This paper analyzes the surface structure of research articles published in Administrative Science Quarterly between 1956 and 2008. The period is marked by a shift from essays that interweave theory, methods and results to experimental reports that separate them. There is dramatic growth in the size of theory, methods and discussion sections, accompanied by a shrinking results section. Bibliographic references and hypotheses expand in number and become concentrated in theory sections. Article structure varies primarily with historical time and also with research design (broadly, quantitative vs. qualitative) and the author’s background. We link trends in article structure to the disciplinary development of organization studies and consider its distinctive trajectory relative to physical science.
AbbottA (2001) Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AbbottABarmanE (1997) Sequence comparison via alignment and Gibbs sampling: A formal analysis of the emergence of the modern sociological article. Sociological Methodology27(1): 47–87.
3.
AggerB (2007) Public Sociology: From Social Facts to Literary Acts, 2nd edn.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
4.
AtkinsonD (1999) Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
AugierMMarchJGSullivanBN (2005) Notes on the evolution of a research community: Organization studies in Anglophone North America, 1945–2000. Organization Science16: 85–95.
6.
BazermanC (1984) Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: Spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 1893–1980. Social Studies of Science14(2): 163–196.
7.
BazermanC (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
8.
BerkenkotterCHuckinTN (1995) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
BeyerJM (1978) Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. The Sociological Quarterly19(1): 68–88.
10.
BouldingK (1958) Evidences for an administrative science: A review of the Administrative Science Quarterly, volumes 1 and 2. Administrative Science Quarterly3(1): 1–22.
11.
CollinsR (1994) Why the social sciences won’t become high-consensus, rapid-discovery science. Sociological Forum9(2): 155–177.
12.
CozzensSE (1985) Comparing the sciences: Citation context analysis of papers from neuropharmacology and the sociology of science. Social Studies of Science15(1): 127–153.
13.
DaftRL (1980) The evolution of organizational analysis in ASQ, 1959–1979. Administrative Science Quarterly25(4): 623–636.
14.
EllisonG (2002) Evolving standards for academic publishing: A q-r theory. Journal of Political Economy110(5): 994–1034.
15.
FuchsS (1992) The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
16.
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
17.
GuetzkowJLamontMMallardG (2004) What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences?American Sociological Review69(2): 190–212.
18.
HambrickDC (2007) The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?Academy of Management Journal50(6): 1346–1352.
19.
KenistonH (1959) Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
20.
KhuranaR (2007) From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
Knorr CetinaK (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
LaddECLipsetSM (1977) Survey of 4,400 faculty members in 161 colleges and universities. Chronicle of Higher Education, 21November, 12.
23.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
LeaheyE (2008) Methodological memes and mores: Toward a sociology of social research. Annual Review of Sociology34: 33–53.
25.
LockeKGolden-BiddleK (1997) Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal40(5): 1023–1062.
26.
LodahlJBGordonG (1972) The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review37(1): 57–72.
27.
MizruchiMSFeinLC (1999) The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly44(4): 653–683.
28.
MyersG (1990) Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
29.
NewtonI (1959) The Correspondence of Isaac Newton (ed TurnbullHWScottJFHallARet al.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
PalmerDDickBFreiburgerN (2009) Rigor and relevance in organization studies. Journal of Management Inquiry18(4): 265–272.
31.
RymerJ (1988) The scientific composing process: How eminent scientists write articles. In: JolliffeDA (ed.) Writing in the Academic Disciplines. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 211–250.
32.
ShapinS (1984) Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science14(4): 481–520.
33.
SilerKStrangD (2017) Peer review and scholarly originality: Let 1000 flowers bloom but don’t step on any. Science, Technology, & Human Values42(1): 29–61.
34.
SmithLBBestLAStubbsDAet al. (2000) Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science30(1): 73–94.
35.
StrangDSilerK (2015) Revising as reframing: Original submissions versus published papers in Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005–2009. Sociological Theory33(1): 71–96.
36.
TaylorDWBerryPCBlockCH (1958) Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking?Administrative Science Quarterly3(1): 23–47.
