained: Commentary on giving peace a chance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1097–1100.
16. Pondy, L. R. (1979). Theories of extreme cases. Working paper, College of Commerce, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
17. Popper, K. (1935). Logik der Forschung (Logic of scientific discovery). Vienna, Austria: Springer.
18. Reay, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2011). What constitutes a theoretical contribution in family business? Family Business Review, 24(2), 105–110.
19. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.
20. Russell, B. (1931). The scientific outlook. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
21. Schwarz, G. M., & Huber, G. P. (2008). Challenging organizational change research. British Journal of Management, 19(S1), S1–S6.
22. Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1312–1317.
23. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44.