The question of "What makes management research
interesting?" offers a unique opportunity for academics to engage
in an introspective process of examining the craft of the management
profession. The idea for undertaking this study was spurred in part by
the recent discussion on "interesting" research in the Academy
of Management Journal (AMJ), and the subsequent reflections upon this
theme by the authors of interesting papers (see Barley, 2006; Bartunek
et al., 2006; Dutton and Dukerich, 2006). In the present study, our
aspiration is not to produce a recipe for what scholars must consider
when undertaking research; rather, our focus is to uncover the broad
attributes of papers that scholars have deemed to be interesting.
Why does being interesting matter? Since interesting research need
not necessarily be the most important research, would a discussion on
this topic add value to organizational theorizing and research? Bartunek
et al. (2006) offered some compelling arguments to justify research on
interesting research. First, scholars who produce interesting research
have more influence on their readers, an argument echoed by Davis who
noted that "a theorist is considered great, not because his/her
theories are true, but because they are interesting.., the capacity to
stimulate interest is a necessary characteristic of greatness"
(1971: 309). Second, interesting work may generate greater learning
through greater involvement. Third, producing more interesting research
may be essential to attract and retain future researchers. To the above,
we can add other arguments: interesting research findings are likely to
be retained longer by their readers and generate further research. As
Sansone and Thoman (2005) observed, experiencing interest is an emotion
that can affect a person's task performance; hence, interest may
foster intrinsically motivated behaviors. Ainley et al. (2002) suggest
that readers who perceive an article as interesting may have greater
positive effect, which in turn can result in greater efforts on their
part to act on the new knowledge. Many interesting research studies also
contain serendipitous or counter-intuitive findings that direct or at
times re-direct new research.
The present study was initiated with two key objectives. First, we
wanted to find out whether other researchers agree with the AMJ
editorial board's prescriptions on attributes of interesting
research. The six attributes for interesting research listed in the
journal were not grounded in theory, nor based on a well-designed
empirical investigation. Further, only inputs from AMJ board members
were canvassed with the attributes themselves being the outcomes of a
content analysis of each member's rationale for nominating an
article as being an exemplar of interesting research. The reviewers were
not asked to specifically comment on potential attributes of interesting
research. It could very well be that the nature of the article chosen by
each member influenced the importance rating assigned by the person.
Finally, and with only one exception, all of the nominated articles came
from either the Academy of Management Journal or Administrative Sciences
Quarterly and, hence, a response bias may exist. Both these journals are
generally considered to be empirically oriented; this may reduce the
probability of a non-empirical article from being considered as
interesting. Our focus here was on employing a more objective approach
to understanding the construct of "interesting research" that
might yield some common dimensions to which a broader spectrum of
business academics could agree. Through a study that used a random
sampling process, we hoped to collect information from a wider group of
researchers. We also felt that an assessment of attributes without
referring to specific journal articles can potentially reduce personal
and auspices biases in rating.
Secondly, we wondered whether members of editorial and review
boards differed in their views on interesting research compared to
non-members. This information could be of critical importance to junior
researchers who are yet to be part of the review panels of established
journals. In particular, we were interested in finding out whether
differential weights were given by members and non-members on attributes
such as novelty and rigor.
Are Canadian researchers likely to differ from their American
colleagues in assessing interesting research? While this was not our
primary concern and difficult to assess in the absence of comparative
data from the U.S., we had a personal interest in understanding the
relative importance Canadians give to the attributes identified by the
AMJ board. In considering the difference between the AMJ board's
conclusions and a study in Brazil, Bartunek et al. suggested that
"the variance in these results points to the likelihood that
readers in different parts of the world have diverse criteria for
scholarly interest" (2006: 13). Should this be the case, Canada
appeared to be a good starting point for research as Canadians are said
to be a hybrid product of several nationalities, "not quite as
American as the Americans, not quite as British as the British ... and
not quite as French as the French" (Vallee and Whyte, 1974: 31).
PAST WRITINGS ON INTERESTING RESEARCH
A discussion on what makes interesting research is not new to
social science scholarship. As early as 1971, Davis pointed out that
interesting research disconfirms some (but not all) of the assumptions
held by its audience. According to Davis, statements that deny a part of
the reader's "assumption ground" raises interest, while
an article that denies all of a reader's assumption ground may run
the risk of being treated as absurd. For Davis, the common thread of
interesting theories was their ability to deny the taken-for-granted
assumptions that pass for knowledge, turning key assumptions upside
down.
