nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Science’s Reproducibility and Replicability Crisis: International Business Is Not Immune

verfasst von : Herman Aguinis, Wayne F. Cascio, Ravi S. Ramani

Erschienen in: Research Methods in International Business

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

International business is not immune to science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis. We argue that this crisis is not entirely surprising given the methodological practices that enhance systematic capitalization on chance. This occurs when researchers search for a maximally predictive statistical model based on a particular dataset and engage in several trial-and-error steps that are rarely disclosed in published articles. We describe systematic capitalization on chance, distinguish it from unsystematic capitalization on chance, address five common practices that capitalize on chance, and offer actionable strategies to minimize the capitalization on chance and improve the reproducibility and replicability of future IB research.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Research Methods in International Business: Challenges and Advances

Nächstes Kapitel Science’s Reproducibility and Replicability Crisis: A Commentary

As noted by an anonymous reviewer, multilevel modeling is as susceptible to capitalization on chance as other methods, including OLS regression. Although the existence of a dependent data structure allows multilevel modeling to produce more accurate standard errors compared to OLS regression (Aguinis and Culpepper 2015), this is an improvement regarding unsystematic but not systematic capitalization on chance.

These are different ways to “manage outliers.” Winsorization involves transforming extreme values to a specified percentile of the data (e.g., a 90th percentile Winsorization would transform all the data below the 5th percentile to the 5th percentile, and all the data above the 95th percentile would be set at the 95th percentile). Studentised residuals are computed by dividing a residual by an estimate of its standard deviation, and Cook’s D measures the effect of deleting a given observation.

Aguinis, H., and S.A. Culpepper. 2015. An expanded decision making procedure for examining cross-level interaction effects with multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods 18 (2): 155–176.CrossRef

Aguinis, H., and R.J. Vandenberg. 2014. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1 (1): 569–595.CrossRef

Aguinis, H., C.A. Pierce, F.A. Bosco, and I.S. Muslin. 2009a. First decade of Organizational Research Methods: Trends in design, measurement, and data-analysis topics. Organizational Research Methods 12 (1): 69–112.CrossRef

Aguinis, H., C.A. Pierce, and S.A. Culpepper. 2009b. Scale coarseness as a methodological artifact: Correcting correlation coefficients attenuated from using coarse scales. Organizational Research Methods 12 (4): 623–652.CrossRef

Aguinis, H., S. Werner, J.L. Abbott, C. Angert, J.H. Park, and D. Kohlhausen. 2010. Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods 13 (3): 515–539.CrossRef

Aguinis, H., R.K. Gottfredson, and H. Joo. 2013. Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods 16 (2): 270–301.CrossRef

Aguinis, H., D.L. Shapiro, E. Antonacopoulou, and T.G. Cummings. 2014. Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning & Education 13 (4): 623–639.CrossRef

Andersson, U., A. Cuervo-Cazurra, and B.B. Nielsen. 2014. From the editors: Explaining interaction effects within and across levels of analysis. Journal of International Business Studies 45 (9): 1063–1071.CrossRef

Bakker, M., and J.M. Wicherts. 2011. The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods 43 (3): 666–678.CrossRef

Bakker, M., A. van Dijk, and J.M. Wicherts. 2012. The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 543–554.CrossRef

Bamberger, P., and S. Ang. 2016. The quantitative discovery: What is it and how to get it published. Academy of Management Discoveries 2 (1): 1–6.CrossRef

Banks, G.C., E.H. O’Boyle Jr., et al. 2016a. Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management 42 (1): 5–20.CrossRef

Banks, G.C., S.G. Rogelberg, H.M. Woznyj, R.S. Landis, and D.E. Rupp. 2016b. Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology 31 (3): 323–338.CrossRef

Becker, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods 8 (3): 274–289.CrossRef

Bedeian, A.G., S.G. Taylor, and A.N. Miller. 2010. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education 9 (4): 715–725.

