As Human Relations continues to attract an increasing number of quantitative methods-based research submissions from scholars worldwide, ensuring the quality, coherence, and rigor of these contributions remains central to the journal’s mission. This editorial identifies the major challenges we observe in submissions and makes key recommendations for strengthening both theoretical and methodological foundations of quantitative submissions considered by the journal. Structured around two interconnected themes, “Enhancing theoretical rigor and contributions” and “Enhancing methodological rigor and research design”, the editorial encompasses topics ranging from conceptual framing and theoretical positioning to research design and analytic coherence. Drawing on collective editorial experience, we argue that theoretical and methodological rigor are not separate aspirations but joint foundations of impactful scholarship. We analyze past publications from the journal to offer actionable guidance to help authors align conceptual development with empirical execution. Altogether, we aim to demystify the review process, foster integrative thinking, and reaffirm the journal’s commitment to publishing research that is conceptually rich, methodologically robust, and socially meaningful.
BliesePDCertoSTSmithAD, et al. (2024) Strengthening theory–methods–data links. Academy of Management Journal67(4): 893–902.
2.
ColquittJAZapataCP (2007) Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal50(6): 1281–1303.
3.
CorleyKGGioiaDA (2011) Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?Academy of Management Review36(1): 12–32.
4.
DuttonJEStawBM (1995) What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly40(3): 371–384.
5.
FidaRSkovgaard-SmithIBarbaranelliC, et al. (2024) The suspension of morality in organisations: Conceptualising organisational moral disengagement and testing its role in relation to unethical behaviours and silence. Human Relations78(8): 959–994.
6.
GregorS (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly30: 611–642.
7.
GuillénLReinwaldMKunzeF (2024) Too few or too many? Exploring the link between gender dissimilarity and employee absenteeism. Human Relations78(10): 1310–1342.
8.
HittMASmithKG (2005) The role of theory in advancing our understanding of management. Academy of Management Review30(2): 205–210.
9.
HoltomBBaruchYAguinisH, et al. (2022) Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment framework. Human Relations75(8): 1560–1584.
10.
KleinKJDansereauFHallRJ (1994) Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review19: 195–229.
11.
KuhnTS (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
LeanaICRFeldmanDC (1990). Individual responses to job loss: Empirical findings from two field studies. Human Relations43(11): 1155–1181.
13.
LysovaEIFletcherLEl BaroudiS (2023) What enables us to better experience our work as meaningful? The importance of awareness and the social context. Human Relations76(8): 1226–1255.
14.
MulkayM (1974) Conceptual displacement and migration in science: A prefatory paper. Science Studies4(3): 205–234.
15.
PodsakoffPPodsakoffNWilliamsLJ, et al. (2024) Common method bias: It’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology & Organizational Behavior11(1): 17–61.
16.
RaubSRobertC (2010) Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological empowerment and power values. Human Relations63(11): 1743–1770.
17.
ShepherdDASuddabyR (2017) Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management43(1): 59–86.
18.
SteelRPShaneGS (1986) Evaluation research on quality circles: Technical and analytical implications. Human Relations39(5): 449–466.
19.
UsmanMAliMSoetanGT, et al. (2024) Seeing others’ side to serve: Understanding how and when servant leadership impacts employee knowledge-hiding behaviors. Human Relations77(1): 3–28.
20.
UzziBMukherjeeSStringerM, et al. (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science342 (6157): 468–472.
21.
WalshamG (1995) The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research6(4): 376–394.
22.
WhettenDA (1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution?Academy of Management Review14(4): 490–495.
23.
WongYTWongCSNgoHY, et al. (2005) Different responses to job insecurity of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises. Human Relations58(11): 1391–1418.
24.
WyattMDoldorETreshF (2023) To be or not to be political? Racialized cognitive scripts and political motivation. Human Relations76(7): 1017–1049.