Davis' ideas have had a considerable influence on later
writers (the work has over 125 citations), however, few scholars have
revisited his original thesis in the more than three decades that have
passed. The recent attention paid by the editors of the AMJ rekindled an
interesting question. The few writings on the topic are outside the
organizational science (e.g., Black, 2000; Mitroff and Kilmann, 1977)
and are anecdotal in nature (e.g., Shugan, 2003). A keyword search of
article titles in an on-line database of scholarly work in management
produced very few articles. Even where they existed, many were
irrelevant for the present purpose. Clearly, an introspective discussion
of interesting research has not been of any great interest to management
scholars until this point.
Since the attributes listed by the AMJ board were not grounded in
theory, as a first step, we reviewed key writings on epistemology to
uncover attributes of interesting research.
Cumulative and Coherent
Since humans accumulate much of their knowledge through their own
experience and observation, the reliability of perceptions has been
central to the debate in epistemology. Plato's writing in the Meno
is generally assumed to be the very first reference to the notion of
knowledge as justified true belief. This however raises a question: what
degree of justification is adequate?
One approach to defend justification focuses on coherence of the
new knowledge with other accepted theories. According to this approach,
a new piece of knowledge is true if it is consistent with all other
judgments that are known to be true; it ceases to have justification if
it fails to be consistent with accepted premises. The concept of
coherence has its roots in system theory--if the new information is
consistent and interdependent with other components of a system,
coherence is considered to exist (Grayling, 2003). Similarly, when a new
belief can be inferred from an antecedent set of beliefs it meets the
coherence criterion. In his "tracking" theory, Robert Nozick
(1981) suggests that causal relations are distinguished from accidental
connections in part by the fact that they are consistent with
"counterfactual conditionals." If the conditions were to
change, then the observations must also be different and emerging
conditions explainable.
Subjective and Objective
In Meno, Plato portrayed Socrates as claiming that humans can never
acquire knowledge through learning. In order to learn something new, we
must discover a truth that we did not previously know. However, in this
case, we will not be able to recognize it as the truth since to know
whether a proposition is true, one must already know it. This meant that
much of the learning had already occurred; it is only a realization of
the learning that occurs later. Subjectivists would argue that because
knowledge is confined to ideas in the mind of the person, it is
impossible to get beyond these ideas to an objective reality.
Impressions, which are formed through our sense experience, almost
always occur first (Hume, 1739). Our intuition may play a key role in
the process of assessing the merit of an idea.
However, intuition can be erroneous. Plato's solution was to
define knowledge as gathering of information of those aspects of the
world which are agreed upon by people. Through shared sensory
experiences, humans agree on the forms of these "universals"
(e.g., flowel, dog), a position that is echoed by later writers as well.
For example, Russell (1993) points out that knowledge by
acquaintance--or direct appreciation of sense data, objects of memory or
knowledge by our internal states--is distinct from knowledge by
description, which is mediated knowledge of others, physical objects,
and constructs.
Differing research approaches may be needed to evaluate information
relevant to each epistemological position. Multiple approaches to
measure constructs can result in greater convergence between subjective
impressions and objective reality (Das, 1983). The use of reason and
intuition need not be contradictory; each may supplement the other. The
validity of intuitions can be assessed using rational approaches just as
rational conclusions may be tested through intuition. Often, qualitative
methods can overcome a key limitation of quantitative research: the
inability to build theory (Shah and Corley, 2006). Similarly,
quantitative methods can add to the reliability and objectivity of
qualitative findings.
Novelty and Innovation
Of the six attributes of interesting research identified by the AMJ
board, novelty was one of the top attributes. To be interesting, a new
finding should challenge established theory and go against folk wisdom
while employing well crafted theory and methodology. Related to the idea
of newness in propositions or methodology is the notion of applying new
metaphors or theories in a manner that allows the reader to "see in
a new light what we thought we already understood" (Barley, 2006:
18). Davis contended that "the 'generation' of
interesting [contradictory] theories ought to be the object of as much
attention as the 'verification' of insipid ones"
(original emphasis) (1971: 344). Barley (2006) encouraged researchers to
address rouge topics, insofar as such a research focus will be
substantially differentiated from the norm and thus less forgettable.
Voss (2003) underscored the importance of innovation in research,
echoing Daft's earlier observation, "if experiments are
perfectly designed and the results come out as expected, then they
probably are a waste of time" (1983:541).
