ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
1
2
Name:Comment/question about assigned readings & videos
3
YoungJin KwonIn line with the Saetre and Van De Ven (2021), some scholars have started highlighting the importance of abductive reasoning as a source of new research (For example, saying "Do not start your new research from identifying a mere 'gap" bewteen prior studies but start from identifying anomalies in the real world, avoiding type III error"). And, fortunately, after spotting anomalies, we have excellent guidelines like Saetre and Van De Ven (2021) from which we could refine our hunches and bare insights.

However, my question here is, how do we identify anomalies from the first place?
Although we are living in the world of big data and real-time news, it seems spotting an anomalous phenomenon has never become easy task. Do you have any tip?
4
Alyson Gounden RockAs you and your coauthor Steiner Saetre note on p.684 "management scholars are recognizing that abduction entails not only idea generation but also idea evaluation, at both individual and collective levels of analysis". How do we as scholars, and as the academy, overcome the coordination problem that is inherent in this view of collective and interactive theory building?
5
Finn PetersenI'm thinking about empirical papers where theory is used to develop hypotheses vs. theory or AMR papers where theory development is the main goal of the paper. Is there a difference in how one should approach these?
6
Chaofan ZhaiIt is easy to come up with a theory to explain the anomaly or phenomeon, it is not easy to exam the theory is correct.
I see a lot of papers create or borrow a theory to propose a hypothesis, and then use empirical data to test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is supported by the empirical data, the authors may say my theory is correct. I dont think so. There could be other theories may also derive the same hypothesis.
How to prove your theory is correct , not the others?(theory A -> H1, theory B -> H1 , H1 is correct -> which theory is correct?)
7
Appu Balachandran
It is mentioned in engaged scholarship (p105) that the ability to perform the ‘emptying operation’ depends on the scholars expertise.
What approaches can novice researchers adopt to circumvent this limitationand perform a good enough 'emptying' operation?
8
Sojung YoonWhen we build theory based on anomalies, is there any difference between 1) the anomalies in the way subjects (people) behave and 2) anomalies that arise along with the emergence of new context?
9
Hyeongseo ParkHow granular can/should theory get? We have so much more information available to us nowadays, which allows us to test for all sorts of contingencies, but sometimes it feels as though we may be mechanically conducting meaningless analysis just because we have the data.
10
Christina KoThere is a lot of emphasis on theory building as a multi-dimensional effort, both in the sense that we are encouraged to do analyze both at the individual and collective levels and that we view good theory to be one that has passed a greater number of diverse criteria. Different actors and different criteria bring different underlying assumptions to the process. How do we know which assumptions to pay attention to and which to disregard, and is there an optimal number of outside voices and criteria?
11
Seola KimI have read an article that dealt with the relationship between employees (i.e., their mood, productivity, etc) and nature in the office (Klotz, A., & Bolino, M. C. (2020). Bringing the great outdoors into the workplace: The energizing effect of
biophilic work design. Academy of Management Review). With Weick's perpsective, this is still an innovative and interesting idea; however, I thought it would be extremely arduous to actually substantiate what the article delineates. Do you think empirical substantiation is not a big concern when researchers come up with a new theory? In other words, do you agree with Weick?

When researchers 'atlernate time periods' they may come up with a hunch for each way that they may resolve the anomaly.
Considering that researchers recently have been more preoccupied with longitudinal analysis, do you think preexisting research
finding or observation can be different if it is examined in longitudinal lens?

Conceiving new construct is assumed to be done by a field's virtuouso. In a similar vein to last week's discussion, do you think
construct (and a scale to measure it) development should be done by senior-level scholars?
12
Joe JenkinsLooking at the diagram on page 686 in Gnerating Theory By Abduction, when moving from Step 2 to Step 3, how should we determine the level or magnitude of an anomly and the scope of our hunches? For instacne Barley 1990 paper The Alignment of Technology and Structure through Roles and Networks uses the context of a hospital to analyze the impact of technolgy on roles to utimatley change the structure of the organization. His initial hunch that he genertaed can be applied to a wide variety of contexts and organizations, which is how he presented the anomly and story in the paper. How should we determine the potential audience size, which determines the research story we present?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100