Bentler, P.M. 2007. On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (5): 825–829.CrossRef

Bergh, D.D., B. Sharp, and M. Li. 2017. Tests for identifying “red flags” in empirical findings: Demonstration and recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors. Academy of Management Learning & Education 16 (1): 110–124.CrossRef

Bernerth, J., and H. Aguinis. 2016. A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology 69 (1): 229–283.CrossRef

Bettis, R.A., S. Ethiraj, A. Gambardella, C. Helfat, and W. Mitchell. 2016. Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 37 (2): 257–261.CrossRef

Bobko, P. 2001. Correlation and regression. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRef

Boellis, A., S. Mariotti, A. Minichilli, and L. Piscitello. 2016. Family involvement and firms’ establishment mode choice in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies 47 (8): 929–950.CrossRef

Bosco, F.A., H. Aguinis, J.G. Field, C.A. Pierce, and D.R. Dalton. 2016. HARKing’s threat to organizational research: Evidence from primary and meta-analytic sources. Personnel Psychology 69 (3): 709–750.CrossRef

Breaugh, J.A. 2008. Important considerations in using statistical procedures to control for nuisance variables in non-experimental studies. Human Resource Management Review 18 (4): 282–293.CrossRef

Butler, N., H. Delaney, and S. Spoelstra. 2017. The grey zone: Questionable research practices in the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education 16 (1): 94–109.CrossRef

Carlson, K.D., and J. Wu. 2012. The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods 15 (3): 413–435.CrossRef

Cascio, W.F. 2012. Methodological issues in international HR management research. International Journal of Human Resource Management 23 (12): 2532–2545.CrossRef

Cascio, W.F., and H. Aguinis. 2005. Test development and use: New twists on old questions. Human Resource Management 44 (3): 219–235.CrossRef

Cascio, W.F., and S. Zedeck. 1983. Open a new window in rational research planning: Adjust alpha to maximize statistical power. Personnel Psychology 36 (3): 517–526.CrossRef

Chang, S.J., A. van Wittleloostuijn, and L. Eden. 2010. From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (2): 178–184.CrossRef

Chen, E.E., and S.P. Wojcik. 2016. A practical guide to big data research in psychology. Psychological Methods 21 (4): 458–474.CrossRef

Cortina, J.M. 2002. Big things have small beginnings: An assortment of “minor” methodological misunderstandings. Journal of Management 28 (3): 339–362.CrossRef

Cortina, J.M., J.P. Green, K.R. Keeler, and R.J. Vandenberg. 2017a. Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing the models that we claim to test? Organizatonal Research Methods20 (3): 350–378.CrossRef

Cortina, J.M., H. Aguinis, and R.P. DeShon. 2017b. Twilight of dawn or of evening? A century of research methods in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology 102 (3): 274–290.CrossRef

Credé, M., and P.D. Harms. 2015. 25 years of higher-order confirmatory factor analysis in the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36 (6): 845–872.CrossRef

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., U. Andersson, M.Y. Brannen, B. Nielsen, and A.R. Reuber. 2016. From the editors: Can I trust your findings? Ruling out alternative explanations in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 47 (8): 881–997.CrossRef

Dalton, D.R., H. Aguinis, C.A. Dalton, F.A. Bosco, and C.A. Pierce. 2012. Revisiting the file drawer problem in metaanalysis: An empirical assessment of published and non-published correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology 65 (2): 221–249.CrossRef

Davis, G.F. 2015. What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly 60 (2): 179–188.CrossRef

Edwards, J.R., and J.W. Berry. 2010. The presence of something or the absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods 13 (4): 668–689.CrossRef

Eysenck, H.J. 1978. An exercise in mega-silliness. American Psychologist 33 (5): 517.CrossRef

Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4: e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.CrossRef

Fischer, R., and A. Mansell. 2009. Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach. Journal of International Business Studies 40 (8): 1339–1358.CrossRef

Fisher, G., and H. Aguinis. 2017. Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational Research Methods 20 (3): 438–464.CrossRef

Fitzsimmons, S., Y. Liao, and D. Thomas. 2017. From crossing cultures to straddling them: An empirical examination of outcomes for multicultural employees. Journal of International Business Studies 48 (1): 63–89.CrossRef

Freese, J. 2007. Replication standards for quantitative social science: Why not sociology. Sociological Methods & Research 36 (2): 153–172.CrossRef

Friedman, D., and S. Sunder. 1994. Experimental methods: A primer for economists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Fung, S.K., G. Zhou, and X.J. Zhu. 2016. Monitor objectivity with important clients: Evidence from auditor opinions around the world. Journal of International Business Studies 47 (3): 263–294.CrossRef

Funk, C.A., J.D. Arthurs, L.J. Treviño, and J. Joireman. 2010. Consumer animosity in the global value chain: The effect of international production shifts on willingness to purchase hybrid products. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (4): 639–651.CrossRef

George, G. 2014. Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal 57 (1): 1–6.CrossRef