Rigor
Novelty should not be achieved at the cost of rigor. The caveat of
quality remains paramount, for sound research must be more than simply
opinion or conjecture (Barley, 2006; Bartunek et al., 2006). Rigor need
not stifle interesting research, but rather should signal its starting
point. The researcher's assumptions on the nature of reality
(ontology), the process used to understand that reality (epistemology),
and the methods used to know about that reality (methodology) (Guba and
Lincoln, 1994) have to be valid and understood by others. While
functional and interpretive approaches may differ in their research
objectives (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), both approaches are critical for
the development of good theories (Shah and Corley, 2006). Use of
grounded theories may help the researcher to form propositions based on
direct contact with the real world and avoid a priori theorizing (Locke,
2001), but even here careful selection of samples and data
interpretation are needed. Use of data collection contexts that
represent polar types (Locke, 2001) or application of constant
comparison method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) may ensure that a
researcher's interpretations are reliable. Multiple research
approaches can help identify hidden dimensions of organizational
phenomena (Das, 1983).
Emotive Communication
The AMJ board considered "good writing" a most important
attribute (48% of the board members cited this as a key attribute).
Developing a story based on the data is an important component of how
researchers can "get beyond sheer techniques ... and to interject
the craft attitude into the research process" to produce outcomes
that are "interesting, exciting and satisfying" (Daft, 1983:
540). When communicating one's results, researchers should help
their audience deeply understand a smaller set of variables in a manner
that appears common sense. This is because interesting research will
trigger an emotional response that is integral to learning processes
(Bartunek et al., 2006).
Impact
Impact appears to be related to the notions of scholarship,
practicality, and importance. Scientific impact is often assessed by
measures such as number of citations (e.g., Judge et al., 2007);
however, impact is more than simply a matter of citations. Research is
likely to be deemed interesting if it impacts on a wider audience and to
a greater extent (Shugan, 2003), resulting in people doing things
differently. One needs to look no further than the statement of purpose
for this journal to find an emphasis on the applicability of research to
the business community. As a component of interest, impact is in the
eyes of the beholder, which is often translated into a question of
relevance. DeNisi (1994) examined the distinction between the perceived
versus real relevance of management research to practicing managers and,
based on the impact of the former upon the latter, reconceptualized
relevance to promote research that is both scientifically rigorous and
impactful.
Given the exploratory nature of the present study, two broad
propositions were formulated in the present study.
Proposition 1: Novelty, rigor in theorizing and methodology, use of
multiple and innovative research approaches, and practical impact are
likely to be considered as attributes of interesting research.
Proposition 2: Depending on their scholarly background, the
respondents are likely to assign differential importance to these
attributes.
PRESENT RESEARCH DESIGN
The present study used a web-based survey of Canadian researchers.
Instrumentation
Since there were no existing instruments, we developed a
questionnaire for the present purpose employing the following steps:
1. A thorough literature search was carried out to identify
dimensions of interesting research. Both library search and internet
research using key words were employed.
2. Two doctoral students and three faculty members who are active
researchers were requested to individually brainstorm and submit other
attributes deemed relevant.
3. A group of five graduate students in the management discipline
were shown the list containing items from steps 1 and 2 above and asked
to comment and expand on the list.
4. The final list of attributes from step 3 was shown to academic
colleagues who were asked to comment on them and expand if the need
arose.
A list of 23 potential variables was identified through the above
steps. The questionnaire asked each respondent to "rate the
following attributes on their importance (or contribution) to making a
research study interesting," using a four-point scale of
unimportant, somewhat important, important, and extremely important.
Before administering, the questionnaire was shown to a group of five
doctoral students to check for its clarity.
In a separate part of the survey, we asked the respondents to rank
order seven key attributes of interesting research that included all of
AMJ board's criteria. A rank of "1" indicated that it was
the most important attribute. We also obtained information from each
participant about their own research and background to contextualize
their responses.
Sample
Due to the uniquely Canadian perspective that we sought, our
research population is necessarily Canadian academics in the fields of
management and administration. The sampling frame that best accesses
this population is the membership list of the Administrative Sciences
Association of Canada (ASAC). The ASAC is the largest national body of
management scholars in Canada and is not limited to university staff
(for example, doctoral students and applied researchers working in
non-university settings can also be members of ASAC). Out of the total
847 potential respondents, we received 131 usable responses. Contact
addresses for a number of members who were travelling were not
available.
