Where Is the Jury?

Abstract

A key idea in social science is that the work by any one scholar should be carefully evaluated by other scholars, to form an impartial, authoritative, collective judgment. Thus, peers are supposed to act as a jury. However, often there seems to be no effective jury in organizational science. There is an absence of extended debate in which the details of theories and research are assessed and then a definitive, consensual judgment made. Colleagues often fail to adequately consider others' work, in part because of disinclination to entertain rival theories. Again, specialization means expert peer scrutiny is frequently missing. Conferences such as Academy of Management meetings typically fail to provide in-depth discussion or scrutiny. I illustrate some of the factors that militate against proper scientific evaluation with candid cases from my own research experience.