The title of this GOMusing is “The Word On The Street: Science Is Not Advocacy, But Publishing Research Is” and the goal of this GOMusing is to challenge us to re-examine our assumptions about a topic and spark debate around the phrase “science is not advocacy.” While I agree science is not advocacy, I make an argument about how the process of publishing research in peer-reviewed journals is an act of advocacy. I accomplish this by explaining five way researchers engage in advocacy. Specifically, (1) we advocate that our study’s shortcomings are common limitations rather than fatal flaws, (2) we advocate for our research methodology of choice, (3) we advocate for using best practices in our research designs and methods, (4) we advocate for our theoretical framework of choice, and (5) we advocate for a better peer-review process.
AguinisH.BradleyK. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952.
2.
AguinisH.CascioW. F.RamaniR. S. (2017). Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(6), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0081-0.
3.
AguinisH.HillN. S.BaileyJ. R. (2019). Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 24, 1094428119836485.
AguinisH.RamaniR. S.AlabduljaderN. (2020). Best-practice recommendations for producers, evaluators, and users of methodological literature reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 1094428120943281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943281.
6.
AguinisH.VillamorI.RamaniR. S. (2021). MTurk research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 47(4), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320969787.
BabalolaM. T.MawritzM. B.GreenbaumR. L.RenS.GarbaO. A. (2021). Whatever it takes: How and when supervisor bottom-line mentality motivates employee contributions in the workplace. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1134–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320902521.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall.
11.
BanksG. C.FischerT.GootyJ.StockG. (2021). Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(2), 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101471.
12.
BanksG. C.O’BoyleE. H.JrPollackJ. M.WhiteC. D.BatchelorJ. H.WhelpleyC. E.AbstonK. A.BennettA. A.AdkinsC. L. (2016). Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315619011.
13.
BaruchY.SullivanS.SchepmyerH. (2006). Winning reviews: A guide for evaluating scholarly writing. Palgrave-MacMillan.
14.
BeckerT. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021.
15.
BerghD. D.SharpB. M.AguinisH.LiM. (2017). Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings. Strategic Organization, 15(3), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017701076.
16.
BernerthJ. B.AguinisH. (2016). A critical review and best–practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology. 69(1), 229–283.
17.
BozionelosN.SimmeringM. J. (2022). Methodological threat or myth? Evaluating the current state of evidence on common method variance in human resource management research. Human Resource Management Journal, 32(1), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12398.
18.
BrownM. E.TreviñoL. K.HarrisonD. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002.
19.
CarpenterM. A. (2009). 's comments: Mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 191–195.
20.
ChenY.ZhangY. (2021). Fostering resilience in new venture teams: The role of behavioral and affective integration. Group & Organization Management, 46(4), 773–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211033164.
21.
ColquittJ. A. (2008). From the editors publishing laboratory research in AMJ: A question of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 616–620. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.33664717.
22.
CruzK. S. (2021). Does anyone care about external validity? A call (or plea?) for more OB/HR research from multiple organizations/industries, panels, and publicly available datasets. Group & Organization Management, 46(6), 974–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211055879.
FrieseM.FrankenbachJ. (2020). p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates. Psychological Methods, 25(4), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000246.
25.
GabrielA. S.PodsakoffN. P.BealD. J.ScottB. A.SonnentagS.TrougakosJ. P.ButtsM. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626.
26.
HarleyB.CornelissenJ. (2020). Rigor with or without templates? The pursuit of methodological rigor in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120937786.
27.
HsuD. K.SimmonsS. A.WielandA. M. (2017). Designing entrepreneurship experiments: A review, typology, and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 379–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116685613.
28.
KimD.VandenbergheC. (2020). Ethical leadership and team ethical voice and citizenship behavior in the military: The roles of team moral efficacy and ethical climate. Group & Organization Management, 45(4), 514–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120920050.
29.
KöhlerT.Gonzàlez-MoralesM. G.BanksG.C.O’BoyleE.AllenJ.SinhaR.WooS. E.GulickL. (2020). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency model for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.121.
30.
LanceC. E. (2011). More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110391814.
LiH.YuanY. C.BazarovaN. N.BellB. S. (2019). Talk and let talk: The effects of language proficiency on speaking up and competence perceptions in multinational teams. Group & Organization Management, 44(5), 953–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118756734.
33.
MayerD. M.AquinoK.GreenbaumR. L.KuenziM. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0276.
34.
MayerD. M.KuenziM.GreenbaumR.BardesM.SalvadorR. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002.
MurphyK. R.AguinisH. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in published results?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9524-7.
37.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
38.
OzcelikH.BarsadeS. G. (2018). No employee an island: Workplace loneliness and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2343–2366. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1066.
39.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
40.
PodsakoffP. M.PodsakoffN. P. (2019). Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.002.
41.
PorckJ. P.van KnippenbergD.TarakciM.AteşN. Y.GroenenP. J.de HaasM. (2020). Do group and organizational identification help or hurt intergroup strategic consensus?. Journal of Management, 46(2), 234–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318788434.
RiceD. B.YoungN. C.JohnsonD.WaltonR.StacyS. (2020). Overall justice and supervisor conscientiousness: Implications for ethical leadership and employee self‐esteem. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(4), 856–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12285.
44.
SiemsenE.RothA.OliveiraP. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241.
45.
SiewekeJ.SantoniS. (2020). Natural experiments in leadership research: An introduction, review, and guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101338.
46.
SpectorP. E. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8.
SpenceM. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434–459. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136200.
49.
Van der HeijdenB. I.DaviesE. M.van der LindenD.BozionelosN.De VosA. (2022). The relationship between career commitment and career success among university staff: The mediating role of employability. European Management Review.
50.
WanousJ. P.HudyM. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810144003.
51.
WilliamsD. W.WoodM. S.MitchellJ. R.UrbigD. (2019). Applying experimental methods to advance entrepreneurship research: On the need for and publication of experiments. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.12.003.
52.
XuR.DeShonR. P.DishopC. R. (2020). Challenges and opportunities in the estimation of dynamic models. Organizational Research Methods, 23(4), 595–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119842638.