We checked the profile of our respondents against the total
population and found it to be representative. Of the 131 respondents, 34
(or 28.3%) had served on editorial boards of journals. In the past,
85.2% of respondents had acted as reviewers, while 45.8% of the
respondents had experience as a reviewer/ adjudicator for
research-granting institutions. The sample represented all academic
ranks and positions including university administrators (16.3%), full
professors (12%), associate professors (17.9%), assistant professors
(23.1%), lecturers (5.1%), doctoral students (16.2%) and others (9.4%).
The university-based respondents came from undergraduate institutions
(26.5%), comprehensive universities with undergraduate and graduate
programs (46.1%) and large universities (23.5%). The median age group
for the sample was 40-44 years; the typical respondent had 6-9 years of
experience in academia. Nearly 39% of the respondents conducted research
in management/organizational behavior and allied areas, 17% in
accounting, 16% in marketing, 8% in economics, 9% in management science,
and the remainder in other areas such as ethics, international business,
and corporate governance.
During factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy was found to be .82, within the "meritorious" range
suggested by Kaiser (1974).
Survey Procedure
The survey was conducted using a web-surveyor service. Respondents
were invited to participate through an email that stated the purpose of
the survey, an assurance of confidentiality, and a link to the online
survey. Two follow-up reminders were sent later.
FINDINGS
The means and standard deviations of the 23 statements forming part
of the survey are shown in Table 1. A quick glance at the table reflects
both support and disconfirmation of the AMJ board's conclusions. On
several items, there is considerable convergence between the AMJ
board's conclusions and ratings by this sample. "Focus on
totally new questions or novel topics" received the highest rating
overall and the lowest standard deviation. Attributes such as
"questions existing theory and offers risky hypotheses" and
"emphasizes practical application of research findings"
received the next highest ratings--again in convergence with the earlier
conclusions of the AMJ board. However, there were differences as well.
The present sample of respondents valued attributes not identified by
the AMJ board. For this group, "gaining insights into the
subjective reality of the participants" (Mean = 2.78) or
"findings make intuitive sense" (Mean = 2.52) was more
important than "employing sophisticated data analytic tools"
(Mean = 1.90), both differences being statistically significant (p <
.001). "Generating serendipitous findings" was less important
than "reviewing and revisiting past theories" or
"contributing incrementally by developing existing theories"
(p < .001). Use of "rational-logical or objective
methodology" received one of the lowest overall ratings; so did the
"use of large samples."
Identifying Latent Dimensions of Interesting Research
Since no prior theory or model guided us, we chose to use an
inductive, bottom-up strategy based on statistical relationships among
the observed variables (Meyers et al., 2006). To identify latent
dimensions of the attributes, an exploratory factor analysis using
principal component extraction and oblique rotation was conducted after
screening data for univariate and multivariate assumption violations.
Both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy as well as
Bartlett's test of sphericity suggested that the data were factor
analyzable (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Finding no significant
correlations among the factors, the factor analysis was repeated using
varimax rotation. The results of the factor analysis are shown in Table
2. Five factors accounted for 66.95% of the total variance.
The first factor, generalizability and data analysis, focuses on
the use of large samples and sophisticated data analytic tools. The
focus here is on doing studies whose findings are generalizable to other
populations. This factor appears to represent a positivist or empiricist
epistemology, suggesting that interesting research, in part, employs the
methods of natural sciences to objectively predict correlational or
causal relationships.
The second factor is named novelty. The focus here is on finding
totally new perspectives, even if this occurs through serendipity. Novel
research methodology may be employed for the purpose of discovering new
or latent dimensions of a phenomenon.
The third factor, innovative design, takes the cumulative process
of knowledge creation implied in the first factor to another level. The
variables contained in this factor call for challenging embedded
assumptions of research methodologies, apply existing models to untested
populations, and re-examine theories for their continued relevance.
The fourth factor, relevance, contains two variables that are
suggestive of realist ontology. To favor research that connects to the
day-to-day life of people and emphasizes practical applications of a
theory is to assume that the reality in which all people live is
independent of how it may be constructed.
The final factor, communication, focuses on the ability of the
researcher to communicate findings in an interesting and jargon-free
style. Research reports need not be bland--one is reminded of
Ashforth's comment that "sometimes, academics take very
exciting, engaging, and important work and present it in such a way that
it looks like a butterfly squashed between two pieces of glass"
(2003: 203). This means that interesting research should not only
contain interesting ideas but also be presented in an interesting way.
We tested the reliability of all five factors using Cronbach's
alpha and standardized alpha (Kline, 1999). The alphas for all factors,
except Factor 2, were found to be very high (see Table 2). Even in the
case of Factor 2, given the exploratory nature of the present analysis,
the present value may be deemed satisfactory (see Kline, 1999).
