New Directions for the Generative Curiosity Section

JMI launched the Generative Curiosity (GC) section in 2017 (Hannah, 2020; Stackman & Hannah, 2017). The overarching mandate was to create a scholarly venue in which the authors could draw the field's attention to a topic—whether a “fact, phenomenon, pattern, event, or other issue of interest”—that is consequential, novel, and fertile (Stackman & Hannah, 2017, p. 112). Perhaps the simplest way to capture the spirit of the mandate is captured in the “what if” we gazed at a different pasture from our vantage point as researchers, or perhaps, looked at a pasture from a different vantage point or a different lens. In providing an avenue from scholars to ask the “what if” type of questions, the editors hoped to offer scholars a somewhat nontraditional avenue, which enriched organizational scholarship by creating space for newer or underexplored topics (i.e., the novelty criterion). Enshrined in the mandate was a requirement for contributors to clarify “why” this topic was worthy of attention for researchers and practitioners (i.e., the consequentiality criterion), while also articulating a comprehensive roadmap for how the topic could be studied by management researchers (i.e., the fertility criterion). Overall, the hope was that GC would animate organizational scholarship by offering avenues for looking at different things or looking at things differently.

The GC section has published 14 papers to date, drawing attention to an array of topics that remained, otherwise, neglected in organizational scholarship. As the section's current coeditors, ¹ following similar efforts in other journals (see, e.g., de Bakker et al., 2024), we felt that it would be helpful to take stock of where we are now and shine a light on areas of both continuity and departure for future submissions. Our approach here is as follows. First, we take stock of the way the section has developed thus far to distill potential approaches for GC. Second, we offer some specific advice on how to interpret our three evaluative criteria when adopting different approaches and avoid common pitfalls. Finally, we provide updated guidelines for submissions, which we believe will allow us to maintain the developmental focus of the submissions, while making the submission process more efficient and author-friendly. It must be emphasized that it is not our intention to be prescriptive and or make a call for template-style submissions. Instead, we seek to offer a simple and clear overview of the GC section while also offering ideas on how we might reinvigorate the original mandate.

Approaches to GC

Reflecting on published papers to date, the most common approach taken by the authors to date has been to draw attention to understudied topics in management research, including bereavement (Bergeron, 2023), political discrimination (Thompson, 2021), the hypergrowth exit mindset (Lam & Seidel, 2020), and tipping (Pek, 2022). Here, the authors introduce their topic, make a case for its novelty and consequentiality, and provide a focused set of avenues for future research. The order in which they do this varies somewhat. For example, Bergeron (2023) set the stage by highlighting the prevalence of bereavement and its impact on individuals and organizations. She then dedicated a section to defining bereavement and distinguishing it from grief, mourning, loss, and compassion. Next, she included a section in which she synthesized what is known and, in turn, what is not known, about bereavement from the limited amount of management and organization research on the topic to date. Finally, she concluded with a section distilling four promising directions for future research that flow directly from her conclusions about novelty. We see this approach as fully aligned with the aspirations of GC and can serve as an important precursor to empirical research on emergent phenomena in journals like Academy of Management Discoveries (Rockmann et al., 2021) and phenomenon-based theorizing in journals like Academy of Management Review (Fisher et al., 2021).

While drawing attention to understudied topics is a promising approach to GC, another promising approach involves studying an existing topic differently. In their initial editorial, Stackman and Hannah (2017, p. 114) also had these types of submissions in their mind when they called for submissions that “breathe new life into something seemingly tired or outdated.” None of the GC papers published to date have adopted this approach. However, we think it holds tremendous potential for GC. We see at least two ways it could be adopted in practice: reinvigorating an existing topic and reintroducing a dormant idea. With the former, the authors offer a fresh perspective on understanding and studying a topic that is already garnering significant attention from management researchers. Perhaps research on an important topic is being held back by faulty assumptions or the deployment of suboptimal theoretical lenses. If that is the case, we encourage authors to consider whether and how the topic could be reinvigorated by being studied differently. For example, the authors might find that lenses such as paradox theory (Hahn et al., 2018) or real utopias (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022) offer fresh insights. Or, inspired by a recent collection on revisionist history in JMI (see Hannah & Pek, 2024), the authors could explore how the status quo on their chosen topic came to be, and where the field could have gone instead had different choices been made by authors.

Reintroducing a dormant idea is in line with Hannah's (2020, p. 46) call for submissions “introducing ideas that […] had once drawn interest, but were now largely forgotten.” We see a possibility that theories, phenomena, or other topics that had drawn significant scholarly, practitioner, or policy attention may be relevant today based on how our world and our understanding of it has evolved. The authors could begin by describing their focal topic; discussing when, how, and why it became dormant; making a case for why it ought to be reintroduced; and setting out an array of promising research directions for how it could be reintroduced.