Goldfarb, B., and A.A. King. 2016. Scientific apophenia in strategic management research: Significance tests & mistaken inference. Strategic Management Journal 37 (1): 167–176.CrossRef

Harlow, L.L., and F.L. Oswald. 2016. Big data in psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Psychological Methods 21 (4): 447–457.CrossRef

Hollenbeck, J.H., and P.M. Wright. 2016. Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management 43 (1): 5–18.CrossRef

Hunter, J.E., and F.L. Schmidt. 2015. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hurley, A.E., et al. 1997. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18 (6): 667–683.CrossRef

Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2 (8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.CrossRef

John, L.K., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychological Science 23 (5): 524–532.CrossRef

Kepes, S., and M.A. McDaniel. 2013. How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (3): 252–268.CrossRef

Kerr, N.L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2 (3): 196–217.CrossRef

Lisak, A., M. Erez, Y. Sui, and C. Lee. 2016. The positive role of global leaders in enhancing multicultural team innovation. Journal of International Business Studies 47 (6): 655–673.CrossRef

Macaskill, P., S. Walter, and L. Irwig. 2001. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 20 (4): 641–654.CrossRef

MacCallum, R.C., M. Roznowski, and L.B. Necowitz. 1992. Model modification in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin 111 (3): 490–504.CrossRef

Meyer, K.E., A. van Witteloostuijn, and S. Beugelsdijk. 2017. What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research. Journal of International Business Studies 48 (5): 535–551.CrossRef

Nosek, B.A., J.R. Spies, and M. Motyl. 2012. Scientific utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 615–631.CrossRef

Nuijten, M.B., C.H. Hartgerink, M.A. Assen, S. Epskamp, and J.M. Wicherts. 2015. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behavior Research Methods 48 (4): 1–22.

O’Boyle, E.H., G.C. Banks, and E. Gonzalez-Mule. 2017. The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management 43 (2): 376–399.CrossRef

Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349 (6251): aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.CrossRef

Orr, J.M., P.R. Sackett, and C.L.Z. DuBois. 1991. Outlier detection and treatment in I/O psychology: A survey of researcher beliefs and an empirical illustration. Personnel Psychology 44 (3): 473–486.CrossRef

Reeb, D., M. Sakakibara, and I.P. Mahmood. 2012. Endogeneity in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 43 (3): 211–218.CrossRef

Richard, P.J., T.M. Devinney, G.S. Yip, and G. Johnson. 2009. Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management 35 (3): 718–804.CrossRef

Rousseeuw, P.J., and A.M. Leroy. 2003. Robust regression and outlier detection. Hoboken: Wiley.

Schwab, A., and W.H. Starbuck. 2017. A call for openness in research reporting: How to turn covert practices into helpful tools. Academy of Management Learning & Education 16 (1): 125–141.CrossRef

Sijtsma, K. 2016. Playing with data – Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika 81 (1): 1–15.CrossRef

Simmons, J.P., L.D. Nelson, and U. Simonsohn. 2011. Falsepositive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22 (11): 1359–1366.CrossRef

Spector, P.E., and M.T. Brannick. 2011. Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods 14 (2): 287–305.CrossRef

Stahl, G.K., M.L. Maznevski, A. Voigt, and K. Jonsen. 2010. Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (4): 690–709.CrossRef

Starbuck, W.H. 2016. 60th anniversary essay: How journals could improve research practices in social science. Administrative Science Quarterly 61 (2): 165–183.CrossRef

van Essen, M., P.P. Heugens, J. Otten, and J. van Oosterhout. 2012. An institution-based view of executive compensation: A multilevel meta-analytic test. Journal of International Business Studies 43 (4): 396–423.CrossRef

Verbeke, A., M.Y. Von Glinow, and Y. Luo. 2017. Becoming a great reviewer: Four actionable guidelines. Journal of International Business Studies 48 (1): 1–9.CrossRef

Waldman, I.D., and S.O. Lilienfeld. 2016. Thinking about data, research methods, and statistical analyses: Commentary on Sijtsma’s (2014) “playing with data”. Psychometrika 81 (1): 16–26.CrossRef

Wright, P.M. 2016. Ensuring research integrity: An editor’s perspective. Journal of Management 42 (5): 1037–1043.CrossRef

Titel: Science’s Reproducibility and Replicability Crisis: International Business Is Not Immune
verfasst von: Herman Aguinis
Wayne F. Cascio
Ravi S. Ramani
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Research Methods in International Business
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22112-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-22113-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22113-3_2