We had requested survey respondents to rank seven core attributes
of interesting research. The results are shown in Table 3. The ranks
assigned to various attributes by the present sample of respondents were
significantly different (p < .001). Novelty of hypotheses and
challenging taken-for-granted assumptions came out as the most important
attributes of interesting research. In contrast, writing style, while
considered important, was ranked behind attributes such as research
methodology and ability to generate real-world knowledge.
A comparison of the ratings of various attributes by reviewers and
nonreviewers indicate that the expectations of the non-reviewers on
almost all attributes are higher and statistically significant (see
Table 4a). Similar differences were found between ratings of members of
editorial boards and non-members (see Table 4b).
DISCUSSION
The present findings provide partial support for existing
literature on "interesting research" attributes. Factors
derived in this study underscore the importance of methodological
diversity, high quality, and practical relevance to make a research
study interesting. In addition, the present findings provide some broad
support for our second proposition that a respondent's background
has a non-insignificant influence on the person's rating of the
importance of various attributes.
Based on present findings, it would appear that the construct of
"interesting" is multidimensional and complex (see Figure I).
Several of the dimensions are interrelated (the figure does not attempt
to portray all interrelationships). A key component of interesting
research would appear to be the use of research methods that employ
objective and sophisticated data analytical methods to interpret data
collected from valid, generalizable samples. This means that ideas,
however inherently interesting they are, do not transform into
interesting research findings unless they are tested using sophisticated
methodology and valid sample and measurements.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
This is closely related to the notion of high rigor that is
expected of interesting research in theorizing and methodology. Being
interesting does not restrict researchers to extrapolate existing models
or build on existing paradigms. Indeed, interesting research appears to
focus on unveiling embedded assumptions. The theorizing may occur at
different levels and may be on a continuum of intuitive, cumulative to
counter-intuitive. Theorizing at different levels may appeal to readers
depending on their own backgrounds, expectations or other contextual
factors. Thus, counter-intuitive research may generate considerable
interest because, often, they "create the 'aha'
moment" (Bartunek et al., 2006: 13). Research that makes intuitive
sense can reinforce the reader's own beliefs.
But, rigor is more than about theorizing. Unless the new theory is
well tested, it ceases to be a theory and degenerates into an opinion.
The methodology employed may be objective-positivist or
subjectivist-interpretative. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies
are not antithetical or even alternative (Das, 1983). As Kaplan noted,
"quantities are of qualities, and a measured quality has just the
magnitude expressed in its measure" (1964: 207). Whatever the
method chosen, it must meet the highest standards of validation.
The notion of theorizing is closely related to another critical
component of interesting research, namely, relevance. Theories, however
well-crafted, may cease to be interesting unless the reader finds some
practical relevance. Interesting theories that generate wide acceptance
are often easier to make sense of and interpret meaningfully because
they connect to common sense notions of reality held by the reader and
may help resolve their specific management problems. DeNisi (1994)
cautioned, however, against limiting relevance to mean that which is
solely practical and of immediate application, for such an emphasis may
come at the expense of proper theoretical development which may have
greater relevance over the long run. As Kurt Lewin noted, "there is
nothing as practical as a good theory" (1945: 134).
The findings of the study should be well communicated to the
readers. Authors of interesting papers communicate well to their
readers, explaining even complex constructs in an engaging manner. Good
writing is akin to storytelling (Daft, 1983); the reader should feel
involved at all times. Interesting papers appear to have a clear logic
in their narrative style and make their readers feel connected to the
study and its conclusions.
Finally, interest is maximized when novel paradigms and approaches
are used to gain greater understanding of a phenomenon. Novelty is
fostered by the offer of counter-intuitive ideas and through the use of
unconventional methodologies which, at times, generate serendipitous
findings. The innovations made by the researcher may be incremental or
radical, but the goal is always to throw additional light on a
phenomenon.
Often, we come across statements such as "reviewers are overly
critical, protect their turf, and squelch creative new ideas"
(Voss, 2003: 356). On the one hand, academic journals seek interesting
and new ideas; on the other hand, their reviewers' emphasis on
methodological purity may prevent interesting ideas in nascent stages of
testing from being published. How does one account for this
contradiction? Our present findings offer some clues. Of the seven
attributes of interesting research ranked by the respondents, exemplary
application of research methodology was negatively correlated with the
ability to make intuitive sense of the findings (Spearman's rho =
-.43, p < .001). Ability to develop theories in a cumulative fashion
was negatively correlated to novelty of hypotheses (Spearman's rho
= -.25, p < .01). Similarly, papers that are exemplary in application
of research methodology may not be well written (Spearman's rho =
-.28, p < .001). These findings are consistent with the changes in
editorial policies exhorted by prior writers to "accept more
innovative, less formulaic research" to generate reader interest
(Bartunek et al., 2006: 9).