While we have overviewed two broad approaches here, we expect there to be other suitable ways of generating curiosity through this section. Regardless of the approach that is taken, Hannah's (2020) advice to prospective authors was to keep their focus broad, engage with research outside of their primary area of study, discuss their ideas widely with their friends and peers inside and outside the academy, and be open to reiterating their ideas remains sound. This was most definitely Simon's experience when publishing his contribution on tipping. While he had been interested in tipping for a long time, he finally began putting pen to paper during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic when he noticed that, at least in Canada, tipping was spreading across many new industries. While his initial goal was to draw attention to this phenomenon and its potentially harmful consequences, he was spurred through the review process to take a broader view of the topic, looking also at the continued diffusion of no-tipping practices in several industries. The section's focus on fertility and consequentiality prompted him to read as many academic and media articles and discuss his ideas with as many colleagues and friends who were willing to listen as possible to better understand how affects different stakeholders and what people really want to better understand about it.

Clarifying our Evaluative Criteria and Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Over the years, we have noticed some authors misunderstand the section's evaluative criteria and fall victim to common pitfalls. To aid prospective authors and reviewers, we would like to take this opportunity to clarify our evaluative criteria and offer strategies for how to address them when adopting different approaches.

At the core, the section's three evaluative criteria apply to both of the above approaches, with some minor twists when it comes to novelty. In terms of consequentiality, a successful GC paper has to focus on a topic that has a high degree of relevance for practitioners, policy-makers, and researchers involved in work, management, and organization. Building upon Locke and Golden-Biddle's (1997) advice on the need for authors to problematize the current situation, the onus is on the authors to clarify how and why we are poorer due to a lack of focus on the topic. Common pitfalls are making too narrow, or too implied, cases for consequentiality. A comprehensive case for consequentiality on a given topic can be made in many ways, including making visible its prevalence, arguing how its omission hinders key scholarly advancements, synthesizing key trends pertaining to it, and documenting its effects on workers, managers, and stakeholders.

When it comes to novelty, a successful paper must advance new and distinctive ideas. This takes a slightly different form depending on the approach taken. For the authors adopting the approach of drawing attention to an understudied topic, promising topics are those that have not yet received a large amount of attention from management researchers. The authors should offer a clear conceptualization of the topic and clearly synthesize what we know and don’t know about it. For those studying an existing topic differently, the authors need to offer a clear point of departure from current work on the topic. For example, when reinvigorating an existing topic through an approach like revisionist history, the alternative perspective must not have yet received a lot of attention, and the authors should clearly synthesize what perspectives have and have not been taken on the topic. When reintroducing a dormant idea, the topic they are focusing on must no longer be receiving significant attention, and the authors should provide a brief overview of how and when the topic was studied and when it became dormant. In making claims of novelty, the authors would be minded of Locke and Golden-Biddle's (1997) counsel that making novelty claims also involves researchers showing some continuity with existing scholarship (or conversations) and creating allies within or from outside the field of management. Overblown claims about a topic's novelty, lack of basic theoretical anchoring, or lack of face validity on the potential of the idea serve as typical red flags in the eyes of editors and reviewers in evaluating submissions.

Finally, when it comes to fertility, a successful paper should have the potential to generate and catalyze a meaningful amount of future research within the broad domain of management. To do so, it should offer a coherent set of directions for future research and be as specific as possible about the theoretical lenses, methods, and levels of analysis that offer the most promise. In so doing, these submissions would be “at the forefront of new streams of theorizing, research, and changes in practice” (Hannah, 2020, p. 46). A common pitfall is offering critiques without offering the basic contours of a map for future research. Another, in contrast, is overpromising the scope and potential of the idea across an array of literatures, theories, or contexts instead of honing onto a few of the most promising areas of immediate application. In our experience, we have found that the best ideas flow directly from earlier arguments pertaining to consequentiality and fertility. For example, if a given phenomenon is consequential because of its effects on workers and if we don’t know much about the phenomenon's individual-level effects, then we would expect the authors to chart various directions for future research at this level.

Updates to the Submission and Review Process

The authors would also like to take this opportunity to announce some important changes we have made to streamline the submission and review processes for GC. The authors will now be required to submit complete versions of their papers (no more than 2500 words excluding references) directly via ScholarOne, rather than first submitting an initial 750-word abstract for editorial and peer review feedback. While the use of initial abstracts helped the authors sharpen their thinking, we found that 750 words were usually insufficient for the authors to make a convincing case for their paper. As such, some papers went through more rounds of revisions than needed as new opportunities and concerns emerged with the full submissions. Our hope is that shifting to full submissions right off the bat will offer the authors a better opportunity to make their case. It will also lead to more consistent feedback and enhance the timeliness of the review process.

Furthermore, handling all submissions via ScholarOne will enable a smoother process for authors, reviewers, and editors. Once the coeditors receive a complete submission via ScholarOne, they will review it based on the section's evaluative criteria. At this stage, submissions will either be desk rejected or sent for peer review. In rare occasions, this may also involve the editors offering a “reject and resubmit” if they believe that the idea may have potential, but key arguments remain underdeveloped. This would be done by unsubmitting the paper, which allows the authors to resubmit the paper.

Concluding Thoughts

The GC section of JMI has provided our community with a forum to propose topics that remain underrepresented in traditional scholarship but are nevertheless worthy of attention. The mandate of the section continues to encourage divergent thinking and push our community to have new conversations or approach existing conversations differently. We look forward to receiving submissions that meet the section's mandate and enrich the landscape of studying organizing and organizations.