Maximizing all of the above attributes may not be an easy task.
Trade-offs will need to be made and priorities established on a
case-by-case basis. Our present findings indicate that reviewers are
aware of the need for such tradeoffs. The fact that reviewers and
editorial board members in our sample assigned lower importance to
various attributes may appear counter-intuitive initially; however,
further reflection provided an explanation. Reviewers, typically senior
researchers, are aware of the practical constraints facing researchers
and the constant trade-offs they have to make among simplicity,
generalizability and accuracy (Thorndike, 1979). Simple, generalizable
statements are often inaccurate. Generalizable, accurate theories are
seldom simple and easy to understand. Finally, simple, accurate studies
often use smaller databases, making their findings not generalizable.
The present study attempted to gauge the dimensions of interesting
research to a small, albeit carefully sampled, group of Canadian
researchers. It should also be noted that only researchers involved in
administrative disciplines were included in the present sample. There is
no reason to assume that researchers in other disciplines--even related
ones--value similar attributes when judging research.
Interest is a very personal and subjective emotion, and although it
may be comprised of a set of attributes, the strength of the feeling it
generates is not shared. In other words, interest may be related to
novelty, practicality, etc., but the weighting that each person ascribes
to each of these attributes remains unique. Although we did ask the
respondents to rank key attributes, this is no substitute for a study
with its primary aim to develop an index of interesting research. Such
an index can be of considerable interest to research publications,
granting agencies, and scholars in general.
The findings of the present study have important and broad
implications for ontological, epistemological, and methodological
decisions made by researchers. However, "interesting is a matter of
perspective, if not taste" (Barley, 2006: 16). As Shugan pointed
out, "... let us realize that no research findings are innately
interesting. Research findings are only interesting to some audience for
some reason. In other words, research is interesting only relative to
the audience" (2003: 1). Paradoxically, seeking a generalizable
construct of interesting to all people in all disciplines and all
regions of the world may be a fool's errand.
References
Ainley, M., S. Hidi and D. Berndorff. 2002. "Interest,
Learning and the Psychological Processes that Mediate their
Relationship." Journal of Educational Psychology 94: 545-561.
Ashforth, B. 2003. Quoted in Bartunek, J. M. "2002
Presidential Address - A Dream for the Academy." Academy of
Management Review 28: 198-203.
Barley, S. 2006. "When I Write My Manuscript: Thoughts on What
Makes a Paper Interesting." Academy of Management Journal 49:16-20.
Bartunek, J., S. Rynes and R. D. Ireland. 2006. "What Makes
Management Research Interesting, and Why Does it Matter?" Academy
of Management Journal 49: 9-15.
Black, D. 2000. "Dreams of Pure Sociology." Sociological
Theory 18: 343-367.
Burrell, G. and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and
Organizational Analysis. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. pp. 1-35.
Daft, R. L. 1983. "Learning the Craft of Organizational
Research." Academy of Management Review 8: 539-546.
Das, H. 1983. "Qualitative Research in Organizational
Behaviour." Journal of Management Studies 20: 1-34.
Davis, M. 1971. "That's Interesting! Towards a
Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology."
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1: 309-344.
DeNisi, A. S. 1994. "Is Relevant Research Irrelevant?: On
Evaluating the Contribution of Research to Management Practice."
Journal of Managerial Issues 6: 145-159.
Dutton, J. and J. Dukerich. 2006. "The Relational Foundation
of Research: An Underappreciated Dimension of Interesting
Research." Academy of Management Journal 49:21-26.
Glaser, B. and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
pp. 45-56.
Grayling, A. C. 2003. "Epistemology." Chapter in The
Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Eds. N. Bunnin and E. P. Tsui-James.
Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 37-60.
Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. "Competing Paradigms in
Qualitative Research." Chapter in Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Eds. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp.
105-117.
Hume, D. 1739. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. pp. 15-43.
Judge, T. A., D. M. Cable, A. E. Colbert and S. L. Rynes. 2007.
"What Causes a Management Article to be Cited--Article, Author or
Journal?" Academy of Management Journal 50:491-506.
Kaiser, H. F. 1974. "An Index of Factorial Simplicity."
Psychometrika 39: 31-36.
Kaplan, A. 1964. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco, CA:
Chandler. pp. 12-21.
Kline, P. 1999. The Handbook of Psychological Testing (2nd ed.).
London, UK: Routledge. pp. 32-41.
Lewin, K. 1945. "The Research Center for Group Dynamics at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Sociometry 8:126-136.
Locke, K. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 12-21.
Meyers, L. S., G. Gamst, and A. J. Guarino. 2006. Applied
Multivariate Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp.
539-540.
Mitroff, I. and R. H. Kilmann. 1977. "Systemic
Knowledge--Toward an Integrated Theory of Science." Theory and
Society 4:103-129.
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. pp. 12-34.
Russell, B. 1993. Our Knowledge of the External World. New York,
NY: Routledge. pp. 3-31.
Sansone, C. and D. B. Thoman. 2005. "Interest as the Missing
Motivator in Self-Regulation." European Psychologist 10:175-186.
Shah, S. K. and K. G. Corley. 2006. "Building Better Theory by
Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide." Journal of
Management Studies 43:1821-1835.
Shugan, S. 2003. "Editorial: Defining Interesting Research
Problems." Marketing Science 22: 1-15.
Tabachnick, B. and L. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education. p. 614.
Thorndike, R. 1979. Quoted in Weick, K. The Social Psychology of
Organizing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. p. 32.
Vallee, F. and D. Whyte. 1974. "Canadian Society: Trends and
Perspectives." In Contemporary Issues in Canadian Personnel
Administration. Ed. H. Jain. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall. p. 31.
Voss, G. 2003. "Formulating Interesting Research
Questions." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31:356-359
Hari Das
Professor of Management
Saint Mary's University
Brad S. Long
Assistant Professor of Management
St. Francis Xavier University
Table 1
Attributes of Interesting Research
Attribute Mean
1. Contributes incrementally to existing theoretical 2.84
framework b developing existing theories.
2. Employs sophisticated data analytical tools. 1.90
3. Uses large rather than small samples. 2.12
4. Questions existing theory and offers "risky" 2.95
hypotheses.
5. Offers insights into the subjective reality of 2.78
participants.
6. Uses a totally different paradigm and offers a 2.86
completely different perspective on the topic.
7. Offers new insights into research designs. 2.86
8. Focuses on theory development. 2.76
9. Offers instructive details on data analytical tools. 2.22
10. Generates serendipitous findings. 2.41
11. Employs a novel research methodology or is an 2.83
exemplary application of a particular
methodology.
12. Emphasizes practical applications of a theory or 2.91
research findings.
13. Unveils embedded assumptions within existing 2.65
research designs or methodologies.
14. Uses triangulation or multiple research tools. 2.31
15. Reviews or revisits past theories or research 2.80
findings to generate new insights or hypotheses.
16. Investigates totally new questions or novel topics. 3.24
17. The writing style is a blend of story-telling with 2.60
theory development.
18. Findings are relevant for day-to-day life of people. 2.83
19. The methodology employed is rational-logical and 2.35
objective.
20. Findings are eneralizable to large populations. 2.38
21. Applies existing theoretical frameworks to new or 2.46
untested samples/populations.
22. Findings reported make intuitive sense and 2.52
connect to common sense notions of reality.
23. The research combined subjectivist and objective 2.12
methodologies or research approaches.
Attribute S.D.
1. Contributes incrementally to existing theoretical .75
framework b developing existing theories.
2. Employs sophisticated data analytical tools. .88
3. Uses large rather than small samples. .93
4. Questions existing theory and offers "risky" .73
hypotheses.
5. Offers insights into the subjective reality of .83
participants.
6. Uses a totally different paradigm and offers a .89
completely different perspective on the topic.
7. Offers new insights into research designs. .79
8. Focuses on theory development. .77
9. Offers instructive details on data analytical tools. .91
10. Generates serendipitous findings. .86
11. Employs a novel research methodology or is an .83
exemplary application of a particular
methodology.
12. Emphasizes practical applications of a theory or 1.00
research findings.
13. Unveils embedded assumptions within existing .71
research designs or methodologies.
14. Uses triangulation or multiple research tools. .88
15. Reviews or revisits past theories or research .92
findings to generate new insights or hypotheses.
16. Investigates totally new questions or novel topics. .68
17. The writing style is a blend of story-telling with 1.04
theory development.
18. Findings are relevant for day-to-day life of people. .96
19. The methodology employed is rational-logical and .99
objective.
20. Findings are generalizable to large populations. 1.05
21. Applies existing theoretical frameworks to new or .92
untested samples/populations.
22. Findings reported make intuitive sense and .94
connect to common sense notions of reality.
23. The research combined subjectivist and objective .93
methodologies or research approaches.
Table 2
Factors Underlying Interesting Research
Factor Factor Factor
Attribute 1 2 3
1. Findings are generalizable .81
to large populations.
2. Uses large samples. .79
3. Employs sophisticated data
analytic tools. .68
4. Offers instructive details on
data analytic tools. .56 .46
5. Generates serendipitous .60
findings.
6. Uses a totally different
paradigm and offers a .61
completely different
perspective on the topic.
7. Employs a novel research
methodology or is an
exemplary application of an .54
existing methodology.
8. Applies existing models to .62
new or untested
populations.
9. Unveils embedded .46
assumptions within existing
research designs.
10. Uses triangulation or .53
multiple research tools.
11. The research combines .52
subjectivist and objectivist
approaches.
12. Reviews or revisits past .43
theories to generate new
hypotheses.
13. Methodology employed is .45 .56
rational-logical / objective
14. Findings are relevant for
day-to-day life of people.
15. Emphasizes practical
application of research
findings.
16. Writing style is a blend of
story-telling and theory
development.
Eigen value 6.11 1.44 2.45
% of Variance Explained 34.38 7.91 12.96
Cronbach's alpha 0.84 0.68 0.78
Factor Factor
Attribute 4 5
1. Findings are generalizable
to large populations.
2. Uses large samples.
3. Employs sophisticated data
analytic tools.
4. Offers instructive details on
data analytic tools.
5. Generates serendipitous
findings.
6. Uses a totally different
paradigm and offers a
completely different
perspective on the topic.
7. Employs a novel research
methodology or is an
exemplary application of an
existing methodology.
8. Applies existing models to
new or untested
populations.
9. Unveils embedded
assumptions within existing
research designs.
10. Uses triangulation or
multiple research tools.
11. The research combines
subjectivist and objectivist
approaches.
12. Reviews or revisits past
theories to generate new
hypotheses.
13. Methodology employed is
rational-logical / objective
14. Findings are relevant for .79
day-to-day life of people.
15. Emphasizes practical .77
application of research
findings.
16. Writing style is a blend of .93
story-telling and theory
development.
Eigen value 1.22 1.02
% of Variance Explained 6.08 5.62
Cronbach's alpha 0.73 --
Note: Factor 1 = Generalizability and Data Analysis; Factor
2 = Novelty; Factor 3 = Innovative Design; Factor 4 = Relevance;
Factor 5 = Communication.
Table 3
Seven Attributes of Research
Ranked by 131 Canadian Researchers
(1 = Most important)
Attribute Mean
1. Importance of challenging taken-for-granted 2.74
assumptions.
2. Novelty of research and the hypotheses tested. 2.87
3. Ability to generate real-world knowledge. 3.33
4. Ability to develop existing theories in a cumulative 4.69
fashion.
5. Exemplary application of research methodology. 4.73
6. Writing style that combines story-telling and theory 4.73
development.
7. Ranking of ability to make intuitive sense of findings 4.91
and connect to common sense notions of reality.
Table 4
(a) Mean Scores on Five Factors for Reviewers of Journals and Non
reviewers
Reviewers Non-reviewers
Factor (N = 92) (N = 17) p
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Factor 1: Generalizability 10.38 3.45 13.88 4.16 0.001
and Data Analysis
Factor 2: Novelty 10.14 2.59 11.44 1.93 0.01
Factor 3: Innovative Design 14.09 3.41 18.06 4.22 0.001
Factor 4: Relevance 5.61 1.65 6.53 1.84 0.05
Factor 5: Communication 2.57 1.06 3.12 0.78 0.05
(b) Mean Scores on Five Factors for Editorial Board Members and
Non-members
Editorial Board Non-members
Factor Members (N = 33) p
(N = 83)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Factor 1: Generalizability 10.19 3.95 11.11 3.70 n.s
and Data Analysis
Factor 2: Novelty 10.48 1.99 10.17 2.74 n.s
Factor 3: Innovative Design 14.61 3.22 14.67 4.02 n.s
Factor 4: Relevance 5.67 1.43 5.77 1.82 n.s
Factor 5: Communication 2.56 1.04 2.67 1.03 